361	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paraments
however, been relieved to some extent by a tasteful regard for the models of earlier times.
II. The Eastern Church: The history of paramenta in the East is naturally more brilliant than in the West. The East was the home and long the source of costly woven goods. Entirely natural, therefore, was the Byzantine predilection for display in divine service. But the looting of the East by crusaders and Turks has unfortunately left little of the great wealth of possessions of this sort once held by the Church there. The greatest use was made of hangings. The ikonostasis, which divides the choir from the nave, doubtless took its rise in curtains, while the choir itself made use of them on its walls. The ornamentation ran to the use of the cross and of figures of angels. The altar was especially the object of decoration, being practically concealed by coverings which hung around it and were spread upon its upper surface. In the service of the altar no less than four varieties of cloth parar menta are employed. The episcopal chair was also draped, and carpets were in use, there being no essential difference in usage in these matters between the West and the East.
III. Protestant Churches: The transformation of worship under Protestantism made a large number of paramenta useless, and the Reformed churches did away with them almost entirely; in the Lutheran Church for a time only the altar retained use of these materials. Even what the
I. General older Lutheranism retained, Pietism
	Situation.	and rationalism tended to do away
		with; so that the merest remnants of
paramenta remained in use. The nineteenth cen
tury, however, witnessed a revival of interest and
pleas for the employment of these adjuncts to wor
ship, especially under the leadership of Heinrich
Otte (q.v.), Martin Eugen Beck, and Moritz Meurer
(q.v.), since when there has been in the Evangel
ical churches a larger use of paramenta either as
liturgical ornament or in promoting liturgical
practical ends. While definite prescriptions as to
the use of these materials is lacking, Lutheranism
has built up a practical uniformity, but the
Reformed churches have gone in an entirely
different direction. In building up the practise,
actual needs and artistic considerations have
governed, and tradition has guided in the choice.
Indispensable requirements are that the objects
set forth be intelligible to the congregation and
that the expression be appropriate to the purpose.
Consequently all symbols and representations are
excluded which are foreign to the consciousness
of the congregation. The typology of the Middle
Ages is pass6 and therefore unsuitable, and the
same may be said of symbols used in the seven
teenth and eighteenth centuries. Among the
symbols permissible as ornamentation are the
dove, the four symbols of the evangelists‑angel,
lion, bull, and eagle‑the cross, and the lamb with
the cross‑standard. Models are not to be sought
in nature or in painting, but the technical prece
dents found in the history of the art of the Church
are to be followed.
Evangelical paramenta find their central point in the altar, the covering of which, of silk or cloth,
should be simple and simply arranged. Only exceptionally does the covering of the rear wall come into question, since architectural or
a. Specific plastic adornment usually sets off this Pieces. portion of the edifice. Suitable ornamentation is provided by the cross with ornamental setting or by the lamb with crossbanner or cup. The upper altar cloth may be of fine white linen, the principal covering having its borders ornamented with embroidery. The sacred vessels may be placed upon a corporale or cloth, the ends of which afford place for suitable adornment; the vessels are covered with a white cloth, and a napkin may be provided for cleansing the cup. The altar desk should be of such a form as to need no covering. For the chancel the covering of the desk is practically all that requires consideration, and the ornamentation here most suitable is the cross; harmony with the architectural situation is a desideratum. The baptistery does not easily lend itself to the use of paramenta, and in this case white is recommended if anything be used. The matter of altar carpet has remained within the province of free choice. Carpeting is indicated for the altar steps and the space about them, with geometrical or other technically warranted ornamentation. Wall hangings are seldom required. For direction in minor matters the works of Meurer, Biirkner, and SchAfer may be followed (see bibliography).
Early in the history of paramenta the symbolism of colors entered and remained fixed in the Roman Catholic cultus; in the Eastern Church the matter was not one of prescription but of custom and was simpler, and this latter is followed in
3. Color the Evangelical churches. Color sym‑
Symbolism. bolism is only a part of ecclesiastical symbolism (see SYMBOLISM, ECCLEsIASTICAL), in which paramenta have their part. While white was in early times fixed in use, in the twelfth century the general fixing of color symbolism must have taken place (of. Innocent III., De sacro alfari3 mysterao, i. 64); in this four colors, white, black, red and green, are noted; cf. also the Rationale divinorum ofciamm of Guliehnus Durandus, q.v.). The Lutheran has retained in some degree the usual customs in regard to the color scheme in connection with the Church Year (q.v.). (VICTOR SCHULTZE.)
What is said above of the Lutheran and Reformed churches holds in general for the Evangelical churches of England and America, except that there is little to suggest that the use of paramenta is to be revived there. Protestant churches confine their employment of paramenta usually to embroidered book‑marks for the Bible of the pulpit and white spread and coverings for the communion table and the sacred vessels. But in the Anglican Church and its branches a somewhat larger use is made of these objects, especially where High‑church usages govern. This branch of Christendom also pays more attention to the color scheme of the church year, this usage accompanying a more elaborate use of vestments.
BISwoa81PB7: For literary sources consult: A. Ilg, Bsi
	tr4ps SW GawhkVe der Kunet and %unatwhnik aus mitte!‑

°awad
P	Pastor	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	852
altalichen Dichtunpen, Vienna, 1892; J. von Schlosser,
Qudlsnbuch cur Kraratgeschichte doe abendlandisehen Mit
tskatera, ib. 1898. For the general history of paramenta
consult: F. Book, Oeschichte der liturpischen Gewander des
Mittslaltere, 3 vols., Bonn, 1859‑71 (fundamental); idem,
Die kirchlichs Stichkunat, Vienna, 1885; C. Rohault de
Floury, La Meese, 8 vols., Paris, 1883‑89; (1. Semper,
Der Sta: 1. Die teztae Kund, Munich, 1878; F Flech
bach, Geschichte der teztile Kunst, Hanau, 1882; B.
Bucher, Geschichte der tachnischen Kunata, iii. 335 sqq.,
Stuttgart, 1893; J. Leasing, Wandteppiche and Deeken
dea Mitlelaltem, Berlin, 1900 sqq. Some materials will be
found in H. D. M. Spence, The White Robe of Churches,
London, 1900• and concerning the usages much in J. H.
Blunt, Annotated Book of Common Prayer, reissue, New
York, 1903. For the Roman Catholic Church consult:
V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik, Vol. f.,
Freiburg. 1887; K. Atz, Die chridliche Kunst in Wont and
Bild, Regensburg, 1899• G. Jakob, Die Kunst in Dienate
der Kirche, Landhut, 1901. For paramenta in the Evan
gelical churches consult: M. Meurer, Altarxhrnuck: sin
Beitrsg cur Paramentik in der esanflduchen Kirche, Leip
sic. 1867; idem, Der Kirchenbau room Standpunkte and
nach dam Brauche der lutherischen Kirche, ib. 1877; V.
Schultse, Dae eoangelische Kirchengebaude, ib. 1886; R.
BOrkner, Kirchenachmuck and Kirchenpendt, Gotha, 1892;
T. Schiffer, Ratgeber fttr Anscchaffunp and Erhaltrarp von
Paramenten, Berlin, 1897. For the symbolism of colors,
besides the literature under Srrssousm, EccrasreexrCAL,
consult the works of Blunt and Thalhofer, ut sup.; J. C.

Liturgsuikk, i. 180 eaqqn., Leipsiy	ch 1841•, W. _ 	ack burgle and
emagel, Die Farben‑ and Blumenaprache des Mittefalters, in Kleine Schriften, i. 143 sqq., Leipsic, 1874; J. W. TAU, Notes on the History of the Liturgical Colours, London, 1882; J. Sauer, Symbolik des Kirchenpebdudes, Freiburg, 1902.
PARAft: The name of a desert, mountain, or mountain range (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Hab. iii. 3), and probably also of a place (Deut. i. 1; I Kings Xi. 18) mentioned in the Old Testament. Since the mountain of Paran is mentioned together with Sinai, Seir, and Kadesh, it must have been near the southern boundary of Canaan between Israel and Edom. The place of the same name would seem, from the obscure Deut. i. lb and I Kings Xi. 18, to have been situated between Midian (or Edom) and Egypt, possibly in the vicinity of the modern $al'at al‑Nakhl on the road from Suez to Ailah, the Biblical Elath. The desert of Paran was the home of Ishmael (Gen. xxi. 21), and also the place from which Moses sent the spies to Canaan (Num. xiii. 3, 26), so that it adjoined directly on the south. It is to be distinguished from the wilderness of Zin and from Kadesh (Num. xiii. 21, xx. la, 22). The wilderness of Paran must, therefore, be located south of Kadesh, Gerar, and the wilderness of Zin. It accordingly corresponds to the modern Badiyat al‑Tih (" desert of the wandering "), which is bounded by the Jabal al‑Makrah on the north, the watershed toward the peninsula of Sinai on the south, and the ranges bordering the Wadi al`Arabah on the east, and the middle Wadi al‑`Arish on the west.
The mountain Paran can not be so satisfactorily determined; whether a single mountain or a range is uncertain. In the former case it might be identified with the Jabal °Araif or with the Jabal Ikhrimm in the western part of the wilderness of paran; while in the latter case it might be identified either with the heights bordering the Wadi al‑'Arabah to the east of the wilderness or with the chain to the south which forms the watershed toward the peninsula of Sinai. The latter is the more probable,
especially as this southern range is now called Jabal
al‑Tih (" Mountain of the Wandering "). Wets
stein, however, like ‑Palmer and Cheyne, Identifies
Mount Pa= with the Jabal Matrah, but the in
terior of the mountain district is	yet too little
known to decide the problem. At	the same time,
it is possible that the southern part	of Jabal M4
rah, so far as it lay outside the borders of Canaan
(Num. xxxiv. 4; Josh. xv. 3), was called Mount
Paran. Finally, it should be noted that the EI
paran of Gen. xiv. 6 if translated to	mean grove is
very possibly another and fuller name for Elath
(qx.); and as Genesis locates this	place " by the
wilderness " so the Arab geographers Ibn Hau$al
and IZIahri also state that at Ailah (Elath) the
desert begins in which the Israelites wandered.
Exiting has found the name Paran	in the Sinaitic
inscriptions in the forms Farran and	Faran, and the
new English map of Africa shows Jabal Faram at the
s.e. edge of Jabal Makreh. The Paran of I Sam.
xxv. 1 should be read, with the Septuagint, Maon
(cf. I Sam. xxv. 2; Josh. xv. 55); for it is a city in
the mountains of Judah, the home	of the Calebite
Nabal, the present Khirbat Main. Nor does the
valley of Pharan of Josephus (War,	IV., ix. 4) refer
to the Biblical Paran. In like manner, the Pharan
of Pliny (Historia naturalis, v. 17) and the Phara of
the Peutingerian Table (Leipsic, 1824) refer to the
oasis of the Sinaitic peninsula now called Fairan.
	(H. GUTHE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine in Connection with their History, New York, 1883; H. C. Trumbull, Kadeah‑Barnes, New York, 1884; DB, iii. 872‑673; EB, iii. 3583‑84; and the literature under NxaEB.
PARASHAH (" division," pl. Parashiyyoth)
The Hebrew name for the reading lesson taken from the Pentateuch and used in the synagogue on the Sabbath (cf. Acts xv. 21). Inasmuch as the intercalary Jewish year, when New Year falls on Thursday, has fifty‑four Sabbaths, the entire Pentateuch is divided into fifty‑four sections, the object being to provide a section for each Sabbath for the use of those Jews who read the Pentateuch through in a single year. The smaller sections employed by those who read the Pentateuch through in three years are called seddrim or mdaroth. In years when the number of Sabbaths was less than fifty‑four, two of the parashiyyoth were read on the same day. Thus on the Sabbath immediately preceding the Feast of Tabernacles the last and the first sections were read, i.e., the reading of the Law was completed and begun again. The reading of the parashah precedes that of the Haphtarah (q.v.). The sections are known by the initial (or occasionally the first and the second) word; thus the name of the first parashah is " Bereshith " (" In the beginning," Gen. i. 1), and the second " Noah " (Gen. vi. 9), omitting the editorial note which begins the verse.
PARET, WILLIAM: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Maryland; b. in New York City Sept. 23, 1826. He was educated at Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y. (A.B., 1849), and after studying theology privately, was ordered deaoon in 1852 and advanced to the priesthood in the following year. He was curate

353	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paraments
		Parish and Pastor
and rector at St. John's, Clyde, N. Y. (1852‑54),
Zion, Pierrepont Manor, N. Y. (1854‑65), St. Paul's,
East Saginaw, Mich. (1865‑67), Trinity, Elmira,
N. Y. (1867‑69), Christ Church, Williamsport, Pa.
(1869‑76), and the Church of the Epiphany, Wash
ington, D. C. (1876,85). In 1885 be was conse
crated sixth bishop of Maryland. He has written
Pastoral Use of the Prayer Book (Baltimore, 1904)
and Place and Function of the Sunday School in the
Church (New York, 1906).
	PAREUS, DAVID: Reformed theologian; b. at
Frankenstein (39 m. s. of Breslau) Dec. 30, 1548;
d. at Heidelberg June 15, 1622. After attending
the schools of his native town, he was apprenticed
to an apothecary and again to a shoemaker. In
1564 he entered the school of the learned Christoph
Schilling at Hirschberg, whom he accompanied to
Amberg, in 1566; but immediately entered the Col
legium SapientiT, at Heidelberg. On May 13, 1571,
he became pastor at Niederschlettenbach and six
months later a teacher in the PEedagogium at Hei
delberg. On Aug. 24, 1573, he resumed the pas
torate in the previously Roman Catholic village of
Hemsbach; where, with the consent of the congre
gation, he reconstructed the church status along
Reformed lines. Dismissed from his office after
the death of Frederick III., Pareus was appointed,
in 1577, by Palsgrave Johann Casimir, pastor at
Oggersheim. Transferred to Winzingen in 1580, he
cultivated intimate acquaintance with the teachers
at the Casimirianum, in the neighboring Neustadt.
After the death of Ludwig VI., Palagrave Casimir,
in Sept., 1584, called Pareus as teacher to the Col
legium SapientiT, Heidelberg, the director of which
he became in 1591, and, in 1598, he entered the
theological faculty as teacher of the Old Testament
and from 1602 until his death he taught the New
Testament. His reputation as teacher increased
from year to year, and attracted students from fax
and wide. From 1592, he belonged to the Pala
tinate church council. In his last years, Pareus
was much afflicted with sickness. In Sept., 1621,
as the Spanish troops approached the Palatinate,
Pareus fled to Annweiler, and later to Neustadt.
Then, when Elector Frederick V. returned tem
porarily to the Palatinate, Pareus returned to Hei
delberg, !yZay 17, 1622, where he passed away. He
was survived only by his son Philipp (1576‑1648),
who issued his father's writings, to which he pre
fixed a life (Frankfort, 1647).
	Pareus began his literary activity in mature
years, with the tract against the doctrine of ubiq
uity, Methodus ubitquitarite controversim (Neustadt,
1586). Some vexing polemical matter accom
panied his issue of the Neustadter Bibel, 1587: an
edition of Luther's translation, with appended table
of contents and superscriptions. Jakob Andrea, in
his Christliche Erinnerung (Tabingen, 1589), styled
this publication an " arrant piece of knavery ";
while Pareus, in Rettung der Neustadter Bibel (Neu
stadt, 1589), answered in a more moderate tone.
Pareus further contended against Siegwart in Sieg
der Nmatddtischen Bibel (Neustadt, 1591), and with
tEgidius Hunnius, in 1593‑99, who accused him of
the judaizing error of the Reformed party, with
		VIII.‑23
Clypeus veritatis catholiete de sacrosancta trinitcate and Orthodoxus Calvinus. He also issued various tracts against the papacy (1604‑17). Despite these many literary battles, Pareus was by nature irenic, and much lamented the passionate wranglings of that age. His main task he assumed in positive, constructive activity; such as the many editions, after 1593, of his Summarische Erkldrung der Katholischen in der Churpfalz geubten Lehre; and especially his numerous commentaries on the Old and New Testament Scriptures (published 1605‑18). Significant also was his pronounced wish, in 1603, though denied by the strict Calvinists, that, in connection with the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, the Reformed Churches might .use the terms essentialir ter et substantialiter, so as to approach the Lutheran teaching. His irenic spirit, however; appeared at its best in the famous Irenieum sive de unione et synodo evangelicorum liber votivus (Heidelberg, 16141615). In this he proposes a general synod of all Evangelicals to unite the Lutherans and the Calvinists, who, he represents, were surely at one in every essential. On only one point, however, not affecting the foundation of belief, was there divergence. Why not forbear mith erring brethren in love, and cease consuming one another in strife to the joy of the "papists"? But this yearning appeal of Pareus brought little response from his contemporaries, and his overture for peace was rudely rejected by the Lutheran theologians Hutter and Siegwart. In his biography, Philipp Pareus lavished almost excessive praise upon his father; yet impartial posterity regards him as a pure character and a distinguished theologian, who, during an age of narrow‑mindedness, preserved a broad outlook, and both courageously uttered and capably represented the recognized truth. JULIus NEY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The main source is the life by his son, pre‑
fixed to the collection of works, ut sup. Consult further, P. Bayle, Dictionary Historical and Critical, iv. 471‑475, London, 1737.
PARIS POLYGLOT. See BIBLES, POLYGLOT, III.
PARIS, UNIVERSITY OF. See UNIVERSITIES, § 2.
PARISH AND PASTOR.
Pre‑Parochial Period (§ 1).
Rise of the Parish (§ 2).
Nature and History of Afedieval Parishes (§ 3). Canonica‑ and Protestant Theory (§ 4). The Roman Catholic Parish and Rector (§ 5).
The German Lutheran Parish (§ 6).
Until the middle of the third century the one pastor of the faithful was the bishop, who controlled the churches in the cities, while those in the country were administered by the Chorepiscopus (q.v.), except in Egypt, which seems to have had a sort of presbyterial organization. About 250 Fabian divided the church at Rome I. Pre‑Paro‑ into fourteen districts (corresponding chial Period. to the " regions " of the city), each under a deacon or subdeacon, the primary object being the care of the poor; in the secand half of the fourth century, there were more than forty churches in Rome. In this same century baptism could be administered only by the bishop, and by him only in the baptistery of the Lateran, and not until the end of the fifth century

Parish and Pastor
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
could baptism be administered in a number of other Roman churches. Some of these titular churches, however, the oldest of which were probably the successors of private houses in which Christians had gathered for worship in the pTeDiocletian period, seem to have been centers for divine service as early as the third century. Over them presided titular priests, who were later to become the cardinal‑priests, but for many centuries they exercised no pastoral duties. In Rome, however, and probably in other cities, deacons and priests began, about 250, to be assigned to ecclesiastical subdivisions. This may well have begun in the rural districts, but as, in analogy with the spirit of Roman law, the country became subordinate to the jurisdiction of the city, the ehorepiscopi of the East gradually gave place to priests dependent on the bishop. In the West, where there was no chorepiscopate, the graves of martyrs, etc., gave rise to a local, clergy. The Synod of Elvira (305 or 306; canon lxxvii.; in Hefele, Concilienge8chichte, i. 189‑190, Eng. tranal., i. 169‑170, Fr. transl., i. 1, pp. 261‑262) mentions deacons as directing rural communities without priest or bishop, although baptism administered by such a deacon was regarded as complete only when the benediction of the bishop had also been received; and the Synod of Arles (314; canon xv.; in Hefele, ut sup., i. 213‑214, Eng. transl., i. 193, Fr. transl., i. 1, pp. 291‑292) forbids deacons to administer the Eucharist, so that only the delegation of a priest could completely provide for religious needs. It was not, however, until the middle of the fifth century that the Church was fully organized in the rural districts (see ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH). Definite areas were now constituted which already contained numerous small places of worship, often with their own clergy. In these churches sermons might be delivered and mass might be celebrated, but 8n high festivals the parishioners worshiped in the main church. Furthermore, only the priest in charge of this main church was permitted to administer baptism at Easter (and probably at Whitsuntide), and such was his supervision of the neighboring clergy that after the middle of the sixth century he was called the " archpriest " (see ARCHDEACON AND ARCHPRIEST). The main church came to be termed " diocese," " diocesan basilica," " parish," " parish church," and later " baptistery," etc. These churches gradually attained a degree of independence of the bishop, although their revenues were still paid to him or reckoned to his credit, and it was he who paid the clergy, the " parish churches " not gaining administrative freedom until long after they had received independence in pastoral care, the entire course of development being additionally complicated by the rise of the system of Patronage (q.v.).
It was only in the late Merovingian and the Carolingian periods that the parish, in the strict sense of the term, came into existence, whereby the inhabitants of a definite district were attached to a single church and its priest, who, exercising disciplinary powers, was, in his turn, strictly Jimited to the district in question and to its inhabi‑
364
tants, the whole development being powerfully aided by the state requirement of Tithes (q.v.). While at first the tithes appertained only to those churches which had the right to z. Rise of administer baptism and perform burial, the Parish. they were greatly increased in scope by the rise of parish churches, beginning with the eighth century. Shortly after 800 Charlemagne enacted that a tithe of the fiscal lands should be devoted to the fiscal churches, exception being made in favor of non‑royal churches only when these had had tithes since early times. While Charlemagne expressly guarded against diminution of the incomes of old churches by the foundation of new ones, this was essentially changed under Louis the Pious, the result being not only a powerful impulse to the colonization then regularly connected with the foundation of churches, but also the cause of the disappearance both of the old " baptismal " churches and of the archpriests. Even before these changes, such parochial confusion had arisen that no traces remained of the undoubted connection between these early " baptismal parishes " (the so‑called " Merovingian great parishes ") and Celto‑Roman administrative divisions. In Germany, however, where these changes took place later, there were still relics of the ancient organization, which in Italy held its own until late in the Carolingian period.
	A fully developed medieval parish thus presup
posed a more or less definite district, the inhabi
tants of which were restricted, both for baptism
and burial, to a specified church, to which they
paid tithes and which had, for the discharge of pas
toral care, an incumbent in priest's orders, deriving
		his income from the estates and in‑
3. Nature comes connected with that parish. and History The incumbent was seldom appointed of Medieval by his bishop, being usually chosen by
	Parishes.	a temporal or spiritual lord or, more
		rarely, by the parish. As a conse
quence, the incumbent's position was, in the early
Middle Ages, official rather than religious, while, on
the other hand, the community in general took an
active part in the administration of the parish, ap
pointing the sextons and other minor officials, and
frequently engaging and dismissing the assistant
clergy. At the same time, the parish priest was
an important figure, not only entitled to certain
prerogatives and exempt from certain liabilities,
but also, as the only man of learning, the scribe of
his parish, and, in many places, a voluntary arbiter
of justice. The system of parish endowment in
volved, however, some undesirable consequences.
As in Teutonic law in general, there was no dis
tinction between the private and the public aspects
of the benefice, and it was accordingly assumed
that the incumbent might have a substitute to per
fdrm his duties. As early as the ninth century
many parish priests were represented by vicars,
who were either paid a certain sum in money or in
kind by the incumbent proper, or received certain
incomes. These evil conditions were made still
worse by the holding of Pluralities (q.v.), and were
complicated by the development of Incorporation
(q.v.). In the episcopal cities of Germany the

855	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Parish and Pastor
cathedral long remained the only church, or at least the only one in which baptism was administered; but as early as the eighth and ninth centuries parish churches were introduced even in cities. At the same time, Patronage (q.v.) became an important factor, even in episcopal cities, when controlled by monasteries and collegiate churches, the rise of the city parish system being immediately connected with the latter. It would seem, however, that parish and baptismal rights were acquired by the collegiate churches only gradually, either in consequence of their own exertions or of episcopal transfer and division of older ecclesiastical districts. The cathedral or its baptistery accordingly often long retained either a concurrent or exclusive right of baptism, etc., the latter still being the case in some Italian cities, such as Bologna, Florence, and Parma. In the Middle Ages Malay of the German city parishes had no fixed boundaries, a situation which the Council of Trent sought to amend. Other conditions, such as the rivalry of collegiate churches, also tended to produce city parishes, which are found after the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These seem to have been served originally from the collegiate church, which still formed the center of parish worship; but in course of time the evils of non‑residence appeared here also, especially as the parishioners not infrequently preferred vicars to the collegiate clergy. Finally, many city parishes, like large numbers of those in the country, became the property of monasteries, thus involving the principle of patronage. In cities containing a court, on the other hand, the right of patronage formed the foundation of the city parish, while the market churches both in the north and in the south of Germany were at once placed under the control of patrons. In yet other cases the citizens of a community built and endowed pariah churches at their own expense, the patronage of the churches in question consequently belonging to the cities concerned, so that the pastoral care in such a municipality became a part of the civic administration.
In canon law the parish priest is simply the assistant and representative of the bishop, entrusted with pastoral care in a definite district, instituted by the bishop (or presented by s patron), dependent on his diocesan, and liable to deprivation (see DEGRADATION; and DzcrosITION) for due cause. In theory the parishioners are dependent on their
parish priest for all means of grace q. Canonical excepting the sacraments of confirmaaad Protes‑ tion and ordination, which are the tart Theory. exclusive prerogatives of the bishop;
but in practise the rights of the parish priest are subject to many exemptions (see EXEMPTION), especially in favor of the regular clergy, the mendicant friars being empowered to preach and to hear confession concurrently with the parish clergy. On the other hand, since the Lateran Council of 1215, all the faithful who have reached the years of discretion are bound to confess at least once each year to their pariah priest, and to receive the Eucharist from him at Easter; and the decrees of the Council of Trent require the publication of the beans by the pariah priest if the marriage is to
be regular. Among the Reformers Luther and Zwingli took over the parish from Roman Catholic church law, although in both cases subsequent developments led to the formation of national churches in which the parishes remained the normal districts for pastoral care, subject in part to the parishioners both in the institution of the clergy and in the financial administration of the parishes. The suppression of monasteries, moreover, put an end to many abuses, as did the secularization of 1803, preventing, for instance, non‑residence,. and frequently giving a pastor an assistant in the form of a deacon, subject to the head of the parish in administration, but equal to him in ecclesiastical prerogatives. In like manner, the pastor is under the control of administrative officers, though the latter do not possess superior spiritual rank, so that the ecclesiastical functions formerly reserved to the bishop are abrogated. Calvinism, while not unacquainted with the concept of the pariah in its administrative sense, has been debarred, by its stress on the Church as the " congregation," from any sympathy with the parochial system.
In Roman Catholic church law a parish is that district, normally strictly delimited, in which a parish priest, subject to his bishop, exercises right and lawful pastoral care. The parish bounds may canonically be changed only by the bishop, and by him only in case of necessity or obvious utility. There are also " personal parishes," such as court or
military chaplainciea, and missions are g. The Ro‑ likewise movable and without definite man Catholic boundaries in many cases, although Parish and in some places they are practically
Rector. equivalent to regular parishes. A
congregation is not recognized as a corporation by Roman Catholic church law, the legal personality being the parish, the pariah church, or the benefice. Parishioners are those residing within a parish or possessing a quasi‑domicile in it after a residence of six months. 'It is possible, therefore, to belong to more than one parish if the parishioner concerned has more than one domicile. Protestants who have been validly baptized are regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as heretical Catholics; but while theoretically such Protestants are held to belong to the parish, practically this tenet is now in abeyance. All Roman Catholics are, however, subject to the ecclesiastical control of their parish priest, who may forbid any other clergy to officiate in his parish unless possessed of papal or episcopal authorization, and has the exclusive right, except in urgent contingencies, of baptism, publication of the banns, marriage, the viaticum, extreme unction, burial, and Easter communion. Male religious orders and their institutions are exempt from parish control, and generally have papal privileges empowering them to exercise spiritual functions within the parish bounds. The head of the parish need not be a priest, though he must be ordained to the priesthood within a year; but if he be a deacon, such functions as require priestly ordination, particularly the celebration of mass, moat be performed by a vicar in priest's orders. The pariah priest is presupposed to be benefited and to be perpetual, so that neither mission clergy,

Pariah and Pastor
Parker
desservants (see CHAPLAIN), nor subsidiary priests, are, strictly speaking, parish clergy. Where there is no right of patronage, the bishop presents to a parish =h ue of his " free collation," and even in other ce gives at least " collative institution." The office of parish priest is not of divine right, and the attempt made by the Gallicans and by the Synod of Pistoja (1786) to trace the presbyteriate back to the disciples of Christ was formally condemned, as an Ario‑Calvinistic heresy, in the bull Auctoreln fdei (1794) of Pius VI. The privilege, and the duty, of the parish priest is the exercisr of pastoral care, and residence is, accordingly, strictly enjoined. He has the right of jurisdiction as confessor of his parishioners even outside the limits of his parish, and must keep the parish records, as well as preach and catechize. On all Sundays and feast days he must offer the sacrifice of the mass, and, if he have charge of two parishes, this duty must be discharged by bination. He is likewise bound to supervise the schools of his parish and may have the usufruct of the income of his benefice, besides the surplice‑fees which he receives. He may, in virtue of his " internal jurisdiction," exercise ecclesiastical discipline, but may not impose censures, since he does not possess " external jurisdiction."
In German Lutheran church law the parish is simply the district in which the official activity of the pastor is carried on, its boundaries being determined either by the ecclesiastical authorities, or by the State, or by topographical conditions, or even by personal considerations, although
6. The in exceptional cases the congregation German may comprise several parishes. The
Lutheran Lutherans, like the Roman Catholics,
Parish. hold that " whosoever is in the parish is also of the parish," but parochial control is practically restricted to the publication of banns and burial, since confession, the Lord's Supper, baptism, and confirmation may generally be requested, especially in the cities, from pastors of other parishes. The pastor is regularly considered a member of his own congregation, except where, as in the two Mecklenburgs and CoburgGotha, the congregations are not autonomous, in which case he is over his congregation. In ecclesiastical power all the clergy are held to be equal whether pastors, chief pastors, or deacons, even superintendents, ephors, provosts, and general superintendents having no superior spiritual functions, despite their relation to the administration of the Church. The Lutheran pastors are likewise benefioed and enjoy subjective perpetuity, being irremovable except for weighty reasons. The right of Patronage (q.v.) is an important factor, and, in general, the rights and duties of the Lutheran pastor in regard to preaching, teaching, keeping the records, etc., are analogous to those of the Roman Catholic parish priest. See BISHOP; DEACON; PASTORAL THEOLOGY; PATRONAGE; and PRIEST. (TTLRICH STUTZ.)
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
BIHLIOaRArHY: For the legal aspects of the subject, reference should be made to the works on ecclesiastical law (Kirchenrecht) by P. Hinschius, Berlin, 1889‑97; E. h5fflilg, Strasburg, 1878; A. L. Richter, Leipeic, 1888;
E. Friedberg, ib. 1903; P. Schbn, Berlin, 1903; J. B. SBguniiller, Freiburg, 1904; and U. Stutz, Berlin. 1904• Note particularly the literature under CANON LAW‑
On the general question much material will be found in the literature under ORGANIZATION or mar EARLY Cavxca; and the various articles m this work to which reference is made in the text. A list of literature dealing largely with Germany is wen in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xv. 239‑240. Of especial value are the works, noted under CHURCH, Tar CHRISTIAN, of E. Hatch, J. Cunningham, J. H. RitIB, and W. D. Killen. Consult further: J. Bannerman, The Church of Christ . . . the Nature, Powers. Ordinances. Discipline and Government of the Christian Church, 2 vole.. Edinburgh, 1868; L. Duchesne, in M4lanpes d'archEolop%e et d'histoire, vii (1887), 217 sqq.; ):5,. Rm ker, Die rechtliche Natur den euangeliachen Pfarramta, Leipsie, 1891; Lambert, La Doctrine du miniat2re ecclEai.• aat%que d'apri'a lea livres aymboliques de f€gl%se lutUrienne, Paris, 1894; S. Rietschel, D%e Civitas auJ deutachea Boden bin zum Auaeang der Karol%ngerzeit, pp. 85 sqq., 82 sqq., 88 sqq., Leipsic, 1894; U. Stutz, Geschichte des ksrchlichen Benefiz%alweaena, vol. i., §¢ 4‑5, 14‑19, 21, Berlin, 1895; J. B. Sitgmuller, D%e Entwickelung den Arch%preabyterata and Dekanala, pp. 29 sqq., Tiibingen, 1898; A. Afarignan, kEudes sur la civilization Jrarevaise i. 200 sqq.. Paris, 1899; P. Imbart de la Tour, Lea Oragines reld gieusea de la France, Paris, 1900; H. Grisar, Geach%chte der Stadt Rom %m Miltelalter, i. 148 eqq.. Freiburg, 1901; Zorell, in Archiv Jfir kathol%achen Rirchenrecht, lxxxii (1902), 74 sqq., 258 sqq.; Hauck, KD, i. 222 sqq., v. 450, 714 sqq., iv. 19 sqq., 25 sqq., 382‑383, 580‑581.
PARITY: In canon law, a status of civil equality for various ecclesiastical societies. So long as the pre‑Reformation heresy law in Germany was in force, there was no such thing as parity; but in 1555, after the peace of Augsburg, the German empire declared the heresy law to be no longer applicable. A distinction remains, however, to be drawn between the parity guaranteed by the German empire and the measures adopted by its constituent state governments: the empire never prescribed that the two confessional bodies should be placed on a footing of equality by the respective states. Parity signifies solely an equality of treatment for Roman Catholic and Protestant estates of the realm in matters of the empire's jurisdiction. As to the states of Germany, Brandenburg was the first to depart from the custom of recognizing the rights of only one Church; Elector Johann Sigismund in 1611 granted coequal standing with the Lutheran to the Roman Catholic Church in East Prussia, and in 1615 the same to the Reformed Church throughout his domain. For the rest of Germany, the act of the imperial deputies of Feb. 25, 1803, transferred many domains from Roman Catholic into Protestant hands, at the same time guaranteeing the exercise of the prevailing religion. Parity was next introduced by Bavaria (1803‑18), Baden, and others. All the sundry Protestant states of the Rhenish Confederation were led by Napoleon to pledge to the Roman Catholics equal rights of worship with the Lutherans, and most of them fulfilled the promise. The act of the German Confederation did not touch upon the point, but confined itself to stipulating equality of civil and political rights for adherents of the various confessions as individuals. The complete civil and national equality of all Germans, without regard to religion and creed, was afforded by the law of the Confederation (now imperial) of 1869. The case is different with religious societies as such. That the three great Christian Confessions (Roman Catholic, Lutheran,

$5'I	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Parker and Pastor
and Reformed) everywhere enjoy a special measure
of state privileges, is due to their historic position
and their public importance. But in many of the
German states, they alone possess the full measure
of religious exercise. [For discussion of the subject
in relation to other countries than Germany see
LIBERTY, RELIGIOUS.] 	(E. SEHLING.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: See under ABERTT, RELIGIOUS.
PARK, EDWARDS AMASA: American Congregationalist; b. at Providence, R. I., Dec. 29, 1808; d. at Andover, Mass., June 4, 1900. His father, Calvin Park, was a professor in Brown University, and the son graduated there in 1826; and, after a period of teaching, entered Andover Seminary, graduating in 1831. He then became colleague pastor of Richard Salter Storrs (2d) at Braintree, Mass., and during the next two years rose to the rank of one of the ablest preachers of the day; transferred, however, to Amherst College as professor of mental and moral philosophy, he became eminent as a teacher (1835‑36). He was called to Andover in 1836 as professor of sacred rhetoric, which position he filled with great success and personal satisfaction till 1847, when, by a general demand of the students and friends of the seminary and the nomination of his predecessor, he was transferred to the chair of systematic theology, which he filled till 1881. Andover Seminary was in those days the chief seminary of the Congregational churches, and Professor Park made the New England Theology (q.v.), of which be was a consummate master and the greatest representative, the dominant school of thought in the Congregationalism of his time. That theology is summarily set forth in the creed of Andover Seminary (cf. his pamphlet, The Associate Creed of Andover Theological Seminary, Boston, 1883), and also in his famous sermon upon The Theology of the Intellect and that of the Feelings (reprinted in the Bibliotheea Sacra). This sermon led to an epoch‑making controversy with Prof. Charles Hodge of Princeton, which did much to bring the new school to a consciousness of itself and establish it firmly in the convictions and life of the churches. The long and laborious Andover life wag broken by three seasons of travel in Europe and the orient, during which he greatly enlarged his acquaintance with German theology and philosophy, of which he was a master. In 1844, with Prof. B. B. Edwards, he founded the Bibliotheca Sacra, of which he continued to be editor forty years. It was from the beginning a "sacred library "for the publication and preservation of valuable material not likely to be elsewhere attainable, a keen theological review, and an agency for the propagation of a sound theology. But his contributions to theological periodicals began much earlier and embraced a wide field. He wrote also a large number of memoirs of friends and of theological leaders, of which the most important are those of Samuel Hopkins (Boston, 1852) and Nathaniel Emmons (Boston, 1861). His other principal works were The Sabbath Hymn Book (in connection with Prof. Austin Phelps and Lowell Mason (New York, 1858), The Atonement, Discourses and Treatises, etc., with an Introductory Essay (Boston,
1860), and Discourses on some Theological Doe. trines as Related to the Religious Character (Andover, 1885). From 1881 to his death, he lived in retirement in Andover, daily engaged in literary work, and largely occupied in the preparation of his theology for publication; but he seems to have destroyed his manuscript, for after his death nothing was found in condition for publication. The enthusiasm which he excited as a teacher was unequalled, and whatever his other claims to the memory of posterity, evidenced by his almost unexampled popularity in many different lines among his contemporaries, his greatest is the profound influence he exercised from the professor's chair. See NEw ENGLAND THEOLOGY, V., § 3.
FRANK HUGH FosTER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. H. Foster, Genetic Hiat. of the New England Theology, chap. xvii., Chicago, 1907; idem, in Ba7bliotheca Sacra, lx (1903), 672 sqq., lid (1904), 61 aqq., 272 eqq., 511 sqq.; W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, New York, 1893; idem, in American Church History Series, vol. iii., ib. 1894; idem, Ten New England Leaders, passim, ib. 1901; Professor Park and his Pupils. A biographical Sketch, with Letters received on his ninetieth Birthday, Boston, 1899; and articles in the Bibliotheca Sacra as follows: lviii (1901), 187 sqq., by G. F. Wright; the same, pp. 338 sqq., by A. Hovey and J. Cook; and the same, pp. 540 sqq., by G. W. Boardman; lx (1903), 201 sqq., by J. E. Rankin.
PARKER, EDWARD MELVILLE: Protestant Episcopal bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire; b. at Cambridge, Mass., July 11, 1855. He was educated at Keble College, Oxford (B.A., 1878), and was ordered deacon in 1879 and priested two years later. He was a master at St. Paul's School, Concord, N. H. (1872‑1905) and was also priest in charge of St. John's, Dunbarton, N. H. (18811905). In 1906 he was consecrated bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire.
PARKER, EDWIN POND: Congregationalist; b. at Castine, Me., Jan. 13, 1836. He was graduated from Bowdoin College, 1856, and from Bangor Theological Seminary, 1859; became pastor of the Second Congregational Church, Hartford, Conn., 1860, with which organization he has remained in active service ever since. He is the author of Song Flowers for the Sunday School and Social Meeting (Hartford, 1868); Sunday‑School Hymnal (New York, 1880); History of the Second Church of Christ in Hartford (Hartford, 1893); and Appreciation of Calvin Chapin, D.D., of Rocky Hill, Conn. (privately printed, 1909), besides sermons of a commemorative or historical character. Of his hymns that beginning "Master, no offering costly and sweet," is perhaps most widely used.
PARKER, JOSEPH: English Congregationalist; b. in Hexham (20 m. e. of Newcastle), Northumberland, England, Apr. 9, 1830; d. in London Nov. 28, 1902. His father was a stone‑mason, and his mother was distinguished for her simple faith and life. Through his father, young Parker had a strong infusion of Irish blood which accounted for much in his mental powers, his oratory, and life. His early education, received at three different schools, was supplemented by private study in mathematics, Latin, and Greek. From his earliest years he was under religious influence, and when in his teens

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Parker
commenced to preach in the village green. His powers as preacher and his genius soon became apparent and determined his future career. He attended no theological college, but read and thought by himself, seeking by every possible means to furnish his mind with all knowledge necessary to make him efficient as an expounder of the Bible. In 1852 he went to London and became assistant to John Campbell of Whitefield Tabernacle. His preaching power was soon acknowledged by persons of influence, who were charmed with his eloquence and suggestive utterances. He was much sought after, and in 1853 he received and accepted a call to a small congregation in Banbury, Oxfordshire. His success was marked. They had to enlarge the chapel, and ultimately to build a larger one, which was soon crowded. He remained in Banbury five years, when he received and accepted a call to Cavendish Street Congregational Church, Manchester, and began his ministry July 25, 1858. The church became a center of influence and the pastor was the originator of most of its institutions and movements. He started a college for the training of preachers, and did the most of the teaching himself. He edited religious periodicals, wrote some of his best books, took part in public movements, and attended to his pastoral duties punctually. His influence grew apace, and his power was felt far and wide in his denomination. In 1868 Parker received a pressing invitation to become the pastor of the Poultry Chapel, London, which was then in a moribund condition, but did not accept till the next year, beginning his pastorate Sept. 19, j 1869. The old building soon became too small for the crowds which attended the services, and steps were taken to build a house of size and prominence, resulting in the erection of the City Temple, Holburn Viaduct, which holds upwards of 3,000 people. Dr. Parker commenced Thursday Noon Services in the Poultry Chapel and continued them in the City Temple till his death in 1902. These gatherings were unique, and no other single person ever sustained such a series of meetings for thirty‑three years. They were held for one hour, and at every meeting ministers, students, professional and business men, workmen and women of all ages could be seen. Under his care the church grew as a power and his influence increased. He preached his last sermon Oct. 2, 1902.
Dr. Parker was a voluminous writer, his pen was never idle. His principal works are Ecce Deus (Edinburgh, 1867); Springdale Abbey (Manchester, 1868); Hidden Springs (London, 1864); Ad larum (1868); Paradete (1874); The Priesthood of Christ (1876); Tyne Chylde (1880); The People's Bible (25 vols., 1884); Family Prayer Book (1889); Some One and None Like It (1894); Paterson's Pariah (1898); Preacher's Life (1899; autobiographical); Studies in. Teets (6 vols., 1901); Ptdpit Bible (1901). Besides editing several periodicals he published in all over sixty volumes.
WILLIAM AnAM$oN.

BIDuooBAPHT: W. Adamson, Life of the Rev. Joseph Parker, London, 1902; A. Dawson, Joaeph Parker, His Life and
MiniaMy, ib. 1901; (3. H. Pike, Dr. Parker and his Friends,
ib. 1904.
PARKER, MATTHEW: First Protestant archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Norwich, England, Aug. 6, 1504; d. in London May 17, 1575. He graduated from Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (B.A., 1525; M.A., 15281; and was ordained priest in 1527. Already strongly influenced by the teachings of the German Reformers, he devoted himself at Cambridge to the study of the writings of Luther, qualifying them by a thorough knowledge of patristic literature, which was probably responsible for the comparative moderation which he showed in later life. In 1535 he was named chaplain to the new queen, Anne Boleyn, and to the king two years later, receiving also several rich benefices; in 1544 he became head of his old college, which had become the home of the new doctrines. As vicechancellor of the university, he defended its revenues manfully against the king, who was tempted to extend to it his pillage of the monasteries. This danger past, he devoted himself to the promotion of the internal welfare of the university, for which his retiring and contemplative nature eminently fitted him. Even under Edward VI., he still sought to remain in his studious calm, and exchanged his university position only for the quiet deanery of Lincoln in 1552. Under Mary, he fell into disfavor by his support of Lady Jane Grey and by his marriage in 1547. Deprived of his offices, he remained in concealment until the accession of Elizabeth; he was then summoned, much against his will, to take part in public life, and was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury in 1559. The validity of his consecration has been disputed, the Roman Catholics regarding it as defective in both form and matter, Anglicans exerting themselves equally strenuously to demonstrate that every essential was scrupulously observed. The importance of the question lies in the fact that the new bishops chosen by Elizabeth, and thus the Anglican succession, derived their consecration from him.
Parker, at once Evangelical and conservative, was a fitting instrument for the carrying out of the queen's plans of compromise between the extreme parties whose strife threatened the peace of her realm. The situation was a difficult one. Bishoprics and parochial cures were either vacant or unworthily filled; great diversity prevailed in the conduct of divine worship; and ecclesiastical property had been in many cases diverted from its proper use. The kingdom was divided into three hostile parties; the Roman Catholic, with strong support at Oxford, among the lawyers, and to some extent at court; the Puritans, with their mainstay in the citizens of London, supported by the Cambridge divines, striving to enforce the Calvinistic ideals; and, between the two, the new primate with a feeble moderate conservative minority. In this passionate struggle, rendered more difficult by the uncertain and capricious attitude of Elizabeth, Parker stood for conciliation, and for the striking out of a distinctly Anglican line, a via media between Rome and extreme Protestantism. His hands were full; he had to train the new bishops in the system, to keep a watchful eye on the courts of justice and the universities (the Cambridge statutes of 1570 betoken a complete reconstruction of the academic

859	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Parker
constitution in an Anglican sense), to regulate the restoration of its rights to convocation, to bring order into the financial affairs of the Church, and to guard the bishoprics and other benefices against unworthy men. Together with convocation, in 1562 he recast the forty‑two articles of religion into thirty‑nine, and gave them their final shape in 1571. He took great interest in, and wrote the prefaces for, the Old and New Testament of the " Bishops' Bible," a version which was to supersede Tyndale's and the Geneva versions. The " Advertisements " drawn up by him (see ADVERTISEMENTS oh ELIZABETH) were not formally sanctioned by the queen, but he enforced their provisions with strictness as an irreducible minimum of decent ceremony in public worship.
His scholarly work brought him more happiness than his administrative. He was a pioneer in the study of English antiquities, especially of the AngloSaxon period. He employed the large means which in his later years were at his disposal for the collection and preservation of valuable ancient manuscripts in danger of destruction at the dissolution of the monasteries. A single agent of his, Stephen Batman, asserts that in four years he collected on the archbishop's account no less than 6,700 manuscripts in England and elsewhere. These priceless collections he left to his old college, where they are now the chief treasure of the library. On them are based the first editions of Gildas, Asser, Aelfric, Matthew Paris, the Flores historiarum, and other ancient chronicles; and Parker was the first to recognize the value of the Anglo‑Saxon works for the study of English history, law, speech, and religious belief.
Among other works, he wrote, assisted by G. Ackworth and J. Josseline, De antiquitate Britanr nicce ecclesite et pravilegiis ecclesita Cantuariensia (London, 1572), a collection of various treatises; and independently An Admonition to All Such as shall Intend hereafter to Enter the State of Matrimovie Godly, and Agreeable to Laws (1605 [?]); and Archbishop Parker's Prophecy . . (1715). He wrote a preface for and made additions to T. Martin's A Defense of Priestes Mariagea (London, 1562 ?); and edited Aelfrics sermon A Testimonie of Antiquitie Shearing the Ancient Fayth in the Church of England Touching the Sacrament of the Body and Bloude of the Lord (1566); and Mathew of Paris' Nistoria Maior (1571).
BIRLjoaRAPHY: The chief work is J. Strype, The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker, London, 1711, 3 vols., Oxford, 1821. Consult further: His Correspondence, ed. J. Bruce and T. T. Perowne for Parker Society, Cambridge, 1853; W. F. Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. iv., 12 vols., London, 1860‑76; J. Josselin, Historiola collegdi Corporis Christi, ed. J. W. Clark, Cambridge, 1880; W. Bender, War Parker sin pfiltiy peweihter Bischoff Wliraburg, 1877; G. W. Child, Church and State under the Tudors, pp. 188 aqq., London, 1890; F. G. Lee, Church under Queen Elizabeth, pp. 30 eqq., London, 1896; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, i. 435 139 et passim, London, 1897; W. H. Frere, English Church (1668‑16.86), London, 1904 (full and valuable); DNB, xliii. 254‑263; and, in general, the works on the ecclesiastical history of the period.
PARKER, THEODORE: American Unitarian; b. in Lexington, Mass., Aug. 24, 1810; d. in Florence, Italy, May 10, 1860. His father, an unpros‑
perous farmer of active mind, held rationalistic views, while his mother had ardent religious feeling without doctrinal interests. Instinctively and sensitively religious, the child of four years heard the voice of conscience speaking " clear and loud," and before the age of ten was terrified by the preaching of eternal damnation. His early education was limited to a district school, with one term at the Lexington Academy (1826), but by extraordinary aptitude and the district teacher's help, he was able to win admission to Harvard College (1830), and was exceptionally allowed to take the annual examinations of the college class without residence and without a final degree. From 1827 be taught in district schools, working in the summers on the home farm. In Mar., 1831, he became assistant in a private school in Boston and a year later opened a private school in Watertown. En~ering the Harvard Divinity School in Apr., 1834, he graduated July, 1836, already amazingly erudite and commanding twenty languages. After preaching in various parishes he married Lydia Cabot, Apr. 30, 1837, and was ordained June 21, as pastor of the First Parish (Unitarian) Church in West Roxbury, Mass. Though but little affected as yet by German Biblical criticism he had begun (1836) to translate De Wette's Einleitung in daa Alte Testament. His early intellectual friendships were with Convers Francis, George Ripley, William Ellery Channing, and other members of the Transcendental Club, but he Shrank from the pantheistic tendency of Emerson and wrote unfavorably of Strauss' " Life of Jesus " (Christian Examiner, 1840). Entering the discussion of Emerson's Divinity School address with a pseudonymous " Levi Blodgett " letter (1840), he professed belief in miracles but held them " not the sole or best evidence." Believing, however, that conservative Unitarians in reaction against Emerson were retreating to outworn positions, he boldly discussed " The Transient and the Permanent in Christianity " at an ordination in South Boston, May 19, 1841. The permanent essence of Christianity is the influence of Jesus and his religion, which is identical with " absolute, pure religion." It is its own evidence and needs no support from miracles, the reality of which is not denied. As a youngman of boldly radical tendency Parker was at once refused exchanges in the Unitarian pulpits of his neighborhood, though laymen induced him to proclaim his views in lectures which were published in amplified form, A Discourse on Matters Pertaining to Religion (Boston, 1842). This was the theological crisis of his career. Refusing to withdraw voluntarily from the Boston Association of Minis. ters (Jan. 23, 1843), he was shunned by most of these associates and felt keen suffering in his isolation. There was no formal breach in his ecclesiastical standing. He remained permanently a member of the American Unitarian Association and of the Berry Street Conference of Ministers. After a year in Europe (Sept., 1843‑‑Sept., 1844) he resumed his pastorate in West Roxbury with additional preaching in Boston, beginning Feb., 1845, in the Melodeon Hall. In Jan., 1846, he withdrew from Roxbury to be pastor of this Twenty‑eighth Congregational Society of Boston which, after 1852,

Parker
Pasagians
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
met in Music Hall and reached a membership of 7,000. In Boston he became a heroic leader of the antislavery crusade and a fervent advocate of temperance and prison reform and the education of women. Absorption in these social aims and pastoral work together with frequent lecturing throughout New England overtaxed an intellectual power which might have made an epoch in theological scholarship. His most exact work was an amplified revision in English of De Wette's work named above (1843). His intellectual toil amid distracting conditions was unparalleled and he was a prolific author of pamphlets, books, and articles in periodicals. Hemorrhage of the lungs compelled him to end his labor at the age of forty‑eight. In Feb., 1859, he went to Vera Cruz and thence to Switzerland. After a winter in Rome he went to Florence, where he died and was buried in the Protestant cemetery.
Though unable to appreciate the motives of his conservative opponents, Parker thoroughly understood the genesis and bearings of his own views, as is shown by his lectures on " Transcendentalism " and the " Theological and Philosophical Development of New England " (Matter and Spirit in Centenary edition of his Works). New England thought had been controlled by sensational philosophy (" the original sin of the Anglo‑Saxon people," Matter and Spirit, p. 353), and therefore rested religion on supernatural miraculous revelation. Political emphasis upon the inherent rights and the trustworthiness of man, the dissolvent effect of rationalism on dogma, and the growth of democracy produced the Unitarian and Universalist movements without producing at first a new philosophic system. Later the works of Coleridge, Wordsworth, Cousin, and Cudworth generated in minds like Channing and Emerson the conviction that man has an inherent spiritual element, nonmiraculous in its origin and operation. In opposition to this fresh thought the common Unitarianism, which had been simply an Arminian Biblicism, began to emphasize the miraculous historical evidences. Parker championed the new idealism without assenting to all the extravagances of the transcendental movement. Rich in historical knowledge he analyzed the total accretions of Christianity to an interior essence. This is identical with the essential religion of Jesus, whom Parker exalted with glowing eloquence (" the highest representative of God we know ") while he pointed out historic limitations in the ideas of Jesus and rejected all the traditional Christologies. Like the German mystics he saw in Jesus the supreme instance of man's experience of God, an experience not confined to Christianity though not elsewhere equalled in degree or in purity of expression. Hence Parker identified the essential Christianity seen in Jesus with " absolute religion." By this he did not mean a universal religion reached by generalizing elements common to all historic religions (though cf. Chadwick's Theodore Parker, p. 100) but the purest expression of the religious consciousness (Discourse, pp. 213, 214) as that is ascertained by abstract analysis (pp. 6‑7) and self‑inspection (ib. p. 5). Dormant or active in varying degrees, there belongs to every
360
human being a specific religious consciousness irreducible and ultimate, acting spontaneously from diverse provocations, and in this religious consciousness the idea of God is immediately given to experience. Following Schleiermacher, Parker described this consciousness as a " mysterious sentiment of something unbounded " and the idea of God as simply the power which is the correlate to a sense of dependence.
But Parker did not adhere to this minimum relation of " dependence " and " power," and, using the terms of his own developed faith, described the religious sense as a reverence which normally culminates in trust, hope, love (ib. p. 32), or a voluntary obedience to the will of God. Similarly the " idea " of superhuman power given in the sense of dependence is soon transformed into the " conception " of God, " an infinite of power, wisdom, justice, love, whereon we may repose, wherein we may confide " (ib. pp. 141‑142). While the term personality is defective as applicable only to finite human beings, impersonality could be used only to express a transcendence of limitations in the ground of all personal existence. " Infinite knowing must be his " (ib. p. 148). A sermon on " Communion with God " (Ten Sermons, 1853) describes a personal communion rising to rapturous blessedness, though without the mystic's ecstasy or absorption into deity. Parker often used the Symbol of motherhood (Theodore Parker's Prayers, 1862) to denote the tenderness and unselfishness of God's love to man, and he opposed to the popular preaching of Calvinism an eloquent insistence on the infinite beneficence of God's character and providence: " love becoming a universe of perfect welfare." This optimism did not check Parker's impetuous and heroic conflict with social evils. Developing this conception of a perfect self‑expression of God in the world, he championed with ardor the view of divine immanence in the world of matter and in the world of spirit, " while God yet transcends both and is limited by neither " (Weiss, Life, vol. i., Appendix, p. 470). Mere pantheism he regarded as " irreligious naturalism " (Discourse, p. 174, note). ‑Reasoning from the theory of immanence and from the experiences of religious communion (204) he opposed to the traditional view of inspiration an affirmation of universal inspiration varying in degree with racial and individual capacity, but he did not clearly define the relation of such inspiration to man's own activity. The coldness with which these views were received in his own time and neighborhood has been succeeded by widespread sympathy in the churches of his communion and many others. FRA:icis A. CHRISTIE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Parker's Works, ed. Frances Power Cobbe, appeared in 14 vols., London, 1863‑70; the centenary edition, Boston, 1907 aqq., contains hitherto unpublished material. An excellent selection from his writings is contained in Views of Religion, introduction by J. F. Clarke, ib. 1890. The best biography is J. W. Chadwick's Theodore Parker, Boston, 1900 (contains good bibliography). Consult further: J. Weiss, Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker, 2 vols., New York, 1864; A. REville, Theodore Parker, so vile et sea aeuvres, Paris, 1865, Eng. tranal., Life and Writings of Theodore Parker, London, 1877; 0. B. Frothingham, Life of Theodore Parker, Bos‑
ton, 1874; S. Johnson, Theodore Parker, Chicago, 1890:

Sol
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Parker
Pas
J. H. Allen, in American Church History Series, x. 210214, New York, 1894.
PARKHURST, CHARLES HENRY: Presbyterian; b. at F ramingham, Mass., Apr. 17, 1842. He was educated at Amherst College (A.B., 1866); was principal of the high school in the same town in 1867‑69; studied theology at the University of Halle in 1869‑70. He was then professor in Williston Seminary, Easthampton, Mass. (1870‑71), after which he completed his theological studies at the University of Leipsic (1872‑73); was pastor of the Congregational Church at Lenox, Mass. (1874‑80), and has been pastor of the Madison Square Presbyterian Church, New York City, since 1880. While serving as president of the Society for the Prevention of Crime (1891‑1907), he manifested much activity, securing at one time not a little notoriety on account of his methods of securing evidence. He has written Forms of the Latin Verb Illustrated by the Sanskrit (Boston, 1870); What would the World be without Religionf (New York, 1882); The Blind Man's Creed, and other Sermons (1883); The Pattern in the Mount (1885); The Question of the Hour (1887); The Swiss Guide (1890); Three Gates on a Side (1891); Our Fight with Tammany (1895); Talks to Young Men (1897); Talks to Young Women (1897); The Sunny Side of Christianity (1901); and Little Lower than the Angels (1908).
PARMENIANUS. See DONATISM, §§ 3‑4.
PAROUSIA. See MILLENNIUM, MILLENARIANISM.
PARSONS (PERSONS), ROBERT: English Jesuit; b. at Nether Stowey, near Bridgwater (30 m. s.w. of Bristol), Somersetshire, June 24, 1546; d. at Rome Apr. 15, 1610. He studied at St. Mary's Hall and Balliol College, Oxford (B.A. and fellow, 1568; M.A., 1572), and became tutor and dean. In 1574 he left Oxford, and began the study of medicine at Padua, but in July, 1575, joined the Jesuits at Rome, having embraced the Roman Catholic religion at Louvain while on his way to Padua, and was ordained priest, 1578. In 1580 and 1581 he was in England, making converts and printing much on a surreptitious press. When his associate, Edmund Campion (q.v.), was arrested Parsons escaped into Normandy (autumn, 1581). Thenceforth he was a persistent and unscrupulous plotter for the overthrow of the Protestant dynasty in England and the reestablishment of the papal supremacy there. From 1588 till 1597 he was in Spain and Portugal and at Valladolid, Seville, San Lucar, and Madrid established colleges for the training of missionaries to be sent into England. He also founded the English college at St. Omer (about 20 m. s.e. of Calais). From 1597 till his death he was rector of the English College at Rome. Parsons was an earnest and able man and an indefatigable worker. He wrote clear and vigorous English and had special skill as a controversialist. During his later years relations between him and other Roman Catholics were not always harmonious. He was hasty and self‑willed, a victim of strong prejudices, and his statements of fact can not always be trusted. Of Parsons' numerous writings the more noteworthy were A Brief Discourse containing Cer‑
tain Reasons why Catholics Refuse to Go to Church,
published under the name of John Howlet (Douai [London], 1580); The First Book of the Christian Exercise Appertaining to Resolution ([Rouen], 1582), enlarged with the title, A Christian Directory Guiding Men to their Salvation ([London], 1585; often reprinted; modernized and Protestantized by George Stanhope, dean of Canterbury, London, 1700); A Conference about the Next Succession to the Crown of England, under the name of R. Doleman ([St. Omer], 1594), which argued for the right of a people to change the succession for religious reasons and suggested the Infanta of Spain as the fit successor to Elizabeth. The book was approved by Allen and others, but raised a storm of indignar tion in England and was denounced by Roman Catholics there; A Treatise of Three Conversions of England from Paganism to Christian Religion, under the name of N. Doleman ([St. Omer?], 1603), an answer to Foxe's Acts and Monuments.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: H. Afore, Hist. provincio Anplicana, St. Omer, 1660; D. Bartoli, Dell' Istoria dells Compaynia di Giesu l'Inghilterra, Rome, 1667; A. A Wood, Athencu Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, ii. 63‑79, 4 vols., London, 1813‑20. Two worthy sketches are: J. Gillow, Bibliographical Dictionary of English Catholics, v. 273287, London, n.d. (full on his works); DNB, xliii. 411418 (detailed). Consult further: R. Simpson, Edmund Campion, London, 1867; Letters and Memorials of William Cardinal Allen, ib. 1882; T. G. Law, Historical Sketch of the Conflicts between Jesuits and Seculars, ib. 1889; W. H. Frere, The English Church (1658‑16,26), pp. 216 eqq., ib. 1904.
PARTICULAR BAPTISTS. See BAPTISTS, I., 2.

PARTRIDGE, SIDNEY CATLIN: Protestant Episcopal missionary bishop of Kyoto, Japan; b. in New York City Sept. 1, 1857. He was educated at Yale (B.A., 1880) and Berkeley Divinity School (graduated 1884), and was ordered deacon in 1884 and advanced to the priesthood in 1885. He was a teacher at St. John's College, Shanghai (18841887), and at Boone School, Wuchang, China (18871900), and in 1900 was consecrated missionary bishop of Kyoto.

	PARVAIM (PARWAIM): A word used in II
Chron. iii., 6 to describe the gold used by Solomon
to line the walls in the interior of the temple (Hebr.,
zehabh parwaim; LXX., ehrusion to ek Pharouaim).
Without positive location, it may have been the
name of a geographical region in Arabia, the land
of gold for the Old Testament. A. Sprenger (Die
alte Geographie Arabiens, pp. 54‑55, Bern, 1875)
seeks to locate it at Farwa, in southwestern Arabia,
in the country of the Chanlan in Yemen. E. Glaser
(Skizze der Gesehichte and Geographie Arabiens, ii.
347, Berlin, 1890) places it at Sak al‑Farwain, in
northeastern Arabia. Its location remains un
certain. 	(H. GUTHE.)

PASAGIANS (PASAGII, PASSAGINI, PASSAGEROI) : A sect of which various scattered notices occur from the latter half of the twelfth century. They were first condemned at the Synod of Verona under Lucius III. (1184), but without any definite statement of their peculiar tenets. The only places from which anything can be gathered as to these are in Bonacursus, Manifestatio h&esresi

Pascal
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Catharorum (L. d'Achtry, Spicilegium, i. 212, Paris, 1723) and a treatise of Gregory of Bergamo, written about 1230, Specimen opusculi contra Catharo8 et Paaagios (L. A. Muratori, Antiquitatea Italic&, v. 162, Milan, 1738‑42). Both assert that the Pasagians taught the literal obligation of the Mosaic law, enforcing circumcision, the Sabbath, and everything but the sacrifices, teaching that the doctrine of the Trinity was an error and Christ no more than the first and purest of God's creatures. Frederick II. called them " the circumcised " in his ordinance of 1224 concerning heretics. They seem to have maintained themselves until toward the end of the thirteenth century; Clement IV. (1267) and Gregory X. (1274) directed the inquisitors to punish as heretics Christians who had gone over to the Jewish rite. The sect originated in all probability from the intercourse of Christians with the Jews, who by their money and their learning had no little influence at this time, possibly in the first instance among Judaizing pilgrims returning from Palestine. The word pasagium was commonly employed to denote pilgrimages to the Holy Sepulcher.
(0. WCSLERt.)
BIBLxofiRAPBT: C. U. Hahn, GeachicUe der Kdzer im Mittetatter, vol. iii., Stuttgart, 1850; C. Schmidt, Hiat. d doctrine dee Calharea, ii. 294, Paris, 1849; Molinier, in Mgmoirea de facademie des sciences . . . de Toulouse, VIII., x (1888), 428; KL, ix. 1556‑57; and the sources named in the text.
PASCAL, BLAISE.
Early Life and Scientific Discoveries U I). Conversion (12). Provincial Letters (§ 3). Thoughts on Religion (§ 4). Contents (§ 5).
	Blaiae Pascal, French philosopher, mathemati
cian, and mystic, was born at Clermont‑Ferrand
(212 m. s.s.w. of Paris) June 19, 1623; d. at Paris
Aug. 19, 1662. He was the son of tienne Pascal,
		second president of the cour des aides
:.Early Life at Clermont, who in 1631 resigned his
and Scientific post in order to go to Paris and de
Discoveries. vote himself to the education of his
		children. Here he found himself in a
circle of friends whose center was the family of An
toine Arnauld (q.v.). The surroundings of young
Blaise, as well as his natural inclinations, turned
his attention early to scientific and mathematical
problems, in favor of which he rather neglected the
classical and humanistic. His attainments in
mathematics are evidenced by his Easai pour lee
caniquea, written before he was seventeen, and the
calculating machine which he put before the pub
lic in 1642. But while a brilliant worldly future
seemed to lie before him, his course was changed by
an event of great significance for the entire family.
An accident which befell tienne in Rouen, where
he was intendant of Normandy from 1640, brought
him into contact with the absorbing problems of
the spiritual life, as regarded from the Janeeniet
standpoint. He became acquainted with Cornelius
Jansen's Dlaeoura our la. reformation de l'homme in‑
tErieur, Robert Arnauld's De la frequents commu
nion, St. Cyran's Lettrer trpiretuelles (Paris, 1648),
and similar works. The earnestness with which the
Jansenistic piety rejected every compromise with
the world was not without effect on young Pascal and the first impulse toward his conversion dates from this period. The spiritual effect of those writings on his sister Jacqueline (b. 1625) was even more marked. In the autumn of 1647 Blaise went to Paris with Jacqueline to seek the improvement of his health, impaired by overwork, being almost paralyzed and walking only by means of crutches. Here he was a constant auditor of the sermons of the Abb6 Singlin, confessor of the community of port‑Royal. Jacqueline soon took him for her director, and desired to enter Port‑Royal herself; but her father, who had returned to Paris in 1648, was unwilling to be separated from her. Pascal's first biographer, his sister Gilberts, recounts his conversion of the year 1646' as though it involved a complete breach with worldly interests; but this was not the case. The next few years saw his epochmaking discoveries and writings on scientific subjects, giving an account of the pressure of the atmosphere, nature's " horror of a vacuum," barometric measurements, and equivalent weights of fluids (Nauvelles exp&iertces tauchartt le vide and Preface our Is traits du vide, Paris, 1647; TraitE de l'tquuilibre des liqueurs; and Traits de la Pesanteur de la masse de fair, 1651). This is not the place to discuss his scientific achievements; but it may be noticed that even in this field he had a serious conflict with the Jesuits, who accused him of plagiarism and of giving out as his own the discovery of Torricelli as to the method of barometrical measurement. About 1649 he was of a divided mind between the conflicting attractions of religion and science, and for some years he could not arrive at a clear choice.
His father died Sept. 24, 1651; and .Jacqueline was now free to carry out her cherished wish. On Jan. 4, 1652, she entered Port‑Royal‑des‑Champs as a novice, and was professed June 5, 1653. Pascal now plunged for a time into worldly distractions in order to drown his sorrow at his father's death, finding his justification in the works of Montaigne, of which he was a diligent student at this time, as well as of Epictetus. But he did not neglect his studies, and his principal mathematical discoveries belong to the years 1653 and 1654. He wrote then the Traitk du triangle arithmitique, the Traits des ordres num4riques (Paris, 1665), and other smaller treatises. In these he discusses the laws of probability, as in the Traitk de la summation. des puisLances num&eqtres he lays down the principles of the differential and integral calculus. The Jansenistic ideal paled for a while before his eyes; he thought of entering public life and marrying.
	Suddenly,	however, the old religious impulses
awoke once more in his heart. He found the things
		which had appealed to him to be hol‑
z. Conver‑ low and unsatisfying, and felt an insion. tense longing for God and his grace. He paid frequent visits to Port‑Royal, and related his sufferings to his sister. On one of these visits he heard a sermon from the Abbes Singlin on the beginning of the Christian life; describing it as a serious decision made in the presence of God involving a thorough breach with the world. The words seemed to Pascal to be spoken expressly for

383	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	PVO11
him. Two days later (Nov. 23, 1653) he had a remarkable experience, being made vividly conscious of the presence of God as if in an ecstacy. This is the date of his real conversion. He sought strength and protection for his new inner life in the solitude of Port‑Royal, where his coming was welcomed with joy and taken as a signal mark of God's favor to the persecuted community. In spite of the advice of his physicians, he subjected himself to the strict discipline of fasting, vigils, and self‑torture, although retaining his independence and frequently visiting Paris. He plunged into the study of the Bible and the Church Fathers, but did not refrain, on occasions, from opposing the elders of PortRoyal with his own convictions; such as the relation between knowledge and faith. His colloquy with Le Maistre de Saci (L'Entretion avec M. de Saci) shows that he neither shared the skeptical distrust of Singlin and de Saci for the theoretical reason nor admitted a complete separation between theology and philosophy. During this period he occupied himself with the plan of a great work in apologetics, which was to win to the faith the philosophers and atheists; but he was deflected from this path by the call to engage in the controversy between Port‑Royal and the Jesuits.
Early in 1655 the Abb6 Picotk of St. Sulpiee refused absolution to the Duke de Liancourt because he had received into his house a friend of PortRoyal, the AW de Bourgeois, and had allowed his grandchildren to be educated in the
	3. Provin‑	Port‑Royal schools. This gave occar
cial Letters. Sion to Arnauld to write his Lettre a
		une personne de condition (Paris, 1655),
which was hotly attacked by the Jesuits, and fol
lowed up in July, 1655, by a Seconde lettre d un due
et pair de France (the Duke of Luynes). The Jes
uits saw their opportunity to reopen the vexed
question as to " fact " and " law " (see JANSEN,
CoRNELaus, JANSENISM). Arnauld was cited be
fore the Sorbonne and condemned on the point of
" fact " by a majority of more than two to one.
The Port‑Royalists, anxious to bring the question
before a wider tribunal, asked Pascal to treat it in
such a way as to appeal to the lay public. This he
undertook in the first of the " Provincial Letters "
(Lettres ecritea d un provincial par un de acs amia),
published under the pseudonym of " Louis de
Montalte," Jan. 23, 1656. The pretended author,
knowing nothing of theological subtleties, asks for
information on the controversy from a Thomist, a
Jansenist, a Molinist, and a Neo‑Thomist (see
TIiOMAs AQUINAS; MOLINA, LUIS; JANSEN, CoRNELIUS, JANSENISM), ahd comes to the conclusion that Arnauld's offense consists in the fact that he has not used the expression pouvoir prochain (" prevenient grace "). Although some at Port‑Royal had their doubts about the tone of the letter, it had an immediate success, and sixty friends of Arnauld's protested against the action of the Sorbonne. Tn a second letter, Pascal showed that the Neo‑Thomists were really on the side of the Jansenists in the doctrine of " sufficient grace," and that only from fear of the Jesuits they had tempered " efficient grace " down to " sufficient grace." As was to be expected, Arnauld was condemned
also on the point of " law " (Jan. 31, 1656). In his third letter (Feb. 9), Pascal utters his protest, asserting that Arnauld, although having St. Augustine and the Fathers on his side, yet was condemned. In the fourth letter (Feb. 25), he begins to attack the Jesuits directly, asserting that they are undermining morality; that they constitute the ethical ideal not according to what man ought to do, but according to what the average man is able to do; and that they degrade religion to politics, and morality to casuistry. On the day of publication of the fifth letter (Mar. 20), the community was required to leave Port‑Royal, but before long was permitted to return. Meantime Pascal got fresh weapons by a study of Antonio Escobar y Mendoza (q.v.) and of Jesuit practise in the confessional. In the letters from the sixth to the tenth (Apr. 10 to Aug. 2), he deals blow after blow at the principles of probabiliam, the method of justifying the means by the end, and the doctrines of equivocation of favorable circumstances and of mental reservation. In the eleventh (Aug. 18) he drops his mask and comes out under his own name against the enemy; in this and the two following letters (Aug. 18 to Sept. 30) dealing with charges brought against him by the Jesuits and quoting from their most approved teachers to show the havoc they have wrought to the moral sense by their teaching on almsgiving, simony, bankruptcy, and duelling. A week after Alexander VII. solemnly declared that Jansen had taught the five condemned propositions (fait) in a reprehensible sense, Pascal, leaving that question for the time, came out in a powerful philippic against the doctrine of the order on the question of murder (fourteenth letter, Oct. 23). Then in the last letters (fifteenth to eighteenth, Nov. 26, 1656, to Mar. 24, 1657), he returns to the Arnauld affair, and in the nineteenth, which ends abruptly, he attempts to strengthen his friends of Port‑Royal in their resistance to the signature of the formula of submission proposed by the assembly of the clergy.
The whole series had an indescribable effect, and the Latin version made by P. Nicole (1658) circulated throughout Europe. The public conscience was with Pascal. At Rome the letters were condemned; and at Paris, burned by the hangman. They were morally a brave achievement. Though in the utmost physical agonies, Pascal yet stood boldly as the champion of freedom of conscience, of truth, and justice against the all‑powerful Jesuits without fear of the Bastile or galleys. But the letters are also, in spite of their occasional character, a literary masterpiece possessing a high dramatic unity. In place of dry scholastic discussions on technicalities, Pascal has given vivacious dialogue, sparkling with humor. The figure of the genial Jesuit, expounding the secrets of his casuistical library with smug complacency to the curious Louis de Montalte, is worthy of Moli6re at his best; and the strong, clear, sober style makes the book one of the finest monuments of French prose. A collective edition appeared, Lea Provincialea ou lea lettres (1657); a late edition is by A. Molinier (Paris, 1891); Eng. trand., Provincial LRtters, M. Villemain (London, 1.847), T.

Pascal
Paschal
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
M'Crie (Edinburgh, 1847), and in Temple Classics (London, 1904).
When its termination left him free to carry out his plan for a great apologetic work, his health was so increasingly feeble that he could do nothing more than leave a few scattered sheets 4. Thoughts to represent his thoughts. In 1661 a on Religion. new attack upon Port‑Royal gave him much pain, which was increased by what he thought the weakness of the submission of Arnauld and Nicole, and by the death of his sister Jacqueline (Oct. 4, 1661). His last few months were spent in retirement and in devotional exercises and works of charity. His remains were buried in the church of St. ttienne du Mont. The fragments found among his papers, representing his desultory preparations for the great work which was to have converted the atheists, were published by his friends under the title Pens6es de M. Pascal sur la religion et sour quelques autres sujets qui ont W trouv6es apres sa mort parmi ses papiers (Paris, 1670). Unfortunately Nicole and Arnauld felt obliged or authorized to alter the text almost out of all recognition; and it was not until the publication of Victor Cousin's Des Penstses de Pascal (Paris, 1843) that attention was drawn to the original. The first correct edition was that of M. P. Faugcre, Pensks, fragments et lettres de Blaise Pascal (1844); Eng. transl., Thoughts on Religion and Evidences of Christianity (London, 1850). Other English translations are by Basil Kennett (1727, 1893), and C. K. Paul (London, 1885). G. Miehaut, Pens&s dispos6es suivant Pordre du cahier autographe, aims to give a literal reproduction (Freiburg in Switzerland, 1896).
Scientific studies, according to Pascal, leave the riddle of life unsolved, and the deepest cravings of the heart unsatisfied. Hence he turned to the study of man. Mathematical logic is incontrovertible but minus concrete truth. For g. Contents. scientific deduction God is cognizable only as a mathematical determination or concept of limitation. Only a single ethical effect follows the contemplation of the mathematical; through the conception of the infinitely small and the infinitely great, man comes to the realization of self and reverence before the infinite. The study to which man is called by his own constitution is the study of man. The first results are despairing; man is a chaos, a being full of inexplicable Contradictions. But the very fact that he seeks and yet is helplessly weak, is proof that he once possessed a real happiness. He seeks in that which he has not the help which he finds not in that which he has, while neither the one nor the other is able to deliver him, because this infinite abyss is only to be filled by an infinite means. Mere philosophy can not bridge the chasm. Of the two fundamental types, Stoicism sets forth the grandeur of man but is blind to his misery and ethical impotence: skepticism recognizes his misery, but stumbles over his greatness. Philosophy points out the way of escape from the dilemma by preparing man for the receptivity of faith or leading to theology, the center of all truth. Reason affords a knowledge of God as a philosophical postulate but not as salvation; how God exists and how he is related to man must
384
come by religious revelation. In the search for true
religion, in the first place, reason is the only instru
ment: divine revelation must be cognizable by it,
or at least not opposed to it. By miracle, proph
ecy, and the historic life of Jesus, Christianity re
veals itself to reason as the true religion. The
proofs are not " mathematically convincing," but
they offer the Christian religion as a hypothesis
that satisfies the reason. The doctrines of nature
and grace, of the fall and of a divine‑human Re
deemer, are the necessary complement of experi
ence as to the conjoint misery and greatness of
man. But as the ungodly passions set themselves
against the reasonable apprehension of God and
his revelation, man can strengthen his faith by a
second means; namely, habit. The habit of acting
as though he believed, will reduce the frowardness
of man's heart. Actual faith, however, is a gift of
the divine grace; not indirectly through the reason
but directly God inspires faith in the heart, whenever
it suits his pleasure. The result is an absolute cer
tainty and blessedness.	The inspiration which
makes the heart certain of the truth of religion pro
ceeds from Christ, through whom alone we know
God. Christian perfection consists for Pascal in
the imitation of the self‑denying life of Jesus‑‑
penitent self‑contemplation, monastic mortifica
tion of the natural man, mystical surrender, and
contemplative elevation are the means of sanctifi
cation. Thus his ideal of life is largely negative,
the duty of charity toward the poor and suffering
being the principal positive precept. This insist
ence on the inner life and personal sanctification
is far removed from the Jesuit cosmopolitan moral
ity; but it is almost equally far from the Evangel
ical conception of Christian perfection. There is
nothing in all his work to show that he had any
real understanding of or sympathy with Protestant
ism; yet he has been, like his contemporaries of
Port‑Royal, a stranger in the Roman Catholic
Church to this day. Like Paul and Augustine, his
great teachers, he has been a pathfinder to all those
who were seeking God. A prince in the realm of
science, he is even a greater than a prince in that
of faith. 	(EUGEN LACHENMANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Noteworthy editions of the works of Pascal are: C. Bossut, 5 vols., The Hague, 1779; Abbe Maynard, 2 vols., Paris, 1851; C. Lahure, 2 vols., ib. 1858, with " Life " by Mme. Prier; J. de Soyres, Cambridge, 1880; L. Derome, Paris, 1885 sqq.; P. Faugbre, Paris, new ed., 1888‑95; E. Havet, 2 vols., ib. 1889; Molinier, ib. 1891; and the latest, by L. Brunschviog and P. Boutroux, ib. 1908. The works were translated into Latin, Spanish, Italian, German, and English (London, 1657). His Miscellaneous Writings, translated from FauOre's ed., appeared London, 1849. For discussions of Pascal's life and work consult: E. Boutroux, Pascal, Paris, 1900, Eng. transl., Manchester, 1902 (the ripest fruit of the later investigations); C. A. Sainte‑Beuve, Port‑Royal, vols. ii.iii., Paris, 1860; idem, Portraits conteinporains, ib. 1847; idem, Monday Chats, Chicago, 1877; idem, Essays on Men arid Women, London, 1890; A. H. Reuchlin, Pascal's Leben and der Geist seiner Schriften, Stuttgart, 1840; V. Cousin, nudes sur Pascal, Paris, 1857; H. Weingarten, Pascal als Apoloqet, Leipsic, 1863; E. Saisset, Le Scepticaame, pp. 241‑342, Paris, 1865; T. W. Eeklin, Blaise Pascal, ein Zevge der Wahrheit, Basel, 1870; J. G. Dreydorff, Pascal, sein Leben and seine Kampfe, Leipsic, 1870; idem, Pascal's Gedanken fiber die Religion, ib. 1875; J. Tulloeh, Pascal, Edinburgh, 1878; P. Dros, nude Bur Is acepticiame de Pascal, Paris, 1886; E. SIX, &udes

1iNmirea, Paris, 1887; F. Brunetit;re.tudea critiquae aw . . 7a Zittbratura Jrangaiae, vole. i., iii., iv., Paris, 188781; M. Nourisson, Pascal, yhvsicisn d philoeopha; Paris, 1885; idem. DEJense de Pascal, ib. 1888; J. Zettel, Sur Is paxaliame, Paris, 1889; J. Bertrand, Blaias Pascal, Paris, 1890; D. Nasmith,Makers of Modern Thought, 2 vole., London, 1892; J. Owen, The Skeptics of the French Renaissance, pp. 731‑808, London, 1893; V. Giraud. Pascal, Paris, 1900; A. Hatafeld, Pascal, Paris, 1901; K. Warmuth, Daa religiiis‑etiiache Ideal Pascals, Leipsic. 1901; idem, Wiesen and Glauben bei Pascal, Berlin, 1902 (of high value); W. R. Clarks, Pascal and the Port Royaiiata,Edinburghand New York, 1902; A. Vinet,tudea our Blaise Pascal, Paris, 1904; E. Janssens, La Philoaophie d l'apoloptt%que de Pascal, Paris, 1908; W. J. Williams, Newman, Pascal, Loaay and the Catholic Church, London, 1908; K. Bornhausen. Die Ethik Pascals, Giessen, 1907; J. Gamble, Study on Pascal, London, 1907; A. Roster, Die Ethik Pascals, Tiibingen, 1907: F. 8troweki, Pascal d son temps, 2 parts, Paris, 1907; J. T. Burena, De CaauieEik en Pascal, Utrecht, 1909; Viscount 8t. Cyrea, Pascal. With Portrait, Index, Bibliography, and comparative Table, New York, 1910; H. R. Jordan, Blaiae Pascal: a Study in Religious Psychology, London, 1910; V. Girard, Blaise Pascal. ltudea d'hiat. morale, Paris, 1910. The reader should consult also the literature under Pour‑Ro:sL;and works on modern philosophy and on the literary history of France.
PASCHAL: The name of two popes and one antipope.
	Paschal L: Pope 817‑824. He was a Roman by
birth, early entered the clerical state and was at
tached to the Lateran basilica, where he became
deacon and priest, and under Leo III. was placed
in charge of the monastery of St. Stephen Major
and hospice for pilgrims near St. Peter's. On the
death of Stephen IV., he was elected the same day
and consecrated the next (Jan. 25, 26, 817), appar
ently to avoid the interference of the Frankish
court. The Emperor Louis, however, made no
objection, and renewed the agreement which had
been in force under his predecessors. The docu
ment purporting to contain this agreement, the so
called Paclum LudOVicidnurrl, for which the oldest
witnesses are Aneelm of Lucca and Deuededit
(qq.v.),has called forth much controversy. It is
now usually considered to be not forged but merely
interpolated, although scholars disagree as to the
extent of the interpolations. In any case the rela
tions between Paschal and the emperor were at
first friendly. In the spring of 823 the young
Lothair went to Rome, where Paschal crowned him
(Apr. 5). In missionary work pope and emperor
acted in unison; the former named the latter's
foster‑brother Ebo of Reims his vicar for the still
heathen lands of the north. The recrudescence of
the iconoclastic controversy afforded Paschal an
opportunity for fresh intervention in eastern affairs
as the upholder of orthodoxy. Leo the Armenian
paid no heed to the representations of the Roman
legates; but Paschal had the satisfaction of being
recognized by the defenders of images as the head
of the Church. The Tuber pontifualis calls him a
mild and benevolent ruler; the Frankish historians
depict him rather as haughty and domineering.
He was a devoted supporter of monasticism, and a
zealous promoter of the cultua of the saints sad
their relics (see CECILIA, SAINT), to which qual
ities he probably owes his own canonization. His
festival is May 14. 	(H. BSHntra.)
Btstroaasra:: The Epidoia d dipZomata are in MPL, cmdz.; and the Padum Ludovicianum in T. Bickel, Dos
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Prim7qPium Ottoa l., pp. 173 sqq., Innsbruck, 1853. Sources are: Libor yontkflcadie, ed. L. Ducbearie, ii. 5288. Paris. 1892: Einhsrd, Annatea, in MGR. Script., i (1828), 135‑218; Theganun, Vita $Ludourici, in MOH. Script., ii (1829). 804‑848; Jaffe, Regeda, i. 318‑320. Consult: Mann, Popes, ii. 122‑185; B. Niehuea, VerhttlMia amt %aiaertum and Papaftum, ii. 89 sqq., Munster, 1883; R. Ba=mnnr, Die Poditik der Pupate. i. 329 sqq., Elbeofell, 1888; J. Langen, Geechichde der r8miachen %ircha, ii. 800 sqq., Bonn, 1885; M. Heimbuaher, Die Papdwahden enter den Harolinpern, pp. 118 sqq., Augsburg, 1889; F. Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome, iii. 38‑b5, London, 1895; T. Lindner, Die aogenannten Scherekunyan Pippins . . . . an die r6miache %irche, pp. 80 sqq., Stuttgart, 1898; Hauck, AD. ii. 481 sqq.; Milmsn, Latin ChriaNanity, ii. b19‑529; Bower, Popes, ii. 193‑201; Plating, Popes, i. 210‑212.
	Paschal 17. (Raineriua): Pope 1099‑1118. He
came from Galliata, near Ravenna, and entered the
		cloister in his boyhood; when at the
	Opening age of twenty years he went to Rome
	Promise of on business for his cloister, he was de
	His tained there by Gregory VIL, and sta
Pontificate. tinned as presbyter at St. Clement's.
		He was elected successor of Urban II.
on Aug. 13, 1099, and the next day was consecrated.
Many burdensome tasks .awaited solution at the
hand of the new pope. Accordingly, it was fortu
nate that Guibert of Ravenna (q.v.), whom Henry
IV. had put forward as antipope, was now expelled
from Rome. [But Paschal's troubles were not
ended with the expulsion of Guibert, nor even with
his death. On the latter event the friends of Gui
bert elected Albert pope, but he was taken prisoner
the same day and confined in the monastery of St.
Laurence. The opposing party was undeterred,
however, and chose Theodoric, who was captured
after 105 days and shut up in the monastery of
Cava, near Palestrina. The final effort of the Gui
bertiana was the election of Ma,gcunulph, who took
the title of Silveater IV., but was forced to flee from
Rome, and died soon after.] The German situa
tion at Paschal's pontifical accession stood favor
able in that a weariness of conflict had set in,
affecting even Henry IV. Hardly had the emperor
learned of the death of Clement III. before he
summoned the princes, at Christmas of. 1100, to
a conference at Mainz for the restoration of ec
clesiastical peace. They advised the despatch
of envoys to Rome, and Henry was ready to
attend a council to be convoked at Rome in Feb.,
1102. Paschal, however, from the outset was
determined to continue the contest. He ap
pealed to Count Robert of Flanders to engage in
holy war against Henry, attempted to revive mar
tial ardor in Swabia and Bavaria, and at the synod
of Mar., 1102, proclaimed the anathema perpetuum
against Henry. But the need of peace was univer
sal, and the appeal to Robert of Flanders procured
for the pope a sharp rebuff. At the outset, the
bearing of Henry V. satisfied all expectations and
hopes on the pope's part: Henry was humble in
bearing, and by removing the schismatic bishops,
and thus restoring to Germany her long‑crippled
freedom, he appeared to furnish proof of his sin
cerity. The emperor, who had ceased to stem the
tumultuous vicissitudes of the last years of his life,
died on Aug. 7, 1106; and with him, as it seemed
from the papal standpoint, the chief enemy to the

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
peace of the Church disappeared, while the situation of the Church in relation to Statecraft grew less complex.
Pope Paschal concentrated his interests upon investiture (q.v.); and almost the sole aim of his policy was to secure that prerogative
Investiture against the influence of the State. He Strife. purposed to conduct the negotiations personally with Henry V. in Germany, but his journey stayed short of achievement, and the synod in contemplation was held not in Germany, but at Guastalla, between Parma and Xantua, Oct. 27, 1106, when the pope renewed the interdiction on the subject of investiture. The fact that Henry then continued to exercise the right of investiture disconcerted the pope and aroused his mistrust. When the king's envoys paid their respects to him at Chl;,lons, in May, 1107, and Archbishop Bruno of Treves at the same place defended the king's right of investiture, the pope sharply rejected the demand. Paschal nevertheless conceded, at the synod convening shortly afterward in Troyes, that thenceforth every incumbent who had been invested by a layman was to be duly deposed, together with his ordinator. Henry was granted a year's grace to visit Rome and advocate his claims there before a general council; but the plan failed and the relations between pope and king grew more acute. Henry started on his journey in Aug., 1110, notifying the pope and the Romans from Arezzo of his approach, and sending envoys to the former. In negotiations held at Turri Feb. 4, 1111, between the papal envoys and Henry, the following agreement was made. Henry was to yield on the subject of investiture on his coronation day after the pope had redeemed his promise in the matter of the regalia (see below), promising never again to interfere in the matter of investiture and to release his subjects from their oath to the bishops; he was also to establish the pope in possession of the patrimon)r of Peter (see PAPAL STATES) and to secure the pope's personal safety by a proper disposition of spiritual hostages. Peter Leonia, the leader of the papal envoys, promised for the pope that, when the king had performed his promises, the pope would direct the German bishops in attendance to restore to the king and the realm the regalia which had belonged to the empire in the time of Charlemagne and his successors; the pope was to forbid the bishops to put forth new claims to these regalia in future, or to exercise implied rights thereof, while his successors were to recognize this agreement; finally, the pope was to crown the king as emperor and to support him in the maintenance of his dominion; the pope was also to furnish hostages. This agreement was ratified by Henry V. at Sutri, Feb. 9, with a not unimportant reservation: the oath which he rendered covered merely the pope's personal safety, and conditioned even this upon Paschal's redeeming his pledges on the following Sunday. According to Ekkehard, the king still hinged his consent on the further condition that both spiritual and temporal princes should assent to the surrender of the regalia.
The execution of this treaty meant the solution of legal questions rooted in a past which comp‑
ses
headed several centuries; it reduced the bishops from princes to beggars, threw the German Church out of its routine, and was a revolution from above downward such as would affect the
The New entire life of the Church; while the
Agreement. persons immediately concerned, the German bishops, had not the opportunity of submitting their opinion thereon. At that time the project was impracticable, since Paschal commanded no other instrument of coercion against the inevitable opposition than the sentence of excommunication, a penalty the impressiveness of which had lost much in the preceding half‑century. Henry V. made his entrance into Rome on Feb. 12, and was ceremoniously received by Paschal. But when the original terms of agreement were read aloud in St. Peter's Church, there arose, amidst the temporal and spiritual princes alike, such a storm of indignation that the fulfilment of the compact proved quite impossible. These fruitless proceedings culminated at evening in Henry's arrest of the pope and cardinals, and a confinement of two months broke the pope's opposition to the king's wishes. On Apr. 11, the following compact was concluded by the two contracting parties. Paschal conceded that when a bishop or abbot has been freely elected, without simony and subject to the king's assent, he shall be invested by the king with ring and staff, and thereafter consecrated by the competent authority after the formal investiture. The pope furthermore promised not to molest the king and his realm, and never to visit the anathema upon Henry. He pledged himself to crown the king, and to support both realm and empire to the beat of his power. Henry V. swore to liberate the pope, bishops, cardinals, and all other captives, on Apr. 12 or 13, and not to molest them again; to bestow peace on the Roman people; to acknowledge Paschal as pope; to maintain, or, if need be, reinstate, the Roman Church in its patrimony and goods; and to render the obedience due Paschal as pope, the honor of kingdom and empire being safe. Henry's coronation took place on Apr. 13, the pope obtained his freedom, the emperor retained the privilege of investiture, while every ecclesiastic or layman who should assail it was subject to anathema and deposition.
That paschal under the stress of intense abasement had suffered himself to be constrained to these concessions subjected him to heavy penance. He lost the confidence of the Curia and embittered the remainder of his pontificate. This Disapproval compact of Paschal's meant the relinand Annul‑ quishment of demands which had been meat of the upheld through many years and de‑
. Agreement. fended with no mean sacrifices on the side of the Church; it canceled all efforts aimed at a reaction of public opinion in relation to the investiture; and it blocked the way to a resumption of such efforts in the future. A tempest of indignation rose against Paschal. In Rome a group of ecclesiastics turned their backs on him; in the rest of Italy there occurred intense and earnest protests; among the French and Burgundian clergy there almost ensued a schism; while even Germany was not entirely free from this re‑

367	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paeohal
fractory temper. The opposition of Paschal's fellow churchmen robbed him of self‑confidence. He grew confused as to the lawfulness of his acts, and yet stood chained to them by virtue of his oath. Hence the equivocal turns of his procedure in the following years. This state of affairs became patent to greater circles at the Lateran Synod of Mar. 16‑23, 1112. Here, in order to dispel doubts on the score of his orthodoxy, Paschal not only submitted a confession of his faith, wherein he notably recognized the decrees of Gregory VII. and Urban II., but he also assented to the resolution that the privilege wrested from the pope by coercion was to be condemned by the verdict of the Holy Ghost, declared invalid, and rendered null and void. After Paschal had thus broken the first part of the oath of Apr., 1111, he was powerless to escape the Gregorian party's importunity with reference to a censure of Henry V. For when the Synod of Vienne, Sept. 16, 1112, condemned lay investiture as heresy, pronounced excommunication against Henry V., and transmitted these resolves to the pope forconfirmation, subjoining a threat of defection in case of his refusal, he did not hesitate to pass the sentence. When the ban against Henry had been reiterated, in the succeeding years, by the legates Kuno and Dietrich (at Beauvais, Reims, Cologne, Goslar), the matter underwent a searching discussion in the year 1116, at the Lateran synod convening on Mar. 6. First of all, the privilege of investiture met its doom. Paschal was compelled to pronounce his approval of the king's excommunication, in open audience; and thus did he surrender the second portion of his oath. But in spite of these resolutions of the Lateran synod, there ensued no absolute rupture of relations between pope and emperor. When Henry V. advanced upon Rome in the spring of 1117, the pope fled southward. [But the same year a synod was held at Benevento which fully supported the pope, and excommunicated Mauritius Burdinus, who had taken the part of Henry, and was the next year elected antipope with the title of Gregory VIII. (q.v.).]
In relation to other states, the administration of Paschal II. proved far less momentous. While in
England a vehement conflict came
	Affairs in	about between the kingdom and the
	England,	church, it found prompt solution
France, and through the Concordat of 1107. This
	the East.	was prior to the collision between
		the pope and the German king, and,
owing to its localization, it exerted no general effect
comparable in importance with the German investi
ture strife. Yet Paschal did not entirely lose sight
of England in the years that followed. He sought
to enforce, in opposition to King Henry I., the
pseudo‑Isidorian principles respecting appeals to
the apostolic see (see PSEUDO‑IBIDORIAN DECHE
TALB) ; demanded the lapse of the royal Placet
(q.v.) in connection with his legates and edicts;
and urged greater zeal in the payment of Peter's
pence. In France, the pope found occasion to in
terfere in the marriage relations of King Philip I.,
who had separated from his consort and wedded
Bertrade de Montfort, who had deserted her hus
band, Count Foulques of Anjou, At the Synod of
Poitiers, 1100, and in presence of the papal delegates, the relapsing king was again sentenced with the ban; and not until Dec. 2, 1104, at the Synod of Paris, did he receive absolution upon promising to discontinue all commerce with Bertrade. The first great achievement of the crusade movement inaugurated by Urban II., the conquest of Jerusalem, did not come to the knowledge of that pope, since the news of it reached Rome not until the beginning of the pontificate of Paschal II. His attention, accordingly, was much engaged by the growing church problems in connection with the founding of the kingdom of Jerusalem. This burden was especially pressing by reason of the disputes over the occupancy of the patriarchate of Jerusalem; and the rivalry between the patriarchal sees of Antioch and Jerusalem.
Paschal II. died at Rome Jan. 21, 1118.
CARL MIRBT.
BIBLIoaBAPHr: Sources: The Epistolv d privilegia are in MPL, clxiii. 31‑476. Epadola are also found in RecuesZ des hiatoriena des Gaules, xv. 17‑83, Paris, 1808; MGH, Epiat., iii (1891), 108‑107; in NA, vole. iii., vi., vii., xw„ xvu., xx.‑xxiu., xxv.; and S. LSwenfeld, EPid. pontificum Romanorum, pp. 67 aqq., Leipsic, 1885; Li3er pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, ii. 296‑306, Paris, 1892• Jaffe, BRG, Vol. v.; idem, Regeda, i. 702‑772; J. B. Watterich, Pontificum Romanorum vita, ii. 1‑17, Leipsic, 1862; J. von Pflugk‑Harttung, Iter Italicum, Stuttgart, 1833; idem, Ada pohlificorum Romanorum inedita, Tfbingen and Stuttgart, 1881‑$6; M. Sdralek, Woljenbtlttler Prapmente pp. 111‑117, Miinater, 1891; P. Kehr, in Nachriahten der kgl. Geaellachalt der Wissenschalten zu Gbttingen, philoW
hiatoriache Klasse, 1898‑1903; H. Hagenmeyer, Epistuloi d charter ad historiam primi belli eacri apectatttes, pp. 178 sqq., Innabruck,1901; Mansi, Concilia, vole. xx~xxi. Consult: J. Langen, Geschichte der nbmischen Kirche, iv. 214270, Bonn, 1885; U. Chevalier, R6pertoire des sources historiques du moyen dpe, pp. 1721, 2761, Paris, 1877 aqq.
W. Schum, Die Politik . . Paschals II., Erfurt, 1877; G. Peiser, Der deutsche Investituratreit unter . . . Heinrich V., Berlin, 1883; M. Maurer, Papat Calizt IL, vole. i.‑ii., Munich. 1886‑89; G. Buclihola, Ekkehard von Aura, vol. i., Leipsic, 1888; W. von Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutwhen Kaiserzeit, iii. 697 sqq., Leipeic, 1890; C. Mirbt, Die Publizidik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., ib. 1894; F. Gregorovius, Hilt. of she City of Rome, iv. 317‑377, London, 1896; H. Gerdes, Geschichte der deutxhen Volks, ii. 319 eqq., Leipsic, 1898; G. Richter, Annalen der deutachen Geschichte im Mittelatter, III., ii., Halle, 1898; T. F. Tout, The Empire and the Papacy, 918‑1 278, London, 1901; W. Barry, Papal Monarchy . . . 690‑1303, New York, 1902; W. Norden, Das Papattum and Byzanz, pp. 67 sqq., Berlin, 1903; B. Monod, Essai sur lea rapports de Pascal 11. avec Philippe 1. (1099‑1108), Paris, 1907; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. v.; Hauck, KD, iii. 874 sqq.; Milman, Latin Christianity, iv. 75 eqq.; Bower, Popes, ii. 427‑452; Platina, Popes, ii. 18‑29; Schaff, Christian Church, v. 1, pp. 44, 73, 75, 76, 91; Neander, Christian Church, iv. 129 sqq.; the literature under CAUxTus II., and INvasTITUEE.
Paschal III. (Guido of Crema): Antipope 1164‑68. Guido of Crema was the most influential among the four or five cardinals who in 1159 elected Octavian (Victor IV., q.v.) as claimant of the papal see in opposition to Alexander III. He was of noble birth, in close relations with both the French and the English courts, and of long experience in the Curia. He was thus a natural candidate to succeed Victor IV., two days after whose death he was elected at Lucca by the recalcitrant party (Apr. 22, 1164). He was consecrated on Apr. 26 by Bishop Henry of Li6ge, and at once recognized by Barbarossa. His lack of support in Italy, Burgundy, and parts of

Pasobal Controversies Passover
Germany, however, urged Barbarossa to an extraor
dinary measure. On May 22, 1165, he required of
all the princes present at a diet in W ilmburg an
oath that they would never acknowledge Alexan
der III.; and he pushed the cause of Paschal ac
tively in Italy and Burgundy. In July, 1167, the
victory of Tusculum allowed Frederick and his
pope to enter Rome, where the latter was enthroned
in St. Peter's on July 22. The catastrophe which
almost annihilated the imperial army, in August
forced him to quit Rome. In the following January
Archbishop Christian of Mainz restored him, al
though to jurisdiction only over the right bank of
the Tiber, and even this by an uncertain tenure.
Before his power could be further confirmed, he
died. (Sept. 20, 1168). 	(H. Bl3HMER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liter PontiJu;aiis, ed. L. Duchesne, ii. 410420, Paris, 1892; Jaffe, Repeats, ii. 426‑429; F. Gregorovius, Hint. of the City of Rome, vol. iv. passim, London, 1898: Hauck, KD, iv. 258 eqq.; Milman, Latin Christianity, iv. 298; Bower, Popes, ii. 511‑514; literature under ALERANDHa III., especially the work of Reuter, Vol. ii.
PASCHAL CONTROVERSIES. See EASTER, II.
PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS. See RADBERTUS, PASCRASIUS.
PASSAU, BISHOPRIC OF: An ancient bishopric in Bavaria, organised by Boniface in 739 together with the other Bavarian dioceses. Its jurisdiction embraced both banks of the Danube from the confluence of the Isar, as far east as the Enna, north to the B6hmerwald, and south to near the present boundary between Upper Austria and Salzburg and Styria. Christianity had spread there in the Roman period. Lauriacum, the principal Roman fortress on the line of the Danube, was the seat of a bishop, and there were churches at Batava (Passau), Modurum,Quintana, and other places. But this Roman Christianity was destroyed by the Teutonic migrations, and its place had to be supplied in the Bavarian epoch by the work of itinerant bishops. One of these, Vivilo, consecrated by Gregory III., was placed in charge of the see of Passau at its foundation. After the downfall of the Avari in 796, the lands between the Enna and the Raab were added to its jurisdiction. . In the beginning of the tenth century the East Mark was lost to Germany, but when it began to be reo6cupied in the middle of the same century, the see of Passau took up its work again which was extended even to the east, into Hungary. (A. HAUCg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The list of bishops is in MGR, Script., xiii (1881), 361‑364, xv (1888), 1310‑11. Sources are in %onumenta Boica, vol. xxviii., part 2, xxix., part 2, Munich, 1864 sqq. Consult further: Rettberg, KD, i. 226 eqq., ii. 245 sqq.; Friedrich, KD, i. 199.qq., 343 eqq.; Hauck, KD, i. 379, 505, ii..460 sqq., iii. 150 sqq.; R;. Sehrbdl, Paasavia sacra, Passau, 1879; R. Reichenberger, Wolfgang con Salm, Bischof roan Passau, 16/0‑‑66, Freiburg, 1902; U. Schmid, Otto van Lonedorf, Biachof au Passau, 186.¢‑B6, W ilrzburg, 1903.

PASSAU, TREATY OF. See AvasBURa, RzLI(IIOUs PEACE OF.
PASSAVANT, WILLIAM ALFRED: American Lutheran; b. at Zelienople, Pa., Oct. 9, 1821; d. at Pittsburg June 3, 1894. Ordained in 1842, the year
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
sea
of his graduation from the Lutheran theological seminary at Gettysburg, he held pastorates in Baltimore (1842‑44) and Pittsburg (1844‑5b), where he founded The MiaaiaRary (1848‑61), and was editor till it was merged in The Lutheran sad Missionary, Philadelphia, remaining as one of the editors of the new periodical. In 1880 he founded The Workman, in Pittsburg, which he edited till 1887. He introduced the Kaiserswerth system of deaconesees in America (see DEACONE86, IIL, 2, d, § 1). To his efforts were due the establishment of hospitals at Pittsburg, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Jacksonville, Ill.; orphanages at Rochester, Zelienople, Pa., and Mt. Vernon, N. Y.; and Thiel College, Greenville, Pa.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. H.~Gerberding. Life and Letters of Rep.
W. A. Paaaavant, Greenville, Pa., 1908.
PASSION PLAYS. See RELIt3I00e DRAMA; and OBERAMMFRQAU:

PASSION WEEK See Holy WEEK.
PASSIOftISTS: The common name of the congregation of Barefoot Clericals of the Holy Cross and Passion of Christ, famous for their devotions and missionary zeal, and rising during the period of resistance to the Enlightenment (q.v.) of the eighteenth century. It was founded by Francesco Danei, known as Paul of the Cross (b. at Ovada [30 m. n.w. of Genoa] Jan. 3, 1694; d. at Rome Oct. 18, 1775). Although brought up to practises of piety, he was for a time inclined to military life; but in 1720 planned the foundation of an order and assumed the name with the approval of the bishop of Alessandria. He then came forth as an itinerant preacher of penance, obtained papal sanction for his order and received novices in 1720, and was ordained priest in 1727. The first house of the order was established on the promontory of Argentaro in 1737. The order was confirmed by Benedict XIV. in 1741, and again by Clement XIV. in 1769, and the latter assigned him the monastery of St. John and St. Paul at Monte Celio as the seat of his order. Paul was canonized in 1867 by Pius IX.
The members of the order take a fourth vow to promote a faithful observance of the salutary passion and death of Christ. Their emblem is the cross and a crown of thorns, and on the breast they wear the name of Christ. Pius VI., who in 1785 once more confirmed the rule with some mitigations, conferred upon them the mission of propagating Roman Catholicism, sending them first (1782) to Bulgaria and Wallachia. They are now scattered over eleven provinces in North and South America, Great Britain and Ireland, France and Belgium, Spain, and Australia; and number 100 houses and 2,000 members. Paul established the congregation of the female Paesionists, which was reorganized by Magdalena Caponi in 1819. There are three houses and seventy members. (O. Zbc>sLERt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 8eimbueher. Orden and Konprepationen, iii. 309‑313: (nischinger), Leben des . . . Paul vom Krause, Regensburg, 1848; J. C. Mitterrutmer, per heili7e Paul won Rreus, Innsbruck, 1880; Life of St. Paul of the Crone. Dublin. 1888: Luca di San Giuseppe, Vita delta aerma di Dio %. Maria cmciraaa di Ganl. Civita‑Vechis, 1878: RL, ix. 1719‑20: the literature reader CLSeoIVr XIV.

389
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Paschal Controversial" Passover
PASSOVER: One of the three principal festivals of ancient Israel. The name (Hebr. peaah; Aram. piaha'; Gk. pascha) is given to the lamb which was
offered as an immunity‑sacrifice at In the the opening of the feast; for the
Hexateuch. verb pasah signifies a passing over (as in Isa. xxxi. 5). Everywhere in the Bible this festival is referred to the Exodus. At that time, by divine command, the lamb was slaughtered in a certain manner and then eaten; and by this means the people were spared from the destroying angel who slew the first‑born of the Egyptians (Ex. xii. ). The annual repetition of the festival was enjoined. The eating of unleavened bread (matzoth) for seven days was an integral part of this memorial feast, which was therefore frequently called the feast of unleavened bread. Definite rules for the festival appear in all the collections of laws in the Pentateuch. In the ancient Covenant Code it appears as one of the three great festivals of the pilgrimage (Ex. xxiii. 15), and likewise in Ex. xxxiv. 18, 25. The form and significance of the celebration appear more clearly in the narrative of JE (Ex. xii. 21‑27, xiii. 3‑i6) and the necessary rules for the Passover and MaZZoth festivals axe given in Deuteronomy also (xvi. 1,8, 16, 17); to the Holiness Code belong brief prescriptions (Lev. xxiii. 5‑8 and probably 9‑14), but the most explicit regulations are those of the Priest Code in Ex. xii. 1‑20, 43‑50. To these may be added the later rules in Num. ix. 10‑14, xxviii. 16‑25). In P it is stated that in the month of the Exodus which, because of this event, shall be counted the first month of the year (Ex. xii. 2), every father of a family must, on the tenth day, choose from among his sheep or goats, a male lamb one year old and without blemish. This he shall kill on the fourteenth day, " between two evenings," an ancient and obscure term. Samaritans and Keraites understood the twilight; the Pharisees, however, according to later usage, the time between three in the afternoon and sunset. In Egypt, the blood of the lamb was smeared on the posts and lintel of the door of the house as a sign for the destroying angel to pass by. The lamb itself was roasted, not boiled; and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. No bone was to be broken and no part could be carried from the house or kept for the next day, wherefore several small families united for the repast. This was required to be eaten quickly, with girded loins, staff in hand, and shoes on the feet (xii. 11). Later, this regulation was considered to refer only to the first Passover; but the Samaritans observe the usage at the present day. Only those who were circumcised could partake of the repast (xii. 43 sqq.). Whoever was prevented from so doing, either by a journey or by uncleanness (cf. Num. ix. 9‑11), must observe the sacrifice on the fourteenth day of the second month. This sacrificial meal was the beginning of the seven‑day festival of unleavened bread. From the fifteenth to the twenty‑first day, to eat anything leavened was forbidden under penalty of being cut off from the community. The first and seventh days were special holidays on which a solemn assembly took place and no work was done (Ex. xii. 14 aqq.; Lev. xxiii. 1 sqq.). It VIII. 24
is doubtful whether the offering of the first sheaves of the harvest formed part of the paschal rite.
A comparison of the references in the various legal and historical sources shows their agreement with the fact that the Passover and MaZZoth festivals were of Mosaic origin and were intended to remind the people of the Exodus. The significance of the unleavened bread is shown more
The Legal clearly in JE than in P, since in the
and the former the lack of leaven is attributed
Historical	to the hasty departure from Egypt
	Sources.	(Ex. xii. 34, 39), while in P it seems
		to be a ritual requirement (Ex. xii. 8,
15‑20). There is also general agreement that the
celebration was to be held in the central sanctuary
of Yahweh. Ex. xviii. 15 and xxxiv. 20 name this
festival as one of the three pilgrimage festivals,
whereat all the male members of the family were to
appear, but not with empty hands. This refers to
voluntary private offerings (Deut. xvi. 17; cf. 10).
On the other hand, Lev. xxiii. 8 (H) and Num.
xxviii. 19 sqq. (P) speak of sacrifices of the com
munity offered by the priests; and, according to
R. Schaefer (Daa Passah‑Matzoth‑Feat, p. 267,
Dusseldorf, 1900), the oldest literary prophets tes
tify to the existence of an elaborate sacrificial serv
ice. Only P calls the month of the Passover the
first of the year, which, however, does not warrant
the conclusion that the Hebrews first began their
year in the spring at the time of exile (Wellhausen).
In the historical books, only a few Passovers are
expressly mentioned. The first important celebra
tion took place in Canaan, according to Josh. v. 10,
immediately after the entry into the land and after
everyone had been circumcised in the fields of the
Jordan, near Jericho. Two other Passovers are es
pecially mentioned. Of one during the reign of
Hezekiah (II Chron. xxx. 26), it is narrated that
since the days of Solomon no such festival had been
celebrated in Jerusalem. II Chron. xxx. 5 asserts
that the requirements of the law were not strictly
observed, even on this occasion, as the second
month was chosen instead of the first, because of
delay in the preparations. The supplementary fes
tival of seven days was another irregularity. This
accounts for the statement of the Chronicler,
touching the Passover of the eighteenth year of
Josiah, that such a festival had not been held since
the time of Samuel. According to the parallel
passage in II Kings xxiii. 21 sqq., it should be un
derstood that no one had conformed so perfectly
to the law. In the Passover of Hezekiah, the Le
vites did the slaying, and at the first Passover after
the exile they sacrificed for the whole community
(Ezra vi. 19 sqq.).
As to the origin of the Passover, Wellhausen sees in it nothing more than a thanksgiving festival of the shepherds, whereat they sacrificed first‑born lambs. He believes that the tradition
	Origin and	of the killing of the first‑born of the
Significance. Egyptians grew out of this usage, also
		that the feast of unleavened bread is
independent of the Passover, and was adopted in
Canaan as a harvest festival only because, during
the harvest, the people were too busy to leaven their
bread. The historical relation to the events of the

Passover
Pastoral Life
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Exodus, he considers, was a later assumption. This explanation has found many adherents; but it ignores the real standpoint of the sources. Nowhere is the Passover mentioned as a festival whereat the first‑born were sacrificed; moreover, the historical explanation is strongly supported by JE, and this testimony can not be rejected on the plea of reediting (cf. Kittel, Geschichte der Hebrder, i. 104105, Gotha, 1888‑92; SchAfer, ut sup., pp. 136 aqq.). This does not, indeed, exclude the possibility that the Mosaic Passover festival may have absorbed a thanksgiving spring festival, when firstborn of the flocks and first‑fruits of the fields were offered. Although the older Protestants opposed the idea that the Passover was a sacrificial festival, the expression " the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover " (Ex. xii. 27), as well as many other passages, place it in the category of sacrificial repasts. Indeed, in Num. ix. 7, it is expressly termed an offering to God. The sacrificial element is negligible in Egypt, probably because of the absence of priests and altars. Later the blood was poured upon the altar and the fat was burned (Ex. xxiii. 18, xxxiv. 25). Essentially the Passover does not belong to the expiatory sacrifices but rather to that unique kind centering in the meal‑time and representing communion of God and man. In form it is a household and family offering.
In the New Testament, the paschal lamb has become the prefiguration of Jesus Christ (I Cor. v. 7), whose death is the sacrifice which averts the wrath of God from his community. By partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ (cf. John vi.) the community is united with Gal. This inner relationship was outwardly brought into proximity with the date of Christ's death and of his last Supper, which took place at the Passover festival. This supper with his disciples on the eve of the passion of Christ was an anticipated Passover repast, as the fourteenth of Nisan fell only on Friday (John xix. 14) and intentionally represents Jesus as the true paschal lamb.
According to the Talmudic and Rabbinical sources of the New‑Testament period, the paschal sacrifice could be offered only in the court of the Temple, like all other sacrifices. A great Method in multitude of people was always atNew‑Tests‑ tracted by this festival, and the RomentTimes.mans were frequently apprehensive of a revolt on these occasions (Josephus, Ant., XVIL, ix. 3, XX., v. 3; cf. War., I., iv. 3). On such days many executions took place to terrorize the people; on the other hand, a prisoner was sometimes liberated to gain their good graces. The arrival of great crowds of people before the siege of Jerusalem by Titus proved very disastrous, since they were shut up in the city and perished with its destruction. Josephus relates (War, VI., ix. 3) that at the request of Cestius, who wished to give Nero some idea of the size of the Jewish population, the high‑priests counted the paschal lambs, which numbered 256,500. Since at least ten men were reckoned to each lamb, the result would be 2,700,000 men, excluding those who were unclean. The date of the celebration was fixed by the harvest. If in the middle of the twelfth month this
870
was not far enough advanced to hold the festival four weeks later, that month was treated as an intercalary one and a thirteenth month was added. Whoever ate leavened bread during the festival was punished by scourging. The lambs were slaughtered in the outer court of the Temple at half past eight (2.30 P.m. of our reckoning). If the day was the preparation for the Sabbath, this occurred two hours earlier. The priests stood in rows, holding golden or silver vessels, in which they received the blood, passing the lull vessels from hand to hand, until they reached the priest nearest the altar, who poured the blood over it. The parts of the lamb dedicated to the sacrifice were also brought to the altar by a priest. Meanwhile, the Levites chanted the Hallel. The priests determined how many should partake of the lamb: not leas than ten and seldom more than twenty. Josephus and the Miahna assume that women participated in the repast; but according to the Gemara they were not bound to do so (cf. Dent. xvi. 16). After the first cup, the first‑born son asked his father the mean ins of the feast, whereupon the latter (later, a reader) related the story of the Exodus. Then the company chanted the first part of the Hallel (particularly Ps. cxiii., cxiv.) upon which followed the second cup and finally the repast proper. Then a third cup was drunk, which is that mentioned in Luke xxii. 20 as the one used by our Lord for the institution of the Eucharist. Still a fourth cup was taken and, after it was filled, the second part of the Hallel was sung (Ps. cxv.‑cxviii.). The passages, Matt. xxvi. 30 and Mark xiv. 26, " when they had sung a hymn," seem to refer to this. See also FEASTS AND FESTIVALS, L, JJ 1‑5.
(C. VON ORELLL)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Much of the literature is given under FEASxe AND FESTIVALS, and under HERwTEDCn (qq.v.). Consult further: F. Delitzsch, in ZeitachriJt Jtir lnEheriache Theolopae and Kirche, 1855, pp. 257 sqq.; G. M. Redslob, Die hi6l%achen Angaben vber die StiJtung, Hamburg, 1858; J. H. Kurtz, Der altteatamentliche OPJercultua, pp. 307 sqq., Berlin, 1862, Eng. transl., Sacrificial Worship of the O. T., Edinburgh, 1883; J. Miiller, Rritischer Verauch iiher die Entatehung des Pesach‑MazzothJestes, Bogy. 1883; D. Maekenzie, Exposition of the O. T. Sacrifices, Toronto. 1900: W. Riedel, in ZATW, xs (1900), 319 eqq.; idem, A1Ltestamentliche Unteravchungen, i. 52 sqq., Leipsic, 1902; R. SchBfer, Daa Passah‑Mazzoth‑Feat, Giitersloh, 1900; E. M. Synge, The Five Great Offerings and their Law, London, 1901; R. B. Girdlestone, The Passover, the Communion, and the Mass, ib. 1902; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic
Religion Today, New York, 1903; S. A. Vries, Die GesetzeachriJt des Kdnifla Josia, Leipsic, 1903; W. Rosenau, Jewish Ceremonial InstUutiona. Baltimore. 1903; C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament, iv. 285‑288: New York, 1907; a considerable literature in journals is indicated in Richardson, Encyclopaedia, p. 827. Consult also the works on O. T. theology, especially that of H. Schultz, London, 1892.
PASTOR IETERPUS: The title of the papal bull issued July 18, 1870, promulgating the doctrine of papal infallibility. See INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE. The text may be found in Reich, Documents; and in E. Friedberg, Sarremhtrtg der Aktensttlcke zum ersteft vatikanischert Kanzil (T(ibingen, 1872).
BIHLIO(IRAPAY: Consult the literature under INPALLIHILITY OP THE POPE; and VATICAN COUNCIL; especially H. E. Manning. The True Story of the Vatican Council. London,
1877; and J. Friedrich, Geaehichte des vatikariiachen Konzils, 3 vols., Bonn. 1E77‑87.

371	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Passover
		Pastoral Life
	PASTOR, ADAM (RUDOLF MARTENS, MAR
TINI): Anabaptist of the lower Rhine; b. at
Emden or Mitnsten about 1560 or 1570. Cleves was
the principal scene of his activity. In 1547 he is
mentioned as one of the most prominent partici
pants in two synods held at Emden and Goch under
Menno Simon's presidency; at the latter he was
set apart as an apostle, but was soon after pro
scribed on account of disagreements, particularly
on the doctrine of the Trinity. About 1550 he held
a disputation on this doctrine with Menno at Lii
beck. Besides a report of this, his only extant work
is Underscheit tusschen rechte leer unde valsche leer
der tvristigen articulen (Amsterdam). In it he as
serts that Christ was God's son and truly God, but
later than and inferior in power to the Father;
while the Holy Ghost was not an independent per
sonal being. In his teaching on the Lord's Supper
he is entirely dependent on Johannes Campanus
(q.v.) who influenced all his views; in that of bap
tism, he names Erasmus as his spiritual father.
		(FERDINAND COHRS.)
BiBraoaasray: C. Sandius, Babliotheca antitrinitariomm,
	p. 387, Freistadt, 1684; F. S. Book, Historia antitrini
	tariorum, ii. 277, Leipsic, 1784; F. Trechsel, Die protes
	tantischen Antitrinitarier vor Paustus Socin, i. 36‑37, Hei
	delberg, 1839; J. H. Allen, in American Church History
	Series, x. 78‑77, New York, 1894; K. Rembert, Die " Wie
	dertituier " im Herzogtum Jfdich. pp. 185 sqq., Berlin,
	1899.
	PASTOR, LUDWIG: Austrian Roman Catholic;
b. at Aachen, Prussia, Jan. 31, 1854. He was ed
ucated at the universities of Louvain, Bonn, Ber
lin, Vienna, and Prague, and in 1880 became privat
docent at the University of Innsbruck, associate
professor of history in 1886, and full professor of
the same subject in the following year. Since 1901
he has also been director of the Inatituto Austriaco
di Studi Storici at Rome. He has written Die
kirchlichen Reunion8bestrebungen wdhrend der Re
gierung Carls V. (Freiburg, 1879); Die Corre8pon
denz des Cardinals Contarini udhrend der deutschen
Legation 1541 (Munster, 1880); Geschichte der
Pdpste wit derv Au8gang des Mittelalters (4 vole.,
Freiburg, 1886‑1905; Eng. transl. by F. I. Antro
bus, History of the Popes from the Close of the
Middle Ages, 8 vols., London, 1891‑1908); J. Jtzns
sen (1893); Zur Beurteilung Savonarola's (1898);
August Reichensperger (2 vols., 1899); Acta Pork
tificum Romarurrum inedita (1904); and Die Reise
des Cardinals Luigi d'Aragona durch Deutschland,
die Niederlande, Frankreich and Oberitalien 1517
1518 (1905), besides editing the seventh and eighth
volumes of J. Janssen's Geschichte des deutschen
Ydkes (Freiburg, 1903) and Erlauterungen and
Erglinzungen zu Jamsens Geschichte des deutschen
Yolkes since 1898.
	PASTORAL LETTERS: Letters intended for
public circulation, addressed by a bishop to either
the clergy or the laity of his diocese or to both.
Some of these are sent out regularly on specified
occasions, as at the beginning of Lent each year to
give the current rules for fasting. Others are issued
at the discretion of the bishop, in order to warn the
laity against particular dangers or to instruct them
in particular truths, or to admonish the clergy as to
some point or points of their priestly duty or the conduct of divine worship. The term also applies to letters issued by ecclesiastical bodies to the pastors under their jurisdiction, e.g., by a Presbyterian synod, and even to letters by the pastor of a church to the members.
PASTORAL LIFE, HEBREW.
1. General Description. 11. The Products.
111. The Shepherds.
L General Description: In Syria and the region eastward of that country it is chiefly the nomadic Bedouins whose calling is that of cattle‑raising. In the desert, where the areas of pasturage and the watering‑places vary with the time of year, stockfarming can be carried on only in a nomadic way. But in the permanently populated districts cattle have always been raised extensively. Many parts of Palestine are better adapted to cattle‑raising than to agriculture; for instance, the arid steppes of South Judea, the region about the Dead Sea, and many hillsides which can not be terraced, where the sparse growth of grass in the spring will maintain at least sheep and goats. The plains of Sharon and Jezreel, which are in part too marshy for cultivation, also afford rich pasturage. The country east of the Jordan, in particular, has always been a land for grazing; to the south Mesha raised his enormous herds of sheep (II Kings iii. 4), and in the north were Baahan's famous kine (Amos iv. 1).
The people who followed this pursuit (cf. the Tell Amarna Letters for the pre‑Israelite period; see AMARNA TABLETS) when the country was in a high state of civilization were not nomadic Bedouins, but large owners both of herds and lands. They were kings and princes and the great in the land: David (I Chron. xxvii. 29‑30), Absalom (II Sam. xiii. 23), Uzziah (II Chron. xxvi. 10) ; or they were rich citizens and farmers like Nabal (I Sam. xxv. 2 sqq.). The small farmers also had cattle, but the relation of cattle‑raising to agriculture was not so intimate as it is, for instance, in Europe to‑day. Besides, asses and camels were available for agricultural purposes. Still, the industry was of the highest significance to the people as a whole, and in the promises to the people prosperity in this direction was pledged (Deut. viii. 13, xxviii. 4; Jer. xxxi. 27, etc.). Legislation took particular account of cattle‑raising; and the poetic language of the Bible is full of figures taken from the life of the shepherd. The princes were the shepherds of the people (II Sam. v. 2; Jer. xxiii. 2 sqq.); Israel was the flock of the Lord of hosts (tech. x. 3), and Yahweh was the good shepherd (Ps. xxiii.). In the regions where herding was followed in place of agriculture, nomadic life and customs continued longer than elsewhere. The Calebite branch of the Rechabites particularly (I Chron. ii. 55) adhered to a nomadic life till the time of Jehu; and Jonadab, the founder of the Rechabites springing from Caleb, commanded his followers never to build houses but to dwell in tents, and never to adopt the agricultural life, but to live a pastoral life (Jer. xxxv.), thereby making a sharp protest against all civilisation (see REcaAarrss).

Pastoral Life
Pastoral Theolos'y
IL The Products: In Palestine, both anciently and in modern times, " live stock,` or pastoral property (mikneh, " possession ") was composed principally of small cattle (;on). How important an item this is, even at present, may be perceived from statistics for the administrative district about Jerusalem, where, even following some years of murrain, the report for 1905 shows 90,000 head, or forty‑five to the square kilometer. These figures are below the actual count, since the local husbandmen manage to prevent exact returns in order to lessen their taxes. Moreover, the district in question is perhaps the poorest in cattle, the country east of the Jordan being much richer in this respect. Anciently the tale of flocks and herds was considerably more appreciable. The data that Job possessed 7,000 sheep and 1,000 oxen (Job i. 3), Nabal, 3,000 sheep and 1,000 goats (I Sam. xxv. 2), and that King Mesha paid an annual tribute of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 sheep (II Kings iii. 4) are quite within the bounds of probability.
The Palestinian sheep (ash="sheep "; 'ayil= " ram),; rahel, " ewe "; kar, " fat lamb "; taleh, " unweaned lamb "; kebhes or keaebh, " yearling lamb ") belongs mainly to the fat‑tailed, broadrumped species known as ovis laticaudata, or platyura (cf. H. B. Tristram, Natural Hist. of the Bible, p. 143, London, 1867). It is of medium size, with stout body, thin legs, fine crisp fleece, and a highset nose. The color is usually white (Isa. i. 18; Dan. vii. 9; Pa. cxivii. 16). The characteristic broad‑tail weighs from eleven to thirty pounds Another variety, similar to the Merino sheep, is found in North Palestine. Only the broad‑tailed sheep is expressly mentioned in early times, since in every account of sacrifice of a sheep that variety ('ayil) is designated for the purpose as being especially valuable and belonging to God (Ex. xxix. 32; Lev. iii. 9, vii. 3, etc.). At all periods, sheep welre the most usual animals for slaughter (I Sam. xxv. 18; II Sam. xii. 4, etc.), although flesh food was not a frequent article of diet in ancient times. Sheep were also the most usual animals for sacrifice (I Sam. vii. 9; Isa. i. 11; etc.). The ewes are especially prescribed for sin‑offering and guiltoffering (Lev. iv. 32 aqq., v. 6), and in connection with the purification of lepers (Lev. xiv. 10). The ram was accounted a peculiarly worthy victim (Ex. xxix. 18), and is prescribed notably on occasion of great festival offerings, also as a guilt‑offering (Lev. v. 15), and as the Nazirite's purifying oblation (Num. vi. 14). Together with the flesh, the fat milk is prized as food. Sheep‑skins, slightly tanned, were used as mantles and wraps (see DREss, AND ORNAMENT, HEBREW). The most valuable product was the wool, from which the commonest and the most important articles of dress were made (Lev. xiii. 47 aqq.; Ezek. xxxiv. 3, etc.). For this reason sheep‑shearing was conspicuously a time of rejoicing (I Sam. xxv. 4 aqq.; II Sam. xiii. 23 sqq.). This took place toward the end of April or the first of May. In the Bible this animal is mentioned in numerous figures of speech; and its patience (Jer. xi. 19; Isa. liii. 7) and stupidity were proverbial (N um. xxvii. 17; 1 Kings xxii. 17; Isa. Iiii. 6).
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Along with sheep, the goat is also raised in many districts, being more numerous than sheep, especially in mountainous and arid regions, since it thrives where sheep can hardly be sustained, climbing along the steepest precipices where no sheep can rage. In the Old Testament, the goat is frequently embraced along with the sheep under the common designation zon (ut sup:); on the other hand, the goat's distinct importance is attested by a number of terms applying only to itself (`ez, " goat "; `ittud` sa`2r, etc., " he‑goat "; 9edhi, " kid "). In Palestine, two species are bred; the prevailing kind being the capra mmmbrica, with loosely drooping ears about eight inches long, smooth, sickle‑shaped, recessive horns, and glossy black hair, both long and thick. In the north, on Mount Lebanon, two other varieties are found. Spotted goats are exceptional (Gen. xxx. 32 sqq.). More than half drop their young in December and January, which is the most favorable season for the kids, because, after sucking for two months, they still have abundant spring pasture. About one‑fifth bring forth in the spring (March to middle of April); the kids of this season still have plenty of milk from the dam, but no longer the subsequent abundance of grass. Onetenth bear in June and July, and the kids remain weak and small, having but little milk from the dam, and finding too little grass. The young brought forth in autumn either die as soon as born, or perish in miscarriage. Goats and sheep graze too ther, but the two flocks will then keep somewhat apart (ef. Matt. xxv. 32), as they do also at night. The goats are fond of climbing along the steeps and browsing the brushwood. Goat's flesh was more esteemed in olden times than it is at present. In particular the kid was relished (Gen. xxvii. 9; Judges vi. 19, xiii. 15, xv. 1). The Israelites were forbidden to boil it in its mother's milk, the favorite way of preparing it in modern times (Ex. xxiii.19). Goat milk was in general use (Prov. xxvii. 27), the skins were used for making vessels for water, wine, etc., while the hair was woven into a coarse cloth suitable particularly for tents (Ex. xxxvi.; Num. xxxi. 20; see TENT). The goat had value also for sacrifice. A he‑goat might be used for either the burnt or the peace offering (Lev. i. 10, iii. 12, etc.), and was the animal usually required for the sin offering (Lev. iv. 23 sqq., v. 6, xvi. 5; Num. xv. 24, etc.). As a sacrificial offering the he‑goat was always called sa'ir, " the hairy one," owing to the mythological belief that the hairy creature belonged to the deities of the under world (see DEMON, DEMONISM, 1 3). For this reason, it was a goat that was sent into the wilderness to Azazel on the Day of Atonement; and the wicked who are condemned to everlasting fire are the goats (Matt. xxv. 32 sqq.). The goat suggested to the poets many of their figures. The princes, as leaders of the people, are likened to the he‑goats that go before the flock (Isa. xiv. 9, margin; Zech. x. 3, cf. Prov. xxx. 31; Jer. 1. 8), and unscrupulous rulers among the people are compared to violent he‑goats that impose on the rest of the herd (Ezek. xxxiv. 19).
Neat‑cattle were collectively called ba*ar (ehor is a single animal, 'eleph is " one broken to the yoke "; par is a young but well‑grown bullock

878	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pastoral Life
		Pastoral Theology
suitable for sacrifice; pQTGh"cow,"'Cgel "heifer," and 'eglah " calf," are other terms used). They require good pasturage with abundant water, such as is afforded by the plains. As work‑animals they were universally used by farmers. The breed found in the south to‑day is rough and unattractive, and usually black or brown. In Galilee neat‑cattle are light in color and of better stock. The first‑mentioned breed is the most ancient in Palestine. The East Indian cattle (boa bubolia) were not introduced till post‑Biblical times. For the farmer neat‑cattle were indispensable for plowing, harrowing, and threshing; were used also as beasts of burden; and were valued for purposes of slaughter. In early times beef was a more common element of diet than to‑day, not for the tall farmers, indeed, but for the rich in the cities (Gen. xviii. 7; I Sam. xxviii. 24; Amos vi. 4; Luke xv. 30). Among animals used for sacrifice (q.v.) the ox or bullock was considered the choicest, especially for festal occasions (Nun. xxiii. 1 sqq.) and sin offerings (Ex. xxix. 1; Lev. iv. 3, 14; xvi. 3, 6, 11).
IIL Shepherds: The people whom the Old Testament describes as shepherds are not those husbandmen who keep a few head of large and small cattle for themselves; but rather such persons as follow herding for their principal vocation, i.e., the great proprietors such as Nabal, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the keepers of the flocks. The great owners did not personally attend to the care of the herd but employed their appointed keepers, or shepherds, who were usually free hired servantslees frequently, slaves. Their status in relation to
I. The Cure of Souls.
Roman Catholic Interpretation (f 1).
Principle and Practise of the Reformers (¢ 2).
Influence of Pietism and Modern Thought and Events U 3).
Care of Souls the Duty of All Christians (f 4).
Cooperation of Pastor and Congregation (4 5).
Practical theology (q.v.), itself one of four divisions of the science of theology (exegetical, historical, doctrinal or systematic, and practical), is divided into four parts, Homiletics (q.v.) catechetics (See CATECEMSIS,‑ CATECIETICB), Liturgies (q.v.), and poimenics or pastoral theology, with which last this article is concerned.
L The Cure of Souls: [The expression "cure (i.e., care) of souls " (Let. curs animarum), originally a technipal term of canon law, is defined as " the activity for the salvation of immortal souls in a definite, prescribed locality, exercised in conformity with the laws given by God and the Church and resting on legitimate commission " (KL, xi. 62). The phrase is now used in English chiefly by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, connoting the charge on a priest or clergyman to supply the spiritual needs of his parishioners, and implying especially the right of administering the sacraments. On this ground benefices are distinguished as those
the proprietor is minutely regulated in the law (cf. Ex. xxii. 4, 9‑12; of. Amos iii. 13; Gen. xxxi. 38; etc.); and in a manner substantially accordant with the primitive legal customs embodied in the code of Hammurabi (q.v.). The shepherd's calling was decidedly fatiguing (cf. Gen. xxxi. 40). He had to keep his charges together, to find the lost and strayed ones, to nurse the sick, bind up the wounded, carry the wearied lamb, draw water for his flock, protect them against wild beasts, etc. (Gen. xxxi. 38 sqq.; I Sam. xvii. 34 sqq.; Ira. x1. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 3‑16). At evening the flocks were driven into folds and pens, constructed along rough stone walls, and affording protection against wild beasts (Gen. xlix. 14; Num. x'gxii. 16, 24, 36; Judges v. 16; Ps. 1. 9; We. ii. 12; Hab. iii. 17). Wealthier proprietors erected watch‑towers in the sheepfold (Gen. xxxv. 21; etc.). The shepherd's outfit was simple; a common shepherd's pouch for his victuals (I Sam. xvii. 40), a shepherd's rod (Mic. vii. 14), which was also his chief weapon, a sling (I Saran. xvii. 40), and the indispensable shepherd's pipe or flute (Judges v. 16). He was aided in his watch by sheep dogs (Job xxx. 1). I BENZnroxR.
BIBLzoaRAm7: H. B. Tristram, Fauna and From of Palestine, London, 1884; idem, Natural Hidory of the Bible, ut sup.; R. F. Burton and C. F. T. Drake, Unsxplared Syria, i. 341‑342, London. 1872; J. f). Wood, Bible Animals, ib. 1883; L. Anderlind, in ZDPV, ix (1886), i. 73; E. Day, Social Life of !he He5reroa, New York, 1901; V. Helm, Kuuurp/fanzm and Haudhiere. Berlin, 1902; C. Hart. Fauna and Flora of Sinai, London, PEF; Bensinger, AmA6olopie, pp. 138‑139; DB, i. 382,, ii. 195‑198, iv. 488r187; EB, i. 710‑715. ii. 1742‑4b,'iv. 4440‑42; .15, iii. 828‑827, v. 888. xi. 250‑251, 284.
PASTORAL THEOLOGY.

Cure of Souls Analogous, not to Pedagogy. but to Medicine (§ ff).
Means to be Adapted to Individual Needs (1 7).
Paraoletic or Consolatory Cure of
Souls (¢ 8).
Paideutio or Corrective Cure of Souls U 9).
Didactic or Instructive Cure of souls (§10).
II. The Parish and Minister.
The Candidate (4 1).
Relations of Pastoral Work to Preaching (¢ 2).
Pastoral Visits (4 3).
Relations to Church Officers and Organisations (; 4).
The Pastor's Study U 5).
The Sacraments and Devotional Meetings (; 6).
with and those without the cure of souls (curate and tlon curate.; see BENEFICE.)]
The cure of souls in the wider sense is the foundation and aim of all vital activities of the Church both toward those within and those without the fold. A distinction is made between the cure of souls in a comprehensive and a narrower sense, the former exerted over the congregation or church as a whole, the latter having as its object the individual members of the congregation. Of the several terms which have been used to designate the special cure of souls as a distinct theological discipline, poimenics (from the Gk. Pmmt, " a shepherd, pastor ") seems especially commendable.
The discharge of the pastoral cure is interpreted according to the conception of the spiritual office and its relation to the congregation; herein consists the fundamental difference as to the cure of souls in the Roman Catholic and in the Evangelical Church. The Roman priest is the organ of the

Pastoral Theology
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
hierarchy which is over the people, i.e., the "Church" in the narrow sense of ~the word. He is vicar of his bishop, as the bishop is vicar of the
	r. Roman	pope, and the pope is vicar of Christ.
Catholic In‑ He has to exercise the functions of
terpretation. God, of the pope, of the bishop, with
		reference to the aggregate of the Ro
man Catholics who constitute his parish. The
parish, however, is an accidental and contingent
fraction of the Church as a whole; the con
ception of the organized and independent single
congregation is foreign to the Roman canon law.
The priest is sharply distinguished from his parish
and stands high above all the laity, being conse
crated beyond repeal, and empowered with the keys
of heaven and hell. The discharge of his spiritual
cure is not dependent on his personality or on his
religious and moral characteristics, but on the
canonical execution of the law and institutions of
the constituted Church. He rules the souls, is lord
over consciences, is judge of the soul; and the cure
of souls and church discipline become one and the
same thing because each is exercised through the
confessional. The eternal blessedness of the Roman
Catholic is dependent upon the voluntary confession
of known open or secret mortal sins, together with
the confession of all other sins, if asked by the priest.
After confession the priest absolves from all manner
of guilt; herein he has unlimited control over souls.
See PARISH AND PASTOR.
	Through	the Reformation, new principles, in
accordance with the Gospel, were revealed for the
cure of souls. The Church is recognized as the
" congregation of saints," the clerical priesthood
and with it all hierarchy disappears, a twofold
		morality is no longer offered. The
s. Principle condition of salvation for all alike is and Practise faith alone, which is aroused and
of the Re‑ nourished by the preaching of the formers. word; the sacraments are effective not ex opere operato, but ethically in union with the word; Holy Scripture is accessible to all; and the moral forces of the home, of marriage, of the State, science and art, and the like, are freed from the rule of the Church and recognized as allies of the Church. But the new principle was not carried through. It is true that the Reformers individually, in their correspondence and expressed opinions, manifested a conception of the cure of souls which was exceedingly fruitful and evangelically free and profound; but in the Lutheran Church officially the field of the cure of souls remained private confession, transferred from Rome, in closer connection with the Lord's Supper. Luther himself sets forth the principle that private confession is voluntary and free; but it was introduced in 1528, and was then made a part of church discipline, and was even enforced by the secular authorities. Again, in the Reformed Church of Calvin and Johannes a Lasso, after Butzer's tract Yon. der warenSeelsorge and dem rechten Hirtendienst (1538), the cure of souls and ecclesiastical discipline were one. Only they were not, as in the Lutheran Church, accepted reluctantly, as evidence of the rule of the clergy over the congregation, but rather they were desired by the congregation as an indispensable and salutary
374
matter, and were exercised by all members of the congregation reciprocally. At Geneva in 1550, Calvin introduced the " regular and stated visitation at the home," and it is still retained in strict Reformed congregations, where the official " visitation " by the pastor and an eldei is distinguished from the pastor's friendly social calls. Private confession, however, in the Reformed Church was left free to the individual, and so continues to‑day.
In the Lutheran Church, it was only under the influence of pietism that the cure of souls and church discipline became separated. Spener called for an increase in the number of pastors, the institution of districts for the pastoral charge, and 3. Influence the assignment of elders to assist in the
of Pietism pastoral cure (Theologiache Bedenken,
and Modern i. 2, 3, 10; Pia desideria, chap. ii.;
Thought Consilia et judicia theologica, i. 3, 4).
and Events. His worthy opponent Valentin LSscher, in Dresden, agreed with him in demanding a pastor for every thousand church members, in requesting the keeping of an exact register of all parishioners, the appointment of deacons for the care of the poor, and the institution of regular household pastoral visits (Unschuldige Nachrichten, 1703). These were recommended also by A. H. Franeke (Collegium pastorale, 1713, 1714, 1743). Unfortunately pietism (even Valentin Grosagebauer, so early as 1661) associated the necessity for the special cure of souls with the deplorable condition of Christianity, and thereby aroused new distrust in the congregations; from which not even a Schleiermacher could free himself in his day. The conception of the special cure of souls in the Church was first clarified, and its exercise filled with Evangelical spirit, through the efforts of the Innere Mission (q.v.), through the religious and moral evils that were revealed during the revolutionary years of the middle of the nineteenth century, and through the industrial development, which has brought such grave social embarrassments in its train.
The reconstructive thoughts in respect to the origin of the spiritual office and its relation to the congregation which Luther expressed in 1520 in his tract An den christlichen Adel have become in some degree the common property of Evan‑
4. Cure of gelical theology. The spiritual office
Souls the is a logically and morally necessary
Duty of All product of the universal priesthood
	Christians.	within the religious community, where
		in the salutary fellowship of the
" Church " manifests itself. The proclaiming of
the divine word and administration of the sacra
ments necessary to the attainment, preservation,
and consummation of the possession of salvation,
which the spiritual office has to execute publicly in
the Church and in the name of the Church by di
vine right, is likewise by divine right the duty and
privilege of every Evangelical Christian within his
proper sphere and the limits to be observed for the
sake of ecclesiastical order. It is also the duty and
right of all Christians, according to their station, to
exercise a special cure of souls among one another.
This is grounded upon the naturally necessary in
fluence which in every community one member
exerts upon the other, the individual upon the com‑

375	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Pastoral Theology
munity, and the community upon the individual; whence arises the Christian's duty to exert his influence in keeping with the Gospel, and to discover corruptive influences, from the two motives of asserting his ethical personality and that of brotherly love. Both these motives are the more imperative as the needs of others are greater or our position or calling is the more responsible (cf. Hardeland, in bibliography, chap. x., pp. 208 sqq., also pp. 299 sqq., 326 sqq.).
The pastor, in performing his duty in the special cure of souls, must use all cooperative agencies and make them work harmoniously. Since there is no legal obligation on the layman to seek and accept the cure of souls, the pastor can accomplish his purpose only as he holds the confidence of the members of the congregation; in pro‑
5. Coop‑ portion as they willingly recognize the
emtion of exemplary quality of his religious and
Pastor and moral character, and have no doubt of Congrega‑ his wisdom in the cure of souls. This tion. means that the pastor must be an example for the congregation (T Pet. v. 3), and must obtain the requisite wisdom by an exact acquaintance with the congregation and a psychological understanding of individualities. He must regard as under the " seal of the confessional " communications imparted to him in order to procure his counsel, comfort, or instruction, his duty in this respect being qualified only by the fact that he recognizes the culpability of silence in case of high treason; in case of contemplated crime; and in case of averting the consequences of perpetrated crime. The personal responsibility and self‑training of every Christian are taken for granted; hence if some laymen feel that their participation in the special cure of souls might be an infringement of liberty and attempt at guardianship, it does not necessarily signify disparagement of the Christian life or a defective conception of the Church. The question whether action should wait for request or proceed spontaneously (at the pastor's initiative) is a practical one; it is the duty of him who would care for souls to know all members of the congregation, and many spiritual conditions arise which exclude the possibility of a request for help.
The special cure of souls in the Church does not stand on an analogous footing with pedagogy; for the latter is grounded upon the difference between the mature and knowing and the immature and unknowing, and becomes redundant in proportion as the self‑training of the pupil grows effective. Although in every congregation there will be a larger or smaller number of members whose relation to the pastor is really that of pupils to teacher, the pastor is not the authoritative master, since the entire spiritual charge rests upon con‑
e. Cure of fidence in the pastor, and self‑training Souls Analo‑ no less than personal responsibility
gous not to remains the postulated basis of the
Pedagogy, cure of souls everywhere. Indeed the but to aim of the spiritual charge is not eccle‑
	Medicine.	siastical punctilio or moral independ
		ence, but the ideal elevation of the re
ligious and moral life according to Matt. v. 48; Phil.
ii. 5; Col. i. 28; Eph. iv. 13; Rom. viii. 29. The
proper analogy for the cure of souls is the practise of medicine. However, the attitude of the spiritual adviser toward the members of the congregation is not that of the whole to the sick, but of the one who knows the means of salvation to the one in need of them, and the pastor himself is one of the needy. The chariamal gifts of the spiritual adviser, like the functions of the physician, are diagnostic and therapeutic. In diagnosis, the three fundamental psychological faculties come into play; the knowing property of the intellect in its teachableness; the esthetic or perceptive property of feeling in the active religious life on its emotional side; the moral force of the will, in its unalterable state of readiness to render every possible service in the spiritual cure. The question as to the categories of treatment (therapeutics) in the spiritual cure, is also to be answered by going back to the three fundamental psychological faculties. The emotional life needs the spiritual cure in suffering; the will, on occasion of sinning; the intellect, in the erring man; and accordingly the categories of the spiritual cure become the paracletic or consolatory, the paideutic or corrective, and the didactic or instructive. But since there is no isolated fundamental faculty, but all three fundamental faculties always interact, so likewise the suffering of men is always more or less complicated with sin and error; the sin of man, with suffering and error; the error of man, with suffering and sin. From the complication of suffering with sin arises the inclination toward languishing in resignation or carelessness, and toward extravagant complaint and accusation: through complication with error, the inclination to nurse delusions. From the complication of sin with suffering arises the redemptive need; with error, the redemptive capacity (Luke xxiii. 34; Acts iii. 17; T Cor. ii. 8). The complication of error with suffering begets willingness to receive instruction; with sin, the guilt of error (Luke xii. 47, 48) by enhancing the fault of intellect into error of conscience, or a morally wrong attitude in respect to recognition of the truth.
Suffering, sinning, erring men are not to be regarded as exceptional in the congregation. There is no human being who does not suffer; the spiritual adviser can take to, himself IT Cor. i. 7. Means to 3‑4 (see SUFFERING). There is no be Adapted human being who does not sin (T John to Individ‑ i. 6‑10); the spiritual adviser is at best ual Needs. a pardoned sinner. There is no human being who does not err so long as he strives; the spiritual adviser is not infallible, and must wait for perfected knowledge (T Cor. xiii. 812). However, the universality of suffering, sinning, erring, does not abrogate the individuality of every particular instance of suffering, sinning, erring. Hence all mechanical procedure on the spiritual adviser's part is of evil counsel; only specific procedure is admissible. For this proper applies, tion of the means of the spiritual cure to the individual contingency, Nicholas Hemming, in 1566, in his work Pastor sive N40M optimus vavendi agendique modus, coined the masterly expression Orthotomia. The expression connects itself with IT Tim. ii. 15: " rightly dividing (R. V. handling aright or [marg.] holding a straight course in) the word of truth."

Pastoral Thsologry	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	378
The branch of the cure of souls dealing with the suffering man is the paracletio or consolatory. Real comfort or joyful confidence is procured by the conviction that suffering experienced in 3. Paracletic the way of restrictions of life, pain, loss, or Consola‑ is intended, by the will of God, to betory Cure of come gain, joy, advancement. This it
	Souls.	becomes through faith, in the Gospel
		sense of the term, which is proved in
patience, confirmed in prayer (Rom. viii. 28; II Cor.
iv. 18‑18; Heb. xii.). In each instance, according
to the sufferer's individuality and history, the suf
fering leads to sobering reflection or to defiance and
despair, to friendly mildness or to stubborn egoism.
Accordingly the applied consolation must mani
fest itself either as an alleviating and assuaging
force, or as an admonitory and corrective power.
The question as to the pastor's duty in preparing
the sick for death is to be answered on like princi
ples. The medieval. visitation of the sick went to
extremes in this matter; the elaborate confession
and the terrors of death and judgment were made
its chief feature. According to the Evangelical con
ception, preparation for death consists in aiding the
sick to a state of composure, because death means
no loss, but gain for the Christian; and the like spirit
should pervade the entire sphere of the visitation
of the sick, whether there be express reference to
approaching death or not.
Special mention is necessary of the means of treatment of the spiritually sick (cf. Kdetlin, pp. 314‑315 and the bibliography cited p. 334; H. Romer, Psychiatrie and Seelaorge, Berlin, 1899). The number of these patients increases in serious proportions, and certain milder forms, which when unassisted are somewhat portentous, confront the pastor frequently. Not in every instance,. indeed, has he to deal with spiritual diseases, but rather with nervous impairment. The spiritual adviser must confine himself to his proper province, and banish the thought of competing with the physician. In conversation with the spiritually sick he should direct the patient's interest toward new topics, and seek to occupy his thoughts with friendly contemplations. The pastor's religious task recedes while the malady increases and stays at its height, but comes to the front so soon as convalescence has begun. More difficult is the pastor's task during incipient illness, in that the afflicted are wont to oppose every phase of pathological treatment. Moral laxity, that can be corrected only by ethical treatment, sometimes‑‑especially during the period of development‑makes itself known by physical disorders, which seem to be the physician's concern; but many nervous conditions are to be repressed by earnest will‑power or moral decision.
The paideutic, or corrective cure of souls has to do with sinning man, and is to be classified as prophylactic, or preventive, and epistreptic, or converting. (1) Since nearly all transgressions and crimes go back to defective home training, and since the most effectual forces of integrity are the imponderable impressions wrought by the mental, religious, and moral atmosphere of the parents' house, the prophylactic cure of souls will direct itself in first instance to the parental home, partly through the
channel of	public worship, partly by household
visits, partly	is connection with the school; by dis
semination	of wholesome educational principles
	among the parents. Direct prophy
g. Paidentic	lactic cure of souls begins in the relig‑
or Correct‑ loos or, in this connection, ecclesiastical ive Cure of instruction of youth. Here, too, con‑
	Souls.	fidence is the condition of fruitful activ
		ity,‑‑confidence of the young in their
pastor, which is procured by the pastor's confidence
in them, manifesting itself in fatherly thoughtful
ness, in comprehension of youth, in earnestness and
firmness combined with forbearance and patience,
as well as in his guidance to religious and moral in
dependence of decision. The prophylactic spiritual
charge has its most difficult teak in the guidance,
safeguarding, and strengthening of youth from the
age of fifteen to twenty‑five. Young people should
be gathered informally and freely; entertainment
and instruction are to be offered in the best forma
at command; and the aid of the experienced and
proficient is to be invited with grateful pleasure.
(2) The epistreptic or converting cure of souls has
to do with acute cases of sin and with chronic states
of sin, whether these have become openly offensive
or not. It is the specific field of the Roman sacra
ment of penance, and of the judicial office of the
priest. The Evangelical spiritual adviser moat re
nounce all judgment in respect to moral worthiness
or unworthiness in estimating the personal guilt and
character of the sinner, because he is no fathomer
of the heart.
It is not the pastor's office to judge the sinner, but to assist him toward conversion and newness of life; and he will the better succeed, the more he realizes that only God's merciful guidance bas preserved him from similar falling. According to the Augsburg Confession (Art. xii.) the pastor's rim in correction may be reached in three ways: (1) By securing acknowledgment of the sin. Various means are necessary to lead the sinner to this condition; in every instance the dominating religious and moral susceptibilities already latent in him must be appealed to. (2) By inducing repentance in the form of contrition, and " saving faith." False contrition broods over the external consequence of sin; true contrition, over the guilt and misery of sin itself. Contrition alone begets despair and desperation, and not until combined with the " saving faith " does it lead to " godly sorrow " (IT Cor. vii. 10), when it thereby honors God by accounting his grace to have been shown in the forgiveness of sin, as it also accounts all the guilt and misery the sinner's own. (3) " Then should follow good works which are fruits of repentance." " Good works " sae the new life of the one converted. The pastor has to offer protection and encouragement; protection against temptation from former companions in sin, against seductive false religion; encouragement to sturdy decision, to bear the consequences of faults; he should also help to make these consequences endurable, warn against undue security, aid the cqavert to stand firmly against relapses, and, it may be, remove him to a good environment.
The didactic ours of souls endeavors, by means of instruction, to correct ignorance, half‑knowledge

$77	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	pastoral Theology
and conceit, intellectual error. and error of conscience, superstition and unbelief; it ministers to the need of a deeper grasp of Evangelical truth, and tries to counteract doubt in its zo. Didactic multiplied forms. Here transition is or Instruct‑ made from the special cure of souls to ive Cure of the general (preaching), and the latter
	Souls.	is concerned mainly with opposing un
		belief and doubt (see HOMILETIC6). For
the difficulties which disturb the one who does not
yet believe and the one who no longer believes, as
likewise the refractory believer, the wrestling one,
the one doubting because of his very need of faith,
as well as the irreligious one coquetting with his
doubts, will‑ only seldom confront the special spir
itual adviser, deriving, as they do, from spiritual
perturbations universal in their nature and rooted
in very ancient problems, though modern in form.
As they actually arise, however, they are for the
most part so distinctive and have originated so
largely out of the most minutely specialized sciences
or the great aggregate of polite literature, that the
didactic spiritual adviser can operate on solid ground
only within very restricted limits. But that man
ner of preaching the Gospel which takes into ac
count the grade of culture and the known needs of
the congregation; the upbuilding of Christian Per
sonalities in the congregation who shall reveal the
power of the Gospel in speech and conduct, in char
acter and action; these are forces which have
waxed wholesome for all unbelief and doubt.
E. C. ACHELIB.
IL The Parish and the Minister: For the history of the parish see PAmH AND PASTOR. An ecclesiastical body or authority, in permitting a candidate for the ministry to pass as approved by it, gives its verdict upon his fitness for the serv‑
e. The ice. That verdict is endorsed by the
Candidate. call of a church and congregation to the candidate to become their pastor, or, in case of the episcopal churches, by appointment to a charge. The call of a church and congregation, when accepted, involves reciprocal obligations. These obligations are represented, but can not be fully expressed, much less can they be limited by the terms of the call; for the church and congregation owe the pastor, and the pastor owes them, more than can be put into any writing. The call made and accepted is a contract, but it is more than that. Not only must it be fulfilled on both sides with businesslike fidelity, but it must be fulfilled in the largeness of the spirit of mutual Christian love.
The true minister will never be a place‑seeker. Absolute personal consecration to Christ and to his kingdom is fundamental to the true idea of an Evangelical ministry. Considerations of adaptation and of family ties must have weight; but always should predominate the question, " Lord, what will thou have me to do f "
Once settled in a parish, the pastor needs, not only power in the pulpit, but also power to reach and away men by personal contact and influence. Preaching prepares the way far pastoral work; and pastoral work inspires and guides and warms the preaching, and gives it practical adaptation
and power. The true pastor finds the themes of his sermons among his people, rather than in his own tastes and tendencies; and so he preaches, not for himself, but for his hearers. If 2. Relations for preaching, talent is first, and tact of Pastoral is second, for pastoral work, tact is
Work to first, and talent is second; piety being
	Preaching.	equally necessary in both relations.
		Tact is defined as " a finer love ": it is
of the heart; and, other things being equal, the
heart that is the warmest will have the most of that
address, facility, and skill which we call tact. The
large and general relation of the preacher to his
congregation as a whole becomes in the pastor a
personal and an individual relation to each mem
ber of the flock, without regard to condition or
character. This involves the dealing with a great
variety of natures, each one of whom is a separate
and a sacred responsibility to the pastor. The
work is endless. There are always some souls in
need of personal ministrations. Men are reached
and saved one by one, and not in mass. The preacher
must be a pastor to gather in one by one the souls
to whom he has spoken from the pulpit the words
of truth. As the pastor goes among the people,
what he is will condition what he says: his charac
ter and life will help or hinder his work. " The
visible rhetoric " of the minister's daily conduct is
more decisive in influence than the audible rhetoric
of his sermons. Clerical affectations and assump
tions can no longer deceive or awe the people:
there must be in the pastor a simple, transparent
manliness sanctified by the love of Christ, and yet
only the more intensely human because Christly.
Scholarly tastes and habits must be watched, lest
they disqualify for genial and effective converse
with the common people. The scholarly must be
qualified by the Christly, then the small courtesies,
which are of such value in the commerce of society,
will not be neglected, and love will make the pas
tor a gentleman, welcome to every household and
heart. Meanwhile the course of preaching should
correspond with the course of pastoral labor, begin
ning at the center of the church, and working out
ward toward those who are farthest from the truth.
There will be morbid Christians, given to too much
introspection, who make the radical mistake which
Hamman has characterized as " the attempt to feel
thought, and to comprehend feeling." Such spir
itual egoism can be cured only by Christian work.
The morbid Christian must stop feeling his own
pulse, and go out into the vineyard, and try to win
souls for Christ: there can be little spiritual health
and vigor without such work. Hence that pastor
will be the most successful, who, instead of trying
to do all the work of the parish himself, strives to
enlist and stimulate the members of the church to
work with him as their appointed leader.
There is an old saying, as trite as true, " A housegoing minister makes a church‑going people." The work of pastoral visitation should
3. Pastoral be Systematized. A " calling‑book "
	Visits.	should be kept, in which, with the
		name of each family, the names of the
children should be recorded. The date of each call
should be entered, so that the pastor can learn at

Pastoral Theology
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
any time where his next calls should be made. Only in this way can thoroughness, regularity, and impartiality be secured in the visitation of the People. The pastor in these calls should aim to enter into the sympathies of the people, to know their home life, and to win their confidence and affection. Besides this general visitation there should be special calls made upon the sick and the afflicted. The tenderness and the sympathy of Christ as toward the suffering, and the words of promise, of counsel, and of comfort with which the Bible abounds, will suggest to the true pastor how he should minister among the sick and the sorrowing. Such calls should be short and frequent, and the words spoken should be few and careful. Other special calls must be made to reach particular cases of spiritual need. As soon as may be, the pastor should inform himself concerning the spiritual condition of every member of his congregation. His work should begin with the officers of the church, to enlist them in active cooperation; then the membership of the church should be roused to prayer and labor; then Christians outside of the church should be urged no longer to delay confessing Christ. By this method of working from the center outward, by the time he comes to seek those who are without Christ (beginning with the thoughtful, then approaching the careless, and then the skeptical), the pastor will find that the way has been prepared for him. There are such varieties of temperament, disposition, character, and condition, that the pastor must break from bondage to himself and to his experience, and learn to judge men in themselves, making large and generous allowances for differences that come of nature or of education, of antecedents or of present circumstances. In order to do this, he must be a many‑sided man, always studying in a docile way the endlessly varied manifestatations of human nature. He must be stimulated and sustained in his systematic pastoral work, not by natural personal attractions, but by divine motives. He should school himself to see in each soul a special responsibility, for which he must account to Christ. He should see men, not in the common human way, but as made in the image of God, and as redeemed by the blood of the Son of God. This will make the pastor impartial, and faithful to all; and so his parochial work will not depend upon fitful impulses, but will be sustained by the deepest and divinest principles.
There are special relations which the pastor sustains to the officers of the church and congregation and to the heads or leaders in the or;. Relations ganized work of the parish. The trus‑
to church tees, or those in charge of the secular Officers and interests of the congregation, may ask
Organize‑ counsel of him, and then he should give
	tions.	it; but he should not interfere with
		them, always recognizing the principle
that business men should manage the business in
terests of the parish. The pastor's relations to the
spiritual officers of the church should be cordial and
confidential. He should not dictate to them, but
rather counsel with them, treating them with stud
ied respect and consideration, while maintaining
his personal independence. As to the heads or lead‑
ers in the organized work of the church, the general rule is, that the pastor should be loyal to their leadership, and should show respect for the positions they have been appointed to occupy. The Sundayschool should be under the care of the spiritual officers of the church, and the same may be said of the choir, or the conductors of the music. But it would be inexcusable egoism in the pastor to demand that the devotional music in the Sunday worship should be adapted only to his individual taste and culture, and not rather to the average taste and culture of the whole congregation. The pastor should visit both the choir and the Sunday‑school in the spirit of courteous Christian sympathy with the departments of church life there represented. There may be within the church organizations for varied Christian work; such as young people's associations, young men's Christian associations, Dorcas or sewing societies, missionary societies, foreign and home; and to the leaders in these organizations the relations of the pastor are always delicate, and sometimes difficult. It is a question how far it is wise to multiply organizations within the church; since the church is itself the divinely appointed organizer tion as against all evil, and for all good. The benevoiences of the church constitute an important part of public worship. The pastor should keep himself informed concerning all the aggressive work of the church, so that he can inform his people, and should study methods of reaching their hearts, so as to make them feel the claims of Christ in all departments of his work. They should be taught, not only that giving is worship, but that, under existing conditions, it is doubtful whether there can be true and acceptable worship unless the offerings of the heart and the lips are accompanied, sometimes at least, if not always, by the generous offerings of the hand.
There is a danger in almost every parish, that the people will demand more frequent calls or visits than the pastor can make consistently
S. The with what he owes to his study and
Pastor's	pulpit. There should be a careful di‑
	Study.	vision of time between the claims of
		the study and the demands for house
hold visitation. Five hours a day at least should
be kept sacred for reading, study, and writing. Dur
ing these hours, besides what is required for the
preparations for Sunday, some portion of time
should be given to systematic courses of study. The
time thus devoted should be protected in all possi
ble ways from unnecessary interruptions. To be a
good pastor, a minister must be a good preacher;
and the converse is equally true,‑to be a good
preacher, a minister must be a good pastor. Noth
ing in the way of activity and zeal can take the
place of systematic, close, sustained study; and
no amount of study can take the place of systema
tic house‑to‑house visitation. The two depart
ments of work, pulpit and parochial, must not con
flict, but be proportionate, harmonious, and mutu
ally subsidiary. There should be preparation in
the study, not only for preaching, but also for the
other parts of public worship. The Scripture read
ing should be, in spirit and manner, instructive and
interesting. The hymns should be selected with

879	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Pastoral Theology
care, not merely to enforce the lesson of the sermon, but mainly to kindle and express the devotions of the people. There should be thoughtful preparation for leading the people in prayer, so that the actual condition of the congregation and of the country may be represented in the thanksgivings and supplications of the sanctuary.
The sacraments of the church involve some special pastoral obligations. As to baptism, the pastor should know the condition and habits of his people.
He should know what parents have 6. The Sac‑had their children baptized, and he raments and should kindly and faithfully instruct Devotional such parents as to their covenant privi‑
Meetings. leges and obligations; and, with those parents who are neglecting this ordinance for themselves and for their children, he should remonstrate, urging them to the performance of their duty. As to the Lord's Supper, the pastor should exercise the greatest care, lest, on the one hand, he may be the means of admitting to the ordinance those who are not truly regenerated; or, on the other hand, he may repel or restrain those timid and doubting Christians who need that spiritual refreshment which Christ gives only at his table. The celebration of the sacramental feast should be made bright and hopeful, self and sin disappearing, for the time, in the ascendency of the exalted Christ. The prayer‑meeting, or, as it is sometimes called, the conference‑meeting, under the sole conduct of the pastor, it is to be feared, is fast changing into a mere lecture, and so is losing its social character. It is a question whether it is better that the prayer‑meeting should be conducted by the pastor, or by such of the officers and members of the church as have the spirituality, the tact and skill, to make this social service both interesting and profitable. No one method should constrain the liberty of the pastor in this relation: a variety of methods is more conducive to the freshness and effectiveness of this important service. A schedule of topics may be prepared, printed, and distributed, so that the people will know from week to week the theme that will be considered. Questions may be sent in to the pastor to be answered in the prayer‑meeting. A course of familiar exposition, if not too long or labored, may be tried with profit. The pastor should be bound by no method, but should impress his people with the deep significance, sacredness, and power of united prayer.
Unselfish consecration, the love of men for Christ's sake, power in the pulpit, tact, tenderness, a profound knowledge of human nature, and a Christlike manliness, are the fundamental necessities to success in pastoral work. THomAs S. HAsTlrlas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the cure of souls consult: H. A. KSstlin, Die Lehre yon der seelsorge, Berlin, 1900; R. Hooker, Eccleaiaatical Polity, V., lxxx.2, in Works, ad. Keble, London,1845; R. Field, Of the Church, book v., chap. 28, Cambridge, 1852; C. Wyss, Etuba vom Kern and Stem der Seeleorpe, Basel, 1858; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, pp. 179‑180, London, 1870; A. Schweizer, Die Lehre van der Seelaorge, Leipsie, 1875; F. L. Steinmeyer, Die apezietle Seelaorge in Arem Verhaltnisa zur Oenerallen, Berlin. 1878; F. Probst, Theorie der Seelaorge, Breslau, 1883; W. Cramer, Die apostolische Seelaome, Dillmen. 1889; J. M. Watson, Cure of Souls, New York,
1898; A. Hardeland, Geachichte der epeciWem Seefaorpe, Berlin, 1897‑98; H. Beehroleheimer, Die Seelaorpe in der Induatrivemeinde, Gdttingen, 1907; W. Cunningham, The Cure of Souls, New York, 1908; K. Heeselbacher, Die Seelaorpe auf derv Dorfe, GSttingen, 1908; P. Du Bois, Psychic Treatment of Nervous Disorders, 6th ad., New York, 1909; H. Beehtolsheimer, Die Seelsorpe in der Induatriepemeinde, GSttingen, 1909; W. W. Webb, The Cure of Souls; a Manual for the Clergy, 2d ad., Milwaukee, 1910. Consult oleo the monthly, Die Seeleorpe in Theorie and Praxis, Leipsic, 1896 eqq.
On the general subject of pastoral theology the literature is immense, much being indicated under PRAerICA1s THEOLOGY (q.v.). The following list is but a selection: A classic is G. Herbert's A Priest to the Temple, new ed., by H. C. Beaching, Oxford, 1898; A. Vinet, Theolopie pastorals, Paris, 1889, Eng. tranal., of earlier ad., Edinburgh, 1855, new issue, Nashville, 1875; J. H. Blunt, Directoorium Pastorale; Principles and Practice of Pastoral Work in the Church of England, London, 1884; J. W. Burgon, A Treatise on the Pastoral Office, London, 1884; A. Oxenden, The Pastoral Office; its Duties, Di&ultiee, and Prospects, London, 1864; A. F. Douglass, The Pastor and his Peopk Dsacuaaiona on Ministerial Life and Char• acter, London, 1888; D. P. Kidder, The Christian Paatornte• its Character, ReaponarZelitiea, and Duties. New York, 1871; A. F. C. Vilmar, Lehrbuch der Pastoralthealopie, GOtereloh: 1872; P. Fairbairn, Pastoral Theology, Edinburgh, 1875; W. L6he, Der euanpelische Gieiatliche, 2 vols., Gotereloh, 1878; W. G. T. Shedd, Homiletic& and Pastoral Theology. New York, 1870; T. Murphy. Pastoral Theology: the Pastor in the various Duties of his Office. Philadelphia, 1877; G. T. Bedell, The Pastor, Philadelphia, 1880; J. Amberger, Paatoraltheoloyie, 3 vols., Regensburg, 1883‑86; J. M. Hoppin, Pastoral Theology, New York, 1884 (excellent); W. W. How, Lectures on Pastoral Work, New York, 1884; J. T. Beck, Pastoral Theology of the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1885; W. G. Blaikie, For the Work of the Ministry, London, 1885; C. Harms, Pdatoroitheolopie, 2 vols., Gotha, 1888 (of high value); C. Gore, The Ministry of the Christian Church, London, 1889; H. James, The Country Clergyman and his Work, New York, 1890; E. Blech, Pfarramteideal, Lei~sic, 1891; W. Lefroy, The Christian Ministry, New York, 1891; J. P. Lilley, The Lord's Day and the Lord's Servants: a Contribution to Pastoral Theology, Edinburgh, 1891; F. R. Wynne, Our Sacred Commission, New York, 1891; J. D. Wells, The Pastor in the Sick Room, Philadelphia, 1892; W. Stang, Paatorol Theology, New York, 1897 (Roman Catholic); W. Gladden, Christian Pastor and the Working Church, New York, 1898; B. Riggenbach, Die Chriatliche Gemeindepastorotion nach Schrift and Erfahruny, Basel. 1898; J. St. Wilson, Ministerial Life and Worst, 2 vols., London, 1900‑01; A. W. Williamson, Ideals of Ministry, Edinburgh, 1901; E. A. Knox, Pastors and Teachers, London, 1902; G. H. Gerberding, The Lutheran Pastor, Chicago, 1903; J. F. Lepine, The Ministers of Jesus Christ, 2 vole., London, 1903; H. E. Savage, Pastoral Visitation, London, 1903; H. Cremes, Paetoraltheoiopie, ed. E. Cremes, Stuttgart, 1904; A. Krause, Padoraltheolopie, ed. F. Niebergall, Ttibingen, 1904; C. F. Rogers, Principles of Parish Work, Essays in Pastoral Theology, London, 1905; E. C. Aohelis, Eine Paatoraltheoloyie in Versen. Johann Valentin Andre® (1686‑1664,): Daa puts Leben sines rechtachaffenen Dienera Gottea, aufa neue dargeboten, Marburg, 1908; V. S. S. Coles, Pastoral Work in Country Districts, New York, 1906; F. Schulze, Manual of Pastoral Theology, Milwaukee, 1906; C. L. Goodell, Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, New York, 1907• A. Hardeland, Paatoraltheolapie, Leipaie, 1907; S. Horne, The Ministry of the Modern Church, London, 1907; W. H. Crawford, The Church and as Slum: a Study of English Wesleyan Mission Halls. New York, 1908; J. O. Dykes, The Christian Minister and his Duties, London, 1908; H. Johnson, The Ideal Ministry, London, 1908; A. S. Hoyt, The Preacher. His Person, Message, and Method, London, 1909; R. Q. Joynt, Pastoral Work, New York, 1909; W. Moore Ede, The Clergy and Social Service, New York, 1908; H. H. Henson. The Liberty of Prophesying: with its just Limit and Temper considered with Reference to the Circumstances of the modern Church, New Haven. 1910; J. S. Lidgett, Apostolic Ministry, London, 1910; A. J. Lyman, The Christian Pastor in the New Ape; Comrade, Sponsor, social Mediator, New York, 1910; W. A. Quayle, The Pastor.

Pastoral Theology Patience
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Preacher, Cincinnati, 1910; F. Dorfmann, duspeetaltunp der Paetoraitheoiogie our UniversaLWdieaiplin and ihre Weiterbildung, Vienna, 1910.
PASTORELS (PASTOUREAO%, PASTORELLS): The name given to two singular movements in France in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Into northern France in the year 1251 came a loan called Master Jacob of Hungary, who was skilled in Latin, German, and French, with the gifts of a demagogue but without the talent of a real leader. He affirmed that he was sent of God to lead a new crusade to the Holy Land, the forces to be composed not of knights but of the more lowly. To him the people flocked, especially shepherds (whence the name of the movement; Lat. pastor), to the number of 100,000, divided into fifty companies. He professed to receive visions and visits from angels. At first countenance was given by the noble of the land; even the queen mother, then regent, hoped that Louis IX., who was in capti‑,ity in the East, would be released by these people. But the movement soon assumed a revolutionary or riotous character, attacked Jews, and at length the clergy, by whom the ban was pronounced, and at last came to open blows, and in one of these assaults Jacob lost his life. At first the intention was doubtless genuine to make a crusade; but as the attached masses grew, the social ferment led to the anticlerical issue.
	A similar and like‑named movement took place
two generations later, also connected with the
thought of the crusades. In 1319 Philip V. pro
posed to the pope a crusade, which the pope re
jected as inopportune. But the people took up the
idea, and women and children participated in the
gatherings. Some of the participants were im
prisoned but forcibly released. Revolutionary
movements followed, Jews and even Christians and
churches were attacked. From Paris to Toulouse
and Carcassonne the country was affected, and in
1320 Avignon was threatened. Then the seneschal
of Carcassonne assembled troops, and the move
ment ended with a considerable number of execu
tions. 	(S. M. DE=scllt.)
BiBwoaxAPnY: Sources are the writings of Matthew of Paris and the Continuator Nanpii of William of Nangis. Consult: Bouquet, Rxueil, vole. xc.‑=W.; Milman, Latin Christianity, vi. 57‑‑6S, vii. 64‑85; J. C. L. Sismondi, Hist. lea Frangais, vole. vii., ix., 31 vols., Paris, 1821‑44; and Rbricht, in ZRG, vi. 290‑296.
PATARENES (PATARINI, PATERINI): A reform party at Milan in the eleventh century. Stormy times prevailed at Milan under Archbishop Aribert (1018‑45), resulting in a limitation of the a'rchbishop's power. Upon the death of Henry III. in 1056, disturbances broke out afresh, and at times centered upon ecclesiastical and religious affairs. Arialdo, a Milanese deacon of the Valvassors, took notice of the contradiction between the divine law and the contemporary worldly behavior of the clergy. He was seconded by Landolfo, of the captains' gild, a man of eminent oratorical powers; by the presbyter Aneelm. who ascended the episcopal throne of Lucca in 1057; and by the wealthy mintmaster Nazarius. That the clergy of Milan, in the matters of unchastity and simony, were worse than those of other Italian cities can not be charged;
but the degree of exasperation here was unparalleled in bitterness, and led to an open advocacy of revolution. The property of the refractory clergy wag abandoned to the plunder of the mob; and presently the combined populace, composed mostly of the lowest orders, of paupers, debtors, and artizans, but including some of the middle class as well, rose against the clergy. Landolfo hazarded a riotous disturbance of a divine service conducted by the archbishop himself; the clergy were compelled to bind themselves in writing to live a chaste life; those married were withdrawn from the altars, and their dwellings were stormed. By order of Victor II. a synod was convened at Fontanetum near Novara; but Arialdo and Landolfo were not to be intimidated by the ban imposed upon them. On the contrary, they proceeded to organize their followers. From their opponents they received the designation Pataria: a term probably derived from a quarter in the heart of Milan, where yet in the eighteenth century there was a street occupied by handlers of old clothes (called patarO). Under Stephen IX. this Patarenian movement received a renewed impetus; the decree of Fontanetum was ignored, and by sending Hildebrand (see GREaoRy VII.), the apostolic see openly made known its sympathies. Nicholas II. (q.v.) entrusted a deputation to Milan, in 1059, to Peter Damian and Anselm of Lucca (qq.v.), who humiliated the Milanese church by an unreserved partazanslup with the Patarenes. On the death of Landolfo Erlembaldo took his place. Under his leadership the Patarenian forces obtained accessions from the upper classes; and they renewed their attack upon the married and simoniacal clergy and their worship. They were supported by the authority of Rome, and well might Erlembaldo regard himself as the agent of Rome, since Alexander II. had commissioned him with the power of excommunication as the champion of the Church. The open conflict between the Patarenes and their opponents broke out in 1066. The Patarenian rabble ill‑treated Archbishop Guido in the cathedral, and then stormed the archiepiscopal palace. These violent excesses led to a powerful reaction on the part of the other citizens. Archbishop Guido was enabled to proclaim an interdict upon the city and forced Arialdo to retreat. Soon afterward, the latter was assassinated, but in the following year (1067) Erlembaldo had rallied his faction by means of new sworn pledges, so that he could resume the riotous activities. When Archbishop Guido abdicated, the Patarenes, pursuant to Hildebrand's counsel, extended their reform to abolishing the royal investiture. When Godfrey, the successor of Guido, had returned from Germany with an investiture from Henry IV., he found it impossible to enter upon his office. Erlembaldo was emboldened, in the presence of a Roman legate, to direct the election, in 1072, of a young cleric of Milan, Atto by name, as archbishop. But Henry IV., refusing assent, procured the consecration of Godfrey at Novara. Gregory VII., friend and adviser of the Patarenes, at the beginning of his pontificate gave promise of a pacific understanding with the king with reference to the diocesan strife at Milan; this did not, however, jeopardize Gregory's relations with Erlembuldo.

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Pastoral Thsoloty Patience
The latter's despotism eventually became insufferable; insomuch that an opposition league was formed, whose members pledged themselves to recognise as archbishop the king's nominee. Erlembaldo lost his life in the first clash with these Anti‑Patarenes, shortly after Easter, 1075. This was the end of the Patarenea as a party, though Giegory, in 1076, made some attempts to revive it.
	The history of the Patarenea, covering a period
of only twenty years, had a significance which was
political as well as ecclesiastical. On the whole, it
represented the great reform movement in the
Church which arose about the middle of the eleventh
century, the triumph of which in Italy became its
reward. It furthermore subjected the archbishopric
of St. Ambrose to the authority of the pope and
thereby gained Lombardy for his jurisdiction.
Finally, it played an important preparatory part
in the mighty conflict between the papacy and the
German empire, by terminating the archiepiscopal
r8gime in Milan; and by bringing about the mutual
recognition of the antagonistic classes engaged in
the church struggles at Milan, it promoted the unity
and autonomy of the Church democratic. At a
later time the term Patarenes occurred among the
many designations for the Catharist heretics (see
Naw MANICHxANa, IL); but this does not estab
lish an inherent affinity with the old Patarenea, as
the original name had rapidly faded into a common
sneering epithet. 	CAxI. Mixsm.
Btaraoaasrar: Sources are: Arnulf'e Gasta mchiepiecopxum Mediolanenaium, in MGH, Script., viii (1848), 1 eqq.; Landulf a Hid. Mediolanenais, in the same, pp. 32 eqq.; Andrews. Vita Arialdi, in MPL, crliii. 1437 eqq.; Boniao. Liber ad amicum, in MGH, Lib. de life, i (1891), 588 sqq. Consult: C. $egel. Geachrochta der Stttdtverlaaaun7 von Ital%en, ii. 140 eqq., Leipsic. 1847; Pasch, Die Pataria in Mailand, 1066‑77, Sondernhausen, 1872; A. $riSger, Die Pataria in Mailand, Breslau. 1873‑74; W. Wicherkiewics, Die i,‑irchlicha Stelluny der ErrbiachiiJe von Mailand cur Zeit der Patarsa. Breslau. 1875; G. Meyer von Knonau. JahrSiicher den deutachen Reicha enter Heinrirh IV., i. 8(39 eqq., Leipsic, 1890; C. Mirbt, Die Pubtisietilc Cm Zeitalter Gregora VIl., pp. 244 eqq.. 284‑285, 447 aqq., ib. 1894; W. Martens, Gregor Vll., ib. 1894; F. Gregorovius. Hint. of as City of Rome, iv. 128, London, 1898; Hefele, Concilienpeaehichte, vole., iv.‑v.; Schaff, Christian Church, v.. 1, pp. 2()‑21; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 393, iv. 99, 225, 226, 585, 592; and the literature on the popes contemporary with the movement.
PATEN. See VESSELS, SACRED, 12.
PATER‑ROSTER. See Loxn's Pnerais.
PATERSON, JAMES ALEXANDER: United Free Church of Scotland; b. at Daliy (22 m. w. of Dum‑
fries), Kirkcudbrightshire, June 20, 1851. He was educated at the University of Aberdeen and Pembroke College, Oxford (B.A., 1876; M.A., 1879); was professor of Hebrew and Old‑Testament literature in the United Presbyterian College, Edinburgh (1876‑1900); and since 1900 has been professor of the same subject in the United Free Church College,
Edinburgh. In theology he is an Evangelical Presbyterian. He has written Period of the Judges (Edinburgh, 1887); edited Leviticus for The
Temple Bible and Numbers for The Polychrome Bible; A. B. Davidson's Biblical and Literary F,eaays (London, 1902); The Called of God (Edinburgh, 1902); and Waiting upon God (1903); and Old Testament Prophecy (1903), and translated H. Schultz's Alt•
teatamentt3che Titeotogie (2 vole., Frankfort, 1889) under the title of Old Testament Theology (2 vole., Edinburgh, 1892).
PATERSON, WILLIAM PATERSON: Church of Scotland; b. at Skirling (Ili m, w, of Peebles), Peebleashire, Oct. 25, 18H0. He was educated at the University of Edinburgh (B.D., 1883) and the universities of Leipaic, Erlangen, and Berlin (18831885); was minister at Crieff, Perthshire (1887‑94), and was appointed professor of systematic theology in the University of Aberdeen (1894). Since 1903 he has been professor of divinity is the University of Edinburgh, and was Baird lecturer in 1904‑05. He has written The Position and Prospects of Theology (Edinburgh, 1903) and The Pauline Theology (1903).
PATHRUSIM. See TABLE or Tim NATIONS, 12.
PATIENCE: Firm and conscientious resistance to forces which operate in opposition to personal conviction. It must be an act, not merely a state, and it must also be conscious of actual endurance, not merely self‑assertion. To the Christian, patience is the nadir of his spiritual life, in which he indeed clings to God, yet does not feel the assurance that God is near him. When Paul declares (Rom. v. 4) that hope first springs from tested patience, he means that the solace of hope fails the Christian in the moment of patience, and experiences can come to the Christian in which his only feeling is pain. Yet even though no such vicissitudes ever befell him, nevertheless his spiritual development would often bring him into circumstances in which he would feel that he was the conquered instead of the conqueror, for in all cases duty transcends human power. Here no vague abstract concept of the good can be his guide, nor can mere duty be other than external and foreign to his life. Nothing but a personal suthority'can save him in his moments of disavowal of self and he is able to comprehend this authority and accept the aid and encouragement which it brings only when he himself recognizes what is good. Voluntary endurance under such circumstance'‑ is patience.
It is easy to fail to recognize, however, that this patience of self‑denial consists solely in the will to follow another, or is obedience; for good deeds are performed only as a result of personal conviction. Moral acts are, therefore, frequently explained as proceeding from individual thought, thus leading to the abandonment of the concept of self‑denial. The truths involved in this view may indeed be retained in Christian ethics, yet they must be combined with recognition of the fact that the moral relation is a spiritual growth, and therefore implies self‑denial and patience. This implies also obedience, which does not exclude freedom if the example followed be worthy of being obeyed, since the obedience involves the conviction that the Christian life is rendered stronger and richer by experience of pain. The basal principle that moral good implies independence can not exclude recognition of the fact that moral gronrth is possible only when the individual is made patient through obedience, and that what he could not and would not take upon himself is endured in patience.

Paton	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	$82
Patriarch
	So long as the Christian in his faith in God is able
to look through his sufferings to the love of God, he
has no room for patience. One is patient when in
the darker events of life he does not lose self‑mastery
but remains firm and ready in the purpose that he
must obey God. Such obedience is the last remnant
of trust in God. While this patience is not the joy
which puts an end to suffering, it is the path which
leads to it, and the future offers a hope which finds
its justification in the fact that Christ in his death is
evident to the Christian as a visible manifestation
of the love of God (cf. Rom. v. 5,8). Christian
patience thus becomes the strength of faith, al
though the Christian himself feels it to be the weak
ness of faith. Christian patience is, however, not
a mere test of faith, but is the inner process whereby
personality is developed beyond what it was, and
the believer experiences its full meaning only when
he subjects himself in silent patient obedience to a
higher power, which must be personal, and not an
institution of any kind.	(W. HEHR.MANN.)
	PATON, JOHN BROWN: English Congregation
alist; b. at Loudon, Ayrshire, Scotland, Dec. 17,
1830. He was educated at Spring Hill College,
Birmingham (B.A., London University, 1849; M.A.,
1854); was minister of Wicker Church, Sheffield
(1854‑63), and from 1863 until his retirement in
1897 as principal emeritus was principal of the
Congregational Institute for Theological and Mis
sionary Studies, Nottingham. He was one of the
founders of the University Extension system, and
established the Bible Reading and Prayer Union in
1892, the Boys' and Girls' Life Brigades in 1900, and
the Young Men's and Young Women's Brigade of
Service in 1904. He has been vice‑president of the
British Institute of Social Service since 1904, and has
taken a prominent part in educational, charitable,
and non‑conformist religious work. Besides his
work as joint editor of The Eclectic Review (1858‑61)
and associate editor of The Contemporary Review
(1882‑88), his writings include Evangelization of
Town and Country (London, 1861); The Origin of
the Priesthood in the Church (1875); Supernatural
Religion: A Criticism (1878); The Inner Mission of
Germany, and its Lessons to Us (1885); The Twofold
Alternative‑Materialism or Religion: the Church,
a Priesthood or a Brotherhood (1885); Contemporary
Controversies on the Doctrine of the Church and the
Relations of Church aced State (1886); The Inner
Mission (four addresses; 1888); The Inner Mission
of Great Britain (1896); and Collected Essays (2
vols., 1907.)
BIBmeoBAPBr: J. Marchant, J. B. Paton, Educational and
	Social Pioneer, London, 1909.
	PATON, JOHN GIBSON: Presbyterian missionary;
b. at Kirkmahoe (9 m. n. of Dumfries), Scotland,
May 24 1824; d. at Canterbury, Victoria, Australia,
Jan. 28, 1907. He was educated at the University
of Glasgow, the divinity hall of the Reformed Presby
terian Church, and the Andersonian medical uni
versity, all in Glasgow, where he was a city mission
ary from 1847 till 1857. He was licensed Dec. 1,
1857, and ordained a missionary to the New Heb
rides Mar. 23, 1858, and left Glasgow with his wife
Mary Ann Robson on April 16. At Melbourne they
transhipped to Aneityum where they landed Aug. 30. He began his labors on the island of Tanna Nov. 5, 1858. There, on Feb. 12, 1859, his wife died in child‑bed, and her infant son, March 20. The natives proved to be intractable and he was finally driven away by their savage attacks on Feb. 4, 1862. He then began those tours in behalf of New Hebrides mission work which were ultimately to make him known throughout all the English‑speaking world. He went first to the Presbyterian churches of Australia and New Zealand. In 1864 he visited Scotland, was elected moderator of the General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, secured seven missionaries for the New Hebrides, and returned with his second wife, Margaret Whitecross. He landed in Sydney Jan. 17, 1865, made ahother tour of the churches, and visited the New Hebrides. In Nov., 1866, he became a missionary on one of the islands, Aniwa. He held his first communion there Oct. 24, 1869, and ultimately saw all the natives nominal Christians. In March, 1873, he visited the Australasian colonies to raise money; returned to Aniwa the next year, but in 1883 laid before the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria the necessities of the New Hebrides mission and was sent by it in 1884 to Great Britain to raise the money. He returned with the funds desired early the next year, visited Aniwa, but then took up his missionary tours again through Australasia between 1886 (when he was elected moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria) and 1892, then through the United States and Canada,, and so around the world, returning to Victoria in 1894. In 1897 he was in Melbourne carrying through the press the New Testament in the Aniwan language. In 1899 he was in Aniwa. In 1900 he attended the Ecumenical Missionary Conference in New York City, and was hailed as a great missionary hero. In 1901 he was back in Australia. His health had begun to fail, his wife was also ailing, and on May 16, 1905, she died. In 1904 he issued his translation into Aniwan of the Acts of the Apostles, and began proof‑reading on that of Genesis. He was a man of picturesque appearance and bore his testimony with great power.
He described himself as theologically " a Presbyterian Evangelical Calvinist of the old Covenanter Reformed Church of Scotland." He wrote many pamphlets on missionary topics, and also to expose the evils of the Kanaka labor traffic, as well as opposing the French annexation of the New Hebrides in favor of British occupation. But the book which made him famous was his autobiography, whose sale was enormous on the strength of his perils on Tanna and Aniwa. The book owed much to the literary skill of his brother, Rev. James Paton, D.D. (who died in Glasgow Dec. 21, 1906), and appeared in three parts, John G. Paton, missionary to the New Hebrides. An Autobiography. Edited by his Brother (New York, 1st part, 1889, second part 1890; parts three and four, carrying the story from 1885 till his death, appeared bound up with the other parts, 1907).

IhBuomspax: Besides the Autobiography, consult Harriet B. Genung, J. G. Paton, Missionary to the Martyr Islands,
Boston, 1907.

883	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	PPaton dh
PATON, LEWIS BAYLES: Congregationalist Biblical scholar; b. at New York City June 27, 1884. He was educated at Parsons College, Fairfield, Ia., New York University (A.B., 1884), Princeton Theological Seminary (1890), and the universities of Berlin (1890‑92) and Marburg (Ph.D.,1897). Since 1892 he has been connected with Hartford Theological Seminary, where he has been instructor in OldTestament exegesis (1892‑93), associate professor (1893‑97), and Nettleton professor of Old‑Testament exegesis and criticism (since 1897). He was also director of the American School of Archeology at Jerusalem in 1902‑X14. In theology he belongs to the critical evangelical school. He has written The Early History of Syria and Palestine (New York, 1902); Jerusalem in Bible Times (Chicago, 1908); and Esther, the latter for the International Critical Commentary (New York, 1908); and has edited Recent Christian Progress; Studies in Christian Thought and Work during the last Seventy‑five Years (1909).

PATRIARCH: A title applied in the early Church to the chief bishops, having jurisdiction over metropolitans. The name occurs in the fourth century as applied to ordinary bishops; but by degrees, as the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem gained more importance and stood at the head of large ecclesiastical provinces, it was used specifically of them. The development of the constitution of the Church involved in the creation of the patriarchates followed the analogy of the political subdivisions of the Empire. From the time of Diocletian (284‑305) and Constantine (306337) this was divided into four prefectures, and these again into a number of dioceses, which in their turn were composed of provinces or eparchies. Thus the prefecture of the East comprised the dioceses of " the East " (Oriem), Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, whose capitals were Antioch, Ephesus, Cvsarea, Cappadocia, and Heraclea. The districts of the metropolitans corresponded to the provinces, as those of bishops to the less important city districts; but ecclesiastical divisions corresponding to civil dioceses did not then exist. Early in the process of development there is evidence of efforts on the part of the metropolitans of prominent cities to extend their jurisdiction more widely and to obtain an influence over several metropolitan districts. This goal was attained by Alexandria at the beginning of the fourth century, as is recognized by the famous sixth canon of the Council of Niewa. The wording of the canon is not altogether clear; but it is evident from the history of the Meletian Schism (see MzLETlus of ANTIOCH AND THE MELEmAN SCHISM) that the following rights were claimed by the bishop of Alexandria: ‑ to issue binding regulations in questions of discipline; to hold synods representing the metropolitan districts united with him; in conjunotion with such synods, to judge the bishops of the district; and in the case of a vacancy to administer the vacant diocese. Similar conditions arose by degrees at Rome and probably at Antioch. To argue back from the later system, it would seem probable that the power of the patriarch of Antioch was less than that of the patriarch of Alexandria to the extent
that he ordained the metropolitans only, and not also the bishops. The extension of the influence of the metropolitans of great cities over neighboring metropolitans, corresponding to the civil diocesan division, is the beginning of the patriarchal organization, the impetus to which may have been the example of the secular government, but doubtless the ambition of the bishops of the metropolises had its effects. The West was not affected by the process, owing to the predominant position of Rome and its claims to the primacy; but in the East the process was completed by the time of the Council of Constantinople in 381. Its second canon contemplates the recognition of five great divisions in the East: Egypt, " the East " (Oriena), Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. The provision against the overstepping of these boundaries can have been directed only against encroachments on the part of Alexandria and Antioch, which were thus strictly limited to Egypt and to " the East." That this took place in the interest of Constantinople is shown by the third canon. Constantinople had supplanted Heraclea as the head of the Thracian dims, nor was it long in absorbing the powers of Ephesus and Cwsarea in Cappadocia, which were unable to maintain themselves on an equal footing with the others. The result of this process received canonical sanction at the Council of Chalcxdon (451). This reduced the five eastern patriarchates to three; but another was added in Jerusalem, which had a certain honorary precedence as early as the Council of Nicaea (325), though with express reservation of the rights of the metropolitans of Caaxea in Palestine. At the Council of Ephesus (431) an attempt was made to render Jerusalem independent of the diocese of " the East "; this was unsuccessful, until, with the aid of the Emperor Theodosius II., Palestine, Phenicia, and Arabia were severed from the rest of this division and made subject to the see of Jerusalem. Antioch protesting, Phenicia and Arabia were to remain with Antioch and the three eparchies of Palestine fell to Jerusalem; and this was confirmed at Chalcedon. The same council also gave Constantinople a concurrent jurisdiction on appeal, at the choice of the appellant, with the patriarchal see to which he might be immediately subject, thus rendering it virtually an archpatriarchate.
	In the time of the Council of Chalcedon, patriarchs
were known yet as eparchs, which term was also
used as yet by the metropolitan of Sardica. When
afterward the term patriarch became affixed to the
titles of the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem, eparch remained for the
bishops of Ephesus and Caesarea; but their power
was not essentially different from that of metro
politans. In the West the title patriarch was borne
by the bishops of Aquileia and Grado until 1451,
when the patriarchate of Grade was transferred to
Venice, and that of Aquileia was abolished. Later
the title was given to the bishops of Lisbon and Goa,
but was merely honorary. 	(A. HAVcx.)

BIHLIOaasrar: Bingham, Oripiwee, I1 , ii. 1 9, avii (praetfasUy complete); J. 0. W. Augme, Denkwardipkeitm, xi. 148 sqq. Leipsio 1880• $ Labeok ReicAeeinWsnp
and kinhHche Hierarchis des Orients. Mamter, 1901; and the works an socaamss" law (%irchsnrwht) by P. Kinsohiue, i. 688 sqq., Berlin, 19%; E. L bninq, i. 424 pq„

Patriarchs
Patristic s	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	884
Strasburg, 1878; R.. Bohm, i. 400 sqq., Leipsic, 1892; and
E. Friedberg, p. 30, ib. 1903; and the literature under
EASTaarr Comics.
PATRIARCHS, TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE. See PsEUDEPIGRAPHA.

PATRICIAIYL See SYMMACHuN6.

PATRICK, SAINT: The traditional apostle of Ireland. So great is the mass of legend connected with his name that some have been led to question his existence. In earlier times two Patricks were assumed, "the older" (Sin Patrick) and "the apostle." Most investigators now try to distinguish between a historical and a legendary Patrick. For such an attempt by Heinrich Zimmer see CErmic CHURCH, I., 2. What is attempted here is merely to supplement what is there said by indicating the difficulty of the problem, and noting some views which are at variance with those of Professor Zimmer.
The contemporary sources for Patrick are: (1) his own writings, of which the Confessio and the Fpistolaad Coroticum (more properly "Letter concerning Corotieus or to his Christian subject") are conceded to be genuine; unfortunately existing copies of both are not free from suspicion of having been tampered with. The hymn (in Irish), called the Feed Fiada (" Deer's Cry ") and the Lorica (" Breastplate "), is more doubtful; it gives no facts, but has value for its indications of doctrine. (2) The Hymn of Secundinus (Sechnall) is valuable only for its description of Patrick as a religious teacher by one who had personal knowledge. The later sources include (1) the so‑called Lives, all containing more or less of the legendary, marvelous, and fictitious. They begin with the memoirby Muirchu Maccu‑Maehtheni and the collections of Tirechan in the seventh century and culminate in the life by Jocelin in the twelfth. The so‑called Tripartite Life (eleventh century) is the most complete and perhaps the most trustworthy. (2) Chronicles, hymns, scholia, prefaces, and the like, all late and untrustworthy.
It is impossible to fix dates for Patrick. Most writers, accepting Prosper's statement about Palladius (Chronicon, an. 431) and assuming that Patrick followed Palladius and was ordained by Pope Celestine I. (d. 432), put his mission in 432. Whitley Stokes advocates c. 397; Olden thinks that Patrick preceded Palladius and is inclined, with Mllen, to accept 405, the date given by Nennius. Todd gives 440. Nicholson tried to show that Patrick belonged to the third century. His birth is variously placed in 372 (Ussher, Tillemont, Petrie); c. 373 (Stokes, Olden); 378 (the Bollandists); 387 (Lanigan). The year of his death is given as 455 (Tillemont); 460 (the Bollandists); c. 463 (Stokes, Olden); 464 (Nennius); 465 (Lanigan, Killen); 492 or 493 (Ussher, Petrie, Todd, following the most common tradition). The opening sentence of the Confessio appears to state that when he was sixteen his father owned an estate at "Bannavem Tabernise." But the passage is not clear, may be corrupt, and does not in any case give the birthplace. " Bannavem Tabernim " should probably be emended to read Bannaroenta Britanniee (cf. The Academy, May 11, 1895, pp. 402‑403). Bannaventa was in Northamptonshire near Daventry. Attempts to locate
" Bannavem Taberniee " placed it in Gaul (Boulogne?) and at Ailclyde (Dumbarton), Scotland.
Patrick's own writings are silent concerning the period in his life between his escape from captivity in Ireland and his reappearance there as missionary. Olden thinks that the pirates who helped him to escape took him to Gaul and that his wanderings or residence in that country begin at this time. He is said to have studied with Germanus at Auxerre and with Martin at Tours. But he can not have studied with both, and his bad Latin, his ignorance of the doctrine and practise of the Roman Church, and his lack of knowledge of the Vulgate make it hard to believe that he studied with either. Some deny that he went to Rome. His own writings do not intimate that he was ever there, it is thought improbable that a Briton of his time would be drawn thither, while a visit and ordination at Rome, if lacking, would be an inevitable invention of later times. Perhaps he was ordained in Gaul (by Amator of Auxerre? d. 418) and assumed the title Patricius then. Canon Bright conjectures that he was consecrated in his native country. Whitley Stokes thinks that he began his work in Ireland, labored for thirty years with but little success, and then, attributing his failure to the lack of Roman authority, started for the capital; on the way he spent some time at Auxerre and was there when the death of Palladius became known; whereupon Germanus at once sent him back to Ireland well provided with assistants and funds.
Concerning his work in Ireland there are only late accounts, exaggerated and full of the marvelous. He is said to have settled first in the present County Down, to have converted all Ulster, and then to have proceeded westward to Mayo. Daire, a local chieftain, allowed him to build a church on the hill of Macha (Ardmacha, Armagh) and there the seat of the primacy was established. It seems quite certain that he did not visit a large part of the south. A visit to Tara at the Easter following his arrival is recorded and the conversion of the king, Laeghaire, is described with embellishments. His burial place is given as Saul, Armagh, Downpatrick, and Glastonbury. It was probably Armagh, where his bell, his crosier, and his New Testament were long preserved. The crosier was burnt at the time of the Reformation. The bell and the New Testament (or a copy of it) are now in Dublin. He was never canonized at Rome and passes as a saint merely by popular usage.
BmLiodRAPHY: Patrick's writings, genuine and spurious, with the hymn of Secundinus, are in MPL, liii. 789‑840; the genuine works, with the more important sources and a valuable introduction and notes, may be found in The Tripartite Life of Patrick, with Other Documents Relating to that Saint, ed. with translations of the Irish, by Whitley Stokes, in Rolls Series, no. 89, 2 vols., London, 1887 (cf. pp. cxxix.‑cxliii. for Stokes' attempt to construct the " Personal History of Patrick"); the genuine writings, the hymn of Secundinus, and canons attributed to Patrick are also in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, ii. 2, pp. 296338; Eng. trans1s. are by C. H. H. Wright in Christian Classics Series, vol. vi., London, 1895, new ed., 1909, and T. Olden, Dublin, 1895; seven of the Lives were collected by J. Colgan in his Trial thaumaturga, Louvain, 1647• the Confesaio, the Epietola, and the life by Jocelin, with a commentary and appendix, are in ASB, Mar., ft. 517592; Jocelin's life was translated by E. L. Swift, Dublin, 1809; reprinted with translations of the Confession

386	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	fatriarche
		striation
	and Letter, Fisch's hymn, and the Tripartite Life by W. M
	Hennessy in The Most Ancient Lives of St. Patrick by J.
	O'Leary, New York, 1874; the life by Muirchu Maccu
	Machtheni and the collections of Tirechan have been edited
	from a Brussels manuscript by E. Hogan, S. J., in Docu
	menta de S. Patricio, 2 parts, Brussels, 1884‑‑89, reprinted
	from Analeda Bollandiana, i. 531‑585, ii. 35‑88; Muirchu's
	life has‑been translated and edited by A. Barry, Dublin,
	1895; of modern lives the one most often quoted is by
	J. H. Todd, Dublin, 1864; others are by R. S. Nicholson,
	ib. 1868; Miss M. F. Cusack, London, 1871; R. Gradwell,
	Life and Times, Preston, 1886; idem. Succat, London,
	1891; W. B. Morris, London, 1890; E. J. Newell, ib. 1890;
	J. B. Bury, Dublin, 1905; J. Healy, Dublin, 1905; and
	sketches in W. Walker, Greatest Men of the Christian
	Church, Chicago, 1908; and by G. F. Maelear, in Apostles
of Medinnval Europe, pp. 29‑40, London, 1888.
	For criticism and various views consult G. Petrie, On
	the History and Antiquities of Tara Hill, in the Transac
	tions of the Royal Irish Academy, xviii (1839), Antiquities,
	pp. 25‑232; Sir S. Ferguson, On the Patrician Documents,
	ib., xxvii (Des., 1885), Antiquities, pp. 67‑134; Lanigan,
	Eccl. Hid., chaps. ii.‑vii.; C. J. Greith, Geachichte der alt
	irischen %irche, pp. 95 sqq., Freiburg, 1867; A. P. Forbes,
	%alandare of Scottish Saints, pp. 431‑434, Edinburgh,
	1872; W. D. Killen, The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland,
	vol. i., chap. i., London, 1875; W. F. Skene, Celtic Scot
	land, vol. ii., chap. i., Edinburgh, 1877; J. F. Shearman,
	Lora Patricians, an Identification of Localities chiefly in
	Leinster visited by St. Patrick, Dublin, 1882; B. Robert,
	Etude cmiqus cur la vie et l'atuvre de Saint Patrice, Paris,
	1883; A. Bellesheim, Geschichte der katholischen %irche in
	Irland, pp. 1‑68, Mains, 1890; T. Olden, The Church of
	Ireland, chap. ii. and app. A., London, 1892; W. Bright,
	The Roman See in the Early Church, pp. 367‑385, London,
	1896. Consult also the literature under CELTIC CHUacH
IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
PATRICK, JOHN:	Church of Scotland; b. at
	Lochwinnoch (15 m. s.w. of Glasgow), Renfrewsbire,
Sept. 15, 1850.	He was educated at the universities
	of Glasgow (M.A., 1875), Edinburgh (B.D., 1877),
	and Heidelberg, after which he was minister of
	High Church, Kilmarnock (1877‑80), Monkton
	and Prestwick Parish (1880‑87), and Greenside
Parish, Edinburgh (1887‑98).	Since 1898 he has
	been regius professor of Biblical criticism and Bib
	lical antiquities in the University of Edinburgh,
	dean of the faculty of divinity since 1899, and Croall
	lecturer in 1899‑1900. He served also as examiner
	for the degree of B.D. in Edinburgh University
	(1880‑83); convener of the Education Committee of
	the Church of Scotland (1894‑1905); and convener
	of the education committee of the Heriot trust
(1898‑1905).	In theology he is a liberal conserv
	ative. He has translated Origen's apology in reply
	to Celsus (Edinburgh, 1892) and part of the same
	writer's commentary on Matthew (1897), and has
	written The Conservative Reaction in New Testa
ment Criticism (1898).
	PATRICK, SIMON: English bishop and com
	mentator, usually classed among the Cambridge
	Platonists (q.v.); b. at Gainsborough (16 m. n.w.
	of Lincoln) Sept. 8, 1626; d. at Ely May 31, 1707.
	He was educated at Queen's College, Cambridge,
	where he came under the influence of John Smixh,
	the Platonist leader. Though not closely connected
	with the work of this school, he was much interested
	in their views, and defended them in his Brief Ac
	count of the New Sect of Latitudinarians (London,
	1662). He was for a time a Presbyterian minister,
	but took orders in the Church of England in 1654.
	He was made prebendary of Westminster in 1672,
	dean of Peterborough in 1679, Bishop of Chichester
VIII. 25
in 1869. He was a voluminous author, producing fifty‑one works, and is best known as a commentator. His commentary on the Old Testament down to the Song of Solomon (10 vols., London, 1695‑1710) was very popular for a hundred and fifty years, and was combined with the contemporary work of William Lowth on the Prophets, Richard Arnold on the Apocrypha, Daniel Whitby on all the New Testament except the Apocalypse, and Moses Lowman on that book to make a complete commentary (London, 1809; many subsequent editions). He was one of the five original founders of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. His Autobiography was published at Oxford in 1839, and complete works were edited by Alexander Taylor (9 voLs., Oxford, 1858).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the Autobiography, ut sup., and the literature under CAMBRIDGE PLATONISTS, Consult: The Memoir of Bishop Patrick by T. Chamberlayne, in the latter's ed. of Patrick's noteworthy Parable of the Pilgrim, London, 1839; J. Hunt. Mist. of Religious Thought in England, 3 vols., ib. 1871‑73; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, vol. ii., passim, ib. 1897; W. H. Hutton, The English Church 1826‑1714, ib. 1903; DNB, xliv. 45‑47.
PATRIPASSIANS. See CHRISTOLOaY, II., § § 1, 2; MONARCHIANIBM.
PATRISTICS, PATROLOGY.
Early Attempts at Treatment (§ 1). Medieval and Lutheran Work (§ 2). Roman Catholic Labors (§ 3). Nineteenth‑Century Work (§ 4). Conceptions of Patristics and Petrology (§ b) Scope of the Department (§ 6). Methodology (§ 7).
[Patristics and Patrology are the names of that department of theology which gives instruction concerning the lives, writings, and theological doctrines of the Church Fathers, and all else which has a direct bearing upon the study of the Church Fathers. If a distinction is to be made between the two names, then patrology concerns the external history, lives, etc., of the Fathers; patristics, their doctrinal teachings.]
Among the subjects treated in his " Ecclesiastical History " Eusebius included a report of writers who bore testimony to the Scriptures, and he thus laid the foundation upon which later authors built. But the first to conceive and carry through a history of Christian literature was Jerome with
r. Early his De viris idlustribus (best editions by Attempts at C. A. Bernoulli, Freiburg, 1895, and Treatment. E. C. Richardson, Leipsic, 1896; Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 359‑384), at the suggestion of the prefect Prmtorius Dexter, 392, revised the same year. Jerome had in mind to do for Christian teachers and authors what Suetonius had done for other notables of antiquity, and at the same time to show, against Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, that among the Christians also there were noted scholars. He included in his list 135 writers, including three Jews (Philo, Josephus, and Justus of Tiberias), and heretics and schismatics; but he was very closely dependent upon the work of Eusebius mentioned above and his Chronicon. Even though the scientific value of Jerome's work is not high, he was the first to blaze the path in this direction. But he found numerous continuators,

Batristioe	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	388
such as Gennadius of Marseilles, Isidor of Seville, and Ildephonsus of Toledo (qq.v.). In the Middle Ages there were lacking for independent study of this character both sources and helps and the historical interest. While patristic works were then copied, excerpted, worked into exegetical Catenae (q.v.), or collected into dogmatic " Sentences," knowledge of the Greek Fathers, particularly, remained limited, and the methods employed were uncritical. As a learned collection of notices, however, the Bibliotheca of Photius (q.v.) is inestimable, gathering as it does from 280 heathen and Christian authors. Outside of this, histories of literatures in the East were wanting; but in the West Jerome found imitators and continuators throughout the Middle Ages: Honorius of Autun (q.v.)' wrote De luminaribus ecclesice, the limits being the apostles and Anselm of Canterbury; Sigebert of Gembloux (q.v.), who in his Scriptores eccdesiastici covered the period from the apostles to his own time; the so‑called Anonymus Mellicensis, who wrote about 1135 a De scriptori.bus ecclesiaaticis; the anonymous author of De viris illu8tribus; and Johannes Heidenberg (d. 1516), who wrote a Lzber de acriptordbus eeclesiasticis (ed. princeps, Cologne, 1494), which showed diligent if uncritical use of sources, beginning with Clement of Rome and ending with the year 1492.
The last century of the Middle Ages saw the necessity of going behind ecclesiastical and scholastic tradition to the purer sources of Christian knowledge in Scripture and the Fathers. Gerson was a leader in this direction. But especially in‑
s. Medieval fluential was the Humanistic moveand Luther‑ ment of the fifteenth century, which
	an Work.	awakened historical and critical in
		terest, while the art of printing con
tributed no little. Patristic writings were discovered
and edited, at first the Latin Fathers, then the
Greek. Learned Humanists and theologians (Eras
mus, G;colampadius, Beatus Rhenanus) and printers
(the Stephens) applied themselves to the work. The
Reformation also helped through its opposition to
scholasticism and traditionalism, but used its pow
ers in an apologetic or polenuc fashion (CEcolam
padius and Melanchthon). Evangelical theologians
of the second half of the sixteenth century were
known for patristic learning (Matthias Flaccius,
q.v.; Michael Neander, d. 1595; Martin Chemnitz,
q.v.; Johannes Schopf, d. 1621; and Abraham
Scultetus, d. 1624), and left works upon the subject.
Lutheran workers in this field in the seventeenth
century, who followed the old " Nomenclators,"
were Johann Gerhard (q.v.), who began with Her
mss and closed with Bellarmin; Johann Hillsemann,
with Patrologia (ed. J. A. Schemer, Leipsic, 1670);
Johann Christoph Meelflihrer, with a Corona patrum;
Johann Gottfried Olearius, with Abacus patrologicus
(Jena, 1673).
Meanwhile the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in its monastic orders, was stimulated to work in this field, especially the Benedictine congregation of St. Maur (see SAINT MAUR, CONGREGATION OF), which has gained deservedly high reputation for its work, as for example in the as yet unsurpassed edition of Augustine. Individual laborers from this order were Jean Luc d'Achery (q.v.), Jacques du'
Frische (d. 1693), Jean Mabillon Thierry Ruinart, RenS Massuet (qq.v.), A. A. Toutt6e (d. 1719), Jean Martianay (q.v.), Pierre Constant (d. 1721),
Denis N. Le Nourry (d. 1724), Denis
3. Roman de Sainte‑Merthe (d. 1725), Julien Catholic Garnier (q.v.), Charles de la Rue (d. Labors. 1739), Bernard de Montfaucon and Prudence Maran (qq.v.), and Charles Clemenoet (d. 1778). From the Jesuits were Fronton du Due (q.v.), Jakob Gretser (d. 1625), Jan Bolland (see BoLLANn, JAN, AND The BoLLANnisTs). Still others were Jean Garnier (d. 1681), Franpois Combefis, Johannes Baptists Cotelerius, and ttienne Baluze (qq.v.). Especially characteristic of this period were the collections, such as that of Marguerin de la Bigne (q.v.) and the great Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum (27 vols., Lyons, 1575‑79), and notably that of Andrea Gallandi (Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque scriptorum (14 vols., Venice, 1765,81). There is also the gigantic work, theActa sanctorum (see ACTA MARTPRUM, AGTA SANCTORUM) ; and not to be forgotten are the labors of the Assemani (q.v.) in the Bibliotheca orientalis, dealing with eastern literature. There were also original investigations and treatises such as those by Bellarmine (q.v.), Louis Ellies Du Pin (qq.v.) in Nouvelle BibliotUque (58 vols., Pa,ris,'1686‑1704), a work in which critical processes are applied to the material as a whole and in its particulars with a certainty which deserves recognition. The work displays both great diligence and a regard for subjects which one would not expect a history of literature to cover, such as the history of councils. On the ecclesiastical side the free position of Du Pin, especially in matters of dogma, proved a shock; Bossuet tried in vain to have the Sorbonne censure his work, but the archbishop of Paris was convinced of the personal orthodoxy of the author. The first five volumes were placed on the Index July 1, 1693, and the decree was extended to the entire work by the decree of May 10, 1757. The work was attacked by the Benedictines, in whose interest Matthieu Petit‑Didier issued his Remarques sur la Bibliothisque . . . des Monsieur Du Pin (3 vols., Paris, 1691‑96), while, from the remains of Richard Simon, Souciet published a sharp Critique de la Bibliothi!que . . . (4 vols., 1730). Meanwhile Remy Ceillier had published the eleventh volume of his Hiatoire g&t4rrale des auteurs sacres (23 vols., Paris, 1729‑63, new ed., 16 vols., 185"9), the subtitle of which imitates the title of Du Pin's work, while the work in its entire tendency is opposed to the undertaking of Du Pin, though not without recognition of the conceded value of the same. The Benedictine Denis Nicolas Le Nourry (q.v.) produced his Apparatus ad bibliothecam maximam patrum veterum (2 vols.,1604‑97). The Jansenist Le Nain de Tillemont issued his MEmoires de l'histoire ecdlMiastique (16 vols., Paris, 1693‑1712), a work the rich excursuses of which make it still a mine of wealth. The Benedictine Daniel Schram (d. 1797) carried as far as Ambrose and Epiphanius his Analysis operum sanctorum patrum (18 vols., Wiirzburg, 1780‑96), while Gott fried Lumper issued Historia theoloywo‑critica de vita
. aanctorum patnim . . . trium przorum soxtr lorum (13 vols., Wrjrzburg, 1783‑99).

387	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Patristies
Among the Reformed theologians of England, Holland, and France are to be named William Cave (q.v.) with his Histo*ia litteraria acriptorum eedesi4sticorum (2 vols., London, 1688‑98); James Ussher (q.v.), who labored upon the Apostolic Fathers, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the apostolic symbol; Johannes Ernst Grabe (q.v.), who produced a Specilegium sanctorum patrum (2 vols., Oxford, 1698); John Pearson (q.v.), who illuminated the subject of Ignatius; Henry Dodwell (q.v.); Jean Le Clere (see CLERICUB, JOHANNEB) dealt also with the Church Fathers; Jean Daille (q.v.) wrote upon Dionysius the Areopagite and Ignatius, among other subjects; Casimir Remi Oudin (q.v.) left a Commentarius de scriptoribus ecdesice (3 vols., Leipsic, 1722). The Lutheran Church was in this direction unproductive during the eighteenth century, its activity touching in this field only upon antiquities in the writings of J. A. Fabricius (q.v.), and C. T. G. Schonemann (d. 1802).
The nineteenth century was in this field comparatively unproductive. The Scriptorum veterum nova collectio of Angelo Mai (q.v.) may be mentioned (10 vols., Rome, 1825‑38), and the Nova patrum biNiotheca (9 vols., 1852‑‑88). Jean Baptiste Pitra (q.v.) also requires notice, with his SPecilegium Solesmense (4 vols., Pans, 1842‑58) and his Analecta sacra (4 vole., 1876‑84). The series
	4. Nine‑	of Jacques Paul Migne (q.v.), in them
teenth‑Cen‑ selves serviceable, are yet in some sense
	tury Work.	a hindrance because of faulty print
		ing and editing. Roman Catholics and
Protestants have produced many worthy books
on the subject. Such works are by Jobs=
Adam Mohler (q.v.), Patrologie (Regensburg, 1840);
Joseph FeWer, Institutiones patrologite (2 vols.,
Innsbruck, 1850‑59); H. J. Pestalozzi, Grundlinien
der Geschichte der kirchlichen Lilteratur der ersten
sechs Jahrhunderte (Gottingen, 1811). But the later
decades of the century brought about a great re
vival of interest and work in this department which
recalled the classical times of the seventeenth
century. Of importance here were the great dis
coveries which have enlarged knowledge of the an
cient sources. Among these may be named the
fragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter,
the Didache, the complete text of the letters of
Clement, the Apology of Aristides, the Acts of Paul
and Apollonius, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the
Philosophumena and commentary on Daniel by
Hippolytus, the Carmen of Commodian, the Tracta
tue Origenis, the homilies on the Psalms byJerome,
papyri and ostraca from Egypt, etc. New editions
have been issued or begun, like the CSEL (Vienna,
1866 aqq.), the set of Greek writers of the first three
centuries under the auspices of the Prussian Acad
emy (1897 sqq.), the Patrologia orientalis under the
care of R. Graf6n and F. Nau (Paris, 1903 sqq.), the
Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium (Paris
and Leipsic, 1903 aqq.), [G. Kriiger's Sammlung
ausgewahlter kirchenr and dogmengewhichtlicher Quel
len.echriften (Tiibingen, 1901 aqq.), and Florilegium
palristicum, ed. G. Rauschen (Bonn, 1904 aqq.)].
There are also series devoted to the issue of individ
ual writers and monographs on them, like Harnack
and Gebhart's T U (Leipsic, 1882 eqq.), and the
Cambrtdge Texts and Studies (1891 sqq.). There should be taken into account the numerous periodicals given to this department, as well as the monographs and collections for purposes of instruction like the BiUiothek der Kirchenvdier (79 vols., Kempten, 1869‑88), ANF and NPNF (see vol. i., p. xviii. of this work), and E. Henneeke's Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tabingen and Leipsic,1904). Especial attention has been paid to the first three centuries, and the work has been characterized by a notable impartiality in investigation. The Tabingen school were pioneers in this direction. But the man whose work has been most fruitful and illuminating is Adolf Harnack (q.v.), bringing to the task an unexampled richness of knowledge, keen powers of combination, patience in investigation,and brilliant abilities in the way of exposition. With him were such coworkers as Theodore Zahn, Adolf Hilgenfeld, and Franz Xaver Funk (qq.v.) in Germany, Joseph Barber Lightfoot (q.v.) in England, while in France, Italy, and the United States a renewed activity and industry are being applied to patristic study. It is conceivable that in so restlessly busy and progressive an age leisure would not be found for summarizing, and until recently this was the great need. Not up to the standard were J. Alzog's Grundriss der Patrologie (Freiburg, 1866), O. Zoekler's Geschichte der theologischen Litleratur (NBrdlingen, 1889), and J. Nirsehl's Lehrbuch der Patrologie and Patristik (3 vols., Mainz, 1881‑85). J. Donaldson, however, did excellent work in his Critical History of Christian Literature arid Doctrine (3 vols., London, 1864‑66). The dearth in this respect led to Harnack's Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebiue (Leipsie, 1893‑1904). G. Kriiger sought lines of development in his Gesehichte der altchriatlichen Litteratur (Freiburg, 1895; Eng. transl., Hist. of Early Christian Literature, New York, 1897). O. Bardenhewer in his Patrologie (Freiburg, 1901; Eng. transl., Patrology, St. Louis, 1908), held to beaten paths; in his Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur (2 vols., 1902‑04), he showed independence. The Frenchman P. Batiffol in his Anciennea litt6ratures chrctiennes (Paris, 1897) is not independent of German predecessors; while in England C. T. Cruttwell produced his Literary Hist. of Early Christianity (2 vole., London, 1893). In Greece interest is manifest in the christianika grammatologia of G. J. Derbos (vol. i., Athens, 1903). The department is developing strength along the lines of special grammatical, stylistic, and literary studies of the material available, as is proved by W. Christ's Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur bis auf die Zest Justinians (3d ed., Munich, 1898), W. S. Teuffel's Geschichte der rdmischen Litteratur (5th ed., ed. L. Schwabe, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1890; which yet leaves much to wish for), the work of J. C. F. Bahr, Geschichte der r6mischen Litteratur, vol. i., part 1 (2d ed., Leipsic,1889), A. Ebert's Aldgemeine Geschichte (vol. i., 2d ed., Leipsic, 1889), M. Manitius' Geschichte der chrisdichlateinischen Poesie (Stuttgart, 1891), and M. Schanz's Geschichte der romischen Litteralur (7 vols., Munich, 1894‑1908).
It is not superfluous to discuss the methodology of what is denominated " Patristies " and " PatrolOgy." These terms took their rise in the con‑

Patriatice
Patronage
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ses
ception of the subject in the minds of seventeenthcentury Lutheran theologians, who regarded the
discipline as embracing the collection 5. Concep‑ of patristic testimony for individual tions of Pa‑ doctrines. The Roman Catholics retristics and garded it as " the discipline which Patrology. searches out from the writings of the
Fathers what pertains to faith, morals, and discipline, and reduces it to order." Nirschl defined it as "the systematic exposition of the teaching on faith and morals of the Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers." It has been shown also that the interest in the subject was not purely historical; there was a polemic element in it. " Patrology " came to be applied to the historical side of the discipline, " Patristics " to the systematic treatment, though this distinction is not always maintained. Yet in using these names Lutheran orthodoxy borrowed from Roman Catholicism, employing the word which the Roman Catholics applied in honor of the ecclesiastical teachers of early times (paler, " father "). Indeed from the fourth century the term " the Fathers " has represented a certain body of men, especially of bishops, who had borne testimony in the Church. Not all " ecclesiastical writers " were counted in with the " Fathers " as used in its dogmatic sense, since not all of them were regarded as orthodox. There arose then a distinction between " Fathers " and " writers." To the term " Church Fathers " four marks were attached; a sufficient antiquity, orthodoxy in doctrine, sanctity of life, and the approbation of the Church. Later in the history of the Church there were singled out the " doctors of the Church," who were distinguished, in addition to the four marks just named, by a singular erudition; this title was given in eminence to Gregory the Great, Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, and later symbolism saw in these four names four ecclesiastical grades‑bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and pope. The title of " doctor " was later appli6d also to Hilary of Poitiers, Peter Chrysologus, Leo the Great, and Isidor of Seville in the West; to Athanasius, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Damascus in the East. But in the liturgical books of the East itself only three names stand out with distinction‑Basil, Gregory, and Chrysostom. The West awards the title doctor also to Bede, Peter Damian, Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of CWrvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, St. Francis of Sales, and Liguori.
Such a conception as the foregoing involves implies a narrowing of the field of this discipline as merely dogmatic from which historical science strives to free itself. So Friedrich Nitzsch declared that from the historical‑literary standpoint the meaning of a writer does not depend upon its origin from a Church Father, and that consequently pa‑
tristics must be freed from a mechanical 6. Scope of method which took account first of all the Depart‑ of narrow chronological and biograph‑
ment.	ical matters. Such a point of view
had already been hinted at by Pestalozzi. The first idea of Nitzsch implied a return to the principle announced in his preface to the edition of Jerome's ‑De viris Mustribus (Leipsic,
1860). This writer put the Apostolic Fathers on
the same footing as New‑Testament writers, Philo
figured with Hermas, Bardesanes with Musanus the
opponent of heretics. The influence of something
like this was felt by Bardenhewer, who called his
work Geschichte der allWrchlichen (not altchristlWen)
Litteratur, which expressed his idea of what patrol
ogy ought to be. From the historical‑literary point
of view, a Gnostic who commented on the Fourth
Gospel has a claim to be represented as good as that
of a teacher of the Church, the claim of an Arius
equals in force that of an Athanasius. History of
literature is not dogmatics and does not contain the
prolegomena to it; it has its own principles. On
such a basis the entrance of the New‑Testament
writers into the scheme follows at once, and is not
the result of rationalistic handling of Scripture
Jerome did not hesitate to include them; and it is
arbitrary to exclude any group of writings upon
ecclesiastical grounds. If all New‑Testament wri
tings are " apostolic," there is all the more reason
to head a history of early Christian literature with a
section on apostolic writings. From a methodolog
ical standpoint the relations of the discipline of
New‑Testament introduction to the history of early
Christian literature are matters of no consequence.
	This is not a mere strife about words, for the dis
cipline is something more than the arrangement of
names and writings according to chronological and
biographical details. True, the followers of Jerome
in the Middle Ages became known as Nomendators;
		and the method here indicated has
7. Method‑ stuck in the later treatment. Franz
	ology. Overbeck has expressed the opinion
		(Historasche Zeitschrift, xlviii., 417‑472)
that the history of early Christian literature will
not have reached its rights until it brings into view
the historical connections. This writer distin
guishes between a primitive Christian literature
arising before contact of Christianity with the world
about it and the literature which sprang into exist
ence after such contact and in view of it. The dis
position to exclude, along with the New‑Testament
writings, those of the Apostolic Fathers as pupils
of the apostles is dogmatic, not literary‑historical
It is now recognized that the related has been sep
arated, the unrelated has been brought together.
But the varieties of primitive literature‑Gospels,
Acts of the apostles, epistles, doctrinal writings,
apocalypses, and the like, began with new acces
sions of material to form into groups, and the New
Testament, the apocryphal writings, the produc
tions of the Apostolic Fathers, found appropriate
distribution. Gnostic writings separated themselves
from these, but influenced the growing patristic lit
erature. The apologetic writings of the second
century formed the groundwork of those of succeed
ing centuries. The individualities of eastern and
western compositions came to recognition. The first
result of this was the exposition of Harnack in
his Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur (ut sup.),
and he has been followed by Haussleiter and Ehr
hard. That so far the efforts have been applied
mainly to the first three centuries is due to the pre
eminent interest that period possesses. But M.
Schanz, Geschichte der romischen Litteratur des 4..

$89	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Patronea
Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1904), has begun to treat
Christian Latin literature from the same point of
view, a fact which gives good promise for the future
that the principle advanced by the writer in his work
will govern, viz., that literary‑historical and not
ecclesiastical or theological methods will come to
prevail in this region. 	(G. KRUGER.)
Bxamoon"Hy: For bibliography the two important works are Potthast, Wepweiser,, and U. Chevalier, Rhpertoire des sources hiatoriques, Paris, 1877 sqq.; cf. vol. i., pp. avii.xviii. of this work. On the history and theory of patristics consult: A. Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Litteratur and Are Erforachuny, 2 vols., Strasburg, 1894; J. Daille, Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies, London, 1842; J. J. Blunt, The Right Use of the Early Fathers, London, 1889; G. B. Crooks and J. F. Hurst, Theological Encyclopadia, pp. 396‑401, New York, 1894; H. B. Swats, Patristic Study, New York, 1902; L. Emery, Introduction h 1'htude de la thholopie protestante, Paris, 1904; W. Bright, The Age of the Fathers, London, 1903; P. Schaff, Theological Propmdeutic, pp. 273‑276, New York, 1904; A. Fortaseue, The Greek Fathers, London, 1908. To the works named in the teat add: C. F. R5sler, Bibliothek der Kirchenv&er in Uebersetzungen and Auszagen, 10 vols., Leipsie, 1776‑86; E. B. Pusey, J. Keble and J. H. Newman, Library of the Fathers, Oxford, 1839 sqq.; A. B. Caillan and M. N. S. Guillon, Collectio aelecta sanctorum acclaim patrum, 148 vols., Paris, 1829‑43.
PATRONAGE.
Early History ($ 1). Germanic Formulation (§ 2). Reform and Secular Encroachment (§ 3). The Reformation (§ 4). Status: Roman Catholic (¢ 5). Status: Evangelical ($ 8).
In the ecclesiastical sense, patronage is a term applied to the right of a patron to nominate for appointment to, and cooperative administration of, a benefice. From early times a certain prerogative in nomination for appointment and
r. Early administration has been relinquished
	History.	to those who erected ecclesiastical
		buildings, institutions, or offices; in
short, to the sovereign landlords. In the orient,
the Christian emperors from the second half of
the fifth century imposed upon those who had
begun a foundation the obligation of complet
ing it; and if the foundation was testamen
tary, the obligation fell upon the heirs. In order
to encourage the donators in this often neglected
duty the imperial legislation extended to them,
subject to the final decision of the bishops, a
proportionate share in the administration by
virtue of appointments. Justinian in 546 (Nov
eUce, cxxiii. 18) conferred upon them the right
of presentation to the spiritual dignitary who
had the function of appointment and was also fre
quently the same person as the administrator.
Thus arose the possessor's or founder's right (Kte
torikon dikaion). This has never attained great
significance from the point of view of constitutional
history, and where it still exists it is strictly differ
entiated from the rights of patronage imported into
the orient in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen
turies.
In the West the Germans furnished the legal form for this institution for a long time to come. Canon 10 of the Synod of Orange (441), reference to which is often made, had conceded to the episcopus cedefaca‑
for only the right of proposing candidates for a church built outside of his diocese but on property belonging to the bishopric. When in Gallic.
Roman times a private right in church z. Germanic property is spoken of, a merely " bare Formulation. right " is implied. A radical change,
however, followed the entrance of the Germanic peoples into the Church. The conception prevailed with increasing weight that whoever erected a church on his land retained a right to the inheritable and alienable property, and full power of administering it. By the beginning of the eighth century the victory of proprietary church right was decisive, at least with reference to nonparish churches. Numerous documents show that churches were treated and alienated like other properties. Especially in the kingdom of the Franks, as a part of the general sequestration policy of Charles Martel and Pippin, the free churches descending from the Roman r6gime and wholly subject to the jurisdiction of the bishops were appropriated for the laity, so that the proprietary churches of kings and landed nobles were the majority. And in the ninth century the proprietary right became supreme by the surrender of the remaining churches on the part of the bishops. The proprietary right was sanctioned for the Frankish Church by Charlemagne (canon 54, Synod of Frankfort, 794), and for the Italian Church by Eugene II. (canons 21, 24, Synod of Rome, 826). It gained supremacy also in the districts that had remained Roman (e.g., Italy) and now became universal in Western Europe. The Carolingian legislation concerned itself with the subject in much detail; and as the synods and ecclesiastical administrative bodies became weaker and feudal conceptions stronger, the theory of private church right became continually more sharply defined. Under the r6gime of private church right the entire clergy of the lower churches was conceived as private. Every church with its possessions and incomes was considered the special property of its lord; that is, of the king, of a temporal magnate, of a bishopric, or of a cloister. It was no longer a legal subject or a public office. The lord was regularly and officially called senior; only rarely, and in private documents, was he called patronus. He had the power to determine the personnel which was to officiate in his church and to dispense or recall such ministration. The correct ecclesiastical terminology was retained to represent his right as that of presentation, the final decision being supposed to rest with the bishop. In practise, however, the lord had unlimited power of appointment and dismission. The enfeoffment conformed with the investiture of the private right or pecdium of the German feudal land tenure. In most cases it was the non‑servile, lifelong benefice, the free fief of the Frankish law, that the priest received. A churchbook was handed to him as a symbol of the use of his fief. As some of the land came to be withdrawn by the lord for raising revenue to defray material expenses devolving on him, or was sequestrated for private use, the clergy were more and more limited to the benefice in the narrower sense. The result was the decline and depreciation of the churchlands, and the differentiation of the previous simple

Patronage	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	ago
private church right into various species, one of which was the right of presentation, called also jus patronatus; or where the benefice and the exmium (" gift ") to the lord were in view, ecclesiastical investiture. The former comprehensive proprietorship became extinct.
But the Church profited for its own liberation with this differentiation process, by applying it to a distinction of " church " and " altar." The lord
hereby invested the ecclesiastic with 3. Reform the church‑building and the appurand Secular tenances, while the bishop invested
Encroach‑ him with his spiritual office and aument. thority. Gregory VII. (1078) declared
not only lay investiture, but also the traditional lay property right and lordship, sinful usurpation. Alexander III. interpreted hitherto legal jurisdiction as spiritual and rejected unconditionally private church right and restricted the lord's appointing power to mere nomination, which he and canon law after him based upon the gratitude of theChurch for the endowment. To this he appropriated the term jus patronatus, that was coming ever more definitely to the front on both sides of the Alps. In principle and law at least private ownership in the Church was extinct. Practically, matters were far otherwise. The church lords, it is true, had everywhere to consent to be called patrons, but it was not possible for the Church even to maintain its jurisdiction in disputes as to patronage. Such disputes were soon increasingly referred to the temporal courts. The patrons used their right of nomination with the bishop so as frequently to procure benefices for as many as half a dozen members of their families, or to have as many conferred on the same person. In northern Germany the field of patronage was widened by extending itself over the archdeaconal districts with their individual parishes. Canon law was not only stretched and modified but in many respects ignored The right of patronage, in fact, remained, especially in Germany, a practical right all through the Middle Ages. The patrons did not relinquish the right of free alienation; in effect they long maintained the old right of appointment and paid little attention to the bishop. In later times the patronage was divided, as it had been in France in the twelfth century, between church and altar. In Germany from the thirteenth and elsewhere from the fourteenth century this church principle fixed itself more and more upon the landed nobility. The developing principle of " land dominion " appropriated to itself also the right of appointment and administration, and church proprietorship was transplanted from the soil of private to that of public right. The patronage of a church built on a lord's territory belonged to him as a matter of course, unless he had expressly granted the right to the individual or congregation that built it.
The Reformation took over patronage along with the parish. Calvinism rejected it with lay control over the Church as a whole. The Evangelical church ordinances in so far as they dealt with patronage fell in more or less with the canon law. Conservatism with reference to patronage made itself evident in that, after the Peace of Westphalia, Roman
Catholics were permitted to exercise the right of patronage over Protestant churches, and vice versa. The absorption of eloistral estates led frequently
to an increase of patronage; the princes 4. The Ref‑ not only securing the patronage of
ormation. monasteries, but alf inherent rights
over churches incorporated with them. The decline of episcopal jurisdiction not being always immediately succeeded by a strict consistorial gov eminent also favored an increase of patronage. The right of the patron was now regarded as covering that of appointment, involving right of dismissal as well. Similar tendencies arose in the Roman Catholic Church. After the sixteenth century the patron came to be called collator, and privileges of appointment accumulated especially where numerous rights of presentation to minor benefices as well as nominations to bishoprics were conferred as a reward for services in the Counter‑Reformation. Patronage disputes came to be settled in the seventeenth century before temporal authorities, and Leopold I. of Austria in 1679 issued for the first time a decree for a comprehensive temporal regulation, which followed canonical precedent and remains, in its main points, in force to‑day. On the other hand, a long series of edicts by Maria Theresa and Joseph II. increased the building‑burdens of the patron and curtailed his right of nomination. The first comprehensive regulation on the part of the State for both confessions resulted in Prussia, where the general land law has since 1794 regulated patronage by a supplementing, defining, and amending of the common law, and has subjected patronage to the jurisdiction of the temporal courts. Successive efforts during the nineteenth century for the abolition of patronage, especially those springing from the revolution of 1848, have not resulted in legislation to that effect. In Austria the abolition of monasteries increased the mass of patronage and the attempt has been made to divide the right with reference to all state churches from the sovereignty. In Bavaria, by the Concordat of 1817, it was asserted by the crown, and Prussia has effected a compromise with the bishops. In the Evangelical churches the contradiction between church selfgovernment and patronage was felt most sharply. The Eisenach Conference (q.v.), in 1859 and 1861, and a number of synods committed themselves to the abrogation of the right. This has, however, failed in that no one will assume the patron's burdens, especially that of the buildingobligation; and even where these obligations do not exist, people are indisposed to assail rights properly obtained.
In the Roman Catholic Church " patronage denotes the powers and duties that accrue to a person
with respect to a church or a churchly
g. Status: office, on the ground of some special
Roman right independent of the position of the
Catholic. church or office in the hierarchy." In
Prussia patronage is subject to the common land law; in Baden and Austria to state enactment. Primarily patronage is subject to canon law and is regulated thereby in many German states. At the same time it is recognized as state law, belonging in the highest measure to the public

S91	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Patronage
code, inasmuch as patronage includes certain duties, such as that of building, and of administering church properties, which, as a rule, can be enforced only by external compulsion. The right of patronage is either real or personal. The former inheres in real estate, and its rights and duties are determined by ownership. The latter inheres in a physical or legal person. The patronage may be spiritual, lay, or mixed, according always to the respective status of the patron. A common right of patronage may be held by several persons. The right of patronage is secured, first, by the title of acquisition. The ordinary title is provided by the establishment of an ecclesiastical foundation, or of a mere churchly benifice, and the assumption of the legal obligations imposed thereby. The foundation must cover the three items of ground, erection, and maintenance. The consent of the ecclesiastical superiors is also necessary, but this may be given tacitly. Except by way of foundation a right of patronage can not now be established without a papal privilege. The second essential to the creation of a right of patronage is personal qualification. The person (physical) must be an active member of the Roman Catholic Church in good standing. All the unbaptized are excluded (pagans and Jews), and also heretics, schismatics, apostates, and those under the ban of the Church. In practise non‑Catholics still exercise the right, Jews excepted. Juridical persons (e.g., stock companies) may exercise the right although their agents be unqualified, provided the object of such juridical person subserve a particular confession. Thirdly,the right of patronage can be obtained only over the proper objects, such as parish churches, chapels, oratories and their accompanying benefices, and canonries; but not over bishoprics or episcopal positions. Patronage includes a number of rights and duties. The latter are of little importance in common law. The former are either honorary, beneficial, or intended to secure the interest of the patron in the foundation. Among the rights one is that of presentation, by virtue of which the patron may present a properly qualified person to the ecclesiastical superior, usually the bishop, under whom a vacancy has occurred. He is, however, limited to the candidate proving the highest apparent fitness. A spiritual patron has six months, a lay patron four months, in which to nominate his candidate; but this rule varies under different codes. The lay patron may also nominate several candidates from whom the bishop may make his choice (see NOMINATION, ALTERNATIVE RIGHT OF). If an improper candidate is presented by a spiritual patron the right for that occasion is lost, but a lay patron may nominate again if his nominating period has not passed. The right of nomination does not belong to the patron absolutely; the first positions in the cathedral and collegiate chapters may be sought only through papal privilege. Of honorary rights in the real sense, that of precedence over other laymen in processions inside or outside of the church is the only one secured by common law; by particular rights and the law of custom come the privileges to a prominent seat in the church, to the church‑prayer, and to burial within the church or church‑yard in a prominent place and free of cost.
Of rights of benefit the common law, in case the patron has become destitute through no fault of his own and can not support himself, secures him maintenance by the church, provided he is a descendant of the original founder and sufficient funds are left over after providing for the proper religious services. The interest of the patron in the maintenance of the foundation is secured by the right to take cognizance of the administration of the property, to propose the removal of obvious abuses and unfaithful administrators, and in urgent cases to propose extraordinary reforms. He has the right to be heard when church property is to be sold, and when the selling of the original endowment is in question his consent is necessary. Finally, his agreement is required to proposed alterations of the institution or benefice. The duties of the patron by common law are, in case he draws an income from the church's estate, to pay for the repair and restoration of the parish church and parish house. In case he draws no income, his failure to repair and rebuild results in the lapse of his right of patronage. By statute laws, the duties of the patron with respect to repair and rebuilding are much more comprehensive. The right of patronage may be transferred, by sale, exchange, or testament, with the property in which it inheres. The personal patronage passes to the civil‑law heirs of the patron, unless special disposition of it has been made by the patron. When it is restricted to a particular family, it disappears if the family becomes extinct. Personal patronage may be donated only with the consent of the ecclesiastical superiors, except when a lay patronage is turned into a spiritual one, or a common right is transferred to a fellow patron. If sold for money it becomes void, because a simony is involved in the transaction. A patronage right becomes extinct when the patron waives his right, when no qualified patron exists, as at the extinction of the family, when the object disappears, as in case of the suppression of the institution or benefice, by right of " unhindered occupation " on the part of the church superiors, by committing an offense punishable according to church law, such as simony, killing or maiming a clergyman belonging to the church in question, attacking the property of the church, and by the heresy, apostasy, or schismatism of the patron; and by papal annulment.
Patronage has been non‑existent on the left bank of the Rhine, in Oldenburg, Hesse, Hamburg, and
Lubeck, since 1801. The same civil 6. Status: law applies to the Evangelical bodies Evangelical. as to the Roman Catholic Church.
The application of the " body of canon law " is valid, being inherent in the patronage received by the Evangelical churches and prevailing in various states; while the legal status is similar to that of Roman Catholic patronage. There is no mixed patronage. The nomination is presented to the church government or consistory, which has the power to confirm, and is limited by the recommendation of the consistory as to fitness. According to Prussian law the patron must subject his candidate to a trial sermon and examination, and must give the congregation an opportunity to state objections to his doctrine or character. The Evan‑

Patronage Paul
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
gelical patron, whose guardianship over ecclesiastical property is enlarged, has a right, under the stress of patronage burdens, to appropriate from the church accounts; he can in some places cooperate in important acts of church administration, and in some states may attend without votes the sessions of the church governing body or send a properly qualified substitute. See PARISH AND PASTOR, § 3.
(U. STUTZ.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Origines, IV., ii., § 19, V., vi., § 5, IX., viii., § 6; I. Kaim, Doe Kirchenpatronatrecht, Leipsic, 1845; B. Schilling, Der kirchliche Patronat, Leipsic, 1854; P. Hinschius, Das landesherrliche Patronatrecht, Berlin, 1856; idem, Das preussische Kirchenrecht, pp. 319, 371 sqq., ib. 1884; B. W. Leist, Das romische Patronatreeht, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1879; A. Frantz, Die Patronats‑Befugniase, Marburg, 1883; J. von Zhishman, Das Stifterrecht in der morgenldndischen Kirche, Vienna, 1888; L. Wahrmund, Das Kirchenpatronatrecht . . . in Oesterreich, 2 parts, Vienna, 1894‑96; U. Stutz, Geschichte den kirchlichen Benefczialwesens, Berlin, 1895; M. Hansult, Das Patronat in der eoangelischen Landeskirehe . . Hesse, Giessen, 1898; W. von Branneck, Beitrdge zur Geschichte den Kirchenrechts, Berlin, 1902‑04; W. E. Addis and T. Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, pp. 673‑695, London, 1903; Galante, La Condizione piuridiea delle cose nacre, part i., Turin, 1903; the treatises on ecclesiastical law (Kirchenrecht) by Hinschius, ii. 128, Berlin, 1878; and Friedberg, §§ 118‑122, 128, Leipsic, 1903; KL, ix. 1620‑29; Hauck, KD, iv. 29 aqq. A large literature is indicated in HauckHerzog, RE, xv. 13‑14.
PATTERSON, ROBERT MAYNE: Presbyterian; b. at Philadelphia, Pa., July 17, 1832. He was graduated from the high school of his native city in 1849; was official reporter of the United States Senate (1850‑55) ; was graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary (1859); was pastor of the Presbyterian Church at Great Valley, Pa. (1859‑67); of the South Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pa. (1867‑80); and again at Great Valley (1880‑1906). In 1880 he was the author of measures enlarging the powers of synods and formulated the " Inerrancy deliverance " in the General Assembly of 1892. Besides his work as associate editor of The Presbyterian. (1870‑80) and of The Presbyterian Journal (18801893), he has written Revival Counsels (Philadelphia, 1871); Total Abstinence (1872); Presbyterianism in Philadelphia (1873); Which is the Apostolic Church F (1874); Paradise, the Place and State of Saved Souls (1874); Visions of Heaven, for the Life on Earth (1877); Elijah, the Favored Man (1880); The Skeptic Reclaimed (1888); Isaiah and the Higher Critics (1889); American Presbyterianism (1896); and The Angels and their Ministrations (1900).
PATTESON, JOHN COLERIDGE: Church of England bishop of Melanesia; b. at London Apr. 1, 1827; murdered on the island of Nukapu, Melanesian group, Sept. 20, 1871. He studied at Eton and afterward at Oxford, where he was elected fellow of Merton College, 1852; was curate at Alfington, Devonshire; went to New Zealand in 1855 to assist Bishop Selwyn in his missionary work among the South Sea Islands; and in 1861 was consecrated bishop of Melanesia. Possessing great linguistic talent, he reduced to writing and grammar several languages; and translated into the Mots tongue the Gospels of Luke and John and other parts of Scripture. He was indefatigable and self‑denying in organizing, teaching, and conducting divine worship, with special effort for the economic promotion
of the natives and the reduction of the numerous dialects (he spoke twenty‑three) to written languages. An evidence of his success and that of his coworkers is the fact that after twenty years only forty of the 800 natives on the chief island, Mots, remained unbaptized. The kidnaping of the islanders by unscrupulous traders to be sent to the plantations of Queensland and Fiji was apparently the cause of his death. Not aware of the ill‑feeling aroused over the alleged slaying of five of their number, he landed at Nukapu and was immediately killed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographies have been written by C. M. Yonge, 2 vols., London, 1873‑78; E. Palmer, ib. 1872; Frances Awdry, Story of a Fellow Soldier, ib. 1875; W. Baur, Lebenabilder aua der Heidenmisgion, vol. iv., GUteraloh, 1878; Jesse Page, London, 1891; and m DNB, xliv. 53‑56.
PATTISON, DOROTHY WYNDLOW (SISTER DORA): Philanthropist, sister of Mark Pattison
(q.v.); b. at Haukswell, near Richmond (40 m. n.w. of York), Jan. 16, 1832; d. at Walsall (9 m. n. of Birmingham), Staffordshire, Dec. 24, 1878. She was the youngest daughter of Mark James Pattison, rector of Haukswell and a man of means; in her twenty‑ninth year, purely from philanthropic
motives, she became village schoolmistress in the parish of Little Woolston, Buckinghamshire, serving there 1861‑64; in 1864 she entered the sisterhood of the Good Samaritan at Coatham, Yorkshire, and the next year was sent to Walsall to assist in the hospital there conducted by the sisterhood; she devoted herself to the study of nursing, became exceptionally skilful, and was able even to perform minor operations with success. The casualties which called forth her ministrations were mostly among workmen engaged in coal‑mining and in machine shops, and her faithful devotion, skill, unfailing cheerfulness, large ability for enduring continuous hours of duty, and great tenderness won for her the complete confidence and enduring love of the people to whom she ministered. In 1867 a new hospital was built, and she received charge of it. She pursued her studies at the Birmingham Ophthalmic Hospital, and also carried on the training of nurses at Walsall. In 1874 she left the sisterhood, and had charge in 1875 of the Walsall Municipal Epidemic Hospital, where the cases were principally those of smallpox. But she returned late in 1875 to the Cottage Hospital. In 1876 she developed cancer, from which she eventually died. Memorials of her life of sacrifice
took the shape of her portrait in the hospital, a fund for the placing of convalescent patients, a memorial window in the parish church, and her statue at Walsall, unveiled Oct. 11, 1886.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Margaret Lonadale, Sister Dora, London, 1879 (many editions); Ellen M. M. Ridadale, Sister Dora: personal Reminiscences of her later Years, with some of her Letters, ib. 1880; Sister Dora and her Statue, Walsall, 1886; DNB, xliv. 57‑58.
PATTISON, MARK: Church of England; b. at Hornby (30 m. n.w. of York), Yorkshire, Oct. 10, 1813; d. at Harrowgate (19 m. w. of York), Yorkshire, July 30, 1884. From his father he received a good preparation in Latin, Greek, and mathematics, and subsequently studied at Oriel and Lin‑

393	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	pa~°we
coln Colleges, Oxford (B.A., 1836; M.A., 1840; B.D., 1851). He became a fellow of Lincoln College in 1839, was ordained deacon in 1841, priest in 1843, and appointed college tutor in 1843. He was also appointed examiner in literce humaniores in 1848, again in 1853, and for the third time in 1870. Under the influence of Newman he abandoned the rigid Evangelical views that he had acquired from his father, and for a time was a pronounced Puseyite (see TRAcTARIAmSM), reciting the Roman breviary daily, and on one occasion even going to confession to Edward Pusey. From Tractarianism, however, he gradually recovered. He resigned his tutorship in 1855, and for the next few years spent much time in Germany. In 1859 he was appointed one of the assistant commissioners to report on continental education. In 1860 he contributed to the famous Essays and Reviews (q.v.) the essay, Tendencies of Religious Thought in England 16881760. In 1861 he was elected rector of Lincoln, after having been defeated for the place in 1851. Pattison was eminently successful as examiner, lecturer, and author, and, in point of real scholarship and academic distinction, he stood second to none at Oxford. His writings include numerous literary and theological articles published in the leading reviews; a translation of Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Matthew, in Catena aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (ed. J. H. Newman, 4 vols., Oxford, 1841‑45); and lives of Stephen Langton and St. Edmond, Lives of the English Saints (ed. by J. H. Newman and others, 14 vols., London, 1844‑45). Other important works are: Isaac Casaubon (1875), his best book; Milton (1879), in the English Men of Letters series; Memoirs (1885); Sermons (1885); and Essays (ed. H. Nettleship, 2 vols., Oxford, 1889).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Memoirs (ed. Mrs. Pattison), London, 1885; L. A. Tollemache, Recollections of Pattison, ib. 1885; Althaus, in Temple Bar, Jan.. 1885; DNB, xliv. 58‑83; literature cited under ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.
PATTON, CORNELIUS HOWARD: Congregationalist; b. at Chicago Dec. 25, 1860. He received his education at Howard University, Emerson Institute, Washington, D. C., Amherst College (B.A., 1883), and Yale Divinity School (B.D., 1887); was ordained in 1887, and served the churches at Westfield, N. J., 1887‑95, Duluth, Minn., 1895‑98, and the First Congregational Church at St. Louis, 18981904; since 1904 he has been corresponding secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.
PATTON, FRANCIS LANDEY: Presbyterian; b. at Warwick, Bermuda, Jan. 22, 1843. He was educated at Knox College, Toronto, the University of Toronto, and Princeton Theological Seminary (graduated, 1865). He was ordained in 1865 and held pastorates at the Eighty‑fourth Street Presbyterian Church, New York City (1865‑67), Nyack, N. Y. (1867‑70), and South Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn, N. Y. (1871); he was Cyrus H. McCormick professor of theology in the Theological Seminary of the North‑West (now McCormick Theological Seminary), Chicago (1871‑72); pastor of the Jefferson Park Presbyterian Church in the same city (1874‑81); Robert L. Stewart professor of the
relations of philosophy and science to the Christian religion in Princeton Theological Seminary (18811888); also professor of ethics in Princeton College (1886‑88). In 1888 he was elected president of Princeton College, and held this position until 1902, when he resigned and was elected to his present position of president of Princeton Theological Seminary. He still retains, however, the professorship of ethics in Princeton University, as well as a lectureship on theism in Princeton Theological Seminary. In theology he is ektremely conservative. Besides editing The Interior ( 1873‑76) and being for several years a member of the editorial board of The Presbyterian Review, he has written Inspiration of the Scriptures (Philadelphia, 1869); and Summary of Christian Doctrine (1874).

PAUL: The name of five popes.
Paul L : Pope 757‑767. He first appears as a Roman deacon and was frequently employed by his brother, Pope Stephen II., in negotiations with the Lombard kings. After Stephen's death (April 26, 757) Paul was chosen his successor by those who wished a continuation of the late pope's policy. The new pope's reign was dominated by his relations to the Frankish and Lombard kings and to the Eastern emperor. He adopted an independent tone in informing the exarch in Ravenna of his election, but wrote to Pepin that the Frankish alliance should be maintained unimpaired, being forced to this course by the attitude of the Lombard king, Desiderius. The latter held the cities of Imola, Osimo, Bologna, and Ancona, which were claimed by Rome, and in 758 seized upon the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. The same year he visited Rome and compelled Paul to write to Pepin asking him to concede all the Lombard claims except that to Imola; another letter of exactly opposite tenor was sent by the same messenger. Pepin found it advisable to maintain good relations with Desiderius, and Paul accomplished nothing by his double‑dealing. Later, however, Pepin gave the pope some support and acted as arbiter between the Roman and Lombard claims. In 765 the papal privileges were restored in Beneventine and Tuscan territory and partially in Spoleto. Meanwhile, the alienation from Byzantium grew greater. Several times, especially in 759, Paul feared that the Greek emperor would send an armament against Rome; and he lived in continual dread lest Byzantine machinations turn the Frankish influence in favor of the Lombards. This was actually attempted, but Pepin held to his original Italian policy. Paul died June 28, 767. See PAPAL STATES. (A. HAucs.)

BIHLjoORAPHY: Mann, Popes, i. 2, pp. 331‑360; F. Papencordt, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, pp. 89 sqq., Paderborn, 1857• R. Baxmann, Die Politik der P4pste, i. 251 eqq., Elberfeld, 1868; J. Ficker, Forachungen zur Reich's‑‑and RechtWeschichte Italiens ii, 329 sqq., Innsbruck, 1869; L. Oelsner, Jahrbacher des frankiachen Rekhs unter . . . Pippin, pp. 319 sqq, 343 sqq, 353 sqq., Leipsic, 1871; B. Niehues, Geschichte des Verhdunisses Misden Kap8er‑
tum and Papatlum, r. 497 sqq., Munster, 1877; idem, in HfatonackerJahrb~her. ii. 221 sqq., ib. 1881; W. Martens, Die rnmiwAe Prape unter Pippin and Karl dm ~rossen,
pp. 86 sqq., 254‑255, Stuttgart, 1881; E. D. Glssson, Les Rapport's du pouvoir apirwtuet et du pouvoir temporel au m0ym 49e, Paris, 1894; F. Gregorovins, Hist. of the City

Paul	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	894
of Rome, ii. 305 eqq., London, 1894; P. Hehr, Chronolopis der Brief, Paula 1. im Codes Carolinus, in Gaainper philolopiache Nachrichten, 1896, pp. 103‑157; W. Gundlach, Die Entetehunp des Kirchenetaatea, Breslau. 1899; Bower, Popes, ii. 109‑114; Milman, Latin Christianity, ii. 428; Platina, Popes, i. 172‑174; Hefele, Coneiliengeachichte, iii. 420, 431 sqq.; Hauck, KD, ii. 18, note 3 (for supplementary bibliography'); literature under PAPAL STATES.
Paul II. (Pietro Barbo): Pope 1464‑71. He was born at Venice 1418, and was a nephew of Pope Eugenius IV. His adoption of the spiritual career was prompted by his uncle's election as pope. His promotion was rapid; he became a cardinal in 1440, and was unanimously elected pope on Aug. 30, 1464, to succeed Pius II. His oath on taking office obligated him to abolish the prevalent nepotism in the Curia, to improve the morals there, to prosecute the war on the Turks, and to convene an ecumenical council within three years. But these terms of subscription were modified by Paul at his own discretion, and this action lost him the confidence of the sacred college. Consequently, when in 1466, designing to eliminate redundant offices, Paul proceeded to annul the college of abbreviators, whose function it was to formulate papal documents, a storm of indignation arose, inasmuch as rhetoricians and poets had long been accustomed to buy in the reversion of such positions. Platina (q.v.), who was one of these, wrote a threatening letter to the pope, and was imprisoned but discharged; in 1467 he was again imprisoned on the charge of having Participated in a conspiracy against the pope, and was subjected to torture, being accused, along with other abbreviators, of pagan views. In retaliation, Platina, in his Vitoo pontiftcum, set forth an unfavorable delineation of the character of Paul II. It is certain that Paul was an opposer of the humanists, was second to none in making provision for popular amusements, and displayed an extravagant love of splendor. But justice requires notice of his strict sense of equity, his reforms in the municipal administration, and his fight against official bribery and traffic in posts of dignity.
In statecraft, Paul lacked eminence and achieved nothing of consequence for Italy. In his own domain, however, he terminated, in 1465, the predatory r6gime of the counts of Anguillara. In the matter of war on the Turks, the one sovereign who might have taken the lead, King George Podiebrad of Bohemia, was rejected by the pope, and prosecuted as heretic because he sustained the conventions of Basel (see Huss, JOHN) in favor of the Utraquists. In August, 1465, he summoned Podiebrad before his Roman tribunal, and, when the king failed to come, leagued himself with the insurgents in Bohemia, and released the king's subjects from the oath of allegiance. In December, 1466, he pronounced the ban of excommunication and sentence of deposition against Podiebrad. When ultimately the king's good success was disposing the pope in favor of reconciliation, Paul II. died, on Mar. 22, 1471. .
K. BENRATH.
B:BraoaaArar: Sources: Of prime importance is the continuation of the Commentarii Pius ll., by J. Ammanati, and the latter's Epiatolm in the Frankfort, 1614, ed. of the Commentarii; Gaspar Veronensis, De gestis Pauli IL, book f., in G. L. Marini, Archiatri pontijecii, ii. 178 sqq., Rome, 1784, books ii.‑iv. in Muratori, Script", iii. 2, pp. 1024
sqq.; Muratori, ut sup., pp. 993 s4q., contains a Vita by M. Caneneius; A. M. Quirini, Pauli 11. Vita, Rome, 1740;
A. Gyaconius, Vita . . . pontilicum Romanorum, ii. 10691070, Rome, 1677. Consult: Pastor, Popes, iv. 1‑196,
documents are reproduced, pp. 475‑505 (the footnotes afford a most complete bibliography); Creighton, Papacy, iv. 4‑60; F. Papeneordt, Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mit‑
tetalter, Paderborn, 1857; J. Palaeky, Ge8chichte van BAmen, vole. iv.‑v., Prague, 1860‑65; M. Jordan, Das Koniptum Gems van Podiebrad, pp. 184 sqq., Leipsic, 1861; Petrucelli della Gattina, Hietoire diplamatique des conclaves, i. 285 eqq., Paris, 1864; A. von Reumont, Ge‑
whiehte der Stadt Rom, iii., i., pp. 152 eqq., Berlin, 1867; J. Burekhardt, Geschichts der Renaissance in Italien, Stuttgart, 1878; idem, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien, 2
vole., Leipsic, 1877‑78; Von HSHer, in Archiv ffir daterroeichiache Geschichtskunde, ail. 328 sqq.; ides, in Site‑
unpaberichte Wiener Akademie, historieche Klasae, zevi., 1881; De I'Epinois, in Revue des questions hiatoriques, 1886, pp. 278 sqq.; W. Barry, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 83‑85,
New York, 1902; Platina, Popes, ii. 275‑296 (of. remark in teat); Bower, Popes, iii. 244‑248.
Paul III. (Alessandro Farnese): Pope 1534‑49. He was born at Carino, in Tuscany, and came through his mother from the Gaetani family, which had also produced Bonifacius VIII. He received his instruction at Rome and Florence from distinguished humanists, and became a prothonotary at the Curia under Innocent VIII. From Alexander VI. he received rapid promotion, becoming cardinal in 1493. He came near succeeding Leo X. and Adrian VT. Under Clement VII. he became cardinal bishop of Portus (Ostia) and dean of the sacred college, and on the death of Clement VIL, in 1534, received election as pope.
His first appointment to the cardinalate on Dec. 18, 1534, made it clear that nepotism had come to the front once more; since the red hat fell to his nephews Alessandro Farnese and Ascanio Sforza, aged fourteen and sixteen years respectively; yet subsequent appointments included Gasparo Contarini, Sadoleto, Pole, and Giovanni Pietro Caraffa, subsequently Pope Paul TV. (q.v.). Paul III. was in earnest in the matter of improving the ecclesiastical situation, and on June 2, 1536, he issued a bull convoking a general council to sit at Mantua in 1537. But at the very start the German Protestant estates declined to send any delegates to a council in Italy, while the duke of Mantua himself put forth such large requirements that Paul first deferred for a year and then discarded the whole project. In 1536 Paul invited nine eminent prelates, distinguished by learning and piety alike, to act in committee and to report as to the reformation and rebuilding of the Church. In 1537 they turned in their celebrated ConcUium de emendenda ecdesia (in J. le Plat, Monumemta ad historiam Conciiii Tridentini, ii. 596‑597, Louvain, 1782), exposing gross abuses in the Curia, in the church administration and public worship; and proffering many a bold and earnest word in behalf of abolishing such abuses. This report was printed not only at Rome, but at Strasburg and elsewhere. But to the Protestants it seemed far from thorough; Luther had his edition (1538) prefaced with a vignette showing the cardinals cleaning the Augean stable of the Roman Church with their foxtails instead of with lusty brooms. Yet the pope was in earnest when he took up the problem of reform. He clearly perceived that the emperor would not rest until the problem were grappled in

895	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul
earnest, and that the surest way to convoke a council without prejudice to the pope was by an unequivocal mode of procedure that should leave no room for doubt of his own readiness to make amendments. Yet it is clear that the Coruilium bore no fruit in the actual situation, and that in Rome no results followed from the committee's recommendations.
On the other hand, serious political complications eventuated. In order to vest his grandson Ottavio Farnese with the dukedom of Camerino, Paul forcibly wrested the same from the duke of Urbino (1540). He also incurred virtual war with his own subjects and vassals by the imposition of burdensome taxes. Perugia, renouncing its obedience, was besieged by Pier Luigi, and forfeited its freedom entirely on its surrender. The burghers of Colonna were duly vanquished, and Ascanio was banished (1541). After this the time seemed ripe for annihilating heresy.
While it was not foreseen at Rome in 1540, when the Church officially recognized the young society forming about Ignatius of Loyola (see JEsu1Ts), what large results this new organization was destined to achieve; yet a deliberate and gradual course of action against Protestantism dates from this period. The second visible stage in the process becomesmarked by the institution, or reorganization, in 1542, of the Holy Office (see INQulsrrloN). On another side, the emperor was insisting that Rome should forward his designs toward a peaceable recovery of the German Protestants. Accordingly the pope despatched the nuncio Morons to Hagenau and Worms, in 1540; while, in 1541, Cardinal Contarini took part‑in the adjustment proceedings at Regensburg (see REGENSBURG, CONFERENCE OF). It was Contarini who led to the stating of a definition in connection with the article of justification in which occurs the famous formula"by faith alone are we justified," with which was combined, however, the Roman Catholic doctrine of good works. At Rome, this definition was rejected in the consistory of May 27, and Luther declared that he could accept it only provided the opposers would admit that hitherto they had taught differently from what was meant in the present instance. The general results of the conference and the attitude of the Curia, including its rejection of Contarini's propositions, shows a definite avoidance of an understanding with the Protestants. All that could henceforth be expected of the pope was that he would cooperate in the violent suppression of " heretics " in Germany, as he had done in Italy, by creating for their annihilation the arm of the revived Inquisition.
Yet, even now, and particularly after the Regensburg Conference had proved in vain, the emperor did not cease to insist on convening the council, the final result of his insistence being the Council of Trent (q.v.),which, after several postponements, was finally convoked by the bull Lcetare Hierusalem, Mar. 15, 1545.
Meanwhile, after the peace of Creepy (Sep., 1544), the situation had so shaped itself that Charles V. began to put down Protestantism by force. Pending the diet of 1545 in Worms, the emperor concluded a covenant of joint action with the papal legate,
Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. The pope was to aid in the projected war against the German Evangelical princes and estates. The prompt acquiescence of Paul III. in the war project was probably grounded on personal motives. The moment now seemed opportune for him, since the emperor was sufficiently preoccupied in the German realm, to acquire for his son Pier Luigi the duchies of Parma and Piacenza. Although these belonged to the Papal States (q.v.), Paul thought to overcome the reluctance of the cardinals by exchanging the duchies for the less valuable domains of Camerino and Nepi. The emperor agreed, because of his prospective compensation to the extent of 12,000 infantry, 500 troopers, and considerable sums of money. In Germany the campaign began in the west, where Protestant movements had been at work in the archbishopric of Cologne since 1542. The Reformation was not a complete success there, because the city council and the majority of the chapter opposed it; whereas on Apr. 16, 1546, Herman of Wied (q.v.) was excommunicated, his rank forfeited, and he was, in Feb., 1547, compelled by the emperor to abdicate.
In the mean time open warfare had begun against the Evangelical princes, estates, and cities allied in the Schmalkald League (see PHILIP of HESSE). By the close of 1546, Charles V. succeeded in subjugating South Germany, while the victorious battle at Miihlberg, on Apr. 24, 1547, established his imperial sovereignty everywhere in Germany and delivered into his hands the two leaders of the league. But while north of the Alps, in virtue of his PreParations for the Interim (q.v.) and its enforcement, the emperor was widely instrumental in recovering Germany to Roman Catholicism, the pope now held aloof from him because the emperor himself had stood aloof in the matter of endowing Pier Luigi with Parma and Piacenza, and the situation came to a total rupture when the imperial vice‑gerent, Ferrante Gonzaga, proceeded forcibly to expel Pier Luigi. The pope's son was assassinated at Piacenza, and Paul III. believed that this had not come to pass without the emperor's foreknowledge. In the same year, however, and after the death of the French King Francis I., with whom the pope had once again sought an alliance, the stress of circumstances compelled him to do the emperor's will and accept the ecclesiastical measures adopted during the Interim. With reference to the assassinated prince's inheritance, the restitution of which Paul III. demanded ostensibly in the name and for the sake of the Church, the pope's design was thwarted by the emperor, who refused to surrender Piacenza, and by Pier Luigi's heir in Parma, Ottavio Farnese. In consequence of a violent altercation on this account with Cardinal Farnese, the pope, at the age of eightyone years, became so overwrought that an attack of sickness ensued from which he died, Nov. 10,
1549. He proved unable to suppress the Reforma‑
tion, although it was during his pontificate that
the foundation was laid for the counter‑Reformation.

K. BENRATH.
BIHLIOGaAPBY: Consult for sources: Paul's bulls, with those of Pius IV. and Gregory XIII. and related documents. Paris, 1824; they are also to be found in Coque. lines. Bullarura, Psivaspiorum . . collxgo, iv. 1, pp. 112 eqQ.. Rome, 1785; O. Pauviuius, Poniificws 1?omw

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Paul
norum Vie, pp. 366 sqq. Cologne, 1826; E. Albari, Relations degli Ambasc(atorC Vendi al Senato, IL, iii. 295 sqq., 15 vols., Florence, 183; Fontes rerum Austri'a.~c.a,.~rul°, xxx., pp. v. sqq., 11 sqq., Vienna, 1870; O. Raynaldue, Annalee ewleesaecici, for 1534‑49, Cologne, 1694 eqq.; (W. Clagett], The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation Began, London, 1688; Calendar of State Papers, Henry VIII., vole. vii. ‑viii., in Rolls Series. Further discussions are: Ranke, Popes, i. 180‑206; idem, Deutsche Geschichte in Zeitalter der Reformation, vols. iv.‑v., Leipsic, 1894; G. de Leva, Storia documentata di Carlo V., vole. iii. iv., Bologna, 1867‑31• L. Pastor, Die kirehlichen Reunionabestrebungen wahrend der Repierunp Karla V., pp. 90 sqq., Freiburg, 1879; idem, Geschichte der Papste, vol. v., ib., 1909; M. Broach, Geschichte des %irchenefates, i. 163 sqq., Goths, 1880; F. H. Reusch, Der Index der Ver botenen Bllcher, passim, Bonn, 1883; Nundaturberichte aus Deutschland, Gotha, 1892‑99; E. Gualano, Paulus Papa 111., Parma, 1899; De Navenne, in Revue historique,1axvii (1901), 241‑278; J. Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, passim, London, 1903; H. C. Lea, Hist. of the Inquisition of Spain, vols. ii. iv., passim, New York, 1907; Bower, Popes, iii. 311‑317.
Paul IV. (Giovanni Pietro Caraffa) : Pope 1555,‑59. He was a Neapolitan, born in 1476, and entered the clerical estate in 1494, after a course of studies embracing languages, philosophy, theology, and canon law. His uncle, Cardinal Oliviero Caraffa, opened the way for him to ecclesiastical advancement. He thus came to be chamberlain under Alexander VI., prothonotary under Julius II., and bishop of Chiete (Teats) in the Abruzzi. He was employed in diplomatic missions in the years 1506 and 1507, and was then busied for several years with reforms in his own diocese, till the fifth Lateran Council, in 1512, recalled him to Rome as president of one of the congregations. Still pending the council, he was despatched to England by Leo X., to collect Peter's Pence (q.v.), and before returning was sent to Spain to unite the Christian princes against the Turks. The sojourn thus afforded him for several years in Spain proved of decisive effect upon Carwga's ulterior policy. On this occasion he learned the nature of an institution which nominally also existed elsewhere, while only in the form it had assumed in Spain did it serve as a powerful and undeviating instrument, viz., the Inquisition (q.v.). To begin with, Caraffa tried his hand at reforms within the Church. Under Leo X. he served on a committee with Silvester Prierias (q.v.); afterward he was a member of the Oratory of Divine Love (q.v.). And when Adrian VI. undertook to promote reform, he promptly directed Caraffa and Tommaso Gazzella of Gaeta to prepare a draft of recommendations, though their labors appear to have been void of result. In like manner, when Clement VII. was reluctantly constrained by public opinion to put forth some efforts, he called for Caraffa's assistance, though here again the movements for improving the preparatory training of the clergy and for terminating simony were not much forwarded. By way of reaction from so much labor in vain, Caraffa withdrew himself altogether from public life about the Curia. With some friends of the Oratory he founded the Theatines (q.v.). It was natural in a man of Caraffa's character, that, after all attempts at reform from within the Church had miscarried and " heresy " but spread the wider, he should view the policy of resolute, uncompromising reaction as the indicated mode of combat. Ac‑
cordingly, when the capture of Rome at the hands of the Spanish and the German troops of Charles V., in 1527, had driven the new order from Rome to Venice, Caraffa was again at work in the path of enlightened reaction. This is evidenced by two reports; one to the decemvirate, the other, in 1532, to Clement VIL, and both urge extreme stringency against all manner of heresy.
Caraffa both sought and found new methods. Once more, indeed, when he had returned to Rome, he attempted reform, for he was appointed by Paul III. on the committee of nine prelates who drafted the Cortcelium de ernendenda ecclesia, in 1536 (see PAUL III.); but this effort also proved without results at the time, although the Council of Trent, a quarter‑century later, carried out the amendments that were here demanded. In the year 1537, however, he and his colleagues of the committee of nine incurred the scorn of the Protestants on account of the inoperative " reform." Still the Curia seemed willing once more to seek a pacific understanding with the Protestants, since Contarini (see REGENBsuRO, CONFERENCE OF), in 1541, was despatched to Regensburg as the pope's delegate. Yet a strong party in the Curia, Caraffa among them, had opposed the plan from the start; and they so contrived that the most important proposition toward a settlement was rejected. On this account, every further attempt at peaceable conjuncture was set aside. In this connection, Caraffa and Contarini stand forth as the opposite poles of the Curia's policy; complete reaction won the day, and Contarini, under suspicion of treachery, withdrew from the Curia. It is now noteworthy that, in the very same year and by virtue of the bull Licet as initio (July 21, 1542), there went into effect the reorganized institution of the Roman inquisition, which Caraffa had remodeled according to the Spanish pattern. This was his favorite creation; hence he provided, of his own means, whatever was requisite for setting to work at once, directed all advisory conferences, and drew the lines over all Italy. Fully convinced, as he was, that Roman Catholicism was in a position to recover its lapsed universal supremacy, provided only that every effort were exerted absolutely to that end, Caraffa stood forth as the embodiment of the Counter‑Reformation.
Although at the election subsequent to the death of Paul Ill., in 1549, Caraffa had obtained many votes, it was not until after Julius III., in 1555, that he came into the papal succession as Paul IV.; being already nigh seventy‑nine years old. The four years that were still his allotted term he used principally in furtherance of the task he had set for himself. He might have accomplished still more than he did, had he not been blinded by his passionate hatred for everything Spanish or imperial, and if nepotism had found no lodgment in his soul. But the latter fault, at least, he overcame in his very last year, expelling the young Caraffas. Paul IV. inflexibly plied and furthered two distinct activities: the inquisition and the prosperity of the Jesuits (q.v.). In the use of the inquisition he preferred to strike at those in high places, such as Morons and Bishop Soranzo; while he so favored the Jesuits that one of their company wrote: " Many people even hold him to

397	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul
be the founder of our society." When he died, there passed away a powerful pope, one who had stamped his genius on the church organism of his time.
K. BENRATH.
BIHLrOGRAPHT: Sources: A. Caracciolo, De vita Pauli IV., Cologne, 1612; G. B. Castalso, Vita del Pontifice Paolo IV., Modona, 1618; P. s. Paolo, The Papacy of Paul IV., London, 1673; A. Andrea, Dells Guerra di Comp"na di Roma e del Repno di Napoli nel pontificato di Paolo IV., in Raccolta . . del Regno di Napoli, vol. vii., 23 vols., Naples. 1769‑1771 • Archivio storico Italiano vol. xii., Florence, 1847; a document of Caraffa's to the Venetian senate is in Riviata Crlstiana, 1878. Consult further: Ranke, Popes, i. 213‑241, iii. no. 29; J. Chantrel, Paul IV. et la tyrannie papale, Paris, 1870; K. Benrath, in JPT, 1878; idem, Geschichte der Reformation in Venedip, pp. 6‑7, 114115, Halle, 1887; O. Jensen, Giovanni Pietri Carafa, Copenhagen 1880; G. Duruy, Le Cardinal Carlo Carafa, 1619‑61. R'tude sur le pontifieat de Paul IV., Paris, 1882; F. H. Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Biicher, passim, Bonn, 1883; J. Gairdner, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century, passim, London, 1903; H. C. Lea, Hist. of the Inquisition of Spain, vols. ii. iv., passim, New York, 1907; Bower, Popes, iii. 318‑319, and literature under INWJr81T10N; and PAUL III.
Paul V. (Camillo Borghese) : Pope 1605‑21. He was born at Rome on Sept. 17, 1552; was trained at Perugia and Padua in canon law; entered the service of the Curia, first as abbreviator, then as referendary of signatures; and in 1588 he was vicelegate at Bologna. He succeeded so well with a legation to Spain, under Clement VIII., that in 1596 he was duly rewarded with the purple. He became pope on May 16, 1605.
Quite at the outset he was called upon to pass decision in case of certain grave conflicts within the Church. The strife between Jesuits and Dominicans concerning the doctrine of grace (see MoLINA, Luis) was still active, and the new pope took sides with the Jesuits, and went at least so far toward a definition that he disallowed the teaching of Molina to be styled Pelagian. Furthermore, under date of Dec. 1, 1611, he forbade all published expression on the matter without papal approbation.
A still more deeply momentous conflict with the Venetian republic was brought to a head at the same season. The encroachment of the ecclesiastical tribunals had produced such soreness in that quarter that finally the decemvirate began to strike back. With reference to the legislation then in force, an edict of Mar. 26, 1605, had ruled that the building of churches, as well as the introduction of religious orders within the state, must be subject to express approval on the part of the republic. Two ecclesiastics, moreover, who had incurred some grave criminal charges were cited before the civil courts. The pope undertook to nullify this disposition of the case; and, under threat of the interdict, he demanded the prompt delivery of the accused to the spiritual court (Dec., 1605). The council standing firm, the interdict was declared (Apr. 17, 1606). 011 the Venetian side, the campaign was led by the Servite Paolo Sarpi (q.v.); and the council's firmness triumphed, since the interdict proved wholly a blank discharge. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins, who supported the pope's cause were expelled from the state's domain, while members of other orders and the secular clergy stayed in office. Eventually, France offered to mediate, whereupon the chief point of dispute
was waived by the transfer of the two accused ecclesiastics to the French ambassador, with the express proviso that the right of the republic to try all inhabitants be kept intact. The republic refused either to seek or to receive absolution. This was none the less bestowed, in the name of the pope, on the doge and the council, by Cardinal Joyeuse, on Apr. 21, 1607, in his declaration that the pope repealed all measures that had been instituted against Venice.
Simultaneously with the Venetian quarrel, Paul incurred strife with England. In that country, after the Gunpowder Plot (q.v.), which was charged on the Roman Catholic party, parliament had enjoined upon all Englishmen the oath that they would never assent to the doctrine whereby the pope could dispose kings or nullify subjects' oath of allegiance. Paul forbade this oath (1606 and 1607), whereupon there ensued a controversy involving, on the one side, King James himself, on the other, Bellarmine (q.v.). This dispute as to the scope of the papal authority was transplanted to France as well, when Henry IV. fell a victim to the assassin Ravaillac (1610). What was Paul's mind in this case appears from his remark to the envoy from Flanders: " This was the Lord's doing, because he was given to a reprobate understanding." Forasmuch as the Jesuit Mariana, in his tract De rege et regis institutione (Mainz, 1605), defended the murder of heretical kings, parliament ordered that work to be burned by the public executioner, and also prohibited Bellarmine's attack on James 1. But this was not the end of the contest. In 1611, when Edmund Richer, in his treatise De ecclesiastics et politica potestate, gave expression to the Gallican ideas, the Jesuit Suarez retaliated with a fresh assault on James I., thereby winning the pope's highest praise; whereas it was only by special negotiations that Marie de Medicis, as guardian of Louis XIII., could be induced to withhold acceptance of the French parliament's decree, which practically countenanced the circulation of Richer's document by forbidding its annulment (cf. F. H. Reuseh, Der Index der verbotenen Bucher, ii. 355356, Bonn, 1883).
Amid strifes in such number, Paul was twice afforded the opportunity of working in behalf of peace; in Spain, from 1606 downward, and in Germany, before the Thirty Years' War (q.v.). The situation in Spain turned on the forcible expulsion of the Moors. In 1608, the Dominican Bleda endeavored to justify, with his Defensio fudei, the somewhat maturely contemplated measure which Cardinal Richelieu described as " the most barbarous procedure in the annals of humanity " (M&noires du Cardinal de Richelieu, i. 86, Paris, 1836), and the Roman commissioners endorsed the project, notwithstanding that Paul had earlier counseled a pacific agreement. It was, accordingly, in the spirit of this " hideous book " (H. C. Lea, Nist. of the Inquisition of Spain, iii. 388, New York, 1907), that Philip IIT. set to work, confiscating vast properties of the Moors, and driving hundreds of thou‑
sands to misery. In Germany Paul urged the Roman Catholic powers into war with Frederick Palatine, promised them support, and survived the

pant the Apostle
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Paola).
victory at Weissberg (Nov.,1620); but was stricken with paralysis while taking part, on Jan. 28, 1621, in a procession designed to solemnize the issue. Besides opulently endowing his brother's family, and thus enabling the Borghese to accumulate the greatest landed property ever in temporal hands within the Papal States, Paul bequeathed a valuable equipment to the city of Rome in his restoration
of the great aqueduct which bears his name (Aqua
K. BENRATfi.
Brsrroaswrai: Sources are: The bulls in Cherubim's BuL
	larium magnum, iii. 189 eqq.; A. Bsovio, Vita di Paolo
	Y., in Platins, pp. 509 eqq., eel. of Cologne, 1828; A Dec
	laration of as Variance between the Pope and the Seyniory
	of Venice' London, 1806 (from the Italian of F. Manfredi);
	James I. of England. Tripiici nodo, triplex cuneua: or an
	Apoiopia for the Oath of Allegiance against the two Brevea of
I. Life.
1. chronology. Flight from Damascus (¢ I). Journey of Acts xi. 30 (§ 2). Fiat Missionary Journey (¢ 3). Fiat Visit to Corinth (14).
Arrest in Jerusalem ($ b). Conversion (¢ 6).
2. Period before Convection.
3. Conversion sad Preparation for Missionary Service.
4. Paul the Missionary.
b. Contest with Judaism.
8. Paul's Gospel and Theology.
7. Paul the Martyr. Stated Fasts ($ 1).
L Life.‑1. (3hronolosY• The general course of events in Paul's life may be gathered from the Acts and from information which he himself gives in the
epistles (Gal. j. 15‑ii. 1; II Cor. xij. 2; Rom. xv. 23;
Phi lemon 9). Actual dates depend upon data which
do not afford a single indisputable conclusion, yet,
taken together, set definite limits to the field of
choice. The data and the events which they thus
approximately determine are as follows: On Paul's
own testimony he escaped from Damascus in the
time of a certain " Aretas the king " (IT Cor. xi. 32),
who must be the Nabata'an Aretas TV. (see ARETAS).
		From inscriptions and coins it is gath
	1. Flight creel that the forty‑eighth year of the
m	re	of this Aretas IV. was 39 or 40
fro
ID ‑‑m A. (cf. Gutschmid in J. Euting, Nabatiiiache Jnschriftert, pp. 84‑85, 87,88, Berlin, 1885). Manifestly no terminus a goo is furnished herein, and a terminus ad quem only in the doubtful case that the forty‑eighth year of Aretas'reign was the last. Nevertheless it is a common, assumption on this basis that the flight from Damascus took place before 40 and the conversion (which occurred three years before the flight; Gal. j. 17‑18; Acts ix. 23‑28) before 37 A.D. (see 8, below).
The facts known which bear on the end of Aretas' reign axe (1) that his successor, Abiss, ruled under Claudius (4154 A.D.); and (2) that Abim' successor, Malchus II. (called III. by Gutachmid) reigned c. 49‑71 A.D. The "governor (Gk. ethnarchesl under Aretas the king " of II Cor. xi. 32, is generally supposed to have been an official appointed by Acttse over Damascus and contiguous territory, and hence it is inferred that Damascus at the time of the flight belonged to the realm of Aretes. Both suppositions are conjectural. It is more probable that the ethnarch of Aretas was a Bed‑
Paul V.. London. 1007: P. Sarpi. Hint. Of the Quarrels of Pope Paul V. uritA . . . Venice (from the Italian), London, 1028; idem, New BrieJe (1608‑1 B1 B), eel. H. Benrath. LeiPaio. 1909. Consult: Ranks, Popes. ii. 108 eqq., iii. non. 79, 81; E. Cornet. Paolo Y. a la Republica Veneta, Vienna, 1859; T. A. Trollops, Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar, London, 1880; 3. R. Gardiner, Hint. of England IBOS‑1B, pp. 278 eqq., London, 1863; A. von Reumont, Ces^.hichEs der $tadt Rom, iii. 2, pp. 805 aqq•, Berlin. 1870: CaPPeiletti, I Ceauiti a la RepvbbLica de Venezia, Venice. 1873; B. Ceeohetti, La repubbLica di Venezia s la torte d4 Roma, ii. 403 eqq., Venice, 1874; N. Bsroaai and G. Becthet, Roiazione delta sorts di Roma, vol. i., Venice, 1877; M. Breech, Cesehichte else Xirehenataatea, i. 851 aqq., Goths, 1880; F. H. Reueeh, Der Index der verbotenen Bflcher, passim, especially ii. 319 eqq. 327 eqq., 341 eqq., 355 eqq., Bonn. 1883; W. H. Frere, The English Church. 1668‑IB86, pp. 286. 338. 380. London. 1904; H. C. Lea, Hint. of the Inr quiaition of the Middle Aga, vol. iii. passim. New York, 1908: idem, Hint. of the Inquisition of Spain, voL. ii.‑iv. passim, ib. 1907; Bower, Popes, iii. 327‑328.
PAUL THE APOSTLE.
Prpbable Conjectures ($ 2). II. Epistles.
1. Preliminary Questions.
External Testimony (¢ 1).
Internal Evidence ($ 2).
Character of Epistles as s Collection
Not an Argument is a Circle
Paul's Personality 0 5).
2. First Group.
I Thessalonians (11).
II Thessalonians (¢ 2).
3. Second Group; the " Quadrilateral."
General Characteristics; Repulse of Judsistio Attack ($ 1).
I Corinthians 0 2). II Corinthians (¢ 3). Galatians (14). Romans (¢ b). Unity of Romans ($ 6). Criticism by Dutch School (¢ 7).
4. Third Group: Prison Epistles. Philippians ($ 1). The Pauline Style (¢ 2). Colossians (13). EPhesiane (¢ 4).
b. Pastoral Epistles. The Release from Prison (¢ 1).
I Timothy ($ 2).
II Timothy. Titus ($ 3).
coin chieftain subject to the Nabateesn lung, who with his tribe invaded Damascene territory and lay in wait for Paul
before the city gate (cf. T. Zahn, in NXZ, 1904 pp. 34 eqq.). The expression ` the city of the Damascenes ' (II Cor. xi.
32) seems to show that Damascus at this time did not belong to Acttes. The theory that Damascus was given to the Nabatreans by Caligula (consequently after the death of
Tiberius, Mar., 37 A.D.) and was taken away from them by Nero (consequently after Oct., 54 A.D.) has no other support than the inconclusive fact that no inscriptions or coins are
known which show that Damascus belonged to the Roman empire in the yeas 352 A.D. That it did not belong to Aretas o. 357 A.D. seems a sound conclusion from the silence of Josephus concerning such a relation in Ant. XVIIL, vi. 3, and v. 3. (But see NeseTAwrrs IL, § 2.1
In Acts xi. 30, there is mention of a journey of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to Jerusalem, carrying contributions for the relief of the brethren in Judea. The narrative is then interrupted by
an account of events in Jerusalem and 8. Jonmey Palestine, including the death of Herod o! Acts
	zi. So.	Agrippa T., and is resumed in Acts xii.
		25, with the return of Paul and Barna
bas to Antioch. From Josephus it is gathered that
Agrippa died in 44 A.D. It Wag Passover time (Acts
xii. 3); hence the journey occurred about the Pass
over of 44 A.D. It was probably after the Passover,
but not very long. From this datum the begin
ning of the association of Paul and Barnabas
may be determined. They labored together in
Antioch "a whole year" (Acts xi. 26); if at
the end of this year the journey took place which
interrupted their work in Antioch, it was after the
Passover of 43 A.D. that Barnabas brought Paul
from Tarsus (Acts xi. 25‑28); at any rate before
the end of 43 A.D.

899	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul the Apostle
Josephus says that Agrippa died three years after he became king of all Judea (War, II., xi. 6; Ant., XIX., viii. 2); consequently at the earliest in Feb,, 44 A.D., since he received " his whole paternal kingdom " from Claudius immediately after the latter's accession (Jan. 24, 41 A.D.; War, II., xi. 5; Ant., XIX., v. 1). Furthermore, he died at a time of special festivities because of the emperor's " safety " (Ant., XIX, viii. 2), which must refer to Claudius' safe return from Britain at the beginning of 44 A.D. Two or three months were required for the news of the emperor's return to reach Palestine and for the preparations for the festivities. Hence the year 44 A.D. is well attested as that of the death of Agrippa, and the time of year indicated by Acts is quite consistent with Josephus. The events recorded in Acts xii. 1‑19, can hardly have occurred while Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem, since the two apostles do not seem to have been involved in them; and if these events and the death of Agrippa (Acts xii. 20‑24) occurred after the journey, the natural place to relate them would be after Acts xii. 25 (or before xv. 1). The date of the famine in Palestine was probably 46‑48 A.D. But the determination of the Antiochians to send relief to Judea was formed because of a prophecy foretelling " great dearth throughout all the world " before the event (Acts p. 27‑29). In 4143 A.D. there were harvest failures in different parts of the empire, which may well have been regarded as the, beginning of the fulfilment of the prophecy (of. T. Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 417, 633 eqq., Leipsic, 1900).
Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus when Paul and Barnabas visited the island as recorded in Acts xiii. 4‑13, is undoubtedly the proconsul Paulus of a Greek inscription of Soloi (D. G. Hogarth, Devia Cypria, p. 114, Oxford, 1889; cf. NKZ, 1904, pp.
192 sqq.) and the Lucius Sergius Paulus S. First of CIL, vi. 31, 545. He governed Xissionary Cyprus before 53 A.D., the date of the
Journey. inscription of Soloi, but was not the
proconsul of 52 or 51. If he was the proconsul of 50, he would have been in office in the spring of 51 A.D., and this date is the terminus ail guem of the beginning of Paul's first missionary journey. The inscription CIL, vi. 31, 545, is probably earlier than the proconsulship of Sergius Paulus, since his name appears there in a subordinate position which would not be likely if he had filled so important an office before the inscription was written; but since the date of this second inscription is uncertain, no satisfactory terminus a quo is furnished herein.
In 52 A.D. Lucius Annius Bassus was proconsul of Cyprus (CIG, 2632). His predecessor was Quintus Julius Cordus (CIG, 2631). Gatti, the first editor of CIL, vi. 31, 545 with impropriety assumed that it was later than the censorship of Claudius (Apr., 47‑0ct., 48 A.D.; cf. Prosopographia, iii. 221, Berlin, 1898; Pauly‑Wissowa, Realencyklopadis, iv. 1793).
	Paul's first visit to Corinth was made at a time
when Aquila had lately come thither in consequence
of an edict of Claudius expelling all Jews from Rome
(Acts xviii. 1‑2). The time of this edict can not be
	4. First exactly determined, but it was not
	Visit issued during the first years of Claudius.
to Corinth. In 41 and 42 A.D. Claudius granted to
		the Jews in Alexandria, in Rome, and
in the empire the free exercise of their religion, with
admonitions not to abuse the privilege (Josephus,
Ant., XIX., v. 2‑3; Dio Cassius, LX., vi. 6). Fail
ure to heed this advice and tumultuous disturbances
of the peace ultimately brought about their expul
sion from Rome (Suetonius, Claudius, xxv.). Dio
Cassius doubtless had this later edict in mind when
be adds to the year 41 " he did not drive them out,"
and had he known that it was issued immediately he would have mentioned it. The conclusion is that Paul first went to Corinth between 45 and 54 A.D. He stayed there eighteen months, during which time (or part of it) Gallic was proconsul of Achaia (Acts xviii. 11‑12). Attempts to determine the date of Gallio's proconsulship have failed (cf. Ramsay in the Expositor, Mar., 1897, pp. 201 sqq.; Scharer in ZW T,1898, p. 41; Honnicke, pp 26 sqq.).
When Paul was arrested in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 7 sqq.) Felix was procurator of Judea (Acts xxiii, 24); after two years he was succeeded by Porcius Festus (Acts xxiv. 27). Holtzmann, Blam, Harnack, and others have argued lately in favor of 54,
55, or 56 A.D. as the date of this change 5. Arrest in of officials. But so early a date is Jerusalem. inconsistent with clear and unques‑
tioned statements of the historians, especially Josephus, who is the classic authority for the history of Palestine from 50 to 70 A.D., and the older opinion is to be preferred, placing the recall of Felix and the assumption of office by Festus probably in 60, possibly in 59 or 61 A.D. The arrest occurred in 57, 58, or 59, probably in 58 A.D.
The earlier date rests upon the chronicle of Eumbius‑‑a secondary authority. Eusebius,, however, appears to have thought that Felix held office from 51 or 52 to 56, Festus from 56 to 61, and Albinus (the successor of Festus) from 61 to 64 A.D. Josephus (War, II., xii. 8• Ant., XX., vii. 1) makes it plain that Felix was sent to Palestine toward the end of the reign of Claudius‑in his twelfth or thirteenth year (53 A.D.), if an inference may be made from the Connection of the latter passage. The inference is supported by the fact that Josephus places his account of Felix's procumtorahip (War, II., xiii. 2‑7; Ant., XX., viii. 5‑8) after the accession of Nero (War, II., xii. 8; Ant., XX., viii. 2). Furthermore. Josephus says the emperor sent Felix after Quadratus had removed Cumanua just before a Passover (War, II., xii. 6, 8). From Tacitus (Annales, xii. 52‑54) the year when Cumanus was removed appears to have been 52 A.D. (see FELIX AND FasTDS). The interval from the Passover of 52 A.D. to the close of navigation in the autumn of the same year seems very short for all that is related by Josephus (War, II., xii. 6‑8; Ant., XX., vi. 2‑vii. 1, ix. 5) between the removal of Cumanus and the arrival of Felix in Palestine; for this reason also the spring of 53 A.D. is the more probable date for the latter event. When Paul first appeared before Felix the latter had been in office " many years " and he continued two years longer (Acts xxiv. 10, 27; cf. " already for a long time [ram pridxml governor of Judea," Tacitus, Annales, xii. 54). It is hard to reconcile this with the term of only four or five years assigned by the chronicle. The statement of Josephus (Ant., XX., viii. 9) that Felix, after he had been replaced by Festus, escaped punishment through the influence of his powerful brother. Pallas, can be made to support the new chronology only by assuming that Josephus believed the recall of Felix, the despatch of Festus, and the accusation of the Jews in Rome all to have occurred before the downfall of Pallas (Feb., 55 A.D.). But this means that Josephus believed that Felix ruled only about three and one‑half months under Nero (from pct. 13, 54, to deb., 55 A.D.), and Y( t he places the greater part of Felix's procuratorship under Nero. It means also that the voyages of Felix, Fretus, and the Jewish em‑
bassy were all made in the winter months. It is inconsistent
with the account in Acts, which shows clearly that Fe lix
was replaced by Festus, not in the winter, but in the sum‑
mer (between Pentecost and September Acts xx. g, 16, xxiv. 11, 27, xxv. 1, 6, 13, 14 23 xxvii. 1, 9). And, lastly, it makes Felix's term of office too short. The statement about Pallas in Ant., XX., viii. 9, may be an error (so Bacon in the ~zpo~ei.Eor Feb., 1898, p. 135; Zahn, Fronlesounp, ii.
640); or, possibly, Pall regained influence after Feb., 55 A.D. (Cf. SchOrer, i. 578). There is independent evidence that Felix ruled during the first years of Nero. (1) 11e
Egyptian " of Acts xxi. 38 belongs to the reign of Nero and the procuratorship of Felix (Josephus, War, II., W.

Paul the Apostle
THE NEAP SCHAFF‑HERZOG
5; Ant., XX•, viii. 6); he was anterior to Paul's arrest (Acts xri. 38), after which Felix remained in office two full years (Acts xxiv. 27). (2) In his twenty‑sixth yes', that is, in the spring or summer of 64 A.D., Josephus went to Rome to attempt the release of certain priests who had been sent thither by Felix for trial before the emperor (Life, iii.; for the date, Life, i,; Ant., xii., 1, Xi. 3); it is incredible that men were kept waiting for trial eight or even ten years, as they must have been if Felix was recalled before the downfall of Pallas. Festus died in office, probably in the first half of 62 A.D., since Albinus appears to have reached Palestine in September or October of that year (Josephus, Ant., XX., ix. 1‑3; War, VI., v. 3; the date is fixed, if, as Is probable, the feast of tabernacles mentioned in the latter passage is the same as " the festival " of Ant., XX., ix. 3)• His term of office was short (Josephus, War, IL, xiv.1; Ant., XX., viii. 9‑11)‑wn additional reason for placing the recall of Felix later than 54 or 56 A.D. With due consideration of all the data, this event must be dated either in 59, 60, or 61 A.D. The year named last is least probable, because it makes Festua rule less than one year (summer of 61‑fiat half of 62 A.D.)‑an event which Josephus would hardly have suffered to pass unnoticed. Furthermore, the clause with toi stratopedarchei is undoubtedly to be retained in Acts xxviii. 16 (cf. Zahn, Einleitung, pp. 390‑391), and implies that when Paul arrived in Rome there was but one praetorian prefect, which was not the case after the death of Burrue near the beginning of 62 A.D. If Festus assumed office in the summer of 61, Paul must have reached Rome after the middle of Mar., 62; and at this time both successors of Burrus were in office. The ear 60 is preferable to 59 since it makes the " many years ~' of Acts xxiv. 10, five and one‑half instead of four and one‑half, and only on the assumption that the arrest took place in 58 A.D. can II Cor. xii. 2 be made to fit in with the certain date of Acts xi. 25 (see 1 2, above).

Assuming that the arrest took place at Pentecost of 58 A.D., reckoning can be carried back to the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (q.v.) with considerable certainty, partly by the help of statements like Acts xviii. 11, xix. 8‑10, xx. 3, 6, 31, and hints
in the epistles (I Cor. xvi. 8; II Cor. g. Con‑ viii. 10, ix. 2; etc.), partly by esti‑
mating the length of time required for the events recorded and the time of year in which they occurred. Thus it appears that the Apostolic Council was held in the winter of 51‑52, probably at the beginning of 52 A.D. Reckoning backward from this point and assuming that Gal. ii. 1‑10, corresponds to the events of Acts xv. 1‑33, and that the three years of Gal. i. 18 are not included in the fourteen years of Gal. ii. 1. it appears that Paul was converted seventeen years before the Apostolic Council‑that is, in the winter of 34‑35, probably near the beginning of 35 A.D. The "new chronology," which puts the conversion in the year of Jesus' death, fails to allow sufficient time for the important events of Acts i.‑viii. and is inconsistent with the uniform representation of the conversion as relatively late.
8. Period before Conversion; According to his own statement, recorded in the Acts (xxii. 3; cf. ix. 11, xxi. 39), Paul was born in Tarsus. His Judaizing opponents. perhaps as early as the second century, inferred from this that his parents were heathen (Epiphanius, Han, XXX., xvi. 25). Modern historians surmise that he was a Hellenist. When he declares himself a " Hebrew of the Hebrews" (Phil. iii. 5; of. II Cor. xi. 22), he does not contradict this, since what he has in mind is his ability to speak the language of the Palestinian and Syrian Jews (i.e., the current Aramaic). He was a Pharisee, descended from a line of Pharisaic ances‑
400
tom (Acts xxiii. 6, where the reading is the " son of Pharisees," not " of a Pharisee"; If‑ Phil. iii. 6; Gal. i. 13‑14). Since the distinction of Pharisee and Sadducee is not heard of in the diaspora, this fact indicates that Paul's family maintained connections with the mother‑land, and he appears to have had a married sister living in Jerusalem (Acts xxiii. 17). He was educated in Jerusalem in the school of Gamaliel the Elder, the grandson of Hillel (Acts xxii. 3). He inherited Roman citizenship from his father (Acts xxii. 28) and had also the rights of a citizen of Tarsus (Acts xxi. 39). Following Jewish custom, his father doubtless gave him the name of Saul when he was circumcised (Phil. iii. 5), perhaps after the first king of Israel, as the family belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5). As son of a Roman citizen he necessarily had also a Roman name‑doubtless prienomen, nomen, and cognomen. As the cognomen was the usual designation (cf. Cwsar, Cicero, etc.), it is not strange that it alone (Paulus) has been preserved. He was doubtless called Saul by Jews after as well as before conversion, while as a Roman and missionary to the Gentiles he was always Paul. The change from Saul to Paul in Acts xiii. 9, is perhaps due to a change in sources. Paul's personal appearance seems to have been unimposing (Acts xiv. 12; II Cor. x. 10), perhaps a consequence of the bodily affliction to which he refers in II Cor. xii. 7‑10; Gal. iv. 13‑14 (cf. II Cor. iv. 7‑18). Whatever this affliction was‑‑severe neurasthenia, malaria, eyetrouble, or even epilepsy (cf. Zahn, EinWung, i. 122)‑he seemed sometimes one smitten by God and beset by an evil spirit. He appears to have aged early. He never married (I Cor. vii. 7‑8, ix. 5). In his student days, doubtless, according to rabbinic custom, he learned the trade by which he supported himself later (I Thess. ii. 9; II Thess. iii. 8; I Cor. iv. 12, ix. 6,8; II Cor. xi. 7‑12, xii. 14‑18; Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34). The Greek sk‑enopoios (Acts xviii. 3) means a " maker of tent‑material "; and Paul was a tanner rather than a weaver. The older translators and commentators knew well that the tents of Corinth and Ephesus were made of leather and uniformly classed Paul among the workers in leather. That the weaver's trade was of ill repute in Jerusalem is decisive on this point. Paul won distinction in Gamaliel's school (Gal. i.14) ; and this, no doubt, led to his prominence in the execution of Stephen and brought him later the commission to persecute the Nazarenes (Acts vii. 58, viii. 1, 3, ix. 1‑2, 14, xxii. 4‑5, xxvi. 9‑11). As Christian, Paul looked back upon this time with sorrow and regret (I Con xv. 8‑9; Gal. i. 13‑14; Phil. iii. 6‑9; Eph. iii. 8; I Tim. i. 12‑16) and appreciated the contrast between his pharisaic and his Christian piety and mode of thought; but he always recognized a connection between the two. Like the best of his people who rejected the Gospel, he was actuated by an honest striving after righteousness, a zeal for God, and an impulse to spread his own conviction and knowledge. As a Christian he was still a Pharisee (cf . Acts xxiii. 6) and a disciple of the rabbis in life, in handling of Scripture, in zeal for proselytizing (cf. Matt. xxiii. 15), and also in faith and hope. Passages like Phil. iii. 3‑14; Gal. i.

401	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul the Apostle
13‑15, show that Paul was not ashamed of his earlier pharisaic life.
8. Conversion and Preparation for Missionary Service: Paul's conversion was no gradual development, but a sudden and violent rupture with all his past thinking and activity; the light brake upon him, not like the dawn of day, but as a lightning flash, which revealed the glory of God shining in the face of Christ (II Cor. iv. 6) and at the same time illumined all other things and displayed his previous striving in its true character (II Cor. v. 16 sqq.; Phil. ii. 7‑10). He cites his pharisaic training and bias as proof that his faith and understanding of the Gospel were not due to human agency, but were a direct revelation of Christ (Gal. i. 11‑16). He gives no information in his writings concerning the outward media and circumstances except that immedi ately after the event he went to Arabia and Damascus (Gal. i. 17). He saw a vision (optasia, Acts xxvi. 19); which resembled other visions in that the supersensuous was perceived by the senses; but both Paul and the Acts (ix. 3‑18, xxii. 6‑16, xxvi. 9‑20) distinguish it sharply from all later " revelations," tt visions," and " trances " (Gal. ii. 2; I Cor. xn. 1‑4; Acts xvi. 9, xviii. 9, xxii. 17‑21, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23) as something unique. Paul believed that he actually saw Jesus as the older disciples had seen him after his resurrection (I Cor. xv. 8) and that for this reason his apostolate, like theirs, rested on personal intercourse with the Lord (I Con ix. 1). He received the call to preach at this time (Acts ix. 15, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16‑18); but nothing is said about a command to begin at once or a mission exclusively to the Gentiles (cf. the present, euaugdizomai, instead of the future, euangetisamai, in Gal. i. 16). The latter was first committed to him three years later (Acts xxii. 21), and he preached first to the Jews in Damascus, Jerusalem, and Judea (Acts ix. 20, 27, 29, xxvi. 20). After three years in Damascus, during which Paul doubtless received from the Christians in the city such instruction as he needed in the Gospel tradition, he returned to Jerusalem (Acts ix. 23‑28; Gal. i. 18). Conditions there were more favorable than they would have been earlier. Caiaphas, who had given Paul his commission as persecutor (Acts ix. 1‑2), had been removed from office, and Vitellius had succeeded Pilate and established better government (36 A.D.). Nevertheless, the renegade naturally encountered hatred, and the counsel of the Jerusalem Christians and a divine command determined him to leave Palestine and go to the home of his boyhood (Acts ix. 29‑30, xxii. 17‑21; Gal. i. 21). If Paul was converted in the beginning of 35 and went to Antioch in the summer of 43 A.D. (see 1, §§ 2, 6, above), he must have remained in Tarsus more than five years. There is no reason to believe that he traveled in Cilicia and Syria or that he preached to the Gentiles in Tarsus. It was a time of waiting and preparation for the future. He now understood his mission to the Gentiles (Acts xxii. 21); and it was natural that he should devote himself to study preparatory to that work. He was called from his retirement by Barnabas and resumed active work in Antioch (Acts xi. 25‑26). According to the chronology here followed, the experiences VIII. 26
described in II Cor. xii. 1‑5 occurred in or before the autumn of 43 A.D., and doubtless they contributed to his decision to go to Antioch with Barnabas.
4. Paul the Xissionary: It is impossible here to follow Paul's far‑reaching missionary journeys or to depict his work, surpassing all previously accomplished for the spread of Christianity, in detail; no more will be attempted than a characterization of the work. Paul's teaching in Antioch (Acts xi. 26, xiii. 3) from the summer of 43 to about the spring of 50 A.D. was essentially missionary work. It resulted even in the first year in so notable accessions to the already flourishing congregation, especially of Greeks, that the Antiochians coined the name " Christians " in distinction from the synagogue (Acts xi. 19‑26). If the visit of Peter to Antioch, mentioned in Gal. ii. 11‑14, is rightly placed in this time (cf. NKZ, 1894,. 435148), it shows that Paul already had the conception of the Gospel and of the principles to be followed in a Gentile congregation which he developed later in the epistles. When he was sent out to preach by the Antioch congregation (Acts xiii. 2‑4) he felt himself an apostle according to the original meaning and current application of the word‑one commissioned by Christ to preach the Gospel to non‑believers. Barnabas accompanied him and worked with him at this time, and he had other associates in this journey and later ones. The methods and principles which Paul followed are seen in this first missionary journey (Acts xiii. 4, xiv. 26). The evangelists went rapidly from town to town and district to district, avoiding the smaller places and preaching only in the large cities. In the larger cities there were generally Jewish congregations and synagogues, and many Gentiles who " feared God " (Acts xiii. 16, 26, 42, 43) were in the habit of attending the Sabbath services. Thus there was opportunity to preach to both Jews and Gentiles; it is a mistake to think that Paul from the very first interpreted his mission to the Gentiles as exclusive of the Jews. Another principle was the consistent refusal of all material support. It was customary for traveling preachers to accept the freely offered gifts of those among whom they tarried, and Paul recognized their right to receive (I Cor. ix. 4‑18) and emphasized the duty of the congregations to support their permanent teachers (Gal. vi. 6; I Tim. v. 17‑18). But for himself he wished to avoid all appearance that his preaching was a profit‑bringing business (I Cor. ix. 18; I Thess. ii. 3‑12). Yet he did not refuse contributions offered in a spirit like his own to meet the expenses of journeys to spread the Gospel, or to solicit for his personal needs when, as in imprisonment, he could not work at his trade (II Cor. xi. 8; Phil. i. 3‑7, ii. 25‑30, iv. 10‑19). In nothing is Paul's good sense more apparent than in his readiness to invoke the sad of the civil authorities and to claim his legal rights as a Roman citizen when attacked by the Jews or the heathen populace; and in noteworthy instances he found efficient protection (Acts xvi. 36‑39, xxii. 25‑29, xxiii. 27, xxv. 9‑12, xxvi. 32). While petty officials sometimes showed a disposition to curry popular favor, it was Paul's good fortune that most of the higher representatives of the Roman government with

Paul the Apostle
whom he had to deal were intelligent and well‑meaning men. His favorable judgment of the Roman order (Rom. xiii. 1‑7; I Tim. ii. 2) was founded on personal experience. Lastly, Paul's office as missionary and true apostle imposed the duty of organizing the new congregations which he founded, and of watching and guiding their development. The duty carried with it the right to command (I Cor. vii. 10‑13, 17, xi. 17, 34, xiv. 37, xvi. 1; I Thess. iv. 2, 11; II Thess. iii. 4‑12) and demanded an obedience which was not always accorded (II Cor. ii. 9, x. 5‑6; IT Thess. iii. 14). But the relation of the congregations to their founder was that between paternal authority and child‑like reverence (I Cor. iv. 14 sqq.), and Paul, in accordance with his conviction that freedom is an inalienable characteristic of Christian morality, left no means untried to convince of the necessity and wisdom of his opinions, recommendations, and ordinances. His command and skilful use of argument, path, and irony are evident in his epistles; the correspondence with the unruly Church of Corinth, which is not wholly preserved, gives the best picture of this side of Paul's burdensome work, and shows also how, though absent, he cooperated in local church discipline without imposing his opinion as the only one valid (I Cor. v. 1‑8; II Cor. ii. 1‑11, vii. 2‑12).
6. Contest with Judaism: When the Gospel was first offered to the Gentiles there were some in the mother congregation at Jerusalem who found it hard to accept such as fellow believers (Acts xi. 2‑3). Men of this type came to Antioch while Paul and Barnabas were absent on the first missionary journey and endangered the growth, if not the very existence, of the Gentile congregation there by teaching that circumcision and full observance of the Mosaic law were essential to salvation (Acts xv. 1). The Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (q.v.) followed and repudiated the teaching of these Judaizers (Acts xv. 2‑29; Gal. ii. 1‑10), but they continued active. They visited the South Galatian churches while Paul was on his way to Europe on the second missionary journey and produced an effect there which threw Paul, when he heard of it, into the state of agitation and indignation in which the epistle to the Galatians was written. It must not be assumed that the Judaizers were insincere. They were Pharisees (Acts xv. 5); and they doubted as little as any Pharisee (Matt. xxiii. 15; Rom. ii. 17‑20) that it was thb duty of the Jews to open to all men the way of salvation revealed to them. They preached Jesus in their way (II Cor. xi. 4) and zealously. But they asserted that Gentiles, in order to be Christians, must first become Jews.
Herein lay the ground of controversy between the and Paul; and Paul entered the contest with
strenuousness and carried it through with a fer
tility of resource which won him the victory.
Appealing to his own experience and that of
upright Christians a Jewish origin (Gal. ii. 15‑21
Rom. vii. 1‑6; cf. Acts xv. 7‑‑11) and to the results
of his labors as divine commendation, he characterized the contention of the Judsizers as a misunderstanding of the law and all pre‑Christian history,
as a perversion of the Gospel, and as a mischievo attack not merely on the Gentile Christians but
THE NEW ScH"F HERZOG
402
m
‑
‑
us
even on the true freedom of all Christians (Gal. ii. 4). None the less he refrained from criticizing Jewish Christians for observing the law and conformed to it himself. The first period of the contest was closed by the decision of the Apostolic Council (in the winter of 51‑52 A.D.) that, instead of the uniformity demanded by the Judaizera, there
should be a Gentile Church and a Jewish Church. Thenceforth Paul did not lack the approval and support of the Jerusalem Church, or at least of its leaders. But attempts, always emanating from Palestine, continued to be made to undermine his work and disparage him personally. Judaizers appeared in Galatia, in Corinth, in Rome, and no doubt elsewhere. Distorted reports about Paul (cf. Acts xxi. 21) inflamed feeling against him, and his adversaries were able to cite in their favor with some apparent reason the example and teaching of Jesus (cf. Matt. v. 17‑19) and the practise of the Jerusalem Church. He felt it of the highest importance to right himself in Palestine, so far as he could, by visiting Jerusalem before he transferred his activity to the West, and he went thither with a large sum of money for the poor, collected in the congregations which he had founded, and attended by an imposing array of deputies from the Macedonian,‑Asian, and Galatian churches (Acts xx. 4, xxi. 29; IT Cor. viii. 16‑24). He evidently wished to show that the Gentiles whom he had converted regarded the original congregation with grateful
love and hoped to convince the non‑believing Jews that he was not devoid of sympathy with his suffer‑
ing people (cf. Acts xxiv. 17; Rom. xv. 31).
8. Paul's C+ospel sad Theology: Paul deemed but one Gospel worthy of the name and called it indifferently the Gospel (or testimony or word) of God (Rom. i. 1; T Cor. ii. 1; T Thess. ii. 13; etc.), and of Jesus or Christ or the Lord (Gal. i. 7; T Cor. i. 6; Col, iii. 16; etc.). The genitive in each case is subjective, indicating the originator. Paul's Gospel was the " Gospel of God " because it was a message sent by God into the world and because God spoke to men through human preachers and called them to salvation (Rom. viii. 30; II Cor. v. 19‑20; Gal, i. 6; I Thess. ii. 12‑13); and it was also the " Gospel of Christ " because Christ was the first preacher of this Gospel (Eph. ii. 17) and continues to offer salvation to men through his ambassadors (II Cor, v. 20; Gal. iv. 14). All apostles truly called preach this Gospel (Rom. i. 1‑5; T Cor. xv. 11), and wherever conversions result it is the true Gospel which is preached (Rom. vi. 17; Eph. i. 13‑16; Col. i. 7). When he speaks of a " gospel of the circumcision " and " of the uncireumcision " (Gal. ii. 7‑8), Paul means different forma of one and
a the same Gospel‑not different Gospels ,for Jews
‑ and Gentiles, but different methods of preaching.
The Gospel of the uncireumcision was specially
all committed to Paul, and because of this unique com‑
mission and the far‑reaching extent of his missionary
labors, he is preeminently the apostle to the Gentiles and the Gospel which he preaches is his Gospel (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; II Tim. ii. 8); though he does not deny that others recognized the need of preaching to the Gentiles and fulfilled the duty before him
t (Eph. iii. 5‑6). Paul had a theology distinctly

403	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul the Apostle
his own, not indeed elaborated into complete and final systematic form, but nevertheless a general conception of the. revelation of God in Christ, the preparation for it, and its consequences resting on consistent thinking and well grounded in its main principles. He was by training and knowledge the only theologian in the modern sense of 'the word among the apostles. But he was not led to the Christian faith and life by study, but vice versa. His theology was experiential knowledge interpreted by the light of the general evolution as he saw it in the Old‑Testament history, in the appearance of the historical Christ, in the religious antitheses of his time, and in the world of culture and civilizar tion. This is seen most clearly in his doctrine of the law, of sin, and of justification. It has not always been sufficiently recognized that Paul's teaching has much in common with that of Jesus and the Apostolic Church. For example, his conception of the righteousness of God (Rom. i. 17, iii. 21‑22, x. 3; II Cor. v. 21; Phil. Hi. 9) is fully understood only when the fact is properly appreciated that Jesus (Matt. vi. 33) and James (i. 20) spoke of a divine righteousness contrasted with one merely apparent attained by human works. As the great preacher to the Gentiles, Paul remained in high honor and his epistles were added to the Gospels as the foundation of the New‑Testament canon. His teaching was dominant in the sub‑apostolic Church and the entire prereformation Church. Marcion was the only one who felt that Paul's doctrine was peculiar and tried to distinguish it sharply from other Christian thinking; and Mascion misunderstood Paul fundamentally.
7. Paul the Martyr; Paul's epistles throw no light on the events beginning with his arrest in Jerusalem at Pentecost, 58 A.D., and ending with his arrival in Rome nearly three years later (see 1, § 5, above), and what is known of this period is
1. Stated derived solely from the last eight Facts. chapters of the Acts. Mommsen (pp.
87 sqq.) has found the narrative trustworthy when tested by knowledge of Roman criminal law and procedure and has even pronounced it a unique and valuable commentary on other sources. Paul was attacked in the temple by a turbulent crowd (instigated by the Jews " of Asia," Acts xxi. 27) and was saved from summary mob vengeance by the intervention of the Roman chiliarch, Lysias. To escape examination by scourging Paul declared himself a Roman citizen, and Lysias then accorded him speedy trial in presence of his accusers and found no offense which called for death or imprisonment. The highest Jewish authority, however, preferred a capital charge against a Roman citizen, and in such a case the chiliarch had no jurisdiction; so he sent Paul to the procurator, Felix, at Caesarea. Again the accused had prompt trial (" after five days," Acts xxiv. 1) and no crime was proved. Further investigation (Acts xxiv. 22‑26) must have removed any doubts that Felix may have had of Paul's innocence. But he delayed to pronounce final judgment, which must have set the prisoner at liberty, and Paul was still confined when Felix was succeeded by Festus two years later. The Jews made haste to press their charge before
Festus, whereupon Paul availed himself of the right to have his cause heard in Rome by an appeal to Caesar. Accordingly he was sent to Rome, being well treated on the way (cf. the entire narrative, Acts xvii. 1 sqq.), was put in charge of the praetorian prefect (at the time the excellent Afranius Burins; see 1, § 5, above), and was permitted to live for the next two years in his own hired house, to receive freely all who came to see him, and to preach without hindrance. Here the narrative of the Acts abruptly breaks off. The epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, which were written from confinement in Rome, confirm the account of the Acts without adding anything of importance. They name some of the devoted fellow workers who gathered about Paul (Col. i. 1, 7, iv. 7, 10‑12, 14; Philemon 23‑24; cf. Acts xxvii. 2) and show that his desire to preach the Gospel in Rome, expressed many years earlier (Rom. i. 9‑16, xv. 22‑29), was being abundantly fulfilled (Eph. vi. 19‑20; Col. iv. 3; Philemon 10). Only in Philemon 22 is there a hint that a trial is approaching. When the epistle to the Philippians was written Paul was also imprisoned in Rome, but conditions were different. His case had been taken up by the authorities but was not yet decided. The impression had gone forth that he was imprisoned solely because of his Christian faith and missionary preaching; others, both Paul's friends and some (Judaizersj who were actuated by " envy and strife," were preaching more zealously than ever (Phil. i. 12‑18). This seems to imply that Paul was not allowed to preach himself, and also that the authorities were not disposed to adjudge Christian preaching criminal. Paul hopes to be acquitted (Phil. i. 19, 25, ii. 24). What the outcome was is nowhere told.
If, however, the pastoral epistles are genuine, Paul was set free. For these letters imply many facts which can not be fitted into Paul's earlier life and were, for the most part, contemporary with the let2. Probable ters or happened shortly before they Conjectures. were written. They mention a visit to
Crete (Titus i. 5, 12), to Miletus, Troas, and probably to Corinth (II Tim. iv. 13, 20), to Macedonia; and an intended visit to Ephesus ( I Tim. i. 3, iii. 14); the intention to spend the winter at Nicopolis in Epirus (Titus iii. 12). Furthermore, when II Timothy was written Paul had been for some time in prison in Rome, but the conditions are not those of Acts xxviii. 30‑31, or of the epistle to the Philippians. A friend from Asia Minor had found him only after diligent seeking and others had forsaken him (II Tim. i. 8‑12, 15‑18, ii. 9, iv. 10). There is no more mention of preaching, and Paul is convinced that his end is near (II Tim. iv. 6‑8, 18; in iv. 16‑17 he says that at his " first answer," cf. Phil. i. 7, 16, the Lord delivered him to the end that he and no other should preach the Gospel to all the Gentiles). If it was Paul who wrote all this, his first trial ended in acquittal, and then he not only revisited the eastern congregations but preached Christ, as he had long desired to do (cf. Rom. xv. 24), in the West. The facts mentioned in II Timothy can hardly have been later inventions. Hence, even if the epistle be not genuine, it testifies to an acquittal and activity in the West. And this activity has

Paul the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	404
independent support in Roman tradition of about 90 or 100 A.D. The First Epistle of Clement (v.) says that Paul preached " both in the East and West, . . . taught righteousness to the whole world, and came to the extreme limit of the West " before he suffered martyrdom in Rome. According to current usage " the extreme limit of the West " means Spain or the Atlantic Ocean (cf. Zahn, Eindeitung, i. 441, 446‑49). The same tradition appears in the Gnostic Acts of Peter about 160 or 170 (ed. R. A. Lipsius, Acts apostolamm apocmpha, i. 45‑48, 51, 26, Leipsic, 1891), in the Muratorian Canon (q.v.; line 38), and in many later writings. It can not be based upon the pastoral epistles, since these speak only of renewed activity in the East or in general terms without specific designation of place, and say nothing of the West. And so early as 95 A.D. and in Rome, where the older members of the congregation must have had personal knowledge of the facts, it can hardly have been an inference from the desire to visit Spain expressed in Rom. xv. 22 sqq. The tradition of two imprisonments in Rome with an interval of missionary work between them is first connected with II Tim. iv. 16‑17, by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. ii. 22), and the Spanish journey with Rom. xv. 24, 28, by Jerome, though not very definitely (on Isa. xi. ed. Vallarsius, iv. 164; Ps. lxxxiii., Aneedota Maredsolana, iii., 1895, pp. 2, 80). Against the historicity of the tradition there are neither positive atatements,of great antiquity nor hypotheses of convincing force. The abrupt termination of the Acts does not necessarily indicate that Paul died at the end of the two years (Acts xxviii. 30‑31); on the contrary, if the imprisonment terminated in a glorious martyrdom, the author would hardly have omitted so fitting a conclusion of his narrative. The sad words of Acts xx. 25 are not conclusive (cf. the confident tone of Phil. i. 19, 25, ii. ‑24). The assumption that Paul suffered in the persecution instituted by Nero after the burping of Rome is improbable (1) on chronological grounds, because this persecution did not begin before the autumn of 64 A.D., and from the end of the two years (spring, 63 A.D.) to this time is too long an interval; (2) according to tradition never contradicted Paul was beheaded (Tertullian, Pro;acriptio, xxxvi.; Acts of Paul, ed. Lipsius, ut sup., pp. 112 sqq.); taking into account Tacitus, Annalm, xv. 44, the hints in I Clement v., and Paul's Roman citizenship, it is almost incredible that he (like Peter, according to tradition equally old) can have been crucified. The Roman tradition which makes Peter and Paul both suffer on June 29 of the same year can prove at the most only that Paul (like Peter in all probability) suffered under Nero. But this tradition first appears in the fourth century and is a misunderstanding of a common festival of Peter and Paul which originally commemorated a translation of their relics on June 29, 258 (cf. Zahn, Eixleitung, i. 454 sqq.). Even Augustine doubted this tradition because of another which made both &POO" die on the same day of the year, but Paul in a later year than peter. The old AotA of Peter (ed. Lipsius, ut sup., pp. 48, 3, 8) place his work and martyrdom in Rome in the @me year which took Paul to span therefore,
earlier than Paul's death; and Irenwus, following
a later tradition, set the death of Paul a full year
after that of Peter (ASB, June, v. 423). The older
witnesses‑‑Clement, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenseus,
Tertullian‑and Eusebius in the chronicle (Arme
nian text) display no exact chronological knowledge
and are at one only in that both apostles died about
the same time, and, so far as any indication is given
of the emperor, under Nero.	(T. ZAHN.)
11. Epistles.‑1. Preliminary Questions: The canon of the New Testament ascribes fourteen letters to St. Paul. Of this number the epistle to the Hebrews (see HEBREWS, EPISTLE To Tam) may be put aside. It can not possibly have been written by the apostle. By every test of style and thought it belongs to some other writer. It can not be called Pauline even in a secondary sense, as if it had issued from a Pauline school deeply stamped by the master's mind. The reference to Timothy in xiii. 23 indicates that it was written by a man who belonged to the Pauline group. But in every way he was his own master. After a long and thorough debate it may be fairly said that the case against the Pauline authorship is closed.
There remain thirteen letters passing under the apostle's name. As regards all of them, the external testimony is unanimous and continuous. Its
1. External value is heightened by the fact that Testimony. the testimony of the Church in the second and following centuries, when it came to the epistle to the Hebrews, divided, East and West being at odds. But upon the other thirteen there was never a doubt. The secondcentury fragment called the Muratorian Canon (q.v.) ascribes them to Paul; and in all probability it publishes the mind of the leaders of the Church of Rome. Mareion accepted all but the Pastorals. It seems probable that he found the thirteen letters at Rome assembled into a Pauline corpus. His treatment of them is not historical but dogmatic. Distinction must be made carefully between what the external evidence can and can not do. It makes no discriminations. The statistics of quotation vary. Certain epistles are more widely used than others. But this does not affect the testimony as a whole, which speaks about every member of the group in the same tone and with the same emphasis, and is conclusive regarding the Pauline literature as a whole. It attests the existence of a man of vast religious genius and executive efficiency.
	But the external testimony has no value
when it faces the new issues in the field of
Biblical introduction. One of the assured re
sults of recent Old‑Testament and New Tes
tament work is a profound difference between
			modern methods of authorship and
a. Internal literary workmanship and the methods
		d~' that underlie the main body of Holy
Scripture. With us the author is a self‑conscious
individual. His book is his own, no one eleeps.
He has property rights in it which the laws of copy
right insure and safeguard. But antiquity as a
whole lacked this conception of authorship. The
literary man was very apt to be a member of a school
or gild. His writings or outgivings were not in any
sense his own property, but the property of the

406	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Pant the Apostle
community to which he belonged. Their text was preserved by the community, in the hands of which it was in some degree plastic. Pentateuchal criticism, Isaianic criticism, Homeric criticism, the study of Jewish and Christian apocalypses, the synoptic problem, the Johannine problem, contribute an irresistible volume of testimony to the fundamental difference between ancient authorship and modern authorship. When the external testimony to the Pauline epistles, dating from the second half of the second century and the period following, is confronted by the results of this discovery, it becomes silent. When something has been learned about the literary methods of the apostolic age, surprise does not follow when a New‑Testament scholar affirms or suggests that one or another Pauline epistle has been worked over or, to use the modern term, edited by a member of the Pauline gild or school, a group of men deeply infused with the apostle's spirit, who had caught, consciously or unconsciously, the secret of his style. Nor is one surprised when scholars assert that this or that epistle was written outright by one of Paul's disciples. When such questions arise, resort is not had to the external evidence to settle them. Internal evidence alone can help. Students are in the same case as the student of Plato or Aristotle when the genuineness of a given dialogue or treatise is questioned, and have to meet the question as students of Philo meet the long‑vexed question regarding the genuineness of the essay on the Therapeutie. Or, once more, investigators are on the same ground as the art‑critic who has to deal with questions touching the genuineness of certain paintings issuing from the artistic school or family of Rubens. The internal testimony alone can help. They must study the letters as a whole, find out the deeper, the incommunicable qualities of mind and spirit, and by them test the matter in hand.
The first impression made on the reader by this body of letters is that their presence within the Holy Scriptures is an extraordinary fact without a close parallel. The Catholic Epistles g. Qhareoter are not in the strictest sense letters, of Epistles the are more like homilies; the lack as a Collec‑
	tion.	the twofold personal element, the
		personal outgivings of an individual
writer, and the personal presence before the writer's
mental vision of definite individuals and specific
localities. But the Pauline epistles for the most
part are real letters, rich in personal feeling and
color, and aimed at concrete and specific human
groups. A recent group of scholars, the so‑called
Dutch school, has assailed the opinion common to
both tradition and criticism regarding the Pauline
authorship of the Corinthian and Galatian and
Roman letters. Even though the matter in
question were for the moment conceded, wonder at
the part played by the Pauline letters in the canon
of Holy Scriptures would not be lessened. They
would still remain, both in form and in spirit, true
letters. The only possible parallel in the contents
and structure of sacred books is the pronouncements
of Mohammed in the Koran, and even this is remote.
Mohammed's outgivings are consciously delivered
as divine oracles; they are oracular both in form
and content. The Pauline letters, on the contrary, are true letters, drawa out by special occasions, colored by definite situations. They are a unique element in the Christian Bible. The evidential value of this impression is heightened by the way in which the letters were preserved and afterward passed into a systematic collection. No matter who wrote them, the reason why the people to whom they were addressed kept them with such care was the belief that they had been written by the Apostle Paul. His name gave them their standing. They came into the collection from widely separated congregations. In one case (Philemon) a family treasured a private letter and afterward contributed it to the Church. As the Pauline congregations were drawn into close relations with each other, the letters were copied and exchanged. Finally they were assembled, possibly in the first instance at Rome. Whoever wrote them, Paul's name preserved them. Therefore the very existence of such a body of letters, no matter how judgments regarding individual letters may fall out, is irresistible testimony to an immense and constructive personality, whose work and word were inseparable from the existence and well‑being of the Catholic Church.
The questions of introduction pertaining to the Pauline letters can not be separated from the apostle's life. He did not write easily. Possibly his habit of using a scribe or secretary (Gal. vi. 11; Rom. xvi. 22) was due to the fact that, shrinking from writing, he sought to ease the burden. While it would be an over‑statement to say that his letters were wrung from him, there is a truth in it. He had not the writer's initiative, but was driven into literary expression by imperious need. His letters were instruments of government whereby he kept in his hand the reins of control and direction over the churches he had founded. The way in which they dovetail into his work is an essential part of the evidence in their favor.
It may appear that this is argument in a circle, making use of the letters to know the man, and then using the man, his work, and his mind, to authenticate one or another letter. The Book of Acts can not give material help. Even
	4. Not an	though it be assumed that the Paul
	Argument	of Acts and the Paul of the epistles are
in a circle. not two Pauls, but one and the self
		same Paul, with such differences as
the time and place of writing and the mood of the
writer rendered necessary, yet Acts, it is certain,
knew nothing or little of the apostle's inner life,
and its author seems to have made small use of the
apostle's letters. Indeed, there are points where he
writes as if he had not known or, knowing, had
forgotten the letters. His story is intensely dra
matic, and has both the virtue and the limitation
of that kind of history. The Book of Acts gives
the framework of Paul's life, but it does not help
when one is confronted by the introductional prob
lems of our time, which can be solved only by the
letters themselves. Consequently we seem to be
moving in a circle. But the case is not so bad as
it seems. In the first place, the problem here is
not that of the genuineness of all the letters; the

Paul the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	406
letters are used as a whole to determine the Pauline cast of thought and turns of style, in order to test certain letters which have been brought into serious question whether Paul can have written them or no. In the second place, the procedure is identical with the method used to determine the genuineness of certain dialogues of Plato or treatises of Aristotle. The Platonic corpus or the Aristotelian corpus gives the standard or canon by which the student judges the dialogues or treatises in question. The present situation is similar, since the process is that of testing one or another alleged part in the light of the whole.
The facts in the apostle's life that deeply concern the student of the Pauline epistles a,re these: (1) He was born in Tarsus, of a distinguished and wealthy family. His father had possessed himself of Roman
citizenship. (2) He went up to Jeru6. Paul's salem to complete his education. He Personality. studied under Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 3). This would indicate that through his teacher he was open to liberal Judaism and so to Hellenism. But Acts ix. 1‑2 and Gal i. 14 also indicate that he was a zealous Jew of the Pharisaic type. Probably, like some other men of genius, he did not clearly know himself, and so was drawn both ways. (3) He was an ardent persecutor of Christianity (Acts viii. 1, ix. 1‑5; T Cor. xv. 9). (4) He was converted in an altogether extraordinary way. No great man ever underwent so violent and sudden a change. It is a striking testimony to his strength of will that his religious experience did not drive him into the ranks of the religiously insane. (5) The mental consequences of his conversion were twofold. The death of Jesus had struck at the heart of Jewish Messianism. Paul had shared the violent antipathy to it. His conversion, by the law of recoil, carried the death of the Messiah down to the roots of his being (I Cor. ii. 2). The popular Messianism, so far as he was concerned, went into bankruptcy (II Cor. v. 16). The other result was that the institutes of Judaism and Rabbinism became either adiaphora or worse (Gal. iv. 9). The practical motives, though unacknowledged, may have been as strong as the religious and nationalistic motive. Saul was a brilliant candidate for the honors of the rabbinate. But the new prophetism, which was the soul of the society of Jesus (cf. Peter's sermon in Acts ii.) threatened the entire rabbinical establishment with ruin. The magnificent corporation of scholars and lawyers and exegetes, with all the vested interests both religious and social which they represented, was brought in peril. Saul the persecutor belonged to the school of Ezra, and Ezra's program was separatism. The prohibition of mixed marriages, the prohibition of table fellowship, these are the significant milestones in the advance of Ezra's policy. In Paul's time the program of Ezra had practically triumphed. Pharisaism was substantially synonymous with vital Judaism. The Maccabean war had brought the Pharisaic party and platform into the clear light of day. Another great war, the war with Rome, would soon demonstrate that the heirs of Ezra held the power of the keys in Israel. This, then, was the total result of Paul's conversion. The program of Ezra became un‑
timely, the institutes of Pharisaic Judaism were thrown on the scrap‑heap. The other prime factor in Paul's mental development was his experience as a missionary. As a missionary to his own people, he was for the most part a failure. He was too radical in his views. His failure here may have been a part of the reason for his assent to the decision (Gal. ii. 9) dividing the missionary field. Shut up to the Gentile world, by a splendid stretch of the imagination he took the whole empire for his province (Rom. xv. 19, 24). He discovered the meaning and value of his Roman citizenship. The empire as a divinely ordained institution dawned upon him (Rom. xiii. 1‑6). Thus the two parts of the world he was to deal with in his thought were shaped and placed beside each other. His mind played between and over two historical magnitudes, the Empire and Israel. Finally, he was of an acutely sensitive temperament. His nervous system was finely organized; and possibly his " thorn " or " stake " in the flesh (II Cor. xii. 7; see I., 2, sup.) was some nervous disease. He received quick and deep impressions, which he organized, not after the method of the philosopher or the systematic theologian, but under the spur of necessity and the pressure of occasions.
2. First Group: The earliest Pauline letters we possess were to the church at Thessalonica. Whether the apostle wrote earlier letters which have been lost is, possibly, an unanswerable question, though the fact that in I Thess. there is an order of thought,
1.1 The,‑ an arrangement of material that per‑
s,lonians. sists through all the Pauline letters save Galatians, I Timothy, and Titus may seem to suggest an experienced hand. But so far as data go, I Thessalonians is the earliest Pauline letter. It was written from Corinth or its neighborhood (I Thess. iii. 1‑6), in the course of the second missionary journey and not very long after the apostle had left Athens. Critical opinion regarding the letter has on the whole been very favorable. The fundamental characteristics of T Thessalonians are (1) A lively and insistent monotheism. Paul was the first great Jew since the exile to visit the polytheist in his own home. Jewish orthodoxy became in him a prophetic passion for the divine unity. (2) An intense and lively belief in the parousia. Altogether, T Thessalonians gives au insight into the apostle's mind which seems to bring him fairly close to the primitive Christian type of belief and emotion. This is interestingly illustrated by two specific positions. First, the belief in the resurrection of Christ is here inseparable from the belief in the second coming: the masterhood of Christ is expressed in terms of the divine control over history. But later on, as in Rom. i. 4, the resurrection is taken as the installation of Christ in his divine sonship. Secondly, the trilogy of I Corinthians xiii. 13 (faith, hope, love) here appears in its first edition, faith, love, hope (I Thess. i. 3). The absence of the characteristic Pauline doctrines from the letter has been made much of by those who deny its genuineness. But this is due to an alliance between subjective Protestantism and critical methods. Protestantism, taking justification by faith to be an article on which the Church stands or falls, has frequently

407	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Paul the Apostle
carried it out of its historical and constructive context. For Paul the supreme end was the religious equality of Jew and Gentile (I Thess. ii. 15). This is his great and controlling theme. Everything else is means to this end. And, considering the nature of his thought and realizing that he was not a systematic thinker but rather one who found himself only under serious pressure, the contrast between I Thessalonians and the letters to the Galatians and Romans argues for I Thessalonians, not against it. Paul's relation to Judaism is the controlling element in his life. But his mind was not academic; he did not seek to anticipate the issues of history, but he met them as they advanced against him. The Jews of Thessalonica who subjected the Christians to humiliating social persecution were classed in Paul's mind with the Jews of the Holy Land who treated Palestinian Christians in the same way (I Thess. ii. 14‑16). He did not dream that he would have to fight for his life as a Christian and an apostle, and that, too, on his own missionary field, and that his assailants would be fellow Christians who found their backing in Palestine.
II Thessalonians makes a different showing. Ever since critical study of this epistle began there has been a growing body of opinion which either denies the Pauline authorship altogether or concludes that the text of a genuine Pauline letter has suffered change. A comparison of II Thessalonians with I Thessalonians quickly reveals the reasons for the
2. II Thes‑ difference in the standing of the two
salonians. letters. (1) II Thessalonians lacks the lively monotheism which is so characteristic of I Thessalonians. Yet the former, if genuine, must have been written shortly after I Thessalonians, and the same characteristics would be expected. In defense it is alleged that II ThessaJonians was called out by the demoralizing and disintegrating effects of a one‑sided belief in the parousia. Naturally the letter devotes itself wholly to that one point. (2) The letter is notably lacking in the personal element, by which is meant Paul's intense self‑consciousness constantly breaking out into lively expression, and his vivid impressions of concrete situations and definite individuals. He was a born pastor, and saw men not as trees walking. His idealism was not abstract but deeply concrete. The letter contains just one personal touch (iii. 6‑12), and affords no impression of the congregation at Thessalonica; it is practically in the class of Hebrews and I John‑a homily rather than a letter. (3) The warning against forged letters (ii. 2, iii. 17) is a difficulty. The congregation at Thessalonica was scarcely a year old, and it is difficult to see the possibility, much more the necessity, of such a warning, at so early a date, though it might have been in place later. (4) The climax of difficulty is reached in the little apocalypse, as it is often called (ii. 3‑12). There are two elements here. One is the conception of the Roman empire as a divine power holding down the Satanic forces and tendencies of history, and preventing their breaking out into God‑defying anarchism. It is an audacious departure from the beaten track of Jewish and Jewish‑Christian apocalyptic, which in every known case takes the raw material for the problem of evil
from the heathen world‑powers. It needed the boldness of genius and a unique experience to break away from the fixed tradition. All this bespeaks Paul as author (compare his view of the Roman state in Rom. xiii. 1‑7). But the second element in the passage in question raises a serious difficulty. Orthodox Judaism, persecuting Christianity (cf. I Thess. ii. 14‑16), is depicted as giving birth to a monstrous power, the personification of lawlessness, that sets itself up in the Temple of Jerusalem as a deity, to be adored in the place of the true God. Could Paul, even in the white heat of argument and debate, have made such a diagnosis? And is there a wide gulf between this view and Romans ix.‑Y‑4., where Paul hopes that all Israel may be saved? The conservative defenders of II Thessalonians take things easily here: they say that the apostle outgrew this emotion. But the little apocalypse, taken in its context, clearly implies explicit thinking and more or less systematic teaching (verse 5), something more deeply rooted than a passing impression, a conviction as clearly thought through as Paul's view of the Roman state. Making all allowances for modern aversion to New‑Testament eschatology, the question arises, could Paul have shaped this conception of Judaism ? The style of the letter is thoroughly Pauline. The passage in iii. 6‑10 is characteristically Pauline in feeling. The view of the Roman state as a divine power holding evil in check suggests a date either before the Neronian persecution or long after it. May it not be that this is a genuine Pauline letter worked over by a gentile Paulinist, who incorporated in his picture the image set up by Daniel and the project of Caligula to set up a gigantic statue of himself in the temple at Jerusalem ?
S. Second Group; the " Quadrilateral" : The second group of letters, I and II Corinthians, Galar tians, Romans, is commonly called the " quadrilateral." The name was given by Christian apologetes to these letters after Ferdinand Christian Baur, sweeping the other Pauline letters off the board, took these four as the only indubitably Pauline documents. They are widely separated from I Thessalonians both in thought and in feeling. In I Thessalonians the apostle's mind was in close contact with the heathen world. This is the controlling mental relationship, by which the letter is shaped and colored. But in the so‑called quadrilateral the apostle is engaged in a hand‑to‑hand fight with the, Judaizing tendency in Christianity. The shape and color of thought differ correspondingly.
Jewish Christianity, during the first period of its existence, and under St. Peter's leadership, had been Jewish without thinking about it. But in its second period, under the leadership of James,
1. General it was Jewish consciously and by inCharacter‑ tention. Its program was the conver‑
istics; Re‑ sion of Israel. Its method involved
pulse of conformitY to Judaism in everything
	Attack.	that did not undo the distinctive tenet
		of Christianity, the conviction that Jesus
was the Messiah. At the Apostolic council a concor
dat had been reached, which could not, however, in
the nature of things, long endure, since it involved the
existence of two distinct churches, each retaining its

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Paul the Apostle
separate character until the parousia should solve all problems. But history had something to say on this subject. At Antioch table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians became the order of the day. But James of Jerusalem was right in feeling that this was a breach of the concordat. It involved the existence of a single church to which the distinctive tenets of Judaism were adiaphora. It completely undid the program of Ezra. Hence the men who came from James opposed the idea of table fellowship (Gal. ii. 12). Here began the first precipitation of the great issue. Jewish Christianity, honestly believing that the Pauline policy involved the ruin of its plan for the conversion of Israel, set istelf to undo Paul's work. It threw the concordat (Gal. ii. 7‑9) to the winds. Invading Paul's own field, it assailed his standing as an apostle and sought to undermine the edifice of Catholic Christianity which he was building. This attack identified Paul's person with the Gospel he was preaching, and consequently joined forces with his temperamental tendency to self‑consciousness. He could not separate his defense of his apostolic dignity from the defense of Catholic Christianity. Ranke has finely said of Alexander the Great that his life was one of the rare cases in which universal history became identical with a biography. Paul's life is a similar case. Paul's person and the supreme issue in the field of religion were identified and could not be separated. Hence to an extraordinary degree he was driven to clear self‑knowledge and to a deep study of the necessary foundations for his great theme and work, the religious equality of Jew and Gentile. The theme of I Thessalonians still remains the supreme thought. But its implications now for the first time come into the light of broad day.
The letters to the Corinthian, Galatian, and Roman churches, then, constitute a group by themselves. As regards their sequence, they are so closely related that no arrangement can be conclusive. But the logical internal arrangement seems to be (1) The Corinthian letters, (2) Galatians, (3) Romans. And so long as no solid external argument can be brought against it, this may be accepted as a good working hypothesis. The group differs widely from I Thessalonians. Paul, as a prince of missionaries, gave his whole attention to the work in hand. In the Thessalonian letters he was in quickening contact with heathenism. In the quadrilateral he is at close quarters with Judaizing Christianity, fighting for his life and honor. So the mental situation is fundamentally different; and the apostle's thought changes accordingly.
I Corinthians was written near the end of Paul's stay in Ephesus, and was occasioned by party divisions in the Corinthian church. The congregation had grown rapidly. At the same time it was close to a large colony of Jews (Acts xviii.) who were in 2. I Corin_ constant connection with Jerusalem.
t. Here were all the elements of trouble.
As to the number of parties that appeared in the congregation, whether three or four, the discussion still continues. The writer of this article believes that there were four, and that the "Christian party" was made up of those who banked upon the connection with the mother‑church
408
of Christendom, the congregation of Jerusalem. They appealed to that visible and tactual genealogy of religious ideas which is so potent with the average man, and also seem to have made much of eschatologic visions and of the glossohilia (see SPEAKING WITH ToxauEs), two related phenomena that were characteristic of Jerusalemitic Christianity. I Corinthians is not so much a letter as epistolary jottings. Various questions of morals and discipline are taken up, without regard to their connection with each other. None the less, the letter has a real unity of its own, a deep emotional unity underlying its fragmentary details. The theme of chaps. i.‑iv. is the unity of the local congregation. That theme returns in chaps. viii.‑x., connecting itself with the discussion of the Lord's Supper in xi. 17‑34; and in chaps. xii.‑xv., the discussion of the charismata, it gets complete control of the writer's mind. It is to be noted that in xiii. 13 the trilogy assumes its second and final shape‑faith, hope, love. The reason is that the supreme task of the new religion is now clearly in view. It developed the average man to the limit of his spiritual and moral powers but kept him within the congregation, made him an individual free from individualism.
II Corinthians was written from Macedonia. Paul had planned to go direct from Ephesus to Corinth. He had changed his mind, and his detractors 3. II Corin‑ at Corinth took this, as they took all
	thians.	his actions, in the most ungenerous
		way. Paul, they said, was a variable
person (i. 15‑18), not a man of his word. The way
in which Paul works out his defense (i. 18‑23) rep
resents the rich body of Christology in the epistle.
It is a pastor's theology, intimate with specific needs
and concrete situations. Perhaps more clearly than
any other letter, this illustrates the apostle's habit
of mind. It has been strongly urged that it is really
two distinct letters stitched together by the Pauline
editor, chaps. x.‑xiii. constituting a letter by them
selves (" four‑chapter letter "). A good deal can
be said for this thesis. It is difficult to keep from
feeling the abrupt change from the self‑possession
and the joy of chaps. L‑ix. to the intense personal
passion and mental strain of the chapters in ques
tion. But it is, perhaps, an excessive capitalization
of this certainty to cut the four chapters out, for
Paul did not cast his letters at one pouring (cf.
the two letters constituting Philippians). Yet these
four chapters are a distinct literary unit, so close to
Galatians in emotional color that the student of in
troduction may well study them together. In the
body of II Corinthians the divergence of Christian
ity from Mosaism is the main question. In these
chapters that issue becomes identified with Paul's
person. Opening with the characteristic " I my
self" (cf. Rom. vii. 25) and possibly with the
" Christ party " in plain view, the apostle, with noble
shame, brags his opponents down, seeking to silence
these " make‑believe apostles " (xi. 13), the arro
gant Judaizing Christians from Jerusalem.
The Galatian letter may have been written either from Macedonia or Achaia. In any case, it is close to II Corinthians x.‑xiii. in thought and emotion. Paul received from members of his spiritual household news of a serious crisis among the

409	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul the Apostle
churches of South Galatia; they were backsliding into Jewish Christianity (i. 6). The native relig‑
ion of that region delighted in sen‑
tians. Bon ritual (Cybele, the Great Mother, etc.). Paul had won his converts by the contagion of an irresistible personality (iv. 15) rather than through the formation of solid conviction in their minds. His splendid idealism was beyond them. Now came Judaizing Christianity, with its rigid ritualism and its doctrine of tactual apostolic succession. It was near enough to their land to find them at home, yet sufficiently above their level to impress them. Hence the crisis. The Judaizers declared that Paul was a second‑hand authority, deriving all that was good in his views from the original apostles (i. 1, ii. 6‑7). They seem to have gone further than the Judaizers at Corinth (v.2‑12) and to have insisted on the necessity of circumcision. Paul's defense included three elements: (1) By careful biographical chronology (i. 15‑ii. 1) he proves his independence of the original apostles; (2) his carriage in the apostolic council and in the controversy at Antioch manifested his ability to withstand the " original apostles " to their face; (3) the conversion of his followers to Judaizing Christianity is in truth a perversion. Judaism with its law is not the final religion. Its levitical institutes are outgrown rudiments of religion (iv. 9). The true function of the law is not to rival Christianity, but like a loyal household servant (iii. 24‑25) to guide men to Christ, who has established a splendid religious and social unity (iii. 28) that recognizes no difference between Jew and Hellene, between free man and slave, between male and female.
The Roman letter is the logical climax of the quadrilateral, the most massive and coherent of the epistles. This fact is explained by the apostle's mood at the time of writing. He wrote from Achaia at the end of the second tour. He had carried through the first part of his magnificent missionary
plan (Rom. xv. 19). Looking through 6' $°s' and beyond Rome his imagination takes fire at the thought of attacking the western part of the empire (Spain, etc.). He is going up to Jerusalem, knowing that the possibility of serious peril awaits him there. But he carries in his hand the great offertory collected by his churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia (I Cor. xvi. 1 sqq.; II Cor. ix.; Rom. xv. 26‑27). The letter expresses his sympathy for the Christians at Jerusalem. He also had great hope that it might prove a peaceoffering. The opposition in his own field has been for the time being put down. Writing to Rome, the imperial city, the supreme missionary opportunity (i. 13), and standing on the ground made good in the Corinthian and Galatian letters, he clears his mind. Down to a recent date the genuineness of Romans passed as certain and final in all schools of criticism. Baur and the Tabingen school valued it as a stronghold of apostolic feeling and verity. But the group of scholars constituting the so‑called " Dutch school " have boldly assailed this apparently impregnable position. A considerable part of the weight of their attack is drawn from the alleged lack of unity in the letter (cf. Van Manen on Ro‑
mans, EB, iv. 4127‑15). But their treatment of the epistle suggests that literary analysis and literary combination. modelled after the established standards of Old‑Testament criticism, have outgrown par tient and deep exegesis. The letter has a truly massive unity. In the salutation (i. 1‑7) the apostle asserts his right to the full apostolate; it is grounded in the creative call of God. In i. 14 he claims the entire Gentile world as his province. The Gospel has power to bestow divine righteousness, final religious standini, and perfect character on Jew and Gentile alike (i. 16‑17). Both Jew and Gentile, apart from the Gospel, are totally unable to attain the divine ideal of personal and social righteousness. As for the Jew, the glory of his life under the law is that it brings him to deeper selfknowledge, to clearer consciousness of sin than the Gentile has been capable of (i. 18‑iii. 20). God has set up in history the person and death of Christ as the atoning‑place where man enters into the real and full presence of the divine. Through sheer mercy and grace, independent of inherited or soquired merit, God gives final standing to consciousness. So is human pride barred out and human unity made possible (iii. 21‑30). Abraham's life is the classic life of the spirit] As a spiritual adventurer he made no fortune. He made his fortune as God's friend, building a perfect trust on that creative word and power of God which, even while Paul writes, is taking social and religious nothings (iv. 17), and building them into divine society (iv.). The ground of religious certitude can be found nowhere save in God's mercy and Christ's work (v.). The Antinomian is put to flight. The Pauline Gospel does not give rein to desire and lust, but reveals the power of the creative divine spirit to break the power of lust and desire (vi.‑vii.). The confidence of the redeemed comes next. Fear is overcome. The holy and creative spirit lifts the human spirit to God. The divine choice takes the soul out of the world into the fellowship of the Savior (viii.). Prom the pean of redemption the apostle passes to the pain of contemplating his nations unbelief. But in the end Israel shall be converted. The supreme mystery, the unity of Jew and Gentile, the unity of humanity, will express and realize the unity of God (ix.‑xi.). The ethics of Paulinism then emerges. The unity of the local congregation is the supreme aim. Moral maxims, in appearance loosely strung together, find here a deep emotional connection. The mystery of human unity must be embodied in the local congregation (xii‑xv.).
But while the genuineness of Romans is very strongly attested, there are weighty reasons for thinking that the letter in its present form is not a self‑consistent unity. The letter ends with a doxology, in itself a fact that excites suspicion. The suspicion is strengths. unity of ened when it appears that the
	Romans.	doxology is placed by some manu
		scripts at the end of chap. xiv. Beng
el's explanation, that the makers of the Greek
leetionary put the doxology here because xv.‑xvi.
was not good material for public reading, dose not
satisfy. The suspicion arieee that some accident
befell the latter part of the epistle, analogous to the

Paul the Apostle
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
misfortune that befell the ending of the second Gospel. The doxology has the internal marks of a genuine Pauline fragment, possibly used by Paul in preaching, kept in the memory of some hearer, and incorporated by the editor into a disordered text. The Phoebe letter in chap. xvi. also presents grave difficulties. It is filled with intimate greetings. Priscilla and Aquila have been appealed to, their knowledge of the Roman congregation being put in evidence. But friendships as intimate as these can not be borrowed nor imported. How then came so many of Paul's intimate friends to be in Rome? Renan's hypothesis that there is here a fragment of a letter to Ephesus makes too large a forced loan. The likeliest supposition is that the Phcabe letter is a separate literary unit. It was probably written by Paul after his release from the first imprisonment (see 4, § 1, below). The Pauline editor, assembling his materials, incorporated this along with the doxology. There is no solid reason for doubting the Roman address of the letter. The documentary evidence for the omission of " in Rome " in i. 7 is not considerable. That fact in itself may not be completely decisive. The history of the New Testament text is inseparable from the history of the Church. When once the great congregation of Rome had appropriated the letter, any other address would have alight chance to survive. But the variant is not hard to explain. Other churches soon appropriated the letter, and some copies of it, with the Roman address omitted, might easily have got into circulation; xv. 28 can not be applied to any church but Rome: nor can i. 8‑14, without strain, be applied to any other situation.
The most significant turn in the study of the Pauline epistles since Baui s day is indicated by the group of scholars somewhat loosely called the Dutch school. Baur and the Tiibingen school left the quadrilateral standing, apparently im7. Qritioismpregnable and unassailable. But these
by Dutoh scholars make the assault with vigor
	8011001.	and conviction (cf. especially Van
		Manen, in BR, s.v. Paul and Romans).
These scholars do not snatch their conclusions out
of the air. They seem to build on good founda
tions. From the Old Testament they borrow the
fixed conclusions that the Moses of history and the
Moses of Mosaism are far apart; and that the Isaiah
of the canon is a mind widely removed from Isaiah
of Jerusalem. Coming nearer home, they use the
fact that the " John " of the Johannine writings
may be a mind widely removed from the " John "
of Ephesus‑whoever he was. They come still nearer
with the conclusion, accepted as a critical certainty
by a large body of scholars, that the Colossian and
Ephesian letters are Paulinist, but not Pauline. They
capitalize the rising value of Acts, enhancing the
value of the Paul of Acts and depreciating the Paul
of the epistles. A letter accepted by all schools as
Pauline now goes the way of Colossians and Ephe
sians. But the Old‑Testament standards of analy
sis must be cautiously used. In the quadrilateral
we are not dealing with a code of law and a body of
sacred history and legend, shaped by the spiritual
and social pressure of centuries. Between the
" Moses " of the Pentateuch and the 11 Paul " of
410
these letters there is an immense difference. " Isaiah" is a body of oracles, diverse in historical setting and in literary style. These four letters are real letters. They fit closely into that supreme religious crisis called the founding of the Catholic Church. Moreover, the Apostolic Fathers conclusively narrow the field of time within which that crisis was passed through. Even the " John " of the Johannine writings is not a close parallel. These four letters are intensely, almost extravagantly, personal. The style abounds in egoisms (" my Gospel "‑Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; habit of taking the oath, Rom. i. 9; I Cor. i. 23; " I myself "‑II Cor. x. 1, xii. 13; Rom. vii. 25, ix. 3, xv. 14). The writer has passed through unique personal experiences (I Cor. ix. 15, xv. 8 aqq.; II Cor. xi.‑xii.; Gal. vi. 17; Rom. ix. 1 sqq., etc.). Making full allowance for the Paulinisnm of the editors, no course of editing can account for such intensely human documents.
4. Third Group; Prison Epistles: If Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians belong to Paul, they constitute another distinct group, and record the final period in a mental development of remarkable symmetry. I Thessalonians records the apostle's state of mind when he was in quickening contact with the Gentiles and before the Judaizing movement drove him to deeper thinking. The quadrilateral records his thinking in defense of the proposition that Jew and Gentile are equal before God. And the letters written during his imprisonment carry his mind forward into conflict with Gnosticism, a view of God and man that dissipated the divine unity and emptied history of its meaning.
If Paul wrote the three letters, it seems probable that all of them were written from Rome. As in the quadrilateral, a decisive argument concerning the sequence of the letters is impossi‑
1.Philip. ble. Scholars of note (e.g., Weiss) place per's' Colossians and Ephesians at Caesarea, Philippians at Rome. But, on the whole, the internal argument carries all three to Rome. Philippians almost beyond question belongs there. If it was written after Colossians and Ephesians, it is difficult to understand why it fails to show any trace of the terminology peculiar to them. It is better to suppose that Philippians is midway between the quadrilateral and Colossians‑Ephesians. In Ughtfoot's happy phrase, it is the spent wave of the debate with Judaizing Christianity. The Philippian letter, cashiered by Baur, has fought its way back to wide‑spread critical recognition. It is the most intimate of all the Pauline letters. Possibly the reason is found in the fact that the church at Philippi never gave the apostle a moment's anxiety. There were no Jews there worth mentioning (Acts xvi. 13, no synagogue). The Judaizing movement never gained a foothold. The relation of the congregation to Paul was so deeply affectionate that he broke his rule of self‑support (iv. 15‑16) and permitted them to minister to his needs. This intimate relationship with his readers may explain the free air of the letter. The apostle seems to have nothing on his mind. At Rome Jewish Christians (i. 15‑16) are making trouble. In the second part of the letter (iii. 2‑9) he takes the reasons for pride

411	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Paul the Apostle
in his own Jewish inheritance and casts them away. But he has no doctrinal burden on his mind. So the letter is self‑revealing to a high degree. The foundation of thought is laid bare. The supreme concern (as in I and II Cor. and Rom. xii.‑xv.) is the unity of the local congregation. Paul finds the root of this unity in the incarnation. Developing a thought struck out in II Corinthians viii. 9, he clears the ground for Christian polity (i. 27‑ii. 11). The capacity for service which is the distinguishing mark of Christian fellowship has its base in the selfemptying devotion of the Son of God.
The Colossian and Ephesian epistles are so closely related in thought and language that they practically constitute a single letter in two editions. If
Paul wrote them, it must be supposed 8. The Paul‑ that, having written Colossians, some
ine Style. time later he cleared his mind by wri‑
ting Ephesians. If Paul did not write them, then a distinguished though unknown Paulinist wrote them both. The history of critical opinion forcibly suggests that Colossians stands on a different footing from Ephesians. Rejected by Baur and his school, it has so far recovered its standing that its possession of a genuine Pauline nucleus is widely recognized. In that case it must be supposed that Paul's unknown disciple, having incorporated the Pauline nucleus into the Colossian letter, proceeded to clarify his mind and systematize his thinking in Ephesians. The student, before he seeks a stable opinion on this difficult question, must discuss the values to be assigned to various kinds of evidence. Beyond doubt, the large number of hapax legomena (i.e., expressions not found elsewhere) in these letters is a real difficulty. The conservative appeal to Paul's versatility has been overworked. But it is equally certain that the negative argument from the hapax legomena has been emphasized (e.g., Holzmami) to the neglect of a weighty argument from the structure of the sentence. Of the two constituent elements of languagq, the lexical and the structural, the latter is the more enduring and the more significant. This holds true at large; in less degree, it holds true of individuals. When once a mind of any magnitude has shaped its unit of thinking‑the sentence‑that sentence in its structure and internal relationships is a far more characteristic thing than single words. Now, while Paul's sensitiveness to new themes and the resulting openness to new terms has been overstressed, there is some truth in it. And it has real evidential value when it is joined to a more solid consideration, the fundamental quality of Paul's style. Characteristic sentences differ according to the degree and the manner in which they utilize and display the power of mental suspense. Paul had the power of mental suspense in large measure. This is proved by his development of the epistolary salutation into a doctrinal summary (Gal. i. 1‑5; Rom. i. 1‑7). But he had not been deeply schooled in Greek, and did not know enough literary Greek to become self‑conscious or afraid. At times, he used Greek most nobly (e.g., I Cor. xiii.). But his characteristic sentence is not literary Greek. He piles perception on perception and clause on clause until not infrequently the sentence almost breaks down under its
own weight. When this test is applied to the Colossian‑Ephesian letters, they show up strongly. Colossians abounds in Pauline sentences (i. 3‑7, 9‑21, 24‑29, etc.). Ephesians, under this aspect, is, if anything, even more Pauline (i. 3‑14, 15‑21, ii. 1417, iii. 1‑7, etc.). In fact, the style of this letter in some places appears to be almost beyond question the style of a Paul who is beginning to be victimized by his own habits of expression. It is hardly likely that there were two men in the first century who could write the sentence contained in Eph. i. 3‑14. To this must be added the evidential value of unconscious feeling. The apostle had a deep sense of the richness and freshness and many‑sidedness of divine grace. It reveals itself in single terms like " riches " and its cognates (Rom. ii. 4, ix. 23, xi. 33; I Cor. i. 5, viii. 2, 9, etc.); in an almost riotous use of compound words; in statements expressing the newness of the redeemed man's experience (II Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15, etc.). Seen from this angle, Ephesians is peculiarly Pauline (i. 7, 18, ii. 7; iii. 8, 16). The consciousness of revelation is deep and fervent, running clear through the letter. Of course, the supposed Paulinist would have caught something of Paul's feeling as well as his style. But the counterweight is found in two facts: (1) The pseudepigraphist was sure to have something heavy on his mind; he would be doctrinaire. (2) His standard of imitation was low. The Christian public was largely uneducated. II Peter is a convincing example of the easy way in which the pseudepigraphist carried himself. The writer takes no pains to imitate the feeling of I Peter. He argues, in a doctrinaire way, for the parousia (see MILLENNIuM, MILLENARIANISM), though the rich feeling for it is lacking; moreover, at a critical point, the catalogue of virtue (i. :r7), he betrays himself, the master‑word " hope " does not appear.
Colossians, if its entangling alliance with Ephesians did not handicap it, could defend itself fairly well, were it not for one thing. The writer evidently
e. Colos‑ has some form of Gnosticism before his sians. Ind's eye, and it is widely supposed that this fact by itself takes the letter, in its present text, out of Paul's hand. This is the objection urged against the Paulinity of Colossians. Indeed, the difficulty due to the hapax legomena and that due to the mental presence of Gnosticism are not two difficulties but one. Grant the possibility of Gnosticism, then the terms to describe it enter as a matter of course. There are strong reasons for the conservative position. (1) The empire was in the throes of a wide‑spread religious movement, and during the last half of the first century Asia Minor was its most important strategic point. (2) Gnosticism was in full bloom in the reign of Hadrian. Basilides shaped a speculative system of great power and appeal. Historical probability requires a considerable period for a religious movement to ripen up to such a man. (3) The beginnings of schismatic mysticism are within the ken of the quadrilateral (I Cor. viii. 110; Rom. xiv.). Van Manen (EB, s.v. Romans, § 17) uses this fact to cast suspicion on Romans. That path, however, is closed to the great majority of those who reject the Pauline authorship of

Paul the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	412
Colossians‑Ephesians. (4) The first period of Gnosticism was Jewish Christian. Cerinthus, a systematic docetist, appeared as early as the last decade of the first century. When it is considered that Gnosticism was a practical religious view before it became a speculative system, it does not seem an excessive strain on historical evolution to find its beginnings twenty‑five years after Paul had preached his first sermon to the Gentiles. Christianity, superbly inspirational and organizing, had great precipitating power. Besides, the Pauline churches, outposts of Christ in a vast heathen world, were wide open to danger from JewishChristian mysticism. And Paul, a born pastor and church‑builder, had a keen scent for danger.
Colossians, if it stood alone, could take care of itself. It is on Ephesians, therefore, that the burden of the defense falls. Here the main battle must be fought. The difficulties are serious. The letter,
4, Rphs‑ if Paul wrote it, can not have been ad‑
	s.	dressed to the Ephesians. But this
		does not explain the almost completely
impersonal character of a letter coming from a man
so ebulliently personal as Paul. It is almost en
tirely doctrinal and systematic. " Holy apostles "
in iii. 3 has a strong second‑century sound. To
ascribe knowledge regarding the great mystery of
human unity to " all the apostles " is un‑Pauline,
by the quadrilateral test‑stone. Yet there are strong
grounds for belief in the epistle's genuineness. The
Pauline type of sentence abounds (i. 3‑14, 15‑23,
iii. 1‑7, 14‑19, iv. 11‑16, etc.). The epistle is flushed
full of prophetic feeling and consciousness. The
conception of the Church is not ecclesiastical (con
trast I Timothy and Ignatius), but intensely pro
phetic. Moreover, it is inherently related to the
Pauline doctrine of election (cf. Rom. viii. 28‑30)
and the conception of the Church as the body of
Christ (I Cor. xn., xiv.; Rom. xiii.). The view of
the ministry (iv. 11‑16) is prophetic and pastoral
(contrast I Timothy). The letter thrills with the
sense of the supreme mystery, the unity of Jew
and Gentile (ii. 11‑iii. 13; cf. Rom. xi. 25‑36).
History does not duplicate great experiences. The
quadrilateral vein crops out in a natural way (ii.
1‑10), quite unlike the pseudepigraphist. The
body of the letter, if taken outside the heroic period
of the Apostolic Age, creates difficulties more seri
ous than those now besetting it. Finally, the fact
that the mental movement from I Thessalonians to
Ephesians presents a mental autobiography as con
tinuous and unique as the body of Aristotle's think
ing starts a presumption in favor of Ephesians.
The final judgment seems likely to be a compromise.
Ephesians is a Pauline letter more or less colored
by later feeling.
	The little letter to Philemon might well have
hoped to escape suspicion, so human is it, so simple
and charming. Yet scholars of deserved repute take
it to be a Paulinizing allegory. Surely the allegorist
who could do this thing so subtly was a master.
Th	h	deep‑ thinkin has reduced the
				u
i ~ il 0
my tic w 0 b 	g
tt	t t d~ a pear to a d aphan	ve f th gs
	are w, d beyapt to have a godeal to say.
W ul say it in t is
o dhe	h	mple fashio and with such
	praiseworthy brevity? May it not be questioned
whether, if this letter had not had the critical misfortune to find itself within the sacred canon, any such charge would ever have been brought against it?
6. The Pastorial Epistles: The question whether the apostle was released from imprisonment presses the conclusion that knowledge of the Apostolic Age
1. The Re‑ is scanty and full of gaps. But the belease from lief in a second imprisonment is gainPrisoa. ing ground. And if full allowance is made for the nature of the evidence, it seems to yield a favoring probability. The Pastoral Epistles contain at least a nucleus of genuine Pauline material which it is difficult to place within the frame of the apostle's life as Acts records it. The long‑vexed phrase in I Clement v (" the bounds of the west " to which the apostle came), taken in its context, must be overcharged with rhetoric, if it is to mean Rome, rather than Spain. The Phoebe letter, unquestionably Pauline, demands a situation lying beyond the bounds of Acts. The Phoebe letter (Rom. xvi. 1‑16) was written from Corinth or Cenchrea, its eastern seaport. It is a document of high value. The apostle's genius for friendship, for deep and many‑sided intimacies, shines out in it. It also throws a bright light upon the social stratum from which Christianity in Rome made its most numerous recruits (I Cor. i. 26). A large majority of those addressed were slaves or freedmen belonging to the immense aristocratic establishments of imperial Rome.
The Pastoral Epistles, since the beginning of critical study, have steadily lost ground. The best
2. 1 Ti.‑ that some fairly conservative scholars
	othy.	can say for them to‑day is that the
		case against them is not closed. The
difficulties besetting I Timothy appear to be in
superable. The fixed order of thought in Paul's
letter‑writing is broken (i. 3). The apostle, because
of his splendid belief in the capacity of man for God
and his delight in spiritual beginnings, was wont to
go forward from the salutation to praise of his read
ers and thanksgiving (e.g., I These. i. 2 sqq.; Rom.
i. 8 sqq.). The one exception is Galatians; but the
reason for this exception is found in Paul's attitude
toward the Galatians at the time of writing. In
I Timothy no such reason exists. Timothy was the
most intimate member of his spiritual household.
Yet the letter plunges straight into business. Joined
to this is the fact that the personal element is a
colorless minimum. Timothy himself is hardly
more than a homiletic personification (vi. 11‑21) to
which is addressed an ordination sermon. In i. 3
is what looks like a distinct reference to II Corin
thians i. 15‑17, and ii. 12‑13. If I Timothy is gen
uine, it places itself in the time and mood of the
quadrilateral and so becomes a psychological im
possibility. Or else in its behalf there must be as
sumed a later journey from Ephesus into Mace
donia exactly parallel. It is true that the Phoebe
letter and the reference in the letter to Titus (iii.
12) to Nicopolis (probably in Epirus) make this
possible. But in the face of other considerable
possibilities no right exists to capitalize this pos
sibility. The letter is full of intention; there is no
hint of the casual. Herein it resembles Galatians

418	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Paul the Apostle
and Ephesians. But this parallel becomes disastrous. For, while Galatians and Ephesians thrill with prophetic feeling, I Timothy is wholly institutional, disciplinary, and creedal. The conception of the Church differs from that in Ephesians (iii. 15; contrast Eph. i. 22‑23). The offices and the functions of the Church (bishops, deacons, widows) are distinct. The episcopate has clearly emerged from the corporate presbyterate. The creed (iii. 16) is forming. In this connection it is to be noted that the word " mystery " is beginning to take a new turn (iii. 9, 16). Caution, however, is necessary against the bias of the highly subjective individualism of our time. The creedal element in faith was easy for St. Paul to reach. Yet between Ephesians and I Timothy there is a gulf in feeling. And along with this goes the fact that the letter abounds in expressions (" It is a credible saying "; " healthgiving teaching "; " contrary teaching ") which are not found in the letters of the first three groups. The difficulty is more serious than the difficulty created by hapax legornena, in which fixed formulas enter. The cumulative effect of these difficulties is an almost irresistible impression of ungenuineness. The letter seems to have been written by a Paulinist contending with Jewish‑Christian heretics, possibly about the end of the century.
II Timothy is in much better case. At nearly every point where I Timothy fails to meet the test, II Timothy succeeds. It follows the Pauline order of thought (i. 3). The personal element is fresh
S. II Tim‑ and varied. Timothy is a real indiothy, Titus. vide (i. 3‑fi) with flesh‑and‑blood
kinsfolk. The writer abounds in expressions revealing the inner life of the apostle (i. 11‑18, ii. 16‑17, iv. 6,8). In iv. 9‑21 is material which can not have been invented. The institutional element, compared with I Timothy, is a minimum. The single reference (ii. 2) is general. The thought of the quadrilateral crops out (i. 89) in a natural way. The feeling of the letter is thoroughly Pauline. Pauline idioms abound (" my gospel "; " I am not ashamed," i. 12; cf. Rom. i. 16). The mental idioms of Paul appear; for example, his use of the aorist in describing the redemptive effects of the death of Christ (ii. 11; cf. Gal. vi. 14 and Rom. vi. 5‑10). Yet the fixed formulas of I Timothy (" It is a credible saying, etc.") pervade the epistle. The most probable conclusion is that II Timothy is a genuine Pauline letter touched here and there by the Paulinizing editor. The epistle to Titus, like I Timothy, violates the order of thought (i. 5 suggests the same hand that wrote I Tim. i. 3). The two together may possibly indicate the beginnings of the conscious theory of "Apostolic Succession" (q.v.; also see SuccEssioN, APosTolac). The letter is institutional in its aim, its material being practically identical, so far as it goes, with I Timothy. It also lacks the personal element. The author's way of handling the Cretans (i. 12) does not seem like Paul. To be sure, this is slippery ground for argument. Yet the apostle's regenerating faith in man, part and parcel of the enthusiasm which founded the Catholic Church, is missing. What seems to be heard is the voice of a later generation, deeply aware of the inertia of
human nature, vexed with questions of discipline, and substituting the schoolmaster for the prophet. But iii. 12‑14 looks like a genuine Pauline element. Zahn has proved (Einleitung, 1. 434‑435) that the Nicopolis here mentioned is in Epirus. There is no ground for supposing that such a detail is due to the historical novelist. Moreover, the salutation (i. 1‑4) is strikingly Pauline. May it not be supposed that the fragments of a genuine letter were used by the editor of II Timothy? And that the same writer went on to write I Timothy with a free hand?
It can not be said that all the problems connected with the Pastorals have been finally settled. This is not a favorable field for the dogmatic scholar whether he be conservative or critical. The criticism of the Pauline epistles has some serious questions still unsolved. But if they are tested by no other test than that to which the writings of Plato and Aristotle are subjected, the conclusions may be as certain here as there regarding the main point. The sweeping negative treatment of the letters is indeed a just historical nemesis on a canonizing process that largely dehumanized them. But the sane critic has no commission to execute poetic justice or to illustrate in his own person the law of recoil. There is a solid body of genuine letters. They give us the self‑revelation of one of the supreme religious agents. It is a real autobiography, all the more valuable because singularly free from literary consciousness‑a wonderfully sensitive and expressive body of thought. Inseparable from the building of the Catholic Church and containing the secret of its life and growth, it is the most fertile portion of the Biblical field for those who would understand the divine method in revelation.
HENRY S. NAsH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. The literature on the life and work of Paul is very large; only a selection is offered here. Some of the most illuminating discussions are in the works on church history, particularly those dealing with the apostolic age. For English readers the three standard works have long been: W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, London, 1852 and often; F. W. Farrar, 2 vols., London, 1879; T. Lewin, 2 vole., London, 1890. Other studies of the life and work of Paul are: K. Schrader, 5 vole., Leipeic, 1830‑38; F. C. Baur, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1866, Eng. traml., London, 1873‑75; A. Hau®rath, Heidelberg 1872; J. Stalker, New York, 1884; E. Renan, Paris, 1869, Eng. transl., London, 1890; C. Fouard, London, 1894; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, London, 1895; P. Seeboeck, Paderbom, 1897; 0. Cone, Boston, 1898; G. H. Gilbert, New York, 1899; W. Lock, London, 1899; R. Bird, ib.19W; A. Whyte, Edinburgh, 1903; C. Clemen, Giessen, 1904; H. Weinel, Tebingen, 1904, Eng. transl., London, 1906; N. Heim, Paulus der V67kerapoatd nach Biibel, Geschichte and Tradition, Salzburg, 1905; F. X. Poelal, Regensburg, 1905; DB, iii. 696‑731; EB, iii. 3603‑38.
Books on special phases of Paul's life, work, or significance are: J. Smith, The Voyage arid Shipwreck of St. Paul, London. 1880; J. S. Howson, Character of St. Paul, ib. 1883; O. P9eiderer, Paulinism, 2 vols., ib. 1877; idem, Influence of Paul on the Development of Christianity, ib. 1885; G. Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, London, 1890; Van Manen, in ThT, 1890, 1896, 1900 (cf. Expository Times, 1898, pp. 205‑211, 257‑259, 314‑319); C. C. Everett, Gospel of Paul, Edinburgh, 1893; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, Edinburgh, 1894; A. Sabatier, L'Ap6tre Paul. Esquiase dune histoire do m pence, Paris, 1896; S. A. Alexander, The Christianity of St. Paul. London, 1899; H. St. J. Thackeray. Relation of St. Paul to Jewish Contemporary Thought, b. 1900; W. E. Ball, 8R Paul and Roman Law, Edinburgh,

Paul the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	414
1901; S. Means, St. Paul and the Ante‑Nicene Church, London, 1903; B. W. Bacon, The Story) of St. Paul: a Comparison of Acts arid Epistles, Boston, 1904; W. G. Jordan. The Philippian Gospel; Pauline Ideals, New York, 1904; T. Nllgell, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, Gottingen, 1905 (on Paul and the development of the Greek language, Paul and the Greek O. T. and Paul and the epistles ascribed to him; the most important recent contribution on Paul); D. Vo1ter, Paulus and seine Briefe, Strasburg, 1905; S. Monteil, Essai sur la christolopie de S. Paul, Paris, 1908; W. P. Du Bose, The Gospel according to St. Paul, New York, 1907; E. Moske, Die Bekehrunp des hell. Paulus. Eine exegetisch‑kritische Unterauchung, Mpnater, 1907; J. M. Campbell, Paul the Mystic, New York, 1908; W. E. Chadwick, Social Teaching of St. Paul, London, 1906; idem, Pastoral Teaching of St. Paul, Edinburgh, 1908; G. Munzinger, Paul. in Korinth. Neue Wept zum Verstandnis des Urchristentums, Heidelberg, 1908; F. Prat, La Thiologie de S. Paul, part ins, Paris, 1908; A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul: a Study of Development in Paul's Career, New York, 1909; C. E. Woods, The Gospel of Rightness. A Study in Pauline Philosophy, London, 1909; A. B. D. Alexander, The Ethics of St. Paul, Glasgow, 1910; J. Moffatt, Paul arid Paulinism, Boston, 1910.
II. Questions of criticism on the writings of Paul are, of course, discussed in the works on Biblical introduction ‑of. the literature in and under that article, on the canon (e.g., Zahn's), and on early Christian literature (e.g., Harnack's Geschichte). Consult further: G. G. Findlay, Epistles of Paul the Apostle, New York, 1893; P. Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1876; C. H. Waller, Handbook to the Epistles of Paul, London, 1887; M. Krenkel, Beitrage zur Aufhellung der Geschichte and der Briefs des Paul., Brunswick, 1890; D. V51ter, Die Komposition der Paulinischen Hauptbriefe, part ins, Tijbingen, 1890; P. V. Schmidt, Der Galaterbrief im Feuer der neuesten Kritik, Leipsic, 1892; C. Clemen, Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe, Halle, 1893; idem, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe, Gottingen, 1894; F. J. A. Horn Prolegomena to . . . Romans and Ephesians, London, 1895; H. Lisco, Entstehung des .8. Korintherbriefes. Berlin, 1896; R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1901; W. Kelly, Short Introduction to the Epistles of Paul, London, 1902; C. G. Baskerville, Side‑Lights on the Epistle to the EPhesidne, London, 1903; J. D. James, Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, London, 1908; A. Steinmann, Die Abfassungszeit des Galaterbriefes, Monster, 1906; W. C. Van Manen, Die Unechlheit des Rtimer‑briefes, Leipsic, 1906; D. Round, The Date of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, Cambridge, 1907; A. Steihmann, Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes, M Ouster, 1908; W. Lfitgert, Freiheitspredigt and Schwarmgeiater in KorCnth. Gtiteraloh, 1908; idem, Die Irrlehre der Pa8toraibriefe, ib. 1909; R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles; A Critical Study, Edinburgh, 1909; A. Schlatter, ErlButerungen sum Neuen Testament, vol. iii., Die Briefs des Paul., Stuttgart, 1909; H. B. Brumbaugh, Onesim. the Runaway Slave, Elgin, Ill., 1910.
Among commentaries are those which cover the whole Bible or the New Testament, such as: Lange's, Eng. trawl., New York, 1869 aqq.; Meyer's, Fog. trawl., New York, 1873 eqq.; Cambridge Bible for Schools, Cambridge, 1879 eqq.; Bible Commentary, London, 1881; P. Schaff, Popular Commentary, New York, 188283; Pulpit Commentary. London and New York, 1883 sqq.; Cambridge Greek Testament, Cambridge, 1887 sqq.; Expositor's Bible, London and New York, 1888 sqq.; Handkommentar gum Neuen Testament, Freiburg, 1892‑93; Kurxgefasster Kommentar, Munich, 1893 eqq.; International Critical Commentary Edinburgh and New York. 1895 sqq. (in progress); T. Zahn's Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Leipsic, 1903 sqq.; add C. J. Ellicott's Handy Commentary, New York, 1880.
Commentaries on all or on groups of the Pauline epistles: B. Jowett (on Romans, Galatians, and Thessaloniaw), bested., London. 1859; A. F. Manoury, 4 vols., Paris, 1878‑81; K. Heydt, 2 vols., Elberfeld, 1882; J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, London, 1886; J. A. Beet, Ephesians, Philippiana, Colosaians, Philemon, London. 1890; H. Oltramare (Romans, 2 vols.), Geneva, 1882, (Colossians, Ephesiaw, Philemon, 3 vole.), Paris, 18911892; J. Drummond, Epistles of Paul the Apostle, Boston, 1899; E. Haupt, Die Gefangenschaftabriefe, Gottingen.
1899; W. G. Moorhead, Outline Studies in Romans, Cor inthians, Galatians, and Ephesian8, Chicago, 1902; R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1903; J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1904; J. E, Belser (on Timothy and Titus and Ephesians), Freiburg, 1907‑08; W. G. Rutherford, St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians and to the Corinthians, London, 1908.
On Romans: A. Tholuck, Berlin, 1858, Eng. trawl., Edinburgh, 1848; R. Haldane, New York, 1870; W. S. Plumer, London, 1871; T. Robinson, 2 vols., ib. 1871; G. Volkmer, Zurich, 1875; M. Stuart, Andover, 1878; F. A. Philippi, Frankfort, 1888, Eng. trawl., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1878‑79; W. G. T. Shedd, New York, 1879; F. Godet, 2 vols., Paris, 1883‑90, Eng. trawl., of earlier ed., 2 vols., 1880‑81; J. A. Beet, London, 1882; F. Moulinie. Geneva, 1883; E. Boehmer, Bonn. 1886; C. Hodge, Philadelphia, 1886; C. J. Vaughan, London, 1890; H. B. Liddon, ib. 1893; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam. Edinburgh and New York, 1895; F. Spitta, Gottingen, 1901; P. Feine, ib. 1903; H. Hoffmann, Leipsic, 1903; G. Stockhardt, St. Louis, 1907.
On Corinthians: J. E. Oeiander, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1847‑58; A. Neander, Berlin, 1859; C. Hodge, 2 vols., New York, 1860; A. K15pper; Berlin, 1874; G. Heinrici, 2 vols., ib. 1880‑87; A. P. Stanley, London, 1882; J. A. Beet, ib. 1885; T. C. Edwards, Edinburgh, 1885; J. J. Lies, London, 1886 (on I Corns); J. F. Rkbiger, Breslau, 1886; E. P. Gould, Philadelphia, 1888; C. J. Ellicott, London, 1887 (on I Corns); F. Godet, 2 vols., Paris, 18861887, Eng. trawl., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1886‑87 (on I Corns); W. Kay, London, 1887; H. H. Henson, ib. 1898; H. Couard, Potsdam, 1901; A. Schkfer, Munster, 1903; F. S. Gutjahr, Gras, 1907 (II Corinthians); G. H. Randall, London, 1909; J. E. McFadyen, New York, 1909; A. MacLaren, London, 1909; P. Bachmann, Leipsic, 1909 (II Corinthians).
On Galatians: J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1895; H. A. Schott, Leipsic, 1834; F. Windischmann, Mainz, 1843 (Roman Catholic); A. Hilgenfeld, Leipsic, 1852; C. Wieseler, Gottingen, 1859; G. B. Winer, Leipsic, 1859; G. J. Gwynne, Dublin, 1863; G. W. Matthias, Cassel, 1865; J. Eadie, Glasgow, 1869; J. Venn, London, 1878; J. A. Beet, ib. 1885; R. Stock, Berlin, 1888; G. B. Stevens, Hartford, 1890; J. Drummond, London, 1893; W. M. Ramsay, ib. 1899; E. S. Askwith, ib. 1899; V. Weber, Freiburg, 1901; B. W. Bacon, London and New York, 1909; A. L. Williams, London, 1910; H. Lietzmann, Tilbingen, 1910.
On Ephesiaw: B. F. Westoott, London, 1908; F. A. Holzhausen, Hanover, 1833; R. Stier, Berlin, 1848; A. Harless, Erlangen, 1858; J. Eadie, Edinburgh, 1861; A. Monod, Paris, 1867; C. Hodge, New York, 1883; E. Ernst, Herbenthal,1890; A. Klopper, Gottingen, 1891; R. W. Dale, London, 1892; J. Macpherson, Edinburgh, 1892; E. Krukenberg, Giitereloh, 1902; G. H. Whitaker, London, 1902; J. A. Robinson, ib. 1903; E. F. Stroeter, London, 1909.
On Philippians: J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1895 (epochal); A. Klopper, 1893; A. Rilliet, Geneva, 1841; B. Weiss, Berlin, 1859; W. Hoyt, New York, 1883; J. Eadie, Edinburgh, 1884; C. J. Vaughan, 1885: J. Hutchinson, Edinburgh, 1887; H. C. G. Moule. London, 1889; H. van Soden, Tiibingen, 1906; N. Bachmann, Light in Dark Places; or, Lectures on . . . Philippians, Richmond, 1910.
On Colossiaw: J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1895; F. B$hr, Basel, 1833; W. Bohmer, Berlin, 1835; W. Steiger, Erlangen, 1835; E. T. Mayerhoff, Berlin, 1838; J. E. Hather, Hamburg, 1841; F. Bleek, Berlin, 1865; A. K1opper, Berlin, 1882; J. Eadie, Edinburgh, 1884; J. Rutherford, London, 1908.
On Thessalonians: E. Headland and H. B. Swete, London, 1866; A. Hoch, Berlin, 1849; J. Eadie, London, 1877; J. Hutchison, Edinburgh, 1884; P. Schmidt, Berlin, 1886 (on I. These.); A. Klopper, Konigsberg, 1889; G. Wohlenberg, Leipsic, 1903; G. Milligan London, 1908; E. Von Dobschiltz, new ed., Gottingen, 1909.
On the pastoral epistles: K. Knoke, 2 vols., Gottingen, 1887‑89; F. C. Baur, Stuttgart, 1835; C. S. Matthies, Greifewald, 1840; M. J. Mack, Tubingen, 1841; P. Fair bairn, Edinburgh, 1874; G. GSrivier, Geneva, 1876; W. Bahnsen, Leipsic, 1876 (I1 Tim.); H. J. Holtzmann, Leipsic, 1880; H. KSlling. Berlin, 1882 (I Tim.); E. Krukenberg Gfltersloh, 1901; J. P. Lilley, Edinburgh, 1901. B. Weiss, Gottingen, 1902; A Schlatter, Ca1w, 1904; A. Schumann, Leipsic, 1908 (Philemon).

415	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul the Apostle
PAUL OF THE CROSS. See PAssioNmTs.
PAUL THE APOSTLE, CONGREGATION OF MISSIONARY PRIESTS OF SAINT: A congregation familiarly known as the " Paulist Fathers " or the " Paulists." This congregation, which is the only religious institute of clerics in the United States that is of American origin, was founded in 1858 in the city of New York by five native American priests, all converts from Protestantism, who previously had joined the Redemptorist order and were actively engaged in preaching missions throughout the United States. These men were Clarence Walworth and Francis A. Baker, both former Episcopalian clergymen; Augustine Hewitt, who had previously passed from Congregationalism to the Episcopalian Church; George Deshon, a graduate of West Point where he had been a classmate of General Grant, and Isaac T. Hecker of German Lutheran stock, who, shortly before his submission to the Roman Catholic Church, had been a member of the Brook Farm community of " Transcendentalists " near West Roxbury, Mass.
At that time the direction of the Redemptorist order in the United States was exclusively in the hands of superiors who were German or of German descent, and the German language, together with German customs and methods, prevailed m the various houses of the community. To the recently admitted American fathers this condition of things seemed to constitute a serious drawback, and the question of founding a new house as a headquarters for English‑speaking fathers, as a center of attraction for American novices, as a base for missionary work for the non‑Catholic American people, and as a residence in which English instead of German should be the language in common use, was brought up for consideration. This project, though heartily endorsed by Archbishop Hughes and by Bishop Bayley of Newark, was rejected by the superiors of the order both in Rome and in America, and Father Hecker, who went to Rome to plead the case before the superior‑general, was dismissed from the congregation of the Redemptorists, Aug. 29, 1857. Father Hecker remained nevertheless in touch with his American associates, and some months later the idea was suggested that they establish a new missionary society or congregation which in spirit and methods would be more adaptable to existing conditions in the United States. The plan was endorsed by Archbishop Hughes, and the five fathers having been canonically released from their allegiance to the Redemptorist order, received, Mar. 6, 1858, a papal decree permitting them to organize an independent society of missionaries to be under the direction of the local bishops. Father Hecker was elected the first superior. He drew up a provisory community rule which embodied to a great extent the regulations governing the Redemptorists, and it received the unqualified sanction of Archbishop Hughes, July 7, 1858. It differed from that of the Redemptorists and other religious orders in that it did not require the customary vows, but accepted instead a voluntary agreement on the part of the members to live in common in accordance with the spirit of the evangelical counsels. It
specified missions as the chief wojk of the new community, and parish duties as only a subordinate function. The two cardinal points insisted upon as embodying the fundamental spirit of the new foundation were the personal perfection of the members and zeal for souls, and, in connection with the latter, special stress was laid on the hoped‑for conversion of the people of the United States to the Roman Catholic faith through the apostolic labors of the missionaries. Another fundamental characteristic of the new community is worthy of note. While other congregations laid the main stress on fidelity to the rules and exercises of community life as the most important element, the Paulists give the element of personal individuality the first place, and give it free scope as far as is consistent with the exigencies of the common life. In accordance with these general principles and avowed intentions, the activity of the Paulist Fathers has radiated in various directions. Much successful mission work has been accomplished throughout the country among Catholics and non‑Catholics; special attention has been given in their churches to the proper carrying out of the liturgical services, and in particular to the reform of ecclesiastical music. In this connection they have brganized choirs of men and boys, promoted congregational singing, and have published hymn‑books for the spread of devotional music. The Paulists have also striven to elevate the standards of Roman Catholic homiletic literature and adapt it to the needs of the American people. Beginning with 1861 a volume of the Pauiist sermons was published annually for seven years, and later appeared three volumes of Five Minute Sermons for Early Masses. In their missions and in the parishes under their control the Paulists have been strenuous and consistent advocates of temperance. Their propaganda in favor of sobriety has been exerted through sermons, tracts, articles in their own publications and letters to the public press, through petitions to the legislature and action at the polls, through the formation of total abstinence societies and through the establishment of the Temperance Publication Bureau, with its periodical entitled Temperance Truth. Father Hecker, who, while yet a Redemptorist, had published his Questions of the Soul (New York, 1855) and Aapirodons of Nature (1857), was always an enthusiastic advocate of the apostolate of the press, and this mode of exercising religious and ethical influence has been among the dominant ideals of the Paulist community. In 1865 they established the Catholic World Magazine, which has ever since been a respected and influential exponent of Roman Catholic topics before the American people. The Catholic Publication Society was organized in 1866 for the purpose of publishing at cost price and distributing books, pamphlets, and tracts for the instruction of Roman Catholics and the enlightenment of nonCatholics. This enterprise did not meet with the success that its promoters had hoped for, and was later supplanted by the Catholic Book Exchange. In 1892 the Paulists inaugurated a press department of their own at their headquarters in W. Sixtieth Street, New York City, from which are

Paul the Deacon Paulioians
issued, besides the publications above mentioned, The Young Catholic, a magazine for juveniles, and The Missionary, devoted to the interests of the mission work in which a large number of the fathers are always actively engaged. At present (1910), besides the mother house, church, school, etc., in New York and a house of studies at the Catholic University in Washington, the Paulists have establishments in San Francisco, Chicago, Winchester, Tenn., Berkeley, Cal., and Austin, Tex. In the two lastnamed towns the Paulist communities were established chiefly in the interests of the Roman Catholic students who attend the state universities there located. The congregation has a total membership of 64 fathers, 21 students, and 10 postulants.
JAMES F. DRIBCOLL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 'As literature under HECKER, ISAAC THOMAa; L. W. Reilly, in American Ecclesiastical Review, Sept., 1897; Heimbueher, Orden and Konpregationen, iii. 498‑500; Currier, Religious Orders, pp. 628‑030.
PAUL THE DEACON (PAULUS DIACONUS)
Italian historian; b. probably at Cividale (65 m. n.e. of Venice) between 720 and 730; d. in the monastery of Monte Cassino (q.v.; 85 m. s.e. of Rome) Apr. 13, 799. He was a learned and amiable man. He long lived at the court of the duke of Benevento Arichis and his wife Adelperga, the daughter of the last Lombard king, for whom he performed literary services. One of these was to expand Eutropius and at the same time Christianize it, continuing it to the middle of the sixth century. This compilation was for nearly one thousand years the historical text‑book of Western Europe. He also wrote much verse. The evils of the times drove him to enter the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino in 774. In 782 he is first spoken of as " Paul the Deacon," and by this name he has since been known. In 782 he went to France to secure from Charlemagne the release of his brother and seems to have been successful. Thus he made the acquaintance of Charlemagne and so came into his service in various ways, and was called upon by him to produce works in prose and verse, including a collection of homilies, some original, which proved a great success and for many years supplied the wants of the Western Church; a philological treatise of curious interest; many poems and other works. But at last Paul was allowed to leave the imperial service, and from 786 to his death lived in the quiet of Monte Cassino. There he wrote that " History of the Lombards " which is his chief title to fame.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: At the celebration of the eleventh centenary of Paul held at Cividale Sept. 3‑5, 1899, preparations were made looking to a collection of all his works to supersede that in MPL, xev. As yet the only result is C. Cipolla's Note biblioprafche, Venice, 1901. Recent editions of some of his works are: the Hidoraa Romans, ed. H. Droysen in AfGH, Aud. Ant., ii (1879), 4‑182, 18fr 224; the Liber de episcopis Mdteneibus, ed. G. H. Pert., in AfGH, Script., ii (1829), 280‑268; Vita . . . Gregorii 1., ed. H. Grisar, in ZKT, xi (1887), 162‑172; Historia Lanpobardorum, ed. L. Bethmann and G. Weitz in AfGH, Script. rer. Langob., 1878, pp. 12‑187; the Carmina, ed. E. DOmmler in AfGH, Pod. Lat ami Car., i (1881), 35‑96; the Epidola, ed. 9. Dilmmler, in MGH. Eyist., iv (1895), 505‑518; a critical edition of the "Poems" by K. Neff, Munich, 1908. An excellent Eng. traoW. of the Hidoria Langobardorum by W. D. Foulke appeared. Philadelphia, 1907, containing also a good list of literature and a life of Paul.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
For the earlier works on Paul the student must refer to Potthast, Wegweiser, pp. 899‑905, where manuscripts, editions, and critical works are given with remarkable fulness. Mention may be made here of F. Dalm, Paulus Diaconua, Leipsie, 1876; R. Jacobi, Die Quellen der Lonpobardenpeschichte des Paulus Diaconus, Halle, 1877; T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vols. vii.‑viii., London, 1890‑99; Hauck, %D, ii. 158=184; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 401, 432, 677 .qq.; Bethmann, in Archiv der Gesellschalt fer alters deutsche Geschichtskunde, x. 247‑414; Mommsen, in NA, iii. 185‑189, v. 51‑103; Waits, in NA, v. 417‑424.
PAUL, SAINT, BROTHERHOOD OF. See METHODISTS, IV., 1, § 10.
PAUL, SAINT, HERMITS OF: A monastic order which existed in Hungary, Portugal, and France, and in each had a different origin. The members are known also as the Fathers (or Brothers) of Death. The Hungarian order arose about 1250 by the union of the hermits of Patach and Pisilia. In 1215 Bishop BartholomAus of F(infkirchen had united the hermits of his diocese in the cloister of St. Jacob of Patach; in 1246 the hermit Eusebius of Gran returned with associates from the desert and built a cloister in Pisilia in 1250. The same year the two communities united and the congregation thus formed was confirmed by Bishop Ladislaus of Ftinfkirchen. In 1308 the community accepted the Augustinian rule and took its name from St. Paul the Hermit (of Thebes). The order became strong and built up 170 monasteries, spreading to Germany, Poland, Sweden, and elsewhere. In Hungary its schools did good service. But in the Turkish wax the houses were destroyed, and there exists now only the house at Czenstochau in Russian Poland (a celebrated place of pilgrimage), and the two houses of Rupella and Lesniow in the diocese of Cracow.
The Portuguese order was founded at Setuval by Mendo Gomez about 1420, and confirmed with the Augustinian rule by Gregory XIII. in 1578. It has lapsed and has no special significance.
The French order seems to have arisen about the beginning of the seventeenth century, and its statutes, by Guillaume Callier, were approved by Pope Paul V., and the erection of houses was permitted by Louis XIII. Among the obligations were visiting of the sick, care for prisoners, attendance of the condemned to the place of execution, and burial of the dead. The whole life was to be conditioned by the thought of death, the greeting was memento mori, at meal‑times a skull was kissed, and a black scapulary was worn with a skull on it. This branch was suppressed by Urban VIII.
(G. GRtITZMACHER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Heimbucher, Orden and Konpreqationen,
ii. 231‑233; Helyot, Ordres monaatiques, iii. 324 eqq.; A. Eggerer, Fragmen panis Corvi proto‑Eremick, sive reliquia annalium eremi‑camobitiwrum Fratrum Eremitarum Sancti Pauli, Vienna, 1883, continuation by M. Borkovich
and N. Benger, Pressburg, 1743; F. Bossl, Paulus Thebaw, Neustadt, 1749; Currier, Religious Orders, pp. 327‑328.
PAUL OF SAMOSATA. See MONARCHIANIsM, IV., §§ 2‑3.
PAUL OF THEBES. See MONABTICIsM, I., § 4.
PAULA, SAINT: Pupil and companion of Jerome; b. probably at Rome in 347; d. at Bethlehem in 404. She was a woman of unusually distin‑

417	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paul the Deacon
		Paulicians
guished ancestry, the epitaph by Jerome summing
up in two lines the fact that she could trace descent
from Scipio, Agamemnon, the ~Emilian gens, and
the illustrious Xmilius Paulus. She was also pos
sessed of very large wealth. She was married when
quite young to the Senator Toxotius, a member of
the Julian gens, and was the mother of four daugh
ters, one of them Julia, generally called Eustochium,
and one son, named after his father. Her connec
tion with Christianity seems to have come through
her family, as there is no report of her conversion;
she was quite early in life inclined to asceticism,
and this bent was probably intensified by her in
tercourse with Epiphanius of Salamis and Paulinus
of Antioch, whom she entertained during their pres
ence at the Roman synod of 382. Through these
bishops she became an intimate of Jerome, who so
largely dominated her later life. She lost her hus
band in 380 and one of her daughters in 384 (an
other of her daughters died possibly in 386); and
in that yer.r she decided to leave Rome and take
up her residence in the East. She disregarded the
entreaties of her unmarried daughter Blwsilla, who
desired her mother to delay departure until after
her marriage, and the laments of her son, whom she
left to the guardianship of the praetor. She then
sailed for the East, joined Jerome at Antioch, passed
through Palestine to Egypt, and returned to settle
at Bethlehem in 386. She was influential in indu
cing Marcella (q.v.) to reside in Palestine; the letter
of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella is in anno
tated English translation in Palestine Pilgrims'
Text Society Publications (London, 1896). At Beth
lehem Paula and Eustochium built a convent,
where they resided, and a hospice, then a monas
tery, and after that a convent of three degrees for
women. She pursued her studies of the Bible with
Jerome, having learned Hebrew and already being
versed in Greek and of course in Latin. By her in
cessant charities and largess she impoverished her
self and laid a weight of debt upon her daughter,
even the counsels of Jerome (who records in De vir.
ill., cxxxv., that he wrote daily to her and her daugh
ter) being unavailing in the direction of greater pru
dence. It was partly by the mortifications to which
she subjected herself that her death was occasioned.
At her death the bishops of the surrounding cities
were present, and her funeral showed by the num
bers present and the demonstrations made the esti
mation in which she was held. She was buried in
the cave of the nativity.
	Paula was the name also of a granddaughter of
Saint Paula, the daughter of her son Toxotius.
Under Jerome's influence she was probably sent to
Bethlehem and there brought up to the ascetic life
under the care of her aunt Eustochium. She figures
in Jerome's correspondence, and several of his com
mentaries are dedicated to her and her aunt (cf.
Jerome, Epiat., evii., Eng. tranal. in NPNF, 2 ser.,
vi. 189‑195).
BIBLioaRAPHY: The principal source is Jerome, Epiat.,
	cvni., reproduced in A$B, Jan., ii., 711 sqq., and is in Eng.
	travel. in NPNF, 2 ser., vi. 195‑212; Paula is mentioned
	in other letters (cf. the index in the cited vol. of NPNF,
	under Paula). Consult further Palladius, Hiat. Lauaiaca,
	lxxix.; DOB. iv. 218‑219; HL, ix. 1644‑48.
		VIII.‑27
PAULICIANS: An Oriental sect whose members claimed to be the true Church, calling themselves " Christians " and the orthodox " Romanists." They distinguished between the creator and lord of this world and the true God of heaven, to whom alone the spirit returns, and consequently rejected an incarnation through Mary; for them the mother of God was the heavenly Jerusalem from which Christ proceeded and into which he has entered. Out of pity God sent an angel whom he called his son and caused to be born, and faith in him frees from judgment. The significance of Christ they found chiefly in his teaching. Instead of the cross they honored the Gospel, because containing Christ's words. The words of Christ were true baptism, although they allowed their children to be baptized by captive clerics. Toward the Lord's Supper they adopted a similar attitude. They rejected the hierarchy and monasticism, teaching that Peter at baptism had seen the lord of the world fall from heaven in monk's garb and give monastic institutions to men. They appear to have rejected the writings of Peter, but accepted the other New‑Testament books. In general, they laid stress upon a pious life rather than on doctrine and external observances, and herein lay their chief ground of offense to the orthodox.
The origin of the Paulicians is obscure. The name occurs first in canon xxxii. of a synod held at Turin (q.v.) in Armenia by the Patriarch John of Otzun in 719 and in a writing of the same John against the sect. The Scorialensis (i.) and Gregory the Master (Mkrttachian, p. 148) derive the sect from Paul of Samosata, and Conybeare (p. cv.) strongly favors this assumption; but what is known of the Paulicians does not point to this Paul as their founder. A connection with Manicheism has often been asserted; and the Scorialeenais (i.) states that a certain Kallinik6 sent her sons, Paul and John, to Episparis in Armenia to spread Manichean doctrine. The Paulicians themselves, however, knew of no connection with the Manicheans and were always ready to reject Manes ax well as the afore‑mentioned Paul and John. Gieseler (pp. 103 sqq.), Neander (p. 344), and Mkrttachian (p. 110) assert a Marcionitic origin. Dollinger (p. 2) favors a connection with Marcionites and Archontici. It is hardly possible to believe there were no relations with earlier heresies; yet the sources ascribe the origin of the sect solely to a certain Constantine of Mananalis near Samosata, who is said to have lived for twenty‑seven years as head of a congregation at Kibossa and to have suffered death under Constantine Pogonatus (668‑685). He taught that the New Testament was the only guide and wrote nothing. Later leaders, called by their followers by names of companions of Paul (Constantine having been known as Silvanus) and honored as true apostles of Christ and manifestations of the Spirit, were Symeon‑Titus; Gegnesius‑Timothy, an Armenian; Joseph‑Epaphroditus, who is said to have been for thirty years head of a congregation at Antioch in Pisidia; Zacharias (rejected by some as a hireling); Baanes, called the Filthy from his manner of life, which was patterned after that of Diogenes the Cynic; and Sergius‑Tychicus. The last‑

PauHciaae
Paulinue of Nols	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	418
named fled from the imperial officials into Saracen territory and is said to have been murdered there after an activity of thirty years; and even his enemies admitted his upright life and amiable qualities. Six congregations are enumerated under names of apostolic churches: Macedonia (Kibossa), founded by Constantine and Symeon; Achaia (Mananalis), founded by Gegnesius; Philippi; the congregation of Joseph and Zacharias; Laodicea (Mopsuestia); and Colossm.
Before long the Paulicians appear in predatory bands seriously disturbing the public peace. Conatantine Copronymus (741‑775) is said to have transported some of them to Thrace, where they appear to have founded the Bulgarian Bogomiles (of. Friedrich, pp. 99‑100, 104 sqq.; see NEw MAmCBEANs). Nicephorus (802,811) took them into the army and granted privileges in return for their help. Michael I. (811‑‑813) and Theodora (regent for her son, Michael III., 842‑856) persecuted them severely. They fled to Saracen territory and thence devastated the imperial provinces. Their leader, Karbeas, founded the fortress of Tephrika, just across the boundary, and made it the headquarters of their forays. Karbeas' successor, Chrysoeheir, in 867 penetrated to Ephesus and is said to have claimed the rule of the entire East (cf. Gieseler, p. 96). He was slain in 871 and the might of Tephrika was broken.
	The " Selicians " in Constantinople under Theo
dora who were reconciled to the Church by the
Patriarch Methodius were evidently Paulicians (cf.
Friedrich, p. 82), and in 866 Photius speaks of con
verting Paulicians in the capital city. In Armenia
they were perpetuated by the so‑called Thondra^
cians (Thondraki) under the lead of Smbat (first
half of the ninth century). Gregory the Master
names six leaders after Smbat and boasts of con
verting more than 1,000 of the sect by commission
of the Emperor Constantine Monomachus (1042‑54)
and extirpating others (cf. Mrkttachian, pp. 142,
145, 149). Nevertheless manifestations allied to
Paulicianism have continued in Armenia even to
the present (cf. Mkrttschian in ZKG, xvi.). See
CATECHLTMENATE. 	(N. BoNwETSca.)
In seeking to reach a just conclusion respecting the doctrines and practises of the Paulicians considerable weight should be accorded to The Key of Truth, the manual of the Armenian Paulicians (Thondraki, Thondraketzi), the text of which with English translation and an introduction of nearly two hundred closely printed pages was published at Oxford in 1898 by Fred C. Conybeare. The manuscript in a somewhat mutilated form was taken from a body of Thohdraketzi, who had emigrated (1828‑29) from Turkish Armenia to the village of DjAwiurm in the canton of Knus in Russian Armenia and were (1837) propagating their principles with considerable zeal. Inquisitorial proceedings resulted not only in the seizure of their authoritative book but also in gathering from members of the body information about their doctrines and practises confirmatory ‑)f the teachings of The Key of Truth. By an elaborate comparison of the document with Greek and Armenian writings of the early and medieval times Conybeare reaches the
conclusion that the liturgical parts of the book (bap
tism, Lord's Supper, consecration of infants, etc.)
originated in the fourth century or only a little
later and that the exordium belongs to the ninth
century. The doctrines and the practises of the
body he believes to represent the type of Christian
ity that was first propagated in Armenia and to be
fundamentally primitive. The naive adoptionism
of the writing he finds to be in accord with early
Judaistic Christianity and even with the Christology
of the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermes, Justin
Martyr, the Disputation of Archelaus with Mani,
and like early documents, and their antagonism to
the practise of infant baptism, which became widely
prevalent in the Greek and Latin churches from
the third century onward, to have been based not
only upon their sense of the undesirableuess of inno
vation, but also on the fact that they supposed
Jesus to have become the Christ and to have been
adopted as Son of God in connection with his bap
tism and inferred that it was the duty of every true
believer, having made due preparation, to receive
baptism after maturity had been reached and by
following the example of Jesus to become in a lower
sense sons of God. As the influence of the Greek
Church and the Greek empire became dominant in
Armenia the believers of the old type, who held to
adoptionist Christology and believers' baptism, be
came a persecuted party and came to regard their
politico‑ecclesiastical persecutors as the emissaries
and representatives of Satan, from whom they had
derived their infant baptism, their Christological
errors, and their persecuting spirit. The disposition
of the Paulicians to attribute to Satanic agency doc
trines and practises regarded by them as erroneous
and hurtful may have given rise to the charge of
dualistic heresy constantly brought against them
by their opponents. That they should have made
little use of the Old Testament was due no doubt
in the case of the Paulicians, as in that of the Wal
denses, Anabaptists, and others, to the fact that
the theocratic system of the Old Testament was
used by their opponents for the justification of
union of Church and State, persecution of dissent,
and the according of church fellowship to infants
through baptism as infants by circumcision became
members of the theocratic community. Of course
it is possible, if not probable, that Manichean and
Marcionitic dualism may in some cases have be
come blended with the more primitive type of Chris
tianity represented by The Key of Truth. Cony
beare is of the opinion that the name of the party
was derived from Paul of Samosata rather than
that of the Apostle Paul, though the latter was no
doubt held in great reverence by the Paulicians.
Conybeare has also made it highly probable that
medieval Evangelical parties, and through these
the radical Evangelicals of the sixteenth and fol
lowing centuries, were due to the propaganda of
Paulicians who in the early Middle Ages settled in
great numbers in Bulgaria and adjoining regions
and spread westward along the lines of travel and
trade. 	A. H. NEWMAN.
BIHuOGRAP87: Sources: (1) Greek: The account of the Paulicians in the Codex Scorialensia i0l (a loth cent. MS. of the chronicle of Georaius Monachus), folio 164b rqq,

419	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	paulAolans
		Panlinns of Nola
	ed. J. Friedrich with notes, ate., in SMA, 1896, pp. 67
	111; Photius, Adv. recsntiorea Manichsea i.‑iv.; Geor
	pus Monachos, ed. E. de Muralt~ St. Petersburg, 1853;
	Petrus Siculus, Hslqt. Manichsorum qui Pauliciani dicun
	tur, ad. M. Rader, Ingoletadt, 1604, and J. C. L. Gieseler,
	Gottingen, 1846, with which should be noted the appen
	dix, ed. Gieseler, G5ttingen, 1849; Euthymius Zigabenus,
	Panoplia, xxiv (MPG, cxxx. 1189 sqq.); a Greek work
	to be found in J. Tollius, Insignia itinerarii ltalici, pp.
	126‑127, Utrecht, 1696. (2) Armenian: A large num
	ber of the Sources are in F. C. Conybeare in The Key of
	Truth. Oxford, 1898; others or these repeated are Johannes
	Osniensia (John of Otzun), Opera, ed. J. B. Aueher, Venice,
	1834; Gregory of Narek, Gregory the Master, and Aris
	takes of Lestivert, xxii.‑xxiii., in Karapet Ter‑Mkrttechian,
	Die Paulicianer ire byzantinischen Kamerreich and ver
	wandte kdzeriache Eracheinungen in Armenien, pp. 130
	sqq., Leipsic, 1893; " The Key of Truth," ed. Mkrtt
	echian in ZKG, xvi. 1895, pp. 264 sqq. The Greek
	sources are nearly related, but the exact relationships one
	to another are not determined. Euthymius Zigabenus
	states that he copied Photius. The extant work attrib
	uted to Photius appears to be composite, book i. 1‑10, by
	Photius himself, the remainder (cf. Friedrich, pp. 86 sqq.;
	according to Mkrttschian, book i. 15 sqq.) by another
	writer, who appears to have had Zigabenus before him.
	This composite work was the source of Petrus Siculus.
	Friedrich (pp. 81 sqq.) thinks that the Scorialensis is the
	original; if this be correct, the order is as follows: the
	Scorialenais. Photius i. 1‑10, Georgius Monachus, Petrus
	Hegumenus, Zigabenue (pseudo‑) Photius i. l0‑iv., Petrus
	Siculus. The valuation of the sources used by the Pseu
	dophotius and Siculus has an important bearing on the
	history of the Paulicians. The value of the abjuration
	formula given by Tollius is questionable. The Greek
	chronographers have an independent knowledge of the
	Paulicians as early as Theophanee. Genesius is the chief
source of his continuators.
	Further literature of greater or less value is: Gieeeler,
	in TSK, 1829, pp. 79‑124; J. L. von Mosheim, Ecd. Hid.,
	ad. W. Stubbs, i. 462, 517, 574, 611, ii. 70, London, 1863;
	J. A. Lombard, Pauliciena, Bulgarea, et Bowhommes en
	orient et occident, Geneva, 1879 Gibbon, Decline and Fall,
	chap. liv.; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 574‑578; Nean
	der, Christian Church, iii. 244‑270; DCB, iv. 219‑230 (val
uable); and literature under Nsw MANICHEANS.
PAULINUS OF AQUILEIA:	Patriarch of Aqui
	leia; a Lombard, b. in Friuli (a district at the head
	of the Gulf of Venice) between 730 and 740; d.
Jan. 11, 802.	Called to the Frankish court as
" master of grammatical science " before 775, he
	became one of Charlemagne's spiritual advisers and
	was made patriarch of Aquileia, with his seat at
Forum Julii, in 787.	He was present at synods
	which dealt with Adoptionisni (q.v.) at Regens
	burg in 792 and Frankfort in 794 and wrote the
	memorial of the Italian bishops at the latter, the
	Libellus sacrosyllabus contra Elipandum, seeking to
refute the heresy from Scripture.	About 800 he
	sent to the king Libri iii. contra Felicem, a work
	which Alcuin characterized as the final word in the
controversy.	As an appendix he wrote a Carmen de
	regula fidei, vindicating the doctrines of the Trin
ity and the incarnation.	At a diocesan synod at
	Forum JuM in 796 he defended the addition of fili
	oque to the creed (see FILIOQUE COMTI;OVERBY) and
	commanded all clerics to learn the amplified text
	with a detailed exposition of the point at issue;
	the laity were to know at least the Apostles' Creed
and the Lord's Prayer.	Paulinus maintained cor
	dial relations with Eric, duke of Friuli 795‑799, at
	his request compiled a Liber ezhortationis vtdgo de
	aalutaribus dtxumentis, and wrote an elegy on his
	early death. He presided at a conference of bish
	ops summoned by Pepin to his camp on the Danube
when the victory over the Avars (q.v.) in 796 opened a new missionary field. The protocol adopted, of much importance in the history of missions, is preserved in Mansi, Concilia, xiii. 921‑926, and Jaffi6, BRG, vi. 311‑318. The church of Aquileia received the territory south of the Drave, and Pauhnus prosecuted the work of conversion with zeal and success. (FRIEDRICH WIEOAND.)
BIBLIoaaAPn7: The Opera, ed. Madrisi, appeared Venice, 1737, reprinted in MPL, xcix. 5‑684. For poems ascribed to him (there is difference in views as to genuineness among the editors) cf. also NA, iv (1879), 113‑118 and MGH, Pod. Lat. o;vi Car., i (1881), 123‑148. Sources are: Alcuin's letters and poems in Jaff6, BRO, vol. v., and MGH, Pod. Lat. wui Car., i (1881), 160‑351; and the diplomats of Charlemagne in MPL, xcvii. 957, xcviii. 144719. Consult: the early lives in ASB, Jan., i. 713‑718, and MPL, xeix. 17‑130; Hiat. litthnaire de la France, iv. 284295; J. C. F. Bahr, Oeackichte der rbmischen Litteratur, pp. 88, 356‑359, Carlsmhe, 1832; M. BUdinger, OesterreirAische Geschichte, i. 141‑147, Leipsio, 1858; A. Ebert, ARpemeine Geschwhte der Literatur des Mi#daltere, ii. 89‑91, Leipsic, 1880; DCB, iv. 246‑248; Hefele, Concilienpeaehichte, vol. iii.; Hauck, KD, ii. 156‑157, 464‑488; Ceillier, Auteura wcrr&, xii. 157‑164, xiii. 632‑841.
PAULINUS OF NOLA (PONTIUS MEROPIUS ANIICIUS PAULINUS): Bishop of Nola; b. at Bordeaux 353 or 354; d. June 22, 431. He was of distinguished family and inherited so great wealth that his teacher, Ausonius (see AusoNIOs, DEaIMus MAONus), calls his possessions regna (Epiat., xxv. 116). His education was almost exclusively Latin and even here his acquaintance with the literature was one‑sided; he knew the poets but disdained the historians. From Ausonius he learned an elegant style both in prose and verse. His family influence as well as his own talents early brought him high honors, but he was not consul in 378, as has been supposed (cf. Reinelt, pp. 60 asq.). A worldly career, however, did not attract him, and between 380 and 390 he lived in his provincial home and was baptized by Delphinus of Bordeaux (390404). Men like Martin of Tours, Victricius of Rouen, and, above all, Ambrose became his advisers and taught him to regard Christianity and monasticism as inseparable. He had married a wealthy wife, Therasia; but she shared his views, and, after the death of their only child, they agreed to live apart. Paulinus went to Spain and became presbyter in Barcelona about 394 or 395. Both he and his wife had given away much of their wealth, for which they were praised by Ambrose, Martin of Tours, Augustine, and Jerome. But Siricius, bishop of Rome, seems to have been displeased by the notoriety which Paulinus acquired by his renunciation and made no attempt to keep him in Rome when he visited the city.
From his youth Paulinus had regarded St, Felix of Nola, a reputed confessor of the Decian persecution, as his patron, and he now settled in the Ca,mpanian city (394 or 395). There he and Themsia lived lives of self‑denial and asceticism which brought on serious illnesses. Paulinus seems to have retained some control over his property, for he built a refuge for monks and the poor near the Church of St. Felix, provided Nola with a much‑needed water supply, and built a basilica at Fondi and another at Nola. Most of all he loved to pay the obligations of poor debtors, and his retreat soon be.

Panliane of Nola
Paulus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	420
came the resort of a disorderly rabble from far and near. He corresponded with Augustine and Jerome, but the two letters to Rufinus (xlvi., xlvii.) do not fit into his life and are probably not genuine. When he became bishop is uncertain‑probably shortly before 410. His manner of life and activity were nowise changed thereby; for twenty years he continued to be admired and loved, especially by the monastic party, and enjoyed intercourse with the best of its men and women, who visited him or corresponded with him. He lived to see the beginning of the Pelagian controversy, but apparently suffered neither Augustine nor the Emperor Honorius to draw him actively into it against his friends, Pelar gius and Julian.
Of the writings of Paulinus, the following, mentioned by Gennadius (De vir. ill., xlix.), are lost: a panegyric on the Emperor Theodosius (praised by Jerome‑Epist., lviii‑as surpassing all of Paulinus's earlier efforts in richness of thought and finished expression), an Opus sacramentorum et hymnorum, certain letters to his sister, a Liber de pwnitentia and a Liber de laude generali omnium martyrum. A poetical version of a lost work of Suetonius De regibus, known from Ausonius (Epist., xix. 10 aqq.), has also perished. Forty‑nine letters to friends (Sulpicius Severus, Augustine, Delphinus, Victricius, Pammachius, and others) and thirtythree poems are preserved. Of the poems the most important are epistles to Ausonius, thirteen eulogies of Felix of Nola, and an epithalamium for a son of a bishop of Capua. The amiable personality of the author is evident in his writings, which show good and bad features in monasticism. He is convinced of the vanity of all the things of this world. Earthly goods are but a means to the attainment of the kingdom of heaven through their right use, and they serve their purpose best when they are thrown away. From a depreciation of self he passed to a tendency to see the abnormal a$d exceptional in the simple and natural, to seek and find miracles and see visions, and to exaggerate reverence for saints and relics. In Epist. xxxii. 10 aqq., Pauiinus describes the basilica which he had built; and in xiii. 11 aqq., he gives what is probably the earliest information about St. Peter's in Rome, thus furnishing data of much importance for the history of Christian art.
(A. HAUL&.)
BrBLIooRAPHY: The editio princeps of the Opera, by Johannes Parvus and Jodocus Badius Ascensius, was printed Paris, 1516; subsequent ads. are: H. Gravius, Cologne, 1560, reproduced in J. J. Grynaeus, Monumenta, Basel, 1569, and by A. Schott, with life, in Bibliotheca patrum, Cologne, 1618; H. Rosweyde and Fronton Is Due, Antwerp, 1622; chronologically arranged, with many corrections by J. B. Is Brun dm Malettes, 2 vols., Paris, 1685, the basis of later ads., enlarged by the addition of some poems by Muratori, Verona, 1736, and in MPL, lxi.; Gallandi, BI7bliotheca patrum, vol. viii., 1772, contains these and other poems, carefully edited, while A. Mai, Classici auctores, vol. v., Rome, 1827, included two other pieces in verse. Sources for the history of paulinus are his own writings and those of Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Sulpicius Severus, and Ausonius. Two interesting early works are: H. Vaughan, The Life of Blessed Paulinua, in Flares solitudinie, London, 1664; and F. Chifflet, Paulinua illuatratus, Dijon, 1662. Other monographs are by M. Rabanis, Bordeaux, 1840; A. Buse, Regensburg, 1850 (the best perhaps); M. Fabra, Strasburg, 1862; F. Lagrange.
Paris, 1884; M. Won, Montauban, 1885; A. Puech, Paris, 1887; P. Reinelt, Breslau, 1904. Consult further: DCB, iv. 234‑245 (elaborate); ASB, June, iv. 198‑225; W. Cave, Hist. literaria, i. 288 sqq., Oxford, 1740; W. S. Gilly, Vigilantius and his Times, London, 1844; A. Ebert, Geschichte der christlich‑lateinischen Litteratur, i. 294 sqq., Leipsie, 1889; W. Manitius, Geschichte der christlichlateinischen Poesie, pp. 272 eqq., Stuttgart, 1891; G. Rausehen, Jahrbficher der chriatlichen Kirche unter Theodosiua Gem Grosse, Freiburg, 1897; Tillemont, MEmoires, vol. aiv. 1‑146, 720‑737; Ceillier, Auteurs sacra, viii. 50100, with related documents, vii. 619 sqq., 648, viii. 120, 126, ix. 72‑75, 92, et passim.

	PAULINUS OF PELLA: Christian poet; born
at Pella, probably the son of a prefect of Mace
donia named Hesperius, about 376; d. after 459.
His father went as proconsul to Africa, and Pau
linus, when three years of age, was sent to Bor
deaux to be brought up by his grandfather, then
consul, who is supposed to have been Ausonius
(q.v.). The boy received a good education, but in
termittent fever compelled him to give up instruc
tion for the ministry. At twenty he married at the
wish of his elders, and gave his time to the prop
erty of his wife, then reduced by mismanagement.
When he was thirty the barbarian invasions be
gan, and by that of the Goths the destruction of his
wealth was completed. Continuous misfortune in
duced Paulinus to turn his attention to religious
studies; he overcame his tendency to a heretical
form of Christianity and entered the orthodox
Church in 421. He then withdrew into solitude,
lived long upon the charity of others, until he came
into possession of a limited competence. His auto
biographic poem shows him reconciled to his lot in
life through his religion. This was written when he
was eighty‑three years of age, and bears the title
Eucharishcos (Euchariaticon) Deo sub ephemeridis
mete textu. In 616 lines it proceeds without bom
bast, clearly and unpretentiously, to the end; it
reveals knowledge of Vergil, Ausonius, Paulinus of
Nola, Marius Victor, Sedulius, and Juvencus. It
has been edited in M. de la Bigne, Bibliotheca pa
trum, appendix (Paris, 1579); by C. Daum (Leip
sic, 1681); by W. Brandes, in CSEL, xvi. 263‑334
(Vienna, 1888). 	(G. KRLIGER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Brandes, in Zeitechrift far die t;sterredchischen Gymnasien, xxxi (1880), 248‑251, xxxii (1881), 321330; O. Seeck, in prolegomena to Symmachus, in MGH, Aud. Ant., vii (1883), 1 sqq.; A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters, i. 405‑409, Leipeie, 1889; J. Rocafort, De Paulini Pallai vita et carmine, Bordeaux, 1890; M. Manitius, Geachichts der chriaaich‑Weiniachen Poesie, pp. 213‑218, Stuttgart, 1891; Hidoire litthraire de la France, ii. 363; DCB, iv. 246.
i
PAULIRUS OF PERIGEU%: Christian poet; flourished in the second half of the fifth century. He is the author of an extensive poem of 3,622 lines on St. Martin of Tours (edited in M. de la Bigne, Bibliotheca patrum, vol. viii., Paris, 1579; by C. Daum, Leipsic, 1581; in MPL, hi. 1009‑76; and by M. Petschenig, in CSEL, xvi. 1‑190, Vienna, 1888), and of two smaller poems. The first five books describe the life of the saint. At the basis of the sixth book is a report of the miracles wrought by the saint after his death furnished by Bishop Perpetuus of Tours (458‑488). There is attached a dedication to Perpetuus. The two lesser poems were also sent with a dedication to Perpetuus. The

421	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Paulinus of Nola
		Paulus
first relates the recovery of a morbescent grandson
of Paulinus through laying upon his person a wri
ting by Perpetuus; the second is an inscription for
St. Martin's Church at Tours, built by the latter.
Nothing is known further concerning the life of
Paulinus. His largest poem shows the influence of
Christian poetry (Juvencus, Sedulius), and of Ver
gil, Ovid, and other ancient poets.
		(G. KRtJGER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Wopkens, Adveraaria critics, ed. C. H.
	Frotscher, pp. 226‑285, Leipsic, 1835; M. Manitius, in
	Zeitachrifi far die oesterreichische Gymnasien, xxxvii (1886),
	253‑254, 402‑406; idem, Geschichte den chriatlich‑lateini
	aehen Poesie, pp. 226‑232, Stuttgart, 1891; A. Ebert,
	Allgemeine Geschichte den Litteratur des Mittelaltera, i. 402
	405, Leipsic, 1889; Hiatoire littkraire de la France, ii. 469
	eqq.; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrtss, viii. 89, 120, x. 441 143;
	DCB, iv. 246.
	PAULINUS OF YORK: First bishop of York;
d. at Rochester Oct. 10, 644. He was probably a
native of Rome, though it has been conjectured on
the basis of Welsh tradition, which ascribes the
conversion of Northumbria to a British priest, that
he was a Briton who had taken up his residence at
Rome (cf. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 124, iii.
75). With Mellitus (q.v.) and others he was sent
by Pope Gregory the Great to join Augustine in
England in 601. In 625 he was consecrated bishop
by Justus, archbishop of Canterbury, and sent to
Northumbria with Ethelburga, princess of Kent,
the bride of Edwin, the Northumbrian king. He
converted Edwin, and baptized him and many of
his nobles on Easter, Apr. 12, 627. It has been
conjectured on the basis of a legend concerning the
conversion of Edwin that Paulinus was sent on a
mission to East Anglia before 616. Paulinus
preached zealously and made many converts as
long as Edwin lived. A wooden church, dedicated
to St. Peter, was built at York and one of stone was
begun. In 633 Penda, the heathen king of Mercia,
with the help of the Christian Britons, overthrew
and slew Edwin at Heathfield in southeast York
shire, whereupon Paulinus, with Queen Ethelburga
and her children, took refuge in Kent (see EDWIN).
Paulinus was made bishop of Rochester. He re
ceived the pallium from Pope Honorius I. in 634,
after he had left his see at York.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bede, Hiat. eccl., i. 29, ii. 9, 10, 12‑14, 16
	20; Fasti Eboracensea, ed. W. H. Dixon and J. Raine,
	1.3516, London 1863; ASS, Oct., v. 102 sqq.; W. Bright,
	Early English Church History, pp. 55, 111‑123, 126‑149,
	Oxford, 1897; W. Hunt, The English Church 697‑IOBB,
	passim, London 1899; DOB, iv. 248; DNB, xliv. 96‑98
	(where a number of references to scattered sources of
	value are given).
	PAULIST FATHERS. See PAUL THE APOSTLE,
CONGREGATION OF.
	PAULSEN, FRIEDRICH: Educator, philoso
pher, and ethicist; b. at Langenhorn (90 m. n.w. of
Hamburg) July 16, 1846; d. at Berlin Aug. 14,
1908. He received his education in the gymnasium
at Altona, and at the universities of Erlangen, Bonn,
and Berlin (Ph.D., 1871); became privat‑docent in
philosophy at Berlin, 1871, extraordinary profes
sor, 1877, and professor, 1894, thus spending prac
tically the whole of his life in the service of that
university. He was the author of Symbolm ski sys‑
temata philosophise moralis historicce et critieae (Berlin, 1871); Versuch sinter Entwicklungsgeschiehte den kantischen Erkentnisstheorie (Leipsie, 1875); Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Sehulen and Universitdten vom Ausgang des MitteL alters bis zur Gegenwart (1885; Eng. transl., The German. Universities: their Character and historical Development, London and New York, 1895); System den Ethik mit einem Umriss den Staats‑ and Gesellschaftslehre (2 parts, Berlin, 1889, 8th ed., 2 vols., 1906; Eng. transl., A System of Ethics, London, 1899); Das Realgymnasium and die humanistische Bildung (Berlin, 1889); Einleitung in die Philosophie (1892, 16th ed., 1905; Eng. transl., Introduction to Philosophy, London, 1895); Immanuel Kant, sein Leben and seine Lehre (1898; Eng. tranal., Immanuel Kant: his Life and Doctrine, London and New York, 1902); Schopenhauer, Hamlet, Mephistopheles (1900); Philosophia militants (1901); Die deutschen Universitdten and das Universitat‑Studium (1902; Eng. transl., Germans Universities and University Study, London, 1906); Die h6heren Schulen Deutschlands and ihr Lehrerstand ins ihrem Verhdltnis zum Staat caned zur geistliehen Kultur (1904; Eng. transl., German Education, Past and Present, London, 1908); Gesammelte Vortrdge and Aufsdtze zur Ethik, Politik and Pddagogik (2 vols.,1907); and Moderne Erziehung and geschlechtliche Sittlichkeit (1908).
PAULUS, HEINRICH EBERHARD GOTTLOB: Protestant theologian; b. at Leonberg (8 m. w.n.w. of Stuttgart) Sept. 1, 1761; d. at Heidelberg Aug. 10, 1851. He studied theology at Tiibingen (17791784); after which he served as vicar at the Latin school at Schomdorf; then as professor of the oriental languages at the University of Jena (17891793); and third professor of theology (17931803). He lectured on the Old and New Testaments and on dogmatic and ethical theology; edited the Neues Repertorium fur biblische and morgenr Undische Litteratur (Jena, 1790); and wrote Philologisehe Clavis fiber die Psalmen (1791), Jesaias (1793), and Philologisch‑kritischer Kommentar caber das Neue Testament (Liibeek, 1800‑04). In 1803, he became professor of theology and consistorial councilor at W arzburg.
The Protestants declined at first. to attend the lectures of Paulus and the attempt was made to draw the Roman Catholic students to his lectures on encyclopedia, but they soon fell away. In 1807 he went as district and school councilor to Bamberg and in 1808 to Nuremberg, and from there in 1810 to Ansbach. From 1811 to 1844 he made his name synonymous with educational progress at Heidelberg. His lectures embraced all branches of Old and New Testament exegesis. He had also to teach church history. His literary activity meanwhile assumed an extensive scope. His most significant work was Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentuma (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1828). To this he added a scholarly supplement: Exegetisches Handbuch caber die drei ersten Evangelien (3 vols., 1830‑33). In this work Christianity is summed up in the words, " Be ye of a different mind, for the reign of deity is at hand."

Panveres cathonoi	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	4Q$
Payson
Paulus distinguished between the purpose and the
person of Christ. The former was, by appealing
first to a change of mind, to effect a transformation
of the will of the individual in the image of God,
resulting in a divine kingdom for the many. The
wonderful thing about Christ is his moral charac
ter. Such a spirit as his in a human body is in itself
a miracle. The spiritual operations proceeding
from him were supported by individual events, not
then explained according to their natural causes
and for the most part not handed down with their
self‑explaining circumstances. But the proof for
the truth of Christianity does not rest upon those
miracles. Paulus was sharply attacked by the Ro
man Catholic exegete Hug and suffered still more
from the crushing blow which fell from Strauss'
Leben Jesu. He was characterized by a colleague
as the man who thinks that he believes and who
believes that he thinks. He remained uninfluenced
by the philosophical, ethical, or political revolu
tions of his time and continued till his death as the
representative of the enlightenment of 1790.
		(P. TBCHACHERT.)
BLsraoaawrar: C. A. von Reichlin‑Meidegg, H. &. C3.
	Paulus and seine Zeit, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1853 (authorita
	tive); H. von Buaehe, Die freie relipibae Aufkldrunp,
	Darmstadt, 1848; S. Brunner, Die vier Groaemeiater der
	Aufkldrunpa‑Theolopie, Paderborn, 1888; and much of
	the literature under ENLIGBTCNIIzNT, 7Hm.
	PAUPERES CATHOLICI: A Roman Catholic
order confirmed by Innocent III. in 1208, composed
of former Waldensians who had become reconciled
with the Church. They formed two groups, one
adhering to Durand of Osca (Huesca) and the
other to Bernardus Primus. Both classes retained
the principle of apostolic poverty (Luke x. 4),
while their desire to win souls led them to a life of
constant wandering. The group over which Ber
nard presided devoted themselves to manual labor
in addition to their spiritual duties, while those di
rected by Durand were restricted to the religious
edification of their friends and disputations with
heretics. Bernard's followers seem to have been
drawn from the Lombard Waldensians, and the
adherents of Durand from the French sectaries.
Neither of the groups enjoyed a long existence,
since simultaneously with them arose the Francis
cans and Dominicans with an aim similar to th6ir
own, but with a strength which made the continu
ance of the order of Pauperes Catholici super
fluous.		(O. WCSLERt.)
BrHLi0GRAPH7: A. W. Dieckhoff, Die Waldenaer im Miud
	alter, PP 188 aqq, GSttingen, 1851; J. C. L Gieeeler,
	Church Hint., iv. 288, 298, v. 348, 488 eqq., New York,
	1868‑80; Neander, Church Hiatory, iv. 812‑813.
	PAVIA, SYNOD OF: The Synod of Pavia is '
closely related to ,the Council of Constance, which
in the celebrated Frequents decree, Oct. 9, 1417, had
ordered that general councils be held more fre
quently than before; that the next be held in five
years, another seven years after, and thenceforth
one every tenth year; and that the place was to be
designated by the pope, subject to its approval, a
month before the close of the preceding council.
Accordingly Pope Martin V. appointed the city of
Pavia, near Milan. Provincial and diocesan synods
were ordered to be held in which preliminary prop‑
ositions were to be discussed for the general council. There were episcopal synods between 1418 and 1423 at Salzburg, Passau, Regensburg, Mainz, Cologne, and Treves. The pope, however, made little preparation, and neither he nor any cardinal or Italian prelate (excepting a president of the council) appeared. The pope excused himself and the cardinals on the ground of extra work and had the sessions opened on Apr. 23, 1423, by four obscure prelates. The attendance was small and there were present at adjournment to Siena four German, six French, and several English prelates, but no Italian or Spanish. The synod had not finished settling the order of business before the plague broke out in the city; and on June 22, 1423, it was decided to adjourn to Siena. The synod ended without any important results for the Church.
(PAUL TsCHAC%ERT.)
BIHLzoanAPHY: H,efele, ConcilienpexhiAde, vii. 375‑392;
Manai, Concilia, aviii. 1081 aqq., 1057 aqq.
PAVILLOft, NICOLAS: French Roman Catholic bishop; b. at Paris Nov. 17, 1597; d. at Alet (6 m. s.e. of Limoux) Dec. 8, 1677. He studied the class sics at the Colltge de Navarre and theology at the Sorbonne. Vincent de Paul ordained him deacon and entrusted him with the spiritual and material care of the prisoners at Paris. He earnestly studied the writings of Francis of Sales and felt a special call to teach the common people. In 1627 he was ordained priest before a great assemblage of the poor. He was charged with conducting the Assembles de Charitk at St. Lazare, where clergymen met every Saturday to deal with matters concerning the relief of the poor. Annually he preached to the deacons in their devotional retreats and to a select audience of men and women of rank in the church of Ste. Croix de la Bretonnerie, Paris. Upon recommendation by Vincent, Richelieu appointed him bishop of Alet and the pope confirmed the appointment in 1639. Pavillon arrived in November, and by his efforts reformed the diocese which had been in complete decay. He visited every parish; encouraged, by his example, the curates to preach; founded a seminary in his own house, and of all applicants he required the experience of three years of teaching as preparation; established schools for boys and girls and a congregation of sisters of mercy; and protected the common people from the exactions of the nobility. When Louis XIV. Sent a circular to all the bishops asking them to condemn the well‑known Five Articles of Jansen (see JANSEN, CORNELIUS, JANSEN_ 1aM) Pavilion with three other bishops refused to sign the sentence, persisting in their attitude even after the brief of Alexander III., Feb. 15, 1665; the four bishops were placed under the ban. Finally in 1668, by reason of respect and discipline, Pavillon allowed the clergymen of his diocese to reject the five articles if they chose to do so. Pavilion was no less firm in his resistance to the Regale (q.v.). Exhausted by overwork he passed away, lamented by all the poor and afflicted, to whom he had been a friend and comforter.
G. BoNET‑MAVRy.
BiELIOanAP87: Vie de M. Pavilion, Saint Mihibl, 1739;
Life o! M. Pavilion, Preface by the . . . Bishop o/ Ldch.

488	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pane a Catholiei
Pays=
hall, London, 1883; C. Lancelot, Voyage d Alet, Paris, 1723, Eng. tranel., Narrative of a Tour . . to . . . Alet, 2 vole., London, 1818; H. Reuchlin, Geshichte von PortRoyal, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1839‑41; Mary A. Schimmelpeaninck, Select Memoirs of Port Royal, 3 vole., London, 1858; C. A. Saints‑Beuve, Port Royal, Paris, 1867.
PAYNE, CHARLES HENRY: Methodist Episcopal; b. at Taunton, Mass., Oct. 24; 1830; d. at Clifton Springs, N. Y., May 5, 1899. He was graduated from Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn., 1856; studied theology in the Biblical Institute, Concord, N. H. (now the Boston School of Theology); was pastor from 1857 until 1876, when he became president of Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, 0. He was a member of the committee to revise the hymn‑book of the Methodist‑Episcopal Church in 1876; and was the author of Methodism, its History and Results (New York, 1881), Women, and their Work in Methodism (1881), and Guides in Character Building (1883).
PAYNE, DANIEL ALEXANDER: African Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. in Charleston, N. C., Feb. 24, 1811; d. in Baltimore Dec. 2, 1893. He studied theology at the Lutheran theological seminary at Gettysburg, 1835‑38; entered the ministry of the Lutherans in 1838, but joined the itinerancy of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1843; in 1848 he was chosen historiographer for his denomination, and in 1852 was elected bishop; he was also president of Wilberforce University, Ohio, 1865‑76. Among his publications the most important were History of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (3 vols., Baltimore, 1865); and Domestic Education (Cincinnati, 1886).

PAYNE, PETER: Wyclif&te; b. at Rough‑onthe‑Hill (15 m. s.s.w. of Lincoln) c. 1380; d. at Prague, Bohemia, 1455. He was educated at Oxford, imbibed Wycliffite opinions and never swerved from them. He became M.A. c. 1406, principal of St. Edmund Hall, 1410, and also of the adjoining White Hall. These positions he gave up in 1414. Shortly afterward he left the country and, being defamed for heresy, never came back. He found a welcome among the Hussites and was till his death one of their leaders. He belonged to the extreme orthodox party, the Orphans, and was one of the most unyielding of them. He never completely mastered the Bohemian language, yet was trusted by the Orphans and thrust forward as their representative and defender on all occasions. In this way his name appears frequently in Hussite history both as private and public advocate of their views and always coupled with respect. He manfully shared the adverse fortunes of his party. In 1437 he was cited by the pope for heresy and in consequence compelled to leave Prague. In 1439 he was imprisoned in the castle of Gutenstein, not far from Mies (15 m. w. of Pilsen), Austria, and was ransomed by the payment of 12,000 groechen. He was in the town of Tabor when it was taken by King George Podiebrad (1452) and thus the party was destroyed, and as he was unwilling himself to yield, he probably died in prison. He seems to have played a large and honorable part in his day, but owing to the fact that no works of his have been
preserved, or are now accessible, his reputation has suffered an eclipse.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For Payne's career in England the one source is T. Gasooigne's Didionarium theolopicum (MS. in Lincoln College Library, Oxford), extracts from it printed by J. E. T. Rogers' as Loci a libro veritatum, Oxford, 1881. For his career in Bohemia the principal authorities are collected in Monuments conciliorwn aeneralium aoxuli %V., vols. i.‑iii., Vienna, 1857‑94. Other scattering notices are indicated at the end of the detailed sketch in DNB, xliv. 114‑118. A not well balanced monograph, J. Baker's A Porpotten Great Englishman, London, 1894, is based largely upon F. Palacky's Geachichte ronn Bahmen, books vii.‑ix., 5 vole., Prague, 1836‑67. Interesting matter is found in Creighton, Papacy, ii. 237‑255, 312. Consult further the literature under BASEL, CooHcIn OF; and Hoes, JOHN, Huserras.
PAYNE SMITH, ROBERT: Orientalist and theologian; b. at Chipping Campden (27 m. n.n.e. of Gloucester) Nov. 7, 1819; d. at Canterbury Mar. 31, 1895. He was educated at Pembroke College, Oxford (B.A., 1841; M.A., 1843; Boden Sanacrit scholar, 1840; Pusey and Ellerton scholar. 1843); was ordained deacon (1843) and priest (1844); and became successively head‑master of the Kensington proprietary school (1853), sub‑librarian of the Bodleian Library, Oxford (1857), canon of Christ Church, Oxford, regius professor of divinity, and rector of Ewelme (1865), and dean of Canterbury (1870). He was Bampton lecturer in 1869, and an Old‑Testament reviser (1870,84). He edited S. Cyrilla commentarii in Lucre evangelium qulE aupersunt Syriace (Oxford, 1859); and published the English translation, A Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke (1859). He also published an Eng. transl., The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus, as edited in Syriac by William Cureton (1860). Other works are The Authenticity and Messianic Interpretation of the Prophecies of Isaiah (1862); Prophecy a Preparation for Christ (1869); and a commentary on Jeremiah in the " Speaker's Commentary " (London, 1875), the exposition of the books on Samuel in the Pulpit Commentary (1883, 1888), and on Genesis in An Old Testament Commentary by C. J. Elliott (London, 1885); and the posthumous Sermons on the Pentateuch, with Memoir (1896). His chief work on which he spent the last thirty‑six years of his life, the Thesaurus syriacus (Oxford, 1868‑1901), a Syriac dictionary, was exhaustive and epochmaking. Before his death all but the last of the ten fasciculi had appeared, and this was issued by his daughter.
BIBLIoQRAPHY: Besides the Memoir in the Sermons, ut sup., consult DNB, xliv. 125‑127.
PAYSON, EDWARD: b. at Rindge, N. H., July. 25, 1783; d. at Portland, Me., Oct. 22, 1827. He was educated at Harvard, studied divinity with his father, Dr. Seth Payson, and was pastor of the Sec. and Congregational Church in Portland from 1807 until his death. He was a man of exalted piety and not without marked intellectual and spiritual gifts, which gave him a high place in church circles of New England. His biography and published sermons are widely read at home and abroad. His Complete Works (Sermons) appeared in 6 vole.; Portland, 1852, with Memoir by As& Cumming, (independently published, 1829), and also in 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1853.

Pazman Peter
Peace Xovemente
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
424
r 	r
PAZMANY, PETER: Hungarian Roman Catholic prelate; b. at Grosswardein (Hungarian, Nagyv>;,rad, 137 m. e.s.e. of Budapest) Oct. 4, 1570; d. at Pressburg Mar. 19, 1637. His parents, noble landlords of the Reformed creed, sent the moderately talented son to the school of Jesuits at Kolosvdr, who during four years of instruction converted him and sent him for higher studies to Rome. In 1597 he became professor of philosophy and theology at the University of Gratz. Singled out for a missionary by his superior he soon returned to his fatherland, where the archbishop of Esztergom, Francis Forgacs, took him under his patronage, because the young missionary in three weeks converted the archbishop's brother. The first Hungarian war for religious freedom (1604‑06) fought under Bocskay ended with victory. The public mind in the diet of the kingdom (1608) urged the banishment of the Jesuits who excited the war. PSzmg,ny boldly defended them by voice and pen, thus advancing the cause of the Roman Catholics. Only the right of possessing landed property was prohibited to the Jesuits, but in a more favorable epoch this law was frustrated by duplicity.
Literary activity, printing, and books had been mostly in the hands of Protestants. PAzmAny gave a new impulse to the Roman Catholic cause by his books written in a powerful style. After 1603 he made a vigorous attack upon both the persons and tenets of Luther and Calvin by means of two pamphlets followed by two polemics: " The worship of Saints " and " Calvin's Credo." Upon Peter Alvinczy, Reformed preacher at Kaschau, he turned with his " Five Handsome Letters " (Pozsony, 1609). His most powerful book, which called forth many attempts at refutation, was the " Guide to Divine Truth " (Pozsony, 1613), the first apology for Roman Catholicism in Hungary, given in animated and picturesque form, which compelled the Protestants to defend their views. In the following three years sixteen publications appeared on both sides. Passion and hatred reached their climax during the period of the first centennial jubilee of the Reformation. Alvinczi issued his " Mirror " (1614) and Itinerarium Catholicum (Debreczin, 1616), showing that the new doctrine was based on the Bible. PAzmAny's answer, " The Calvinist Mirror," was full of biting scorn. The Lutheran pastor of Zsepreg, E. Zvonarics, translated M. Hafenreffer's Yom den biblischen Glauben (1614) as a defense against P.zmAny. The second edition of the " Guide " stirred up agitation anew among the Protestants. The widow of the Palatine George Thurz6 sent the " Guide " in a Latin version to Wittenbetg University, asking the professors to refute it; the demand was met by Balduinus in his Phosphorus verua Catholicismi (Wit_ tenberg, 1626) in which he refuted the Jesuitic sophisms. P4amAny's last book, " Sermons " (Pozsony, 1636), exhibits in 105 sermons his oratorical power. His " Prayer Book " (1606; 17th ed., 1869) proved exceedingly popular. He was the author of thirty‑seven works, of which twenty‑two enrich Hungarian learning and earned for him the epithet " the Hungarian Cicero " as well as " the terrible scourge of Protestantism." He was the
founder of Roman Catholic scientific literature in Hungary.
After Forgg,cs' death Matthias, king and emperor, satisfying the ardent wish of the Roman Catholic party, raised (1616) PAzmAny to the archbishopric and primacy. Here begins his career as politician. His chief aim was to strengthen the power of the Hapsburg dynasty and by this way to lead Roman Catholicism to victory and to destroy Protestantism. Being according to the state constitution, after the king, the second in rank, he filled the Protestant party with fear. The king having no direct descendant, the Jesuits decided to raise to the throne Ferdinand, duke of Styria, a pupil of the Jesuits, who had extirpated Protestantism in his domain. Pdzmdny, upheld by about fifty aristocratic families, most of whom he had won to Roman Catholicism, secured, after heated debate in the diet, the king's election. The Protestant party required the oath from the king that he secure them the free use of their churches against the patriarchal right of the Roman Catholic landlords who usually drove away the Protestants from their estates. PAzmAny's sentiment was revealed by his declaration, " that they might rather leave his country desolate than take the churches for themselves against the rights of his‑rural patron." Through the influence of PAzmAny, the Roman Catholic party omitted from the text the important phrase una cum templis. The highest state‑offices went into the hands of Roman Catholics, who thus had the balance of power.
The war of thirty years broke out in Bohemia; Gabriel Bethlen, the Hungarian Reformed prince of Transylvania, seized this favorable opportunity to save his brethren in the faith and in 1619 invaded the territory of Ferdinand so successfully that PAzmAny had to flee to Vienna, while the king was forsaken by his subjects in Hungary. The Bohemians having been suppressed, Bethlen and Ferdinand made peace (1622). Transylvania obtained seven counties, and religious freedom was guaranteed as in the time of Bocskay. The throne of the Hapsburgs was saved, and P6,zmgny, regaining his dignities, maintained his supremacy and continued hiss policy. Count Nicolaus Eszterh5,zy, styled " the second PdzmAny," was chosen palatine 1625, while Pope Urban VIII. congratulated the Roman Catholic dignitaries upon the acclamation of Ferdinand III. as king, and the king of Spain rewarded PA,zmAany with a pension of 3,000 ducats. After the death of Bethlen in 1629, PIzmAny obtained a freer hand. The prince's widow, Catherine of Brandenburg, embraced the Roman Catholic faith, although by doing so she lost the throne. In 1629 P6zminy was made cardinal. Gustavus Adolphus put in hazard the results of the Hapsburg policy. Ferdinand 11. sent P6,zm,4ny as his ambassador to Rome (1632) where he presented a proposition in the name of the king to unite the Roman Catholic powers of Europe for the extirpation of heretics and Turks, the territory to be divided among these powers. But the papal policy was rather in favor of the French interests.
The Roman Catholic Church had almost perished when P6zmAny appeared. A third part of Hungary lay under Turkish domination; bishopries, abbeys,

425	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	P&z"ap. Peter
Peace Xovemente
monasteries, and parsonages had disappeared.
The archbishop's residence belonged to the Turks,
and he resided at Tyrnau (Nagy Szombat).
Many places were without priests, only licentiates
officiating. The eastern part of the kingdom
(Transylvania) flourished under Calvinistic princes
(Bocakay, Bethlen, Rhkocy), where no Roman
Catholic bishops existed. Ptizm6ny secured edu
cated priests and founded (1623) a new seminary
at Vienna, which still exists under the name of
Pazmaneum. He gave 100,000 gulden ($48,500)
to that institution and placed it under the guidance
of Jesuits. Students of distinction were sent to
Rome to the Germanico‑Hungaricum Collegium,
over which he was appointed protector. He revived
the school at Tyrnau (1626) where the number of
students increased to 1,000; and for poor boys of
noble extraction he erected the Convictus nobilium.
He enlarged it to a seminary under professors of
the Jesuit order (1630), and finally elevated it by
his endowment of 100,000 gulden to the rank of
a university, sanctioned by the king and the pope
and opened by himself Nov. 13, 1635, with the
greatest pomp, assisted by the first rector, the
Jesuit Dobronoky. This was the nucleus of the
present great university of Budapest. The citizens
of Pozsony, mostly Protestants, protested in vain.
P4zmiimy, under royal authority, established there
(1626) a Roman Catholic school, giving toward it
50,000 florins of his revenue and endowing it with
his library and a printing‑press. Into this school
he introduced the Jesuits, and one of the four Lu
theran preachers, because of his speech defending the
free city's rights, suffered banishment. In similar
fashion he treated the towns of Sopron and Szatmgr,
while bishops and other dignitaries followed the
leadership of their spiritual head. Count Eszter
Way expelled from his dominions Protestant pas
tors, and others did the same. P6zmttny held a
synod at Tyrnau (1630) which adopted the Missale
Romanum and Breviarium. With the aid of his
intimate friend Lamormain, confessor to the king,
he secured the royal decree permitting priests to use
their fortunes for ecclesiastical purposes. This was
the forerunner of the German " Restitution‑Edict."
Pkzmtiny was determined upon regaining the former
welfare, riches, and splendor; to this he sacrificed
the interests of his country and constitutional
liberty. He bitterly hated the Protestant princes,
and remained a Jesuit to the last. That Europe
lost in Hungary a Protestant nation is the work
of PAzmlmy.	FRANcis BALOGH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An edition of PLzmAny's works was begun
	by the University of Budapest, the Hungarian series,
	1894, and the Latin series the same year; six volumes have
	appeared. The most complete biography is by W.
	Fralm6i, 3 vols., Pesth, 1888‑72. Others are by J. Pod
	braezky. Budapest, 1838; and I. Tl;ankoffer, Vienna,
	1858. A sketch of his life appeals also in the " Works,"
	Series Latina, vol. i. Consult also Ranks, Popes, ii. 211.
PEABODY, ANDREW PRESTON: Unitarian; b. at Beverly, Mass., Mar. 19, 1811; d. at Boston Mar. 10, 1893. He was graduated from Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., 1826, and from Harvard Divinity School, 1832; was pastor at Portsmouth, N. H., 1833‑60; and professor of Christian morals, and preacher to Harvard University, 1860‑81. He
edited The North‑American Review, 1852‑61; wrote Lecture on Christian Doctrine (Boston, 1844, 3d ed., 1857) ; Christian Consolations (1846, 6th ed., 1872) ; Conversation, its Faults and Graces (1856, 3d ed., 1882) ; Christianity the Religion of Nature (Lowell Lectures, 1864); Sermons for Children (1866); Reminiscences of European Travel (New York, 1868); Manual of Moral Philosophy (1873); Christianity and Science (Union Seminary Lectures, 1874, new ed., 1890); Christian Belief and Life (Boston, 1875); Baccalaureate Sermons (1885); Moral Philosophy: Lectures (1887); Harvard Reminiscences (1888); Harvard Graduates whom 1 have known (1890); and King's Chapel Sermons (1891); and made translations of Cicero's De ofeais (1883), De senectute (1884), De Amicitia and Scipio's Dream" (1884), "Tusculan Disputations" (1886); and " Plutarch on the Delay of the Divine Justice " (1885).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. De Normandie, Andrew Preston Peabody:
Memorial Sermon, Boston, 1893.
PEABODY, FRANCIS GREENWOOD: Unitarian; b. at Boston Dec. 4, 1847. He was educated at Harvard College (A.B., 1869) and Harvard Divinity School (1872). From 1874 to 1880 he was minister of the First Parish Church, Cambridge, Mass., and in 1880 was appointed Parkman professor of theology in Harvard Divinity School. Since 1886 he has been Plummer professor of Christian morals in Harvard University. He has written Mornings in the College Chapel: Short Addresses to Young Men. on Personal Religion (Boston, 1896; 2d series, 1907); Afternoons in the College Chapel: Addresses to .Young Men on Personal Religion (1898); Jesus Christ and the Social Question (New York, 1900); The Religion of an Educated Man (1903); Jesus Christ and the Christian Character.(Lyman Beecher Lectures at Yale; 1905); and The Approach to the Social Question (1909).
PEACE OF GOD. See TaucE OF GOD.
PEACE MOVEMENTS.
History to the Seventeenth Century (§ 1). William Penn; the Eighteenth Century Q 2). The Fist Peace Societies (§ 3). The First Period, till 1887 (§ 4). Recent Period, from 1887 (§ 5). Peace Congresses (§ 8). InterparliamentaryUnion (§ 7). Arbitration (§ 8). First Hague Conference, 1899 (§ 9). Second Hague Conference, 1907 (§ 10). Reoent Events (§ 11).
	The international peace movement had its origin
in the intellect, conscience, and heart which had been
developed by Christianity. The preaching for cen
turies of the great group of truths lying at the very
		heart of Christianity‑the fatherhood
	r. History of God, the essential oneness and
to the Sev‑ brotherhood of mankind, love, good
	enteenth will, forgiveness of injuries, disinter
	Century. ested service of others, self‑sacrifice,
		patience, and the like‑however im
perfectly these were put into practise, finally
had such an effect on the mind and heart and upon
the hereditary character of society that men began
to ask whether there were not some way of getting

Peace movements	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	428
rid of the savageries and brutalities which had so evidently nothing in common with the spirit and the virtues insisted on and blessed by the founder of Christianity, and so faithfully observed by the early Christians in general for more than a hundred years. Private war was first to begin to go; it has finally disappeared (see WAGER or BATTLE, DuuL). The duel is no longer resorted to in most of the civilized countries. No sooner had the seventeenth century opened than public war began to be arraigned by a few advanced Christian thinkers as unworthy of Christian princes and of peoples who claimed to live under the control of Christian principles. Indeed, this arraignment had already been made by Erasmus a hundred years before and still earlier by Wyclif. The " Great Design " of Henry IV. was worked out with a view of bringing about a federation of Christian Europe to prevent so much quarreling and fighting. Though defective in being directed against the house of Hapsburg and against Islam, and in basing its reliance chiefly on force in the form of a large international army, it nevertheless was valuable in introducing into practical political thought the idea of federation as a remedyfor the untold ills and lawlessness of a r6gime of brute force. fjm6ric Crud, in his Nouveau Cyn6e (1623; Eng. transl., The New Cyneas of A" Cruce, Philadelphia, 1909), followed closely the underlying thought of the " Design " of Henry IV., but was more radical in his condemnation of war as irrational and incompatible with the Christian professions of Europe. His scheme for doing away with war proposed the establishment of , an international arbitration tribunal at Venice (the first ever suggested) for the settlement of disputes. Hugo Grotius made his great plea, in his De jure belli ac pacis (Paris, 1625), for the amelioration of war and for the application of arbitration in the adjustment of controversies between states on the basis of the ideals which Christian teaching had so long emphasized. In the middle of the same century George Fox (q.v.) demanded in the name of the Christian profession that all war should cease throughout Christendom, and that the very spirit of war should disappear from the souls of men.
These interpretations of the Christian spirit and teaching were carried still further by William Penn (q.v.) toward the end of the seventeenth century. He carried the doctrine of peace, which lay enfolded in the Gospel, to its logical limit. He felt that governments, if they were to deserve z. William the right to be called Christian in any Penn; the real sense, should in their organization Eighteenth and policies recognize and definitely
	Century.	follow the principle of peace. His
		attempt to carry out his conclusion in
practise, in the founding and management of the
colony of Pennsylvania on peace lines, is one of the
most instructive episodes in the whole history of
civilization. The Christian ideal of the proper
attitude and relation of the nations to each other
reached its final and complete expression in his
"holy experiment," which, after two generations
of extraordinary success, at last broke down, though
only because men were 11 faithless and unbelieving."
The eighteenth century did little, until the time of Kant, in the way of peace work, except to repeat and emphasize the ideals which the previous century had produced. The Abb6 de St. Pierre, in his plan for perpetual peace, followed closely the thought of Penn's Essay toward the Present and Future Peace of Europe (1693‑94, reissued, Boston, 1891). At the end of the eighteenth century Kant gave to the world in Zum ewigen Frieden (KSnigaberg, 1795) his famous conception of a world state, through which the perpetual peace of the world was to be secured. At the opening of the nineteenth century the peace movement entered upon its practical stage. The idealism of peace, which had of necessity to precede any practical work, had reached its culmination in expression. The hour had struck for an organized effort to secure, if possible, the realization of the great dreams of the two preceding centuries, which had so far not affected perceptibly, in a practical way, the relations of the nations. War was as universal as ever as the only practicable way of settling serious disputes between states. With Napoleon running his ruthless course, it looked as if war were destined to be eternal. Arbitration between independent and sovereign nations was virtually unknown. The so‑called settlements by arbitration preceding that time had usually been between different branches of a family or a dynasty, or between vassal states, with the suzerain lord acting as arbitrator.
In 1815, when Napoleon's career came to an end, the first peace societies were organized. For half a dozen years previously the subject of organized peace work had been under consideration both in the United States and England. David Low Dodge, a New York Presbyterian
3. The First merchant, wrote The Mediator's KingPeace dom not of this World (New York, 1809),
	Societies.	the first pamphlet on this subject ex
		cept the various manifestoes of the So
ciety of Friends. In 1812 he published a still more
important work, War Inconsistent with the Religion
of Jesus Christ. On Christmas Day, 1814, Noah
Worcester, the distinguished lexicographer, issued
his famous Solemn Review of the Custom of War, which
aroused the Christian conscience in both the United
States and England. The next year in August, in
his parlor in New York, Dodge founded the first
peace society. The Ohio Peace Society followed.
The day after Christmas, of that year, 1815, Worces
ter, with the support of William Ellery Channing
(q.v.) and a few others, organized in Channing's
study in Boston the Massachusetts Peace Society,
which at once took the lead in peace work in the
United States. Dr. Worcester immediately com
menced the publication of The Friend of Peace, a
journal which continued for twelve years. Thus the
peace movement was fairly launched by men who
were all distinctively Christian. In Great Britain
a similar movement ran parallel to the American,
beginning about the same time under the leadership
of William Allen, a prominent member of the Society
of Friends. The Society for the Promotion of
Permanent and Universal Peace (now called simply
the Peace Society) was organized in 1816 by Allen
and a few associates, and soon began the publication

427	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peace Movements
of The Herald of Peace. It has continued its labors and the publication of its journal ever since and is still one of the most active and influential of the peace organizations. In 1828 the American Peace Society, on the initiative of William Ladd, the American " apostle of peace," was organized in New York as a national society, to unify the work which the single societies had undertaken and to save the movement from failure because of the difficulty of keeping the local associations alive and active. The society has continued its activities ever since. It has a dozen branch and auxiliary societies in different parts of the nation, distributes widely its pamphlet literature and its monthly journal, The Advocate of Peace, and in all possible ways continues its propaganda. Several of the local societies, as for example those of New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, continued their work for a number of years, but finally were all either merged into the national society or ceased to exist. In recent years new local societies have been organized in New York, Philadelphia, and other cities.
During its first period, which lasted for about forty years, the peace movement exhibited great vitality and vigor. The reaction of sentiment against the direful scourge of war was strong and wide‑spread. Peace organizations were effected all up and down the Atlantic Coast, in 4. The First Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Period, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,
	till 1867.	South Carolina, and to a less extent
		toward the interior of the country.
Many of the foremost men of the first half of the
century associated themselves with the movement,
or gave it their hearty support. The same was true
in Great Britain, where branches of the Peace
Society were formed in different parts of the United
Kingdom, and prominent men, both in and out of
Parliament, made the movement felt far and wide
in British thought. In the way of literature this
first period produced much that was of fundamental
and durable value. In addition to the peace papers
‑The Friend of Peace, The Herald of Peace, The
Advocate of Peace‑and many able addresses and
pamphlets which were printed and widely circulated,
this period bequeathed Dodge's treatise referred
to above, N.Worcester's Solemn Review of the Custom
of War (Boston, 1814), J. Dymond's Inquiry into the
Accordancy of War with : . . Christianity (Philadel
phia, 1834), W. E. Charming's Discourses, Emerson's
Essay, Charles Sumner's The True Grandeur of
Nations (1845) and The War System of the Common
wealth of Nations (1849), W. Ladd's Essay on the Con
gress and Court of Nations (Boston, 1840), William
Jay's War and Peace (New York, 1848), Cobden's
and Brights' speeches and tractates, H. T. J.
Macna,mara's Peace, Permanent and Universal (Lon
don, 1841), T. Clarkson's Essay on Doctrines and
Practices of the Early Christians as they Relate to War
(London, 1832), poems of Wluttier and Longfellow,
etc. Nearly all of this literature still has great
influence in the support of the peace propaganda.
This first period closed with the series of peace
congresses held in Europe from 1843 to 1851, at
London, Frankfort, Paris, and Brussels. From
this time for nearly twenty years the peace pzovement simply marked time. The war spirit, after nearly forty years of general peace, flamed forth anew. The Crimean War came on in 1854; the Italian‑Austrian War in 1859; the American Civil War in 1861; the Prussian‑Danish War in 1864‑ the Prussian‑Austrian War in 1866; the Franco‑Prussian War in 1870; and the Russo‑Turkish War in 1878. It was a period of intense passions, of fierce gigantic struggles, of incalculable slaughter and destruction; and the spirit of peace had to wait till the storm of war had passed before it could do constructive work. The leading peace societies maintained their organizations, pubilshed their papers and issued their manifestoes, but the spirit of the times made their work difficult and for the most part ineffective.
	Before this war period closed, however, the peace
movement began anew. About 1867, under the
inspiration and leadership of Hodgson Pratt of
England, the movement began to take hold of
continental Europe in a systematic way. Up to
		this time peace work had been nearly
g. Recent entirely confined to the United States
Period, and Great Britain. The horrors and from 1867. economic waste attending and following the great wars above referred to had again aroused the intelligence and conscience of men to try to make the recurrence of such a period impossible. Following the establishment of the International Arbitration and Peace Association in London by Pratt and his friends, and the Workingmen's Arbitration League (since known as the International Arbitration League) by William Randal Cremer, came the organization of societies in France, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, and elsewhere. In the United States at the beginning of this period the Universal Peace Union was founded in Philadelphia by Alfred Henry Love and his friends. Later came the German and Austrian societies and their branches. The organization of societies has steadily spread until to‑day there are more than one hundred general societies with no less than four hundred branches, or in all about five hundred associations devoting themselves in the different countries to the realization of permanent international peace. Scarcely a year passes that some society, general or branch, is not organized. The latest of the important organizations are the Peace Society of Japan at Tokyo, with about two hundred and fifty members, composed of prominent missionaries and eminent Japanese citizens, and the Universal Peace Association of South America at Buenos Ayres, founded by the distinguished Senora de Costa, whose labor in securing the erection of the great peace monument, the " Christ of the Andes," has made her famous throughout the world. The Nobel Institute at Christiania, Norway, established in the years 1897‑1900, in connection with the Nobel Peace Prize Foundation, with its splendid building, its large and growing library, and its able administrative committee, is one of the most remarkable outgrowths of the peace movement, and is fast becoming one of the most conspicuous and influential of all the centers of peace propaganda.

Pesce Movements	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	428
	The year	1889 constituted an important epoch
in the history of the peace cause. Then the organi
zation of the movement began to take on a wider
scope and greater completeness, and at Paris the
		first of the series of modern peace con‑
6. Peace gresses was held. This was followed Congresses. by congresses at London, Rome, Berne, Chicago, Antwerp, Budapest, Hamburg, Paris, Glasgow, Monaco, Rouen, Boston, Lucerne, Milan, Munich, and again at London in 1908. These congresses have grown in size and influence from year to year till they are now recognized as important annual international events, and are welcomed and supported by both municipal and national authorities. Scarcely less noteworthy are the national peace congresses, growing out of the international, which have been held in France, Great Britain, Italy, Scandinavia, Germany, and the United States 1903‑09. Along with these international and national peace congresses have been organized certain important special conferences like the two national arbitration conferences held at Washington in 1896 and 1904, and the annual Lake Mohonk Conference on international arbitration organized by Albert Keith Smiley in 1895, which has grown to be one of the great agencies for promoting the pacific settlement of controversies between nations. In connection with the peace congresses a general International Peace Bureau was organized in 1891 with headquarters at Berne, Switzerland, to serve as a means of communication between the peace societies in the different nations and as an agency for executing the resolutions adopted by the congresses. This bureau, supported by the voluntary contributions of individuals and peace societies, and by subventions from several of the smaller powers of Europe, has steadily grown in efficiency and influence, and has made of the peace congresses and societies a coherent and powerful international organization, the ideals and wishes of which are making themselves more and more felt upon the governments of the world.
In 1889 the Interparliamentary Union was organized at Paris for the promotion of interest in arbitration and peace among statesmen. The year before, a few members of the British House of Commons and the French Chamber of 7. Interpar‑ Deputies had met at Paris to discuss liamentary the question of an Anglo‑French arbi‑
	Union.	tration treaty. The meeting awakened
		so much interest that it was decided to
call a meeting the next year in the general interests
of arbitration, and to invite to it members of other
parliaments. With its membership of 2,500,
its organized groups in nearly all of the parlia
ments of the world, holding its conferences in
the capitals and other leading cities of the nations,
outlining programs for the Hague conferences,
welcomed by rulers and cabinets of the mightiest
nations, like England, Germany, and the United
States, the Interparliamentary Union is in important
respects the greatest existing agency of an unofficial
kind for promoting good understanding, unity, and
harmony among the nations. It has brought the
ideals of the friends of international peace into
immediate touch with the legislative and the execu‑
tive branches of the different governments. It speaks with a certain authority not possessed by the more popular branch of the peace movement, as its members are men counted worthy to be entrusted with the highest legislative functions in their different nations. It was in part the 'influence of this union, through its conference at Budapest in 1896, to which an official Russian messenger was sent, that induced the emperor of Russia to issue the call for the first Hague conference. The groups of the union form in each of the parliaments a strong bulwark against war legislation, and at the same time a' medium for the proper study and understanding of all important international controversies that may arise.
During the centuiy within which this great movement of public opinion has grown up and organized itself in the various ways above outlined, the praotical application of the principle of arbitration to the settlement of international con‑
8. Arbi‑ troversies has been no less remarkable.
	tration.	Beginning in a small and tentative
		way with the three settlements pro
vided for under the Jay treaty of 1794, the arbi
tration of disputes has grown in frequency until
to‑day it is the settled practise of the nations. It
has developed rapidly during the past twenty years.
Whereas during the first half of the nineteenth cen
tury only about thirty cases of arbitration occurred,
during the last decade of the century more than
sixty were recorded, and about the same number
have taken place since this century opened. It
is not easy to overestimate the remarkable change
that has come over the spirit of international affairs
which has led to the settlement of not less than six
cases of dispute every year for the last twenty years.
The total number of important cases of arbitration
within the century has risen to about 260, and
there have been almost as many more settlements
of a minor character. These arbitrations have
dealt with nearly every possible kind of controversy,
from questions of money claims up to serious and
delicate boundary differences, and controversies
like the Alabama dispute which involved both
vital interests and national honor. In every one
of these arbitrations the award, though in a few
instances severely criticized, has been loyally ac
cepted and faithfully carried out by the defeated
party. Instead of leaving behind ill‑will and the
seeds of subsequent misunderstandings, they have
brought the participating nations into closer friend
ship and greater mutual respect and confidence.
They have contributed to the creation of the gen
eral new and better attitude which is to‑day more
and more prevailing among the peoples of the
earth. Arbitration has won its case at the bar of
international public opinion, and may henceforth
be considered a settled part of the public inter
national law of the world.
The two Hague conferences and what they have accomplished, or put in the way of accomplishment, are the fullest expression, on the political side, of the magnitude to which the peace movement has attained. When the czar of Russia issued his famous rescript Aug. 24, 1898, suggesting the holding of an international conference to deal with

4$9	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Peace xovements
the subject of armaments and their growing burdens, there was great skepticism and pessimism as to the prospect of any good coming of his proposals. Even his second rescript, sent out in the
9. First following January, did not remove
	Hague	this feeling. Largely out of courtesy
Conference,		to the czar, as the head of a great
	x899.	and powerful nation, the govern
		ments of the twenty‑six powers which
had been invited to send delegates to a conference
one by one accepted the invitation. On May 18,
1899, the delegates of these governments, about
100 in number, met at The Hague. There was
a general feeling among them when they arrived,
that little would come except the decent burial of
the czar's proposals. This feeling, however, did
not continue long. From all parts of Western
Europe and the United States, especially those sec
tions where the peace movement had developed
most, telegrams, cablegrams, memorials, and private
letters urging upon the conference the necessity of
doing something to establish a substitute for war
in dealing with international differences began to
arrive at The Hague in immense volume. Several
days were devoted by the delegations and by the
president of the conference to the reception and con
sideration of these messages, which represented the
wishes of great numbers of the most intelligent
citizens of the different countries from which they
came. The result was that the skepticism as to
results disappeared, and the conference set itself
diligently to work to accomplish the task which had
been given it by the mandate of powerful pacific
public opinion. After ten weeks of most patient
and careful study, three conventions were signed
and sent to the governments for their ratification.
The most important of these was that for the pacific
settlement of international controversies, under
which provision was made for the establishment of
a Permanent International Court of Arbitration.
After two years this convention was ratified by a
majority of the twenty‑six powers (subsequently
by all of them except Turkey and Montenegro) and
the Court of Arbitration was declared to be duly
established and ready for business. In spite of the
skepticism which still prevailed in all the countries
which participated in the conference, as to whether
anything further would ever come of the Court of
Arbitration, in due time the United States and
Mexico called the tribunal into operation by an
agreement to refer to it the long‑standing dispute
about the Pious Fund of the Californias. The
speedy and inexpensive settlement of this dispute
cleared away for the most part the skepticism which
had prevailed, and in due tin.a other disputes were
referred to the court for adjustment. The settle
ment of these controversies called to the bar of the
court nearly all of the great powers.
The large and unexpected success of the work of the First Hague Conference soon led to the feeling among the friends of peace that another should be held to continue and complete its work. This wish was voiced particularly by the Interparliamentary Union at its session at St. Louis in 1904. The result was that, on the initiative of the government of the United States, the second peace con‑
ference was assembled by the czar, and met at
The Hague in June, 1907. This conference
showed great advance over the first. Whereas
		only twenty‑six powers bad been re.
	xo. Second presented in 1899, forty‑four, or practi
	Hague tally all of the important powers of
	Conference, the world, sent representatives. It
	1907‑ was essentially a world assembly. For
		the first time in history all the nations
of the earth, with the exception of two or three un
important ones, had met in council to consider the
important problems affecting their common
interests, and to develop still further the foun
dations of universal and perpetual peace among
them. The men who composed this conference
had been selected from among the ablest ambas
sadors, ministers plenipotentiary, and jurists of
their respective countries. In its results this
conference went much beyond what had been
accomplished by the first. The convention for
the pacific settlement of controversies was re
vised, enlarged from sixty‑two to ninety‑seven
articles, and much strengthened, and the nations
which had not been represented at the first confer
ence became parties to it. The Court of Arbitration
has become a world court open to all of the powers
on equal terms. Of the other conventions signed
by the second Hague conference the more important
from the point of view of the peace movement are:
That forbidding the collection of contractual debts
by force until arbitration has first been tried or
refused; that prohibiting the bombardment from
the sea of unfortified coast cities, towns, and ports;
one making the international mail service immune
from disturbance during war time; another neu
tralizing coast fishing fleets; another making the
territory of neutrals inviolable; still another for
bidding the throwing of projectiles and explosives
from balloons. All these agreements are strictly
peace pacts. They exclude war and its destruc
tiveness from certain very important fields. The
other conventions, which deal with the laws and
customs of war on land and sea, as to the opening
of hostilities, the laying of mines, the conversion
of merchant into war vessels, the duties of neutrals,
etc., are all of a nature to make the commencement
of hostilities more difficult and to restrict their
violence after they have begun. The international
prize court, provided for by the conference, has
been considered by some a very notable achieve
ment. In case a war breaks out hereafter, this
court, as one of final appeal, will take the passing of
final judgment upon prizes captured out of the power
of the captor and put it into the hands of a disinter
ested international tribunal. The interests of
justice will thereby be served even in time of war,
and whatever promotes impartial justice tends to
the further discrediting of violence and the final
suppression of war. The great accomplishments,
however, of the conference of 1907 were outside of
the formal conventions signed. The delegations
voted without a dissenting voice for periodical
meetings of the conference hereafter, determined
the time of the next meeting, and recommended the
creation of an international commission, two years
in advance, to prepare the program. This means,

Peace Xovements	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	480
Pearson, John
essentially, the establishment of a regular advisory
congress of the nations, to meet periodically. This
is the greatest step yet taken toward the establish
ment of universal and permanent peace. They
further voted unanimously for the establishment
of a Permanent International High Court of Jus
tice with judges always in service and holding
regular sessions. They could not agree on the
method of selecting the judges, but they recom
mended to the governments to take the matter up,
and to find a way of doing this that would satisfy
all the nations. The conference therefore virtually
laid the foundation of a supreme court of the world
in accordance with the great ideals of Ladd, Burritt,
Sumner and Jay, of Cobden, Bright, Richard, and
Victor Hugo. The problem of a general treaty
of obligatory arbitration to be signed by all the
powers, though the subject of one of the greatest
debates in the conference, was not fully solved, but
it was advanced a long way toward final solution.
The same was the case with the question of the im
munity of private property from capture at sea in
time of war, or, in other words, the permanent
neutralization of all unoffending private commerce.
These important subjects will, without doubt, con
stitute the chief features of the program of the
next Hague Conference. Thus through the Hague
conferences the principles and the practical ideals
which the peace workers have, for nearly a hundred
years, advocated, have beeq in the main approved
by the governments of the world, and their full reali
sation in no distant future assured.
	Since the close of the second Hague conference
in October, 1907, the peace movement has shown
in various ways signs of extraordinary life and
energy. All the peace and arbitration societies
		have been carrying on their propaganda
ti. Recent with increased earnestness and an
	Events.	enlarged faith in the speedy triumph
		of the cause. Beyond their limbs
among the people at large, the movement has called
forth much greater interest and activity than ever
before. This increased interest has manifested
itself in important journals and magazines, in the
great chambers of commerce and boards of trade,
in associations of business men, and in clubs of
every description. It has likewise shown itself
in the churches and in the educational institutions,
in the fuller observance of special peace days, in
oratorical peace contests, and in the giving of prizes
for essays on various phases of the peace problem.
The year 1908 was marked by an unusual number
of events indicative of the strength and momentum
which the movement for world peace has attained.
The negotiation of special treaties of arbitration
between the governments in pairs, begun four years
before the second Hague conference, went steadily
on, in accordance with the wish expressed by the
conference. More than eighty such treaties had
in 1909 been concluded, under the provisions of
which all questions of a judicial order and those
arising in the interpretation of treaties are for a
definite period to be referred to the Hague court.
The earliest of this class of treaties, those concluded
in 1903, are now being renewed for another similar
period. In the spring of 1908 the British govern‑
ment, through the chancellor of the exchequer, established an international hospitality fund for the entertainment of foreign guests and deputations. This was the first time in history that a great power officially undertook the promotion of international friendship and good‑will in a regular systematic way. The London Peace Congress of 1908 was received by the British government in a manner entirely unique. A deputation of twenty‑four members of the congress, representing all the nations which had sent delegates, was received by the king and queen in Buckingham Palace in a very cordial and entirely sincere way. Two months later the Interparliamentary Union was received at Berlin, in the Reichstag building, by the German government with equal cordiality and generosity. The agreement between France and Germany in the autumn of 1908 to refer their Casa‑Blanca difference to the Hague court was also a striking evidence of advance in the acceptance of the principles and ideals advocated by the pacifists. Up to that time no such agreement between these two powers had been possible.
But the greatest of all the European events, in its bearing on the strength of the peace movement, was the pacific revolution in Turkey, where one would have naturally supposed that no such pacific transformation could take place. But the Young Turk Party had become imbued with a sense of the moral value and the conquering power of the pacific methods and policies advocated by the friends of peace. These they employed in their efforts to transform the public opinion of the Turkish Empire, and in this way they were able to carry through their revolution and transform Turkey into a constitutional government, without the shedding of blood. The remission to China of a considerable portion of the Boxer indemnity, and the agreement between the United States and Japan setting forth the pacific intentions of the two governments in regard to the waters of the Pacific Ocean and the open door in the Far East, are likewise remarkable evidences of the new spirit and order which have begun to prevail within the family of nations.
Taking a comprehensive view of these various lines which the peace movement has followed in its evolution during the past century, keeping in mind the substantial accomplishments of the two Hague conferences, and noting the wide‑spread interest in the cause at the present time, manifested both by the people and by the governments of the different countries, one is compelled to believe that the permanent peace of the world is no longer merely an ideal and a dream. The conclusion is unescapable that the world has already entered upon the practical realization of this ideal, and that the final culmination of it in the abolition of war and the complete organization of the world on a basis of goodwill, friendly cooperation, and the peaceful arbitration of all controversies is to be expected in the near future. BENJAmlm F. TRUEBLOOD.
BIHLaoa$AP87: E. D. Mead, The Literature of the Peace
	Movement, Boston, 1910; Prise Essay on a Congress of
	Nations, ib., 1840; M. Jaebns, Ueber Krieg, Prreden and
	Hultur, Berlin, 1893; J. de Triac, Guerre et christianiame,
	Paris, 1898; B. F. Trueblood, The Federation of the World,
	Boston, 1899; G. F. W. Holls, The Peace Conference at Via

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peace Movements
		Peaxson, John
	Hague and its Bearings on International Law, New York,
	1900; C. Summer, Addresses on War, in his Works, Bos
	ton, 1900; Baroness von Suttner, Die Haager Friedena
	konferenz, Dresden, 1900; idem, Lay Down Your Arms,
	New York, 1905; O. Kellerman, War and Peace, London,
	1901; T. T. Martens, La Paix et la guerre, Paris, 1901;
	J. de Bloch, The Future of War, Boston, 1902; G. Fer
	rero, Militarism, London, 1902; J. Barr, Christoanity
	and War, Glasgow, 1903; W. E. Channing, Discourses‑on
	War, republished Boston, 1903; E. Duplessix, Vera la
	pair; droits et desoirs des nations, Paris, 1903; W. E.
	Darby, International Tribunals, London, 1904; J. W.
	Foster, Arbitration and the Hague Court, Boston, 1904;
	C. Meurer, Die Haager Friedenakonferenz, Munich, 1904;
	H. Weiesenborn, Blessings of Universal Peace, Jersey City,
	1905; R. L. Bridgman, World Organization, Boston, 1906;
	F. W. Hirst, Arbiter in Council; Papers on War, Peace,
	and Arbitration, New York, 1906; L. A. Mead, Patriot
	ism and the New Internationalism, Boston, 1906; W.
	Walsh, The Moral Damage of War, Boston, 1906; J. Ad
	dams, Newer Ideals of Peace. New York, 1907; H. Davis,
	Among the World's Peace‑Makers; Epitome of the Inter
	parliamentary Union, New York, 1907; V. H. Duras,
	Universal Peace, New York, 1908; W. 1. Hull, The Two
	Hague Conferences, Boston, 1908; J. B. Scott, Texts of
	Use Peace Conferences at the Hague, Boston, 1908; J. B.
	Moore, International Arbitrations, Washington (govern
	ment publication); and the Proceedings and Reports of
the various congresses, conferences and peace societies.
	PEACOCKE, JOSEPH FERGUSON: Church of
	Ireland archbishop of Dublin, and primate of Ire
	land; b. in County Queens, Nov. 5, 1835. He was
	educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1857)
	and was ordered deacon in 1858 and ordained priest
	in the following year. He was curate of St. Mary's,
	Kilkenny (1858‑61); secretary of the Hibernian
	Church Missionary Society (1861‑63); curate of
	Monkstown (1863‑73); incumbent of St. George's,
	Dublin (1873‑78); and rector of Monkstown (1878
1894).	He was also prebendary of Dunlavin and
	canon of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, from
	1875 to 1894, when he was appointed professor of
pastoral theology in Trinity College, Dublin.	He
	was select preacher at the University of Dublin in
	1876‑77, 1882,83, and 1888, and at the University
of Cambridge in 1899.	In 1894 he was consecrated
	bishop of Meath, and in 1897 was elevated to the
archdiocese of Dublin.	He is also bishop of
	Glendalough and of Kildare, and prebendary of
Cualaun.
	PEAKS, ARTHUR SAMUEL: English Primitive
	Methodist layman; b. at Leek (27 m. s.e. of Man
chester), Staffordshire, Nov. 24, 1865.	He was
	educated at St. John's College, Oxford (B.A., 1887;
	M.A., 1890), and was fellow of Merton College,
Oxford (1890‑97).	He was lecturer in Mansfield
	College, Oxford (1890‑92), and since 1892 has been
	a tutor in the Primitive Methodist College, Man
	chester, lecturer in Lancastershire Independent Col
	lege since 1895, and since 1904 he has also been pro
	fessor of Biblical exegesis and dean of the theological
faculty in the University of Manchester.	In theol
	ogy he holds to " liberal evangelism of the Pauline
	type, with special emphasis on Paul's doctrines
	of the solidarity of the race and the mystical union
	of the believer with Christ." In Old‑Testament
	criticism he is Grafian, and in New‑Testament
	criticism defends the validity of the critical method,
	but is not radical in his results. He " accepts the
	doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ,
	and the redeeming quality of his death and the
reality of his resurrection." He has edited the current literature section in the Primitive Methodist Quarterly Review since 1892 and a volume of inaugural lectures by members of the theological faculty of Victoria University (Manchester, 1906), to which he contributed his own lecture on The Present Movement of Biblical Science, and has written A Guide to Biblical Study (London, 1897); The Problem of Sufering in the Old Testament (1904); Reform in Sunday School Teaching (1906); Christianity: Its Nature and Truth (1908, 6th ed., 1909); A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (1909); and Heroes and Martyrs of Faith (1910), and has prepared the volumes on Hebrews and Job for The Century Bible (Edinburgh, 1902, 1905) and Colossians for The Expositor's Greek Testament (London, 1903).

PEARSON, ELIPHALET: American theologian; b. at Byfield, Mass., June 11, 1752; d. at Greenland, N. H., Sept. 12, 1826. He was educated at Harvard and soon after graduation was called to teach a grammar‑school at Andover, Mass., where in 1778 he was appointed principal of the newly founded Philips Academy. He held this position until 1786; then was professor of Hebrew ar;d Oriental languages at Harvard, 1786‑1806. In 1806 he resigned his professorship at Harvard, was ordained in the Congregational Church, and went to Andover. He was one of the founders of the Andover Theological Seminary, was professor of sacred literature 1808‑09, and president of the board of trustees for nineteen years. He was founder of the Massachusetts Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, secretary of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was the most conspicuous man in forming the American Education Society. Pearson wrote comparatively little, his most important publication being A Letter to the Candid (Boston, 1831).
BIHLJOanAPHY: W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, ii. 126‑131, New York, 1859.

PEARSON, JOHN: Church of England bishop and scholar; b. at Great Snoring (23 m. n.w. of Norwich), Norfolk, Feb. 28, 1613; d. at Chester July 16, 1686. He was educated at Eton (1623‑31) and at Cambridge (admitted at Queen's, June 10, 1631; elected scholar of King's, Apr., 1632; fellow 1634; B.A., 1635; M.A., 1639; D.D., 1660); and took orders in 1639. In 1640 he became prebendary of Salisbury and rector of Thorington in Suffolk. He was an outspoken royalist and in 1645 acted as chaplain to Lord Goring's forces at Exeter. After the king's cause was hopelessly lost he retired to London and remained there till the Restoration. From 1654 he preached weekly as lector, without remuneration, at St. Clement's, Eastcheap; and he wrote much in defense of the English Church. against both Roman Catholics and Puritans. He supplied prefaces for various books, his reputation for scholarship making his commendation much sought for. Walton's Polyglot (see BiBLEs, PoLyGLOT, IV.) was indebted to him for pecuniary aid, but he seems to have done no work upon it. After the Restoration he became rector of St. Christopherle‑Stocks, London, prebendary of Ely, archdeacon of Surrey, royal chaplain, and master of Jesus

Pearson, John
Peasants' War
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
482
College, Cambridge (1660). He was prominent in the Savoy Conference (q.v.), and the same year (1661) was chosen to superintend the translation of the prayer‑book into Latin. In June, 1661, he became Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge and, in 1662, master of Trinity. He was consecrated bishop of Chester in 1673.
Pearson was probably the ablest scholar and systematic theologian of the English Church in the seventeenth century. The work which made his reputation (still a standard in English divinity) was An. Exposition of the Creed (London, 1659), a development of sermons delivered at St. Clement's. It is a masterful attempt to expand the creed so as to embrace a summary of the arguments and authorities of the orthodox faith; marked by a judicious selection of proofs, scholastic treatment, vigorous definition, and exact deduction; and set forth in an accurate style. The best edition is that of T. Chevallier, revised by R. Sinker (Cambridge, 1899). There are abridgments by Basil Kennett, Charles Burney, and C. Bradley, and an analysis by W. H. Mill (London, 1837, and often). Pearson's great work in the field of historical criticism was the Vindicia epiatolarum S. Ignatii (Cambridge, 1672; ed. E. Churton for the Library of AngloCatholic Theology, 2 vols., Oxford, 1852), an answer to an attack by Jean DaM6 (Geneva, 1666) on the authenticity of the letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, which Pearson was led to defend by scholarly interest and, still more, by his views concerning the age and origin of the episcopate. For two centuries the book was the chief writing in favor of the authenticity of the letters, and late investigations by J. B. Lightfoot and T. Zahn confirm Pearson's judgment. In his Lectiones de Deo et attributis ejus (professorial lectures, first printed in the complete edition of Pearson's Minor Theological Works, ed. E. Churton, 2 vols., Oxford, 1844), he attempted to provide a Protestant Corpus theologiw, following the Thomistic method but aiming to correct the faults of the old scholasticism by more fundamental dependence on Scripture and critical examination of the ancient councils and authorities. His chronological writings, Annales Cyprianici (prefixed to Bishop Fell's edition of Cyprian, Oxford, 1682), Annalea Paulini (in Opera posthuma, 3 parts, London, 1687‑88; Eng. transl. by J. M. Williams, Cambridge, 1825, and by J. R. Crowfoot, Cambridge, 1851), and Dissertationes de aerie et successions primorum Romw episeoporum (in Opera posthuma) have still considerable value; likewise his Determinationes theologicce (published by Churton, ut sup.), brief treatises on the origin of the episcopate and on Anglican orders, two Christological essays, and a discussion of baptism. His Leeliones in Acta Apostolorum (in Opera posthuma; Eng. transl. by Crowfoot with the Annales Paulini, ut sup.) and collaboration in the Critici sacri (a companion work to Walton's Polyglot, 9 vols., London, 1660), for which he wrote the preface and edited the last two volumes, are his important works in the exegetical field. Lastly, mention should be made of Orationes vii in comihis publicis academicis habitce and Conciones ad clerum vi. (published by Churton, ut sup.) and of two English ser‑
mons, the Excellency of Porms of Prayer, preached just before the Westminster Assembly in 1643, boldly declaring his'theological and political views, and No Necessity of Reformation of the Public Doctrine of the Church of England (London, 1660). (C. ScHbLl,t.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The beat sketch of Pearson's life is that by Churton prefixed to the Minor Theological Works, ut sup. Consult further: J. Darling, Cyclopadia Bibliopraphica, pp. 2320‑21, London, 1854; $. Cheetham, John Pearson, in A. Barry's Madera in English Theology, London, 1877; G. T. O. Bridgman, Hist. of the Church and Manor of Wigan, vol. xv. of the Publications of the Chetham Society, Manchester, 1888; DNB, xliv. 168‑173 (contains a list of the minor works, and references to scattering sources).
PEARSON, WILLIAM LAZARUS: Friend; b. at Cocinsboro, N. C., July 4, 1849. He was educated at Earlham College (A.B., 1875), after which he was principal of the high school at Fairmont, Ind. (1875‑76) and of Southland College, Ark. (1876‑77). He then entered Princeton Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1881, becoming a minister of the Society of Friends in the same year. He continued his theological studies at the universities of Berlin (1881‑83) and Leipsic (1883‑85; Ph.D., 1885), after which he was minister of the Friends' Church at Minneapolis, Minn. (1886‑87). Since 1887 he has been connected with Penn College, Oskaloosa, Ia., where he has been professor successively of modern languages (1887‑91) and of Biblical literature, as well as principal of the Bible department (since 1891). He was the virtual founder of the Quinquennial Conference of American Friends, to which he was a delegate in 1892 and 1897, as well as to the American Friends' Peace Conference in 1901. He was European correspondent of The Friends' Review, 1882‑84, and literary editor of Western Work, 1903‑06. He has written The Prophecy of Joel, its Unity, its Aim, and the Age of its Composition (New York, 1885); Notes on the Sacraments (Oskaloosa, Ia., 1898); and Studies in the Life of Christ (1904).
PEASANTS' WAR, THE.
I. Virtual Serfdom of the Peasants. II. Growth of the Movement. The Urban Lower Classes Join the Peasants (1 1). Western Germany and the Heilbronn Plan (§ 2). In Thuringia and Saxony; Miinaer (1 3). III. Luther and the Peasants' War. IV. Open Hostilities and Repression. V. Result of the Insurrection.
I. Virtual Serfdom of the Peasants: The Peasants' War was the armed rising of the peasants of central and southern Germany in the year 1525. It was the violent and awful final catastrophe of a social process starting from the social and legal system of the Middle Ages and continuing for centuries. The view that the greatest of all popular risings in German history was brought about by the Reformation is not supported by the facts. Long before the actual beginning of the religious movement, it had been firmly fixed in the peasant's mind that the original condition of their race had been one of universal personal freedom, which had been forcibly and unjustly replaced by serfdom or villeinage. The demands of the peasants were therefore not impelled by a false conception of the Evangelical liberty proclaimed by the Reformers,

483	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	pp=.nt~'' John
sasaa War
but by a deeply rooted consciousness of their rights. The oppressed peasants saw in the powerful superioro who had taken away their freedom, and in the law which they hated as foreign, no hope of improvement or of justice; but only if the Scriptures, which were read more eagerly after Luther had turned them into the vernacular, were accepted as the inspiration and counsel of reform.
The development of the feudal system and the weakening of the royal power had almost destroyed the old free peasantry. At the end of the fifteenth century the old communal rights, the symbols of freedom, were enjoyed nowhere but in the Tyrol and in Friesland. The peasants had been forced almost everywhere to surrender them as a consequence of the vicious legal relations which drove the poorer to seek protection by giving themselves over to powerful temporal or spiritual lords, and burdening their land by the obligations of all kinds of services and rents. The lines about the peasant were drawn closer and closer, until he was finally bound inseparably to the clod which he cultivated. If the peasant could not free himself by any payment from the obligations accepted by him or gradually imposed on him, he must stay where he was, because his lord had a right to his labor and the produce of his fields‑this is what characterized his lot as that of serfdom. The pressure of the system, especially in those parts of Germany where petty lords held sway, had become almost unbearable. Besides the payments in money or kind, the most various compulsory services were exacted, which were often increased to an intolerable degree. If a peasant resisted, he rendered himself liable to a heavy penalty, exacted by his lord without pity or reason, unless there happened to be some concurrent governmental authority in the district. But in many cases the government and the land were in the same hands; and the whole legal system of Germany was in great disorder. The peasant had lost confidence in processes of law. The transition from the primitive system of barter to a monetary one had also done him more harm than good. If the peasant needed money, he had to pay the most exorbitant interest (thirty, forty, or more per cent.), while several features of the system, especially the encroaching monopolies of the commercial gilds, prevented him from disposing of his produce at remunerative rates. The peasant suffered more than any one else from the increasing evils of private warfare which in the fifteenth century prevailed to an unlimited degree; his house and barn were liable to be destroyed and his fields trampled under foot. The other classes, especially the nobles, came to regard the peasant as a degraded being against whom anything was lawful. This mutual hatred between classes destroyed all possibility of understanding or sympathy. The numerous local Asings in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries proved the seriousness of the conditions, but gave no hope for the future. When the different rulers defeated the attempts of the poorer classes to regain their ancient rights and to throw off the increasing burdens, they did nothing to disperse the cloud which, in the social situation, hung over the country. On the contrary, discontent and bitterness only inVIII.‑28
creased, and with them the feeling that a great
catastrophe was impending, as predicted by astrolo
gers and other prophets. Things were in this state
when the religious reformation took the center of
public affairs; after a few years, however, the social
question claimed attention all the more insistently.
	II. Growth of the Movement: The great Peas
ants' War of 1524‑28 is historically important
mainly from the fact that it was not alone the rural
population that took part in it, but that the lower
		classes in the towns were ip opposition
x. The Urban to the existing social order, and felt
	Lower themselves drawn close to the peasants
Classes join by the desire to reshape things in the
the Peasants. same spirit. Now for the first time
		there was a distinct effort to organize
the entire peasantry of Germany, and the feeling
of unity was expressed in a more or less generally
accepted program. The most powerful and in a
certain sense the most enlightened of the peasant
organizations was that of Swabia in the southwest,
formed by the union of three smaller bodies. The
members of these started the movement, proposed
plans of federation, and formulated their demands
in a deliberative assembly, the so‑called Peasants'
Parliament of Memmingen. The clear and con
sistent program put forth by them was the basis
of negotiations with the nobles united in the
Swabian League, the failure of which is to be as.
cribed to the anti‑popular activity of the crafty and
influential Bavarian chancellor, Leonhard von Eck.
The program, probably drawn up by Sebastian
Lotzer, a furrier of Memmingen, under the influence
of the preacher Schappeler, is based on the Gospel
as the book of truth and justice; it upholds the
communal principle, and contents itself with the
formulation of agrarian demands, not touching
other questions much discussed at the time. Its
twelve articles, moderate and yet powerful in ex
pression, contained the main things which oppressed
the whole peasantry, and thus found general ap
proval. If there had been a strong central govern.
ment in Germany, some agreement might possibly
have been reached with them for a basis. It was
to that and not to violence that the Swabian peas.
ants looked in the first instance. Their intentions
were sincere; and on the other side, in the Swabian
League, men were not wanting who would have
been glad to avert bloodshed. But the actual leader
of the latter refused to hear of a peaceful solution,
preferring to try and stamp out once for all, in the
peasant movement, the spirit of progress. The
pretended negotiations with the peasants were
carried on only to gain time for the assembly and
preparation of the League's forces, and to dispose
of a threatened alliance between Duke Ulrich of
W tirttemberg and the peasants. The commander
of the League's army, Georg Truchsess von Wald
burg, felt so little assured of success that he neg
lected no means, not even that of treachery, for
winning it. On the success of the first attack in
southern Swabia depended the outcome of the whole
movement. If, as Truchsess feared, the peasant
societies, deceived by the League, had taken the
field en masse in April, 1525, and won a victory, the
peasantry of all Germany would have risen to join

Peasants' War	THE HEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	484
Pecock
their standards. After the defeat of the separate
bodies on the Danube, at Wurzach, and at Gais
beuren, the movement was no longer one, even in
regard to its aim. Besides the purely agrarian
question, other views and evil elements entered.
	This is evident in considering a second group
made up of the Franconians and Swabians in the
Main and Rhine districts and the inhabitants of the
Palatinate.	Leaders and followers were character
ized by violent passions, inhuman cruelty, and
absurdly extravagant objects. The idea .appeared
			I of a radical political reconstruction of
z. West‑	Germany, of the abolition of the count
ern Germany less petty lords and a constitution of
	and the	an empire which should leave the
	Heilbronn	emperor alone as ruler of all. This
		Plan.	" Heilbronn Plan," as it was called,
			was not in itself so unreasonable; its
weakness lay in the fact that, instead of solving the
agrarian questions, it made them more difficult by
involving them with political matters.
	This only increased the confusion, which reached
its climax in a third group, forming around the
famous Thomas Mower (q.v.) and the theocratic
and communistic radicalism which he preached
among the Thuringian and Saxon peasantry.
			Never has the indiscriminate hatred
4‑ In Thur‑ of the mob for everything and every
	ingia and	body been more fully expressed, never
	Saxony;	has a war of extermination been more
	Milnzer.	warmly preached, than in the incen
			diary pamphlet (ascribed without
sufficient evidence to Mower), An die Versdmmlung
gemeiner Bauerschaft. Referring to James v. 1‑6, it
prophesies a day of slaughter for the fat cattle who
have nourished their hearts on the misery of the
common people. God has heard the cry of the la
borers, and	will take pleasure in the destruction of
Moab, Agag, Ahab, Phalaris, and Nero. As a con
sequence or parallel of this may be cited the Landes
ordnung of	the Tyrolese Michel Gaismair which
appeared in Jan., 1526; it demanded complete
equality, and pushed a strictly agrarian socialism
to its utmost consequences.
	III. Luther and the Peasants' War: It will easily
be seen how far this movement departed from the
moderate and logical demands of the Twelve Arti
cles, and how this anarchical insanity could not fail
to alienate the sympathieh of every reasonable man,
even if he had been previously disposed to favor
the amelioration of the condition of the oppressed
peasantry.	This aspect of the struggle must be
borne in mind in order to do justice to Luther's
position.	The more his opponents tried to father
the whole movement upon him and his gospel, the
more he felt obliged to explain his position. in his
" Exhortation to Peace " he expressed the hope that
by speaking the plain truth to both parties, he might
bring them	both to a better understanding. He
found some of the Twelve Articles reasonable and
just; but the injustice of the authorities could not
excuse riotous turbulence. Because both parties
were in the wrong and sought to avenge or defend
themselves they would only destroy themselves, and
God will scourge them both. A commission of coun
cilors from the nobility and the towns was suggested
to advise means of conciliation. He would not hear of himself and other theologians being made the " mouthpieces of divine justice," but saw in the attempt to mix the Gospel with these disturbances only another device of the devil, who sought to destroy him through bloodthirsty prophets of murder when he had failed through the pope. He defends his point of view and hopes for good results from his admonitions, though his proposition was not likely, especially at that moment, to lead to the desired end. He has been unduly blamed; but it only shows that he failed to understand the real nature of the movement, as did Melanchthon, who wrote a counterblast to the Twelve Articles in which he put forth the unlimited right of the government and duty of obedience on the pait of the governed as the immovable foundation of the social and political order. This was Luther's honest view and it explains his later behavior. When his admoUitions were unheeded and the die was cast for bloodshed, he threw himself with all the passion of his strong nature on the side of the State and of order, and published his terrible tractate Wider die mordischxn and raubischen Rotten der Bauern, in which he called upon the authorities to crush the " brands of hell " and " limbs of the devil." The peasants would have been crushed even without his exhortation; and it was unfortunate for him that he was forced by the circumstances and by his convictions to speak such hard and even terrible words.
IV.. Open Hostilities and Repression: Affairs meanwhile ran their destined course. Truchsess defeated one body of peasants after another; he crushed those of Wihttemberg on May 12,1525, between Boblingen and Sindelfingen, and those of the Neckar valley and the Odenwald at K6nigshofen on June 2; two days later Florian Geyer and his followers fell before him at Sulzdorf and Ingolatadt; and W iirzburg on the 7th. Philip of Hesse, George of Saxony, and other princes and nobles had met Mower and a considerable mass of Thuringian and Saxon peasants at Frankenhausen on May 15, routed them, executed their leader, and severely punished the town of Mahlhausen, which had been a center of the insurrection. In Alsace, in the Breisgau, around Rothenburg, in the bishopric of Bamberg, in the Franconian margravate, and elsewhere, the peasants had risen and, spreading terror by their numbers, forced nobles, clergy, and citizens to join them or treat with them. But their temporary successes were soon avenged a hundredfold. After the Elector Palatine Ludwig had suppressed the rising on the left bank of the Rhine at Pfedderaheim on June 23, that in southern and central Germany was almost entirely put down. In Swabia the peasants made one last stand of desperate rage; but Truchsess hastened to bring up the League's forces and conquered them once more. The survivors retired to the mountainous country of the Tyrol and around Salzburg, where the revolt lasted into 1526, and only ceased with the " Bloody Assizes " of Radstatt on July 20 of that year.
V. Results of the Insurrection: The lot of the German peasantry was even worse after the rising. With diabolical zeal all who were in the slightest degree to blame were pursued and punished. It is

485	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	p~ te~ war
estimated that in all at least 150,000 perished. The
economic loss which Germany suffered by this catas
trophe is incalculable; and the peasantry, impover
ished, dejected, and exposed to severer servitude
than ever, issued from the insurrection to face a
well‑nigh hopeless future. 	(W. YOGT.)
BrBLroaRAPnr: The subject is necessarily treated in most
	of the works on the Reformation in Germany. Special
	works are: Cambridge Modern History, ii. 174‑194, Cam
	bridge, 1904 (excellent bibliography, pp. 752‑754); W.
	Wachsmuth, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, Leipsic 1834;
	H. M. Bensen, Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in Ostfranken,
	Erlangen, 1840; K. Klapfel, Urkunden zur Geschichte des
	achwdbischen Bundea, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1848; J. E. JSrg,
	Deutschland in der Resolutionsperiode, 16.2.2‑tB, Freiburg,
	1851; W. Zimmerman, Allgemeine Geschichte des prossen
	Bauernkriepes, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1856; idem, Grosser
	deutscher Bauernkriep, Stuttgart, 1907; C. A. Cornelius,
	Studien zur Geschichte des Bauerakriepes, Munich, 1861;
	H. Schreiber, Der deutsche Bauernkriep, 3 vols., Freiburg,
	18636; A. Stern, Ueber die Zw6lf Artikel der Bauern,
	Leipsic, 1868; K. Z511ner, Zur Vorpe8chichte des Bauern
	krieps, Dresden, 1872; L. Friess, Geschichte des Bauern
	krieges in Ostfranken, 2 vols., Wtirsburg, 1876‑83; F. L.
	Baumann, Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in
	Ober‑Schwaben, Stuttgart, 1879; idem, Die Zw6lf Arlikel
	der oberwhwabischen Bauern, Kempten, 1896; idem,
	Akten zur Geschichte Bauernkrieges aus Oberschwaben,
	Freiburg, 1881; P. Harer, Beschreibunp des Bauernkriepes,
	Halle, 1881; W. H. Hutton, The Disturbances which Ac
	companied the Reformation in Germany, Oxford, 1881; A.
	Caerny, Der crate Bauernaufstand in Obertisterreich 16.16,
	Line, 1882; R. Neumann, Zur .Geschichte des Bauern
	kriepes, Frankfort, 1882; C. Hartfelder, Zur Geschichte des
	Bauernkrieps in Sadwest Deutschland, Stuttgart, 1884;
	J. N. Sepp, Der bayerisAe Bauemkriep, Munich, 1884; W.
	Vogt, Die Vorpeschichte des Bauernkriepm, Halle, 1887;
	idem, Die bayrische Politik in Bauernkriepe, Nordlingen,
	1883 (chiefly against JSrg); idem, Die Korrespondenz des
	Schwtibischen Bundes‑Hauptmanns, 1684, 2'Y, 4 parts,
	Augsburg, 1879‑83; F. Leist, Quellenbeitrage zur Ge
	schichte des Bauernaufruhrs in Salzburg, Salzburg, 1888;
	F. von Bezold, Der Bauernkrieg, Berlin, 1890; J. Loserth,
	Die Stadt Waldshut and die vorder6sterreichische Repierunp
	in 16‑03‑28, Vienna, 1891; J. Janssen, Geschichte des
	deutwhen Volkes, 8 vols., Freiburg, 1892‑94, Eng. trawl.,
	12 vols., St. Louis, 1896‑1907; K. F. Lehnert, Studien
	zur Geschichte der Zwolf Anikel vom jahre 16.26, Halle,
	1894; K. Krebs, Beitrage and Urkunden Sur deutachen
	Geschichte, Leipsic, 1895; A. Nabholz, Bauernbewegunp in
	d. Ost. Schweiz, 1624,‑26, Zurich, 1896; C. Kautsky, Com
	munism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation,
	London, 1897; E. B. Bax, The Peasants' War in Germany,
	London, 1899; W. Stolze, Zur Vorpesehichte des Bauern
	krieges, Leipsic, 1900; idem, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,
	Halle, 1907; W. Lucke, Die Entetehunp der " 16 Bundenge
	noseen " des Joh. Eberlin von Ganzburg. Halle, 1902; B.
	Sastrow. Social Germany in Luther's Time, Westminster,
	1902; J. Guerber, Bauern and Schwedenk6nip in Elsass,
	Strasburg, 1905; P. Vinogradoff, Roman Law in Mediasual
	Europe, London, 1909.
r
PECHENARD, PIERRE LOUIS: Roman Catholic; b. at Gespunsart, near Charleville (48 m. n.e. of Reims), France, Dec. 5, 1842. He received his education at the petit seminaire of Charleville and Reims, the grand seminaire at Reims, and the Goole des Carmea, Paris; was made priest in 1868; was cure of La Neuville‑aux‑Tourneurs, 1869‑72; alsociate professor in the petit seminaire at Reims, 1872‑73; professor of history in the college at Charleville, 1873‑76; superior of the petit seminaire at Reims, 1876‑80; vicar‑general of the archdiocese of Reims, 1880‑1896; rector of the Institut catholique of Paris, 1896‑1907; and was made bishop of Soissons 1906. His principal writings deal with local history or biography or with the history of institutions. Among them may be noted: Jean
Juvenal des Ursins, archevkue de Reims (Paris, 1876; crowned by the academy of Reims); De achoda Remensi decimo sceculo (1876); Histaire de Gespunsart (1878; new ed., 1906); Histoire de fabbaye d'Igny (1883); Histtrire de la congregation de NotreDame de Reims (2 vols., Reims, 1886); Histoare de La Neuville‑aux‑Taurneurs (1887); De Reims d Jerusalem (1891); Ektude historique our les confhrences ecrlksiagtiques (Paris, 1896); L'ImmacuUe Conception dans fancienne univeroifk de Paris (1905); L'Inr stitut cadhodique de Paris, 1876‑1907 (1907); Vera faction (1907); and Pankgyrique du bienheureux Jean de Montmirail (1909).

PECKHAM, JOHN: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. probably at Lewes (1 m. n.e. of Brighton), Sussex, in 1240 or earlier; d. at Mortlake (9 m. w.s.w. of St. Paul's, London, Mar. 20, 1292. He was educated at Oxford where he spent some time in the Franciscan Monastery; and after 1250 at Paris where he graduated in theology. He became eleventh lector of his order at Oxford in 1270; a little later ninth provincial minister; a year or two later the first theological lecturer in the schools of the papal palace at Rome, where his lectures were attended by many cardinals and bishops and obtained great fame; and in 1279 archbishop of Canterbury. Throughout his tenure of office, Peckham favored the papal policies at the expense of the temporal power, which in 1282 precipitated a war in Wales; and he lost no opportunity of advancing the Dominican and Franciscan orders, especially the latter. He was a voluminous writer of treatises on science, such as: Perspectiva communis (Milan, 1482), Theorica planetarum, and De sphwra; all of which are represented by manuscripts in the British Museum. In theology, he left Collectanea BZliorum, printed as Dimnarfa sententiarll librora NNW (Paris, 1513); and De trinitate, printed as De summa trinitate et fide catholica (London, 1510). He published also, besides other poems, Philomela, extant in manuscript in British Museum and Bodleian Library, and printed with the Centiloquium (Paris, 1503) of St. Bonaventura, to whom it was wrongly ascribed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal source is Peckham's Registrum epistolarum, ed C. T. Martin for the Rolls Series, 3 vols., London, 1882,86; the prefaces gather up in excellent form what is known of Peckham's life. The account in DNB, xliv. 190‑197, is detailed and critical, and gives adequate references to other sources. Consult also W. F. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, 12 vols., London, 1860‑76.

PECOCK, REGINALD: English prelate; b. in Wales about 1395; d. probably at Thorney Abbey (9 m. n.n.e. of Peterborough) in 1459 or 1460. He was educated at Oxford, became a fellow of Oriel College in 1417, and taught in Oxford till 1425, when the duke of Gloucester introduced him to the court at London as one of his train. By 1420 he had entered the church, and in 1431 through Gloucester's influence he became master of the college of St. Spirit and St. Mary, commonly called Whittington's College, which was in the Vintry, London, and rector of St. Michael de Paternoster Church, in Riola, near by. The two positions went together, and he held them till in 1444 he was made

pp~ 	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	438
bishop of St. Asaph. In 1450 he was translated to Chichester, and became a member of the privy council.
He was a learned man and a faithful son of the Church, but, unfortunately for his personal comfort, he took too independent a course. He first comes prominently forward in 1447, when he boldly defended the bishops against the charges that they did not preach and that they were frequently absent from their sees. His sermon gave offense to the friars and to the progressive element of the clergy. When in 1455 he issued his best‑known book, A Repressor of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy (ed. C. Babington, with biographical notice, in Roll's Series, 2 vols., 1860) which wax intended to shut the mouths of the Lollards, he awoke a storm of criticism because in his candor he acknowledged that the Church could not be defended by appeal to Scripture, but only on philosophical grounds which he proceeded to state, and maintained that church practises which W no Scripture warrant were yet proper. In 1456 he brought out another book, The Book of Faith (ed. from MS. in Trinity College, Cambridge, with Introduction, by J. L. Morison, Glasgow, 1909), in which he again presents his rational, not to say rationalistic, grounds for the church doctrines. But the latter book was still less acceptable to the hierarchy. He was condemned for heresy by the archbishop of Canterbury (1458), forced to make a public recantation and retractation, to resign his see, and then was confined in a monastery till he died. But the modern world honors him as among its forerunners.
BIHLIOGRAPH7: DNB, xliv. 198‑202 (should be consulted for the sources, a considerable list of scattering notices being given); J. Lewis, Life of . R. Pwock, London, 1744, new ed., Oxford, 1820; W. Brute, Writings and Examinations of . . Pecock . . and Others, ib. 1831; W. W. Gapes, English Church in the 14th and 16th Cerr turies, ib. 1900; J. Gairdner, LoUardy and the Reformation in England, i. 202‑238, 255 eqq., London, 1908 (important).
PTCTORAL CROSS. See VEaTMENTs AND INslGNiA, EcCLEs1AsTICAL.

PECULIAR: The technical ecclesiastical title given to certain Anglican parishes which were exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary of the diocese, having an ordinary of their own. Their origin was in the papal Exemption (q.v.) exercised when England was Roman Catholic; at the Reformation, through oversight, these parishes remained under the sovereign or other superior. During the reign of William IV. their exemption or exclusion from ordinary jurisdiction was abolished, with the sole exception of Westminster Abbey and the chapels of the Inns of Court.
PEKAH: Eighteenth king of Israel, son of Remaliah and successor of Pekahiah. His dates according to the old chronology are 758‑743; according to Kamphausen 736‑730; according to Whitehouse (DB, iii. 736) 736‑733. Taking advantage of his position as ahalish (E. V. " captain ") of Pekahiah, he conspired against him, assassinated him, and seized the throne. Tiglath‑Pileser of Assyria attacked him, took certain cities, " all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to As‑
syria." Hoshea the son of Elah then rose against Pekah, slew him, and reigned in his stead (II Kings xv. 25, 29‑31). Other notices (II Kings xv. 37; xvi. 5 eqq.) show that Pekah, in alliance with Rezin of Damascus, attacked Jotham and Alias of Judah. There was evidently an attempt to unite the Syrian states against Assyria, from which the kings of Judah held aloof and thus invited the hostility of the allies. Their invasion was repelled but the ultimate outcome was the dependence of Judah on Assyria, which proved fatal to the former (see AHAz) and probably hastened Pekah's downfall. The immediate effect of the invasion upon the people and king of Judah and the policy advocated by the prophetic party are evident from Isa. vii.
	The inscriptions (annals of Tiglath‑Pileser, addi
tions to the eponym canon, and the Babylonian
chronicle) accord with the Biblical data. Tiglath
Pileser IV. came to the throne in 745 B.C. In pur
suance of his policy to restore the Assyrian rule
over the West, he captured Arpad in 740 B.C.; the
rest of northern Syria was subjugated in the fol
lowing year. A like course of events was repeated
in 738 B.C., when Menahem of Israel bought him
off for 1,000 talents of silver. In 734 B.C. Tiglath
Pileser again marched westward and attacked
Philistia first to isolate Damascus. On the way
he devastated Israel and made a part of its terri,
tory an Assyrian province (cf. II Kings xv. 29).
This must have been in 733 B.C., since Tiglath
Pileser states under this year " they overthrew
Pekah their king and I set Ausi [i.e. Hoshea] over
them " (KB, ii. 33). This is not necessarily incon
sistent with the Biblical narrative (cf. Kittel's
commentary on Kings, p. 267, GSttingen, 1900).
Evidently Hoshea was the leader of an Assyrian
party in Samaria which asserted itself after Pe
kah'a defeat.	(R. KrrrEL.)
BIHL10GHAPHY: The sources are II Kings xv. 27‑31; Iea. vii. Consult the pertinent sections of the literature given under AHAB; IBRAE:u lliamHY or; and Mxas, Booxs or; Schrader, KAT, pp. 284 eqq. et pasaim, and COT, 1321 eqq.; DB, iii. 738‑737; BB, iii. 3643; JE, ix. 584.
PEKAHIAH: Seventeenth king of Israel, son and successor of Menahem. His dates according to the old chronology are 760‑758, according to Kamphausen and modern chronographers 737‑736. The latter chronology is fixed by the annals of Tiglath‑Pileser III., showing that Menahem was alive in 738, and that Pekah, Pekahiah's successor, was dethroned in 734‑733. The source for Pekahiah's history is 11 Kings xv. 22‑26, though corruptions have affected the passage; the picture of the northern kingdom given by Hosea is good for his period. The indications of the events under his successor Pelah (q.v.) are that Pekahiah desired to carry out his father's policy of friendship for the Assyrians, and that the opposing (national or antiAssyrian) party was represented by Pekah (q.v.), the " captain " who assassinated Pekahiah and usurped the throne. Cheyne (EB, iii. 3643) questions the existence of Pekahiah, and supposes that his name in the suon is due to a literary misunderstanding of the longer form of the name of Pekah (Hebr. Pekayahu). But this would necessitate a revolution under Menahem, for which there is

487
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Peoook
Pel"lw
no room in the history; II Kings xv. 22 implies a peaceful death for Menahem. GEo. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the pertinent sections in the litera
	ture under ARAB; ISRAEL, HISroR: or; and KwGe,
	Booas or; Schrader, KAT, pp. 264, 320; DB, iii. 737;
EB, iii. 3843; JB, ix. 584.
PELAGIUS: The name of two popes.
Pelagius I.: Pope 555‑561. He was the son of a Roman official, and first appears as deacon accompanying Agapetus I. (q.v‑) to Constantinople in Feb., 536. He remained in Constantinople after the death of Agapetus and was made his permanent representative, or apocrisiarius, there by Silverius. As such he gained great influence, enjoyed the confidence of Justinian, and was able several times to intervene decisively in the ecclesiastical disputes of the Orient. In Jan., 543, he contributed not a little to the condemnation of Origenism. He returned to Rome in 545 and acted there for Vigilius (q.v.) during the latter 's absence. On Dec. 17, 546, Rome was forced to surrender to the Goths under Totila, and Pelagius had to acknowledge the barbarian as master and act as his ambassador in peace negotiations with Justinian in 547. He returned home without having arranged matters to the satisfaction of the Gothic Icing, and the latter ordered all the clergy to leave Rome. Pelagius remained in Sicily until about 551.
	Pelagius was strongly opposed to the Three Chap
ter edict (see THREE CHAPTER CONTROVERSY) and
used his influence with Vigilius to induce the latter
to recall the Judicatum of 548. In the spring of 553
he succeeded, and on May 14 of that year the pope
signed the so‑called Conatitutum, drawn up by Pela
gius (cf. L. Duchesne, in Revue des questions his
toriques, xxxvi. 425), protesting against the edict.
As a consequence Pelagius, who had been in Con
stantinople since about 551, was imprisoned by
Justinian. He used his enforced leisure to write
Sex dibri, in defensaonem capitulorum (preserved in
part in a MS. of Orldans), and when in Dec., 553,
Vigilius again turned about and conformed to the
wish of the emperor, Pelagius sent forth from his cell
a violent attack upon the unstable pope. Early in
555, however, he followed the example of Vigilius,
while Justinian designated Pelagius as the successor
of Vigilius. In Rome, however, they did not want
Pelagius as pope, and when Vigilias died (June 7,
555) they chose the presbyter Mareas in his place.
Mareas died in August, but all hesitated to conse
crate the choice of the emperor, and it was not until
Apr. 16, 556, that Pelagius could ascend the papal
throne. His position was difficult, but he strove,
not without success, to conciliate the opposition.
To repair the ravages of war was another duty
which devolved on the new pope, and herein he ap
pears in more pleasing light. He rehabilitated the
Roman finances, refurnished the plundered churches,
and consecrated forty‑nine bishops, twenty‑six
presbyters, and nine deacons, at the same time not
forgetting the poor. When he died, Mar. 3, 561,
the worst of the evil consequences of the Gothic
war in Rome and its neighborhood had x been re
moved. 	(H. Bb1MR.)
BIBLIOGRAPHr: Consult: Libor pongfwajia, ed. L Duchesne,
	i. 303‑304, Pare, 1888, ed. T. Mommsen, in AfGH, God,
pont. Ron., i. 155‑158. The Bride are in MPL, lxix. 393‑394, NA, v. 533 eqq., and US, Repeta, 124‑138; L. Duehesne, in Revue des questions hido*uea, zuvi (18$4), 428 eqq.; T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, v. 50 sqq., Oxford, 1885; J. Langen, Geschiohte der rdrniaehen Ksr• che, ii. 341 eqq., Bonn, 1885; F. Gregorovlue, Hilt. of the City of Rome, i. 425‑426.488, London, 1894; A. Knecht, Die Relipionapolitik Raiser Judinians 1., i. 125 sqq., W orsburg, 18911; H. Hutton, Church in the 6th Century, pp. 182 eqq., London, 1897; H. Grisar, Geschichte Rome and der PUpate, i. 549 sqq., 580 sqq., Freiburg, 1901; Hefele, Concilienpe achichte, ii. 786, 798, 911, 916, Eng. tranel., iv. 351‑357, and especially Fr. transl., iii. La pp. 141‑145, which has a rich apparatus of notes; Milman, Latin Chrinianity, i. 471‑474; Bower, Popes, i. 370‑374; Platina, Popes, i. 130‑132; and literature under THREE CHAFTDB CoNT'80VERBY.
Pelagius II.: Pope 579‑590. He was the son of a Goth living in Rome and was consecrated pope Nov. 26, 579, while the Lombards were besieging the city. Two difficult problems disturbed his reign, the war with the Lombards and a contest with schismatics in Upper Italy. In 585 the exarch Smaragdus brought a temporary relief from the barbarians, and their ravages worked indirectly to the advantage of the papacy since, because of the danger of foreign rule, a party friendly to Rome grew up in Genoa and Milan. In Istria the bishops stubbornly refused even to discuss the three chapters (am THREE CHAPTER CONTROVERSY) and Pelagius, by inducing Smaragdus to intervene, made them more incensed against Rome than ever. With the Eastern Church Pelagius maintained good relations, although toward the end of his pontificate he had to protest because Patriarch John IV. of Constantinople (q.v.) had assumed the title of ecumenical patriarch. In Rome he left a good memory by making his house a refuge for the old and by his church endowments. The basilica of S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura is a monument of his zeal for building as well as of the artistic poverty of his time. Pelagius died early in Feb., 590, of pestilence; he was buried in St. Peter's Feb. 6. (H. B6HMER.)
His great discovery in men was Gregory, who was his immediate successor. He sent him to Constantinople in 578 as his apocrisiary and kept him there till 585, and transacted through him some delicate negotiations. He also employed Gregory to write an elaborate defense of the condemnation of the three chapters. Gregory introduces a reference to Pelagius (see PELAGIUS, PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES) in his epistles and says that ‑when Pelagius was building the monument to St. Lawrence the body of the martyr was accidentally uncovered and all who saw it died within fifteen days (Epist., IV., 30, Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2d ser., xii. 155).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For sources cf. Liber pontif1calie, ad. L. Duchesne, i. 300‑301, Paris 1886, ed. T. Mommeen, in MGH, Gent. Pont. Rom., i. 160; Paul the Deacon, Hiat. Lanaobardorum, book iii., chap. xx., xxiv. sqq., in bfGH, Script. Per. Langob., pp. 12 aqq. Consult further: A. Pichler, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennunp twKwhen dem Orient and dem Occident, i. 127‑128, ii. 649 sqq., Munich, 1884‑85; B. Niehues, Gewhichte des Verh6uniasa roiachen Kaiaertum and Papattum, i. 383 sqq., Monster, 1877; J. Langan, Geschichte der r6miachen Kirche, ii. 403 eqq., Bonn, 1885; F. Gregoroviue, Mist. of the city of Rome, ii. 18, 26, 28, London, 1894; H. Griear, Geschichte Roms and der Pupate, i. 596 eqq., 675 eqq., 745 eqq., 813 ®qq., Freiburg, 1901; Bower, Popes, i. 382‑389; Platina, popes, ii. 917‑918; Mann i. 476; Hef4e,
ConcitieWewhid"	pop", i. 101, 140.

Pelaaius	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	488
1. Pelagius.
Place and Life (¢ 1).
Works (f 2).
Original Sin (§ 3).
Christian Redemption (§ 4).
Pedobaptism, Original Sin, and perfection (§ 5).
PELAGIUS, PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES.
Doctrine of Grace (5 8). Letter to' Demetrise and 0elestius (§ 7).
II. Pelagian Controversies. Rejection of Celestius (§ 1). Diffusion of Pelagianism (¢ 2). Mission of Orosius (§ 3).
I. Pelagius: The author of the teachings which racked the western Church in the fifth century was born probably in Britain in the fourth century; and died, as may be assumed, in Palestine at the age of about seventy. Together with his friend Celestius, he is mentioned by Augustine in a
z. Place letter of 418 as the author or promoter sad Life. of a heresy which sought to undermine the ancient faith by assailing the doctrine of divine grace. Until 411, however, Pelagius had been regarded as perfectly orthodox, nor did he gain his evil fame until he came within the domain of the dogmatic influence of Augustine. It was from Africa that the condemnation of Pelagianism proceeded, and in the East it was only after the Pelagian controversy had been complicated by Nestorianism that Pelagius was deemed a heretic, which was not till after 428. Pelagius had lived long in Rome, when, about 411, he made the fateful journey to Africa which was to brand him as a heresiarch. It is not improbable that he was an old man by 410, and after 418 his name vanished. Of his life little is definitely known, and even his birthplace is uncertain. Augustine, Prosper, Marius Mercator, and Orosius refer to him as a Briton. Jerome, on the other hand, states that be was from Albion or Scotia (i.e., Ireland). It seems probable, however, that Pelagius was of British birth. He was a monk, though whether in his native land or not is unknown. It is not improbable that he had visited the East before settling at Rome, especially as he was well acquainted with Greek (though this is by no means a conclusive argument). He can scarcely be identified with the monk of the same name mentioned by Chrysostom in 405, for in this year he was living in Rome; or with a monastic gormand to whom Isidore of Pelusium refers. If Pelagius visited the East before 400, he might there have become a monk; but in Rome he was neither connected with any monastery nor did he hold any ecclesiastical position. Nevertheless, even without school or position, an educated and upright ascetic, such as Pelagius was acknowledged to have been, readily found a public, and his fame became wide‑spread. By 405 he was in correspondence with Paulinus of Nola (q.v.) and enjoyed an honorable reputation with Augustine. Jerome and Orosius describe him as a man with broad shoulders and a strong neck, and corpulent in person.
According to Gennadius, Pelagius had written two works of value before he became known as a heretic: De fide Trinitatis librii tres and Eclogdrum ex divinis scripturis liber unus. The former has entirely disappeared; the latter is plainly identical with the Testimoniorum liber and Capitulorum liber to which Augustine and Jerome refer, from the latter of which the synod of Diospolis cites
Synods of Diospolm, Carthage, and Mileve (4 4). Zosimus and the African Church (5 5). Rescript of Honorius (¢ 8). Julian of Eclanum (§ 7). Decline and Disappearance (¢ B).
several propositions. The fragments of this work, however, which consisted principally of citations from the Scriptures with only the chapter‑head‑
ings written by Pelagius, are of little
2. Works. value for a knowledge of his system.
The greater importance attaches to the In apostol‑um Paulum commentarii, mentioned by Manus Mercator. This work was known by Aug‑tine by 412; and Marius Mercator is doubtless right in dating it before 410. This commentary may be regarded as preserved by the fortunate discovery of H. Zimmer in a manuscript of St. Gall. From this it has become evident that the recension of the commentary of Pelagius which has become incorporated with the writings of Jerome (MPL, xxx. 646‑902) can no longer be termed " pseudo‑Jeromian "; for, although two Pelagian statements in the commentary on Romans preserve‑' by Augustine and Marius Mercator and contained in the St. Gall codex are lacking in the " pseudo‑Jerome," and the discovery of other differences between the original by Pelagius and our texts may be the result of researches still in progress, nevertheless the " pseudo Jerome " may be considered as containing nothing not derived from Pelagius. From the data thus gained it becomes possible to see the views of Pelagius at a time when he was still deemed orthodox, which would be impossible from the polemics of Augustine.
As early as his commentary on Romans Pelagius denied the tenet of original sin inherited from Adam, not only citing the similar views of others (possibly including Celestius) but himself directly controverting it. Only the flesh of man, not the immortal soul, comes from Adam, and even the " substance of
man's flesh " comes from God and is,
3. Original therefore, good; and he regards it as
	Sin.	Manichean (see Mnxl, MANICHEANs)
		to assert that sin is innate in the body.
Man accordingly still possesses the power not to sin,
and is free to do either good or evil. He implies
that natural death id not due to Adam, nor does he
regard the natural death (i.e., death without sub
sequent abiding in Hades) as a result of the fall or
as coming under the category of death. At the
same time Pelagius held that sin had come into the
world through Adam, who hadbronght death upon
himself and his descendants. But although the
flesh is good,. its desires, so soon as they pass beyond
"the limits of nature," are contrary to reason. The
applications of these views bear a decidedly ascetic
stamp: to sell all one's possessions, as he himself
had done; to refrain even from what was permitted;
to be content, like pilgrims, with bare necessities;
and to live in celibacy‑these were his ideals. Never
theless, Pelagius carefully refrained from upbraiding
nature. He did not oppose marriage; though the

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pelasins
desires of the flesh, which are not without justification when kept within the bounds of nature, stand in opposition to the soul and may become intensified into passions. While reason may‑ oppose these " passions of irrational animals," Pelagius, betraying the influence of the Stoics, was far from failing to recognize the power of sin in the world. Many were made sinful by the example of Adam's disobedience; the very " habit of, sin " had attained such power over all the race, that Pelagius could speak of a " necessity " rooted in this habit; though this was created by each man for himself. Since all have sinned, so all die. Adam is the type of them that die, as Christ is the type of them that rise again. Since man had forgotten the law of nature, God had given the law of the letter, which might have been fulfilled to be rewarded with eternal life, but no one had fulfilled it because of the weakness of the flesh. This law knew no forgiveness of sin, though God had from eternity purposed to save them that believed through his Son. When Christ came the time had been fulfilled, since no one could keep the law because of his habit of evil; and now salvation is solely by faith in him.
In answer to the questions what Christ had done and given, Pelagius repeatedly replied in twofold fashion; as when he said (on Rom. iii. 20): " He giveth remission of ‑ sins to them that
4. Christian believe and teacheth how.tbo vices of Redemption. the flesh__nught .‑to.u.be. _ avoided and pruned by understanding." In this remission of sins Pelagius distinguished between redemption and justification; the former is emphasized only where Paul speaks of redemption, but the latter is continually emphasized by Pelagius. This justification, given through baptism, is secured through faith alone; and Pelagius was the most strenuous representative of solafiducianism previous to Luther. At the same time he held that none should think that faith alone was sufficient to salvation without sanctity of mind and body. If, moreover, the Christian were to remain in a state of justification without the works of faith, his faith would be dead. The faith which is thus associated by Pelagius with justification, though given to each individual by God in so far as each one is called by the divine will to believe, nevertheless lies within the free will of each man. Pelagius is thus no predestinarian, and he expressly holds (on Rom. xi. 5) that " faith is the election bf grace as works are the election of the law"; faith, moreover, is reliance on the promises of God, the " hope of the recompense of good works," without which " none can accomplish virtues " (on Rom. i. 17). While he who is baptized is sanctified, he must hold fast to his sanctification. Sins previous to baptism should distress no one; and every one overtaken by sin should take refuge in penitence. Thus pelagius leads to the second blessing Of Christ, the. grave whereby the baptized may learn from Christ's doctrine and example. This doctrine and example teach how to overcome the passions; for it was the distinctive characteristic of the New Testament that Christ taught how to put away not only sin, but even the occasions of offenses. This, in a word,
he teaches by inculcating asceticism: since, "by being born of a poor mother he hath scorned riches; since while he learned not letters he refuteth worldly wisdom; and since, when betrayed he resisted not, he forbiddeth to boast in human bravery " (on I Cor. i. 27).
The commentariea..Of. Pelagiua. contain .all the erroneous doctrines later alleged against him, with a single exception. This, however, was the one which was preeminently to lead to his cons. Pedobap‑ demnation‑doubts regarding the bap‑
tism, Origi‑ tism of children for the remission of nal Sin, and sins. He had no occasion to mention Perfection. pedobaptism, for his high estimate of solafiducian justification evidently concerned only those baptized as adults; but obviously, had he needed to allude to it, he would have condemned it. From this a double conclusion follows: first that Pelagius' doctrines can not have been offensive of themselves to wide circles of the Church of his perlod; second, infant baptism was to. prove. fatal to. him so soon as it was recognized by the Church for the remission of‑,sins. According.Ao. Augustine.. the three chief errors of the Pelagians were; their denial of.original sin; their. .yjf.. that jllstifyiug grace is not given freely, but according to merit; and that they regarded sinless perfection as possible after baptism,. The first and third charges were well founded. While recognizing that sin was general almost without exception, Pelagius acknowledged no inherited taint; and the possibility of post‑baptismal sinlessness, though rarefy realized, followed from his premise that Christians are called to perfection. Yet in neither of these positions was Pelagius without predecessors. The doctrine of original sin was unknown in the Eastern Church, and Pelagius could even claim some degree of support in Lactantius (Diving institutio, iv. 24‑25; MPL, vi. 522; Eng. transl., ANF, vii. 125‑127). Universal sin was for the Origenistic theology a presupposition of this temporal period. In the Old Testament, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, and Abel were declared " acceptable to God "; and Athanasius accepted this in the sense of active integrity and regarded also Jeremiah as sinless. The ancient view was wide‑spread_tbst it was the duty, of the. Christian to live sin]Psdv after baptism, __a view eapressed_by.Athanasius and_Justin and regarded as entirely possible of realization.
Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to say that the views of Pelagius represented nothing but what was already current in the East. Augustine was wrong in charging that Pelagius held justifying grace to be conditioned by human merit; for
6. Doctrine one of the cardinal principles of Pela‑
	of Grace.	gius was that man is justified in baptism
		by faith alone, and not by any merits
of his former life. It was only assisting grace of
another kind that could be merited according to
the system of Pelagius. The error of Augustine is
due to the fact that by justification he has in mind
something different from the sense of Pelagius.
Elsewhere, however, he accurately expressed what
he failed to find in Pelagius; namely, the concept of
that grace (gratis inspirationis; see AuousTnvE,
SAINT, BISHOP OF HIPPO, II., 1 2) without which,

P81WUBB	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	440
in Augustine's view, nothing good could happen, it being the inward communication of supernatural strength for good, and the bestowal of a share in the well‑being of God, without which justification does not fulfil itself. It is true that Pelagius speaks of a " strength through the Holy Ghost " given by Christ to his followers, and of a " seal of the Spirit " received by the Christian in baptism, and that he was also aware that the Spirit aids man's infirmity (Rom. viii. 26); but he understood this aid of the Spirit to be either the baptismal sealing of the earnest of future inheritance, or the strengthening of man's weak powers by reviving the hope of recompense (Rom. v. 5). It is true, not every mention of " aid of the Spirit " is explained in this way by Pelagius, but his general tendency was to stamp Biblical ideas with clear concepts in accordance with his general purview. And this was opposed to every physical or hyperphysical basis of morality, and had its source in the intellectualism of ancient ethics. Augustine was influenced by the mysticism of the Neoplatonic school (see NEOPLATONIsM); Pelagius, by the older moral, rational, popular philosophy, especially that of the Stoics (see STorcisar). Consequently his opinion of " natural and common death" has few parallels in the Eastern Church. It is to be noted that his idea of the sinful state of man is more closely analogous to that of collective sin and collective guilt in the modern Church than the Augustinian, and that his doctrine of justification squares more closely in many respects with that of Paul than does Augustine's. His concept of faith, in like manner, is deeper, though he is prevented from perfectly understanding the religious by his intellectualistic moralism, just as Augustine is prevented by his mystical bias. But, again like Augustine, Pelagius meant more than his teaching expressed. To him the hope of recompense is founded on the remission of sins, and remission rests upon the cross. For this reason he frequently emphasizes gratitude; and such words as " he proveth that he hath God in mind who, having God ever before him, dareth not sin " (on Rom. i. 21) conclusively proved that Pelagius knew of a personal relation to God and Christ which his moralistic formulas could no more describe than could Augustine's physical and hyperphysical concepts do justice to the depths of his personal piety.
It is clear, nevertheless, that the main interests of Pelagius were not centered where his thoughts most closely approximated those of Paul. This is shown by his letter to the virgin Demetrias (cf. Augustine, De gestis Pelagii, ii. 1099‑1120; Eng. transl., NPNF, 1 ser. v. 225 sqq.), written in 413 or 414 and pre‑
served among the works of Jerome 7. Letter to (MPL, xxx. 15‑45). While maintain‑
Demetrias ing that God forgives in baptism all and the sins of the Christian, the letter
Celestius. lays special stress on the admonition
that the baptized " must so be mindful of their heavenly birth that, living among the wicked, they may conquer every evil." The power of good and evil is a fundamental presupposition, and the glory of the rational soul; even many philosophers, although strangers to God, had been able to
please him in virtue of the " good of nature." The letter also alludes to the " grace of the remission of sins," laying more stress, however, on the " grace of doctrine," with mention of the "graces of assistance " (by the Holy Ghost); though the latter graces are but obscurely developed in this epistle. Even meditation on the Bible is here urged by Pelagius only in the interest of moral instruction and stimulus. It is thus evident that the religious concept of Pelagius retired into the background when he spoke on morality or holiness of living; and he lived, despite his thorough acquaintance with the writings of Paul, in an atmosphere of ascetic morality more akin to the views of Seneca than to those of the great Apostle. More energetically than Pelagius, and at an earlier date, his pupil Celestius, a lawyer of noble birth, emphasized the negative side of the views which he and his teacher held in common. According to the testimony of the Liber prcedeatinatus (i. 88; cf. Vincent of Lerins, CommoniCorium, xxiv., xxxiv.; MPL, 1. 670‑671), Pelagius derived from Celestius the theses set up against original sin; but this does not say that these were citations from a book by Celestius entitled " Against Original Sin." The citations of Jerome from a work by Celestius, probably entitled "Syllogisms," as well as a series of sentences by which Celestius was challenged at Carthage in 411, may be derived from the same book from which Pelagius drew. It is not impossible, on the other hand, that the author of the Liber prcedmt%natus and Vincent may have had in mind several works of Celestius when they termed him the first opponent of the doctrine of original sin. At all events, the literary activity of Celestius, so far as is known, no more caused a controversy at Rome than the commentaries of Pelagius.
II. Pelagian Controversies: The Pelagian controversy began when Pelagius and Celestius visited northern Africa. According to Marius Mercator, the latter left Rome before the end of 409. Pelagius, on the other hand, may still have been :. Rejection in Rome when the city was sacked by of CeleStiUs. Alaric in 410. By 411 Pelagius was at Carthage, probably with Celestius, during the colloquy with the Donatists. Soon afterward Pelagius went to the East, while Celestius remained in Carthage, where he hoped to be ordained presbyter. He was denounced as a heretic in a brief presented by Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, however, and in 411 was refused ordination by a synod of Carthage, though apparently spared excommunication. The theses for which he was rejected were as follows: (1) Adam was created mortal, and would have died whether he had sinned or not; (2) the sin of Adam injured himself only, not the human race; (3) infants are born in the state in which Adam was before the fall; (4) neither does the whole human race die through the death or sin of Adam, nor does it rise again through the resurrection of Christ (5) the law, as well as the Gospel, gives access to the kingdom of heaven; and (6) men had been without sin even before the advent of Christ. It is noteworthy that even at this synod which rejected him, Celestius was attacked on the problem of infant baptism, so that he was forced

441	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pelafftur
to admit that infants should be baptized. After his condemnation he appealed to Rome, but soon went to Asia Minor and sought, apparently with success, to be ordained presbyter.
Henceforth, though the problems raised by these controversies continued to be mooted at Carthage, Pelagius and Celesdus were both absent in Asia, and the former was meanwhile held in the highest esteem by Augustine. As the problems became more and more widely discussed, Augustine, 2. Diffusion about the beginning of 412, wrote his
of Pelagi‑ two books De peccatomm merdtis et reanism. misnone and De baptismo paraulomm followed by his letter to Marcellinus and his De spiritu et litters. The points in controversy, original sin and the necessity of infant baptism, as well as the possibility of being without sin through the aid of God, and the difference between the Old and the New Testaments, are here discussed without mentioning Celestius, and with only a courteous allusion to Pelagius. In 413, sermons preached on the baptism of infants by Augustine at Carthage stirred up a tumult and proved how widely diffused were Pelagian views; and in 414 Augustine was informed by a certain Hilasius that some Christians at Syracuse held the following views: (1) man may be without sin and may easily keep the commands of God if he will; (2) unbaptized children who die can not justly perish; (3) a rich man retaining his riches can not enter into the kingdom of God unless he sells all that he has; (4) no oaths should be taken; and (5) the church without blemish is the visible one, which is able to be without sin. The first of these theses was derived directly from the Ecdogce of Pelagius; and the fourth and fifth may also be derived from his writings. The second and third are attributed by Augustine to Celestius. Somewhat later Augustine received from Sicily the so‑called Def nitiones CceWtii, while between 413 and 418 an anonymous Sicilian author wrote six Pelagian tractates which seem almost a commentary on the theses recorded by Hilarius. It is thus clear that Pelagianism was far more widely extended in 412‑415 than the personal activity of Pelagius and Celestius could have spread, this being due partly to a natural tendency toward a Pelagian mode of thought, and partly to the bond between the culture of the period and the ancient quasi‑Stoic popular philosophy. At the same time there is a marked avoidance of polemics by Augustine against either Pelagius or Celestius.
After 415, however, a more personal animus entered into Augustine's polemics. The exact cause of this change of attitude is unknown, but it is evident that when, in the spring of 415, Augustine sent Orosius (q.v.) with certain prob‑
3. Mission lems to Jerome in the East, he also
of Orosius. sought to put Jerome on his guard against Pelagius, and to arouse the Eastern Church to oppose the heresiarch. Not only was the attitude of the East, as in the ordination of Celestius, disturbing to Augustine, but he had also received through two of Pelagius' pupils, Timasius and Jacobus, the heresiarch's book De natura, which had probably been written in 414. Though the doctrines of this book were no more heretical
than the views he had advanced in his Biblical commentary which had long been known to Augustine, nevertheless Augustine was deeply offended, probably because in this work Pelagius sought to quote earlier authorities in support of his doctrines. Augustine replied in his De natura et gratis, he still did not polemize against Pelagius by name. In July, 415, a few months after the arrival of Orosius, John of Jerusalem convened a synod of all or a part of his presbyters to consider the position of Pelagius. This body was apparently summoned at the instance of Orosius and because of his antipathy to Pelagius, who was publicly called to defend his position. The majority of those present clearly sided with Pelagius, but the latter subscribed to the formula of John and anathematized all who declared that man could attain to perfect virtue without divine aid. This he could honestly do, though under divine grace he did not include the inspiration requisite for each act, as in Augustine's view. Although, according to Orosius, John and Pelagius acquiesced in his requirements, Orosius was compelled to defend himself against charges of heresy, while the bishop's attitude toward Pelagius was so friendly that more than a year later Augustine in a letter to John felt himself obliged to refer to Pelagius as " our brother." It is thus evident that Orosius was unsuccessful in his attack on Pelagius at Jerusalem.
Equally futile was a second attack made by the Gallic bishops Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix. Both had been compelled, as partizans of the usurper Constantine, to resign their sees after his defeat in 411. What called them to Palestine, 4. Synods of however, is unknown; but at all events
Diospolis, they presented to Eulogius, bishop of
Carthage, Ceesarea, a brief against Pelagius. In and Mileve. Dec., 415, accordingly, a synod of fourteen bishops was convened at Diospolis, the ancient Lydda. The accusers were unable to be present, one of them being ill. The majority of the allegations against him Pelagiua was able to refute by simple interpretation; the chief accusation, that he thought that man could be without sin if he would, he defended, as at Jerusalem, by making this power dependent on the assistance of God. The writ of accusation approximated the real points of the Pelagian controversy only in the theses taken from the writings of Celestius; in reply Pelagius pointed out that the theses, in so far as they were not already explained, were set forth by another, and he also condemned them. In consequence, the synod confirmed the orthodoxy of Pelagius. The East had at last answered the challenge which the Carthaginian Pelagians had made in 413. In 416 Orosius brought the news with a letter of Heros and Lazarus to Africa. Recognizing, however, that they must enforce their views by some episcopal authority, the Africans, even before seeing the acts of the Synod of Diospolis, convened two synods in the autumn of 416: the first at Carthage, with the bishops of the Carthaginian province; and the second at Mileve, with the Numidian bishops, including Augustine and Alypius. Neither of these synods pronounced a direct anathema on Pelagius or

Pelaeinr	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	442
Celestius; but in view of the previous measures against Celestius, the information received from Diospolis, and the verdict of those who had read the writings of Pelagius and Celestius, the latter two were declared to be the authors of grave heresy in that they made no allowance for grace side by side with free will and since they assailed the necessity of infant baptism. The Africans appealed, moreover, in two letters to Pope Innocent I. for the authority also of the " Apostolic Chair "; but since the outcome of this might be doubtful, especially as Pelagius had many friends in Rome, Augustine and four other bishops (Aurelius of Carthage, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius) appended to the synodical letters a private epistle in which they advocated that either Pelagius be tried orally at Rome or negotiations with him be taken up in writing. Innocent answered these three letters in an equal number of replies on Jan. 27, 417, evidently without having convened a synod. He declared it impractical to cite Pelagius for trial, evidently holding the judgment of the Africans as sufficient for decision. In his private letter the pope questioned the authenticity of the acts of the synod of Diospolis, which he utterly ignored in his official communications to Carthage and Mileve. He likewise declared that Pelagius and Celestius could have no part in the Church until they should come to their senses.
On Mar. 12, 417, Innocent I. died, and was succeeded by Zosimus, who was soon obliged to take cognizance of the Pelagian controversy. According to Marius Mercator, Celestius had gone from Ephesus to Constantinople, whence he was banished by Bishop Atticus. He appeared at Rome and submitted to Zosimus a request that the charges alleged against him be investigated. Zosimus accordingly, together with his clergy,
g. Zosimus considered the problem of Celestius' and the orthodoxy and decided in his favor.
African	These results were communicated by
	Church.	the pope to the Africans, whom he at
		the same time reproved for their hasty
judgment, and he demanded that they revise their
verdict or deliver Celestius to him at Rome within
two months. This letter can hardly have been sent
before Zosimus found himself plunged into the affairs
of Pelagius. The latter, who had made a detailed
presentment of his views in the four books of his
De libero arbitrio (written after the Synod of Dios
polis), had sent this work and a creed which is still
extant, together with a letter of appeal to Innocent,
of whose death he was unaware. The documents
were received by Zosimus. In this work on the
freedom of the will the basal concepts of Pelagian
ism are very evident. Pelagius endeavored to show
that the assertion of a divinely given " natural
power " did not exclude God's support of man's
volition and action " that what they are commanded
to do through free will they may the more easily
fulfil through grace." The accompanying letter
and the creed of Pelagius expressly stated that
children should be baptized, and that man ever
needs the help of God. Both these documents were
publicly read by the pope's command, to the intense
joy of Pelagius' many friends in Rome. In a letter of Sept. 21, 417, Zosimus informed the Africans of these facts, and sending . them the statements of Pelagius urged them to rejoice that Pelagius and Celestius, though accused by false judges, had never been outside the limits of the Church. At the same time apparently Zosimus cited Paulinus,'the former accuser of Celestius, to appear at Rome. These measures of Zosimus naturally aroused opposition in Africa, but only a portion of the excited controversies which ensued is known. Three things however, are certain. Before the end of Feb., 418, a synod was held at Carthage, where a reply was formulated to the letter of Zosimus. This reply was couched in sharp terms, declaring that no general submission to the decision of Innocent could justify Celestius, who must condemn the erroneous doctrines he had advanced; or else the Roman see, which had adjudged his views to be orthodox, must be deemed to approve his errors; and Paulinus, writing on Nov. 8, 417, declared that it was unnecessary for him to go to Rome. On Mar. 21, 418, Zosimus replied that no change had been made in what Innocent had done. This letter reached its destination on Apr. 29, and two days later, in the presence of the Roman envoy, a synod of more than 200 bishops convened at Carthage. In a letter to Zosimus it was agreed to abide by Innocent's decision until Pelagius and Celestius should acknowledge beyond all doubt that the grace of God assists man not only to know justice, but to perform it. At the same time a number of anti‑Pelagian canons were formulated. These affirmed (1) that Adam first became mortal through the fall; (2) that children must be baptized for the remission of sins because of their original sin; (3) that it is an error to think " that the grace of God whereby we are justified avails only for the remission of sins, and not also for aid against their commission"; and (4) that sinless perfection is impossible on earth.
Since these ecclesiastical measures could scarcely overcome the sympathy with Pelagius at Rome, the Africans prevailed upon the Emperor Honorius to issue a sacred rescript at Ravenna on Apr. 30, 418, in which, lamenting the spread of
6. Rescript Pelagianism at Rome and elsewhere, of Honorius. he commanded Celestius and Pelagius to be banished from Rome and their adherents to be exiled. This decree can scarcely have affected Pelagius himself; for though Marius Mercator states that he was banished from Jerusalem by a synod held late in 417 or early in 418, and presided over by Theodotus, bishop of Antioch, there is no reason to suppose that he had come to Rome before the promulgation of the imperial rescript. As late as the summer of 418 Augustine alludes to Pelagius as being in Palestine, but henceforth nothing whatsoever is known concerning him. Celestius, who seems to have been in Rome on Mar. 21, 418, fled probably to avoid the execution of the rescript. The promulgation of the emperor's edict and the general council at Carthage were followed by Zosimus' famous Epistula tractoria which has unfortunately perished. It is equally certain that the acts of the synod at Carthage were in the hands

443	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pelagius
of Zosimus before he wrote this epistle, which can scarcely have appeared many weeks after the end of April, 418. It was an extremely comprehensive document which gave a history of the entire controversy, with copious excerpts from the writings of both Celestius and Pelagius. The Africans expressed their thanks for this condemnation of their two arch‑opponents in a letter (likewise lost) written after a synod had been held. To demonstrate the impossibility of any reconciliation, Augustine wrote his last books against Pelagius and Celestius, the Libri duo de gratis Christi and the De peccato originals.
Pelagianism was officially dead in the West, but the imperial edicts of 419 and 421 show that the heresy still exercised a secret influence. The chief figure of this second period was Julian of Eclanum (q.v.). How he had been won over to Pelagianism is un‑
known, but it would seem that his 7. Julian of studies in Cicero and his Stoic and
Eclanum. especially Aristotelian philosophy,
combined with the influence of his friend Paulinus of Nola, made Julian a Pelagian as soon as he became a theologian. The Epistola tractoria of Zosimus gave Julian the opportunity to present his views, since it made the condemnation of Pelagius and Celestius incumbent on the orthodox. Before going into exile either because he had refused to subscribe to the Epistola tractoria, or because he had disobeyed the edict of 419 which punished by deposition and banishment refusal to subscribe to the condemnation of Pelagius and Celestius, Julian wrote two letters to Zosimus criticizing the condemnation of Celestius at Carthage in 411. In Rome itself Julian pleaded against the doctrine of original sin, probably during the pontificate of Zosimus, who anathematized him. In the brief schism which followed the death of Zosimus in Dec., 418, the Italian bishops were largely Pelagian. This tendency was sided by a letter now lost, but probably written by Julian to Valerius, the influential " count" in Ravenna. The charge made in this letter that Augustine condemned marriage was answered (late in 418 or early in 419) by the great bishop's first book De nuptiis et concupascentia ad Valerium. This book was answered by Julian, in the summer of 419, in his four books (of which only fragments have been preserved) Ad Turbantium; and to the same period belongs a Pelagian document, doubtless composed by Julian himself, sharply opposing " Manichean " opponents and exhorting the Pelagians to stand firm. This document is closely related to the letter, written probably in the summer of 419, which Julian sent in the name of eighteen Pelagian bishops to Rufus, bishop of Thes. salonica. This letter was apparently designed to gain a home for the writers during their exile in the East; but the number of these exiles, many of whom soon returned repentant, is uncertain. Not later than 421 Julian himself, after many wanderings, came with his friends, including Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, to Theodore of Mopsuestia (q.v.), who was Pelagian in sympathy. Despite the banishment of Julian, the polemic between him and Augustine still continued. In 420 Augustine wrote his second
book De nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium, quickly followed by his Libri quatuor contra duos epistulas Pelagianorum. Both of these works mention Julian but do not oppose him directly. When Augustine, however, received the complete copy of his opponent's Ad Turbantium, he wrote, not earlier than 421, his Li.bri sex contra Julianum. Julian was unaware of this latter work when in Cilicia he again attacked Augustine in his Octo libri ad Florum. Of this polemic Augustine heard nothing before 427; and his detailed reply broke orff with the sixth book, the work being accordingly called Opus imperfectum. There is nothing to show that Julian replied to either of the two works specifically directed against him by Augustine, nor is much known of his life after the completion of his Ad Forum. He presented no new theses, but summed up in a system the principles of Pelagius; formulated the sharp distinction from Augustinianism; and, retiring the ascetic, emphasized the intellectualmoral element. Shortly after the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia in 428, Julian, with his friends Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, was in Constantinople where he sought to win the emperor and the new patriarch, Nestorius (q.v.), over to this side. The friendship between Theodore and Nestorius, combined with the affinity of Pelagianism with Nestorian Christology (see CmusTozooY, IV., 11), may have moved Julian to make this step; but Nestorius, not knowing of the course of events in the West, sought for information from Pope Celestine I. For some reason the pope remained silent, and Nestorius, apparently regarding Julian and his comrades as orthodox, though not himself a Pelagian, permitted them to remain for the time in Constantinople. The patriarch seemed also friendly to Celestius, probably in 429. In the latter part of the same year, however, Marius Mercator published at Constantinople his Commonitorium super nomine Cwlestii, to demonstrate that Celestius, Pelagius, Julian, and his companions were heretics who had long been under the ban in the West and among all the orthodox of the East. Early in 430, therefore, the Pelagians were expelled by the emperor from Constantinople, and the verdict of the West was likewise adopted by the anti‑Nestorian Council of Ephesus in 431. According to Prosper, Julian, about 439, sought to regain his bishopric by a feigned repentance, only to be successfully opposed by Pope Sixtus III. at the instance of Leo, later the Great.
Meanwhile Pelagianism lingered on, not only in Britain, where Agricola disseminated Pelagian views until checked by Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, in 429; and Ireland, where the commentaries of Pelagius were long popular, but also
	8. Decline	throughout the West, and even in North
	and Disap‑	Africa. Pope Celestine I. relinquished
	pearance.	his active support of the Augustinians
		against Gallic Semi‑Pelagianism (q.v.)
after the death of Augustine and the Vandal inva
sion of Africa; and the accession, in 432, of Sixtus
III., who before the time of the Epistula tradata had
figured as the most influential patron of the Pelt.
giant, probably accounts for the change of situation

pus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
		444
in the view of Julian. About this same time the Liber prasdeatinatm appeared from Roman circles which were Pelagian at heart, though they reckoned Pelagius among the heretics. But where the doctrines of Pelagius had been anathematized, Pelagianism, in the strict sense of the term, could no longer exist. After Julian's failure to regain his diocese, he seems to have remained in Italy, for he was in Campania in the pontificate of Leo the Great (440‑461). Gennadius implies that he died between about 441 and 445, but where is unknown. Of Celestius, moreover, all traces vanish in 429.
(F. Loolrs.)
BmuOGHAPH7: The sources are fairly well indicated in the text. They are the anti‑Pelagian treatises of Augustine, handiest in w. Bright's ed. Oxford, 1880, also in Augustine's works in MPL, zxxii‑xlvi (cf. the collection of material useful for the history of the controversy, MPL, x1v. 1809 sqq.), and the Eng. transl. in NPNP, 1 ser., Vol. v., which contains an " Introductory Essay " by B. B. Warfield, and a bibliography; the remains of Pelagius, Celestius, and Julian, in MPL, xxi.; the works of Marius Mercator in MPL, x1viii (Gamier's ed., with seven dissertations on the history of Pelagianism, and a number of scattered sources appeared, Paris, 1873); the antiPelagian writings of Jerome, MPL, xxii.‑xxx.; Orosius, Libor ayologeticua, MPL, xxxi.; and the acts of the synods and council named in the text as reported in the standard works of Mansi and Hefele. For discussions consult: G. F. Wiggels, Yereuch einer pragmatiechen Daratellung des Auguatiniamua and Pelapianismus, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1833, Eng. translation of vol. i., Historical Presentation of Augustiniarn and Pelagianism, Andover, 1840; J. L. Jacobi, Die Lehre des Pelagius, Leipsic, 1842; A. Short, The Witness of the Spirit with our Spirit, Oxford, 1848; J. Mt1ller, Die ahrialiche Lehre von der Silnde, vol. i., Breslau, 1849, Eng. transl., Christian Doctrine of Sin, Edinburgh, 1868; W. Cunningham, Historical Theology, i. 321‑358, Edinburgh, 1863; C. E. Luthardt, Die Lehre vim freien Willen, Leipsic, 1863; J. F. Nourisson La Philosophie de S. Augustin, i. 452 sqq., ii. 352 sqq., Paris, 1866; F. W6rter, Der Pelapianismue, Freiburg, 1868; J. B. Motley, Augudinian Doctrine of Predestination, chap. iii., London, 1878; F. Wasen, Die innere Entwickelung des Pelaaianismua, Freiburg, 1882; idem, in TQS, lxvii (1885), 244 sqq., 531 sqq.; C. P. Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen and Pradigten sue den zwei ldzten Jahrhunderten, Christiania, 1890; A. Bruckner, Julian van Eclanum, Leipsic. 1897; /B. B. Warfield, Two Studies in the History of Doctrine: Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy; Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation, New York, 1897; R. Seeberg, Dune Scotus, Leipsic, 1900; H. Zimmer, Pelagiua. in Irland, Berlin, 1901; H. von Schubert, Der sopenannte PradeWnatus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pelapianiamue, Leipsic, 1903; E. Riggenbach, Unbeachtet gebliebene Pragmente des Pelagius‑Kommentam zu den paulinischen Briefen, Gtiteraloh, 1905; S. Hellmann, Leontiue Scottus, Munich, 1906; DCB, iv. 282‑295; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 783‑870; DNB, xfiv. 240‑243; Nesnder, Christian Church, vol. ix.; and in general the works on the church history of the period; also the works on the history of doctrine such as those by Harnack, Boston, 1895‑1900; Hagenbach, 1840, Eng. transl., New York and Edinburgh, 186180; and Shedd, 8th ed., New York, 1884; and the literature under AuousTxrrz, SAINT, or HIPPO.

PELAYO, ALVAR (ALVARUS PELAGIUS):
Spanish Franciscan; d. at Seville Jan. 25,1352. He studied law at Bologna, and theology at Pisa and at Paris, where he was a pupil of Duns Scotus. He taught canon law at Bologna and elsewhere, and later became papal penitentiary at Avignon under John XXII. In 1332 he was made titular bishop of Coron, in Greece, and in 1335 actual bishop of Silves, Portugal. While at Avignon he wrote his work De plandu ecdesi,m (Ulm, 1474, Lyons, 1517, Venice, 1580; of. J. Haller, Papsttum and Kirchen‑
reform, i. 84‑89, Berlin 1903). In this treatise he proclaimed the theory of unlimited papal authority. He differed from Agdatino Trionfo merely in that he, as a strict Franciscan, extended the conception of poverty, which his order was bound to observe, to the Church at large; and deduced all the evils of the age from the fact that the Church had become rich and worldly. In his theory of the papacy he maintained that the pope stood above all, even the councils. The tribunal of Christ and that of the pope he maintained were one and the same, and all power on earth, both spiritual and secular, inhered in the pope. Incidentally the work contains an abundance of anecdotes of curiosities and confessional casuistries from the author's own experience.
K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Wadding, Annales Minorurn, vol. iii., 24 vols., Naples, 1731‑1880 (for account of unprinted works); J. B. Schwab, Joh. Gereon, pp. 24‑28, Wfirzburg, 1858; Birck, in Jahresberieht der h6h. Bfbger echule zu MQlheim, 1888; S. Riezler, Die literarisch en Widersacher der P6pde, Leipsic, 1878; A. Finke, in Supplement IV. to RbmiwheQuartalschrift, Rome, 1898; Pastor, Popes, vol. i. passim; KL, f. 887‑868 (gives list of his writings).
PELEG. See TABLE of THE NATIoNs, $ 2.

PELLIKAN (gUERSNEER), KONRAD: Hebrew scholar; b. at Ruffach (47 m. s.w. of Strasburg) Jan. 8, 1478; d. at Zurich Apr. 6, 1558. His parents were in straitened circumstances and his earliest education was provided for at Heidelberg and Tiibingen by an uncle through whom came his change of name from Karmen In 1499 he began the study of Hebrew, which he pursued under the greatest difficulties, studying far into the night, and having as his principal aid the Stern Meschiah of the Dominican Peter Schwarz or Petrus Nigri (Esslingen, 1477), which included a chrestomathy. On the basis of this he began a Hebrew glossary; a hint from Reuchlin aided much in the prosecution of his studies, and Reuchlin may have used his help in making his Hebrew dictionary. In 1501 Pellikan wrote his De modo legendi et inteddigendi Hebrceum (first printed at Strasburg, 1504), and the same year he became priest and entered the monastery at Ruffach. In 1502 he became reader in theology at the Carmelite monastery at Basel, and there he continued the atiidy of Hebrew under Matthew Adrian, a convert to Christianity from Judaism; he was transferred in the same capacity to Ruffach in 1508, was " guardian " at Pforzheim in 1511, at Ruffach in 1517, and at Basel in 1519. He had meanwhile accompanied the papal legate Raymund de Petrandi to Italy in 1504, and the provincial of the order, Kaspar Satzger, on his visitation 1514‑17. In 1523 he was called with OJcolampadius as professor of theology to Basel, and in 1525 went to Zurich. The next year he laid aside his monk's hood and married. The remainder of his life was spent at Zurich as professor of Greek and Hebrew and librarian.
His importance is not to be measured by his textbook on Hebrew mentioned above, which was superseded by Reuchlin's Rudimenta. As a teacher he was highly successful, also as an exegete and translator (Commentaria Bibliorum, Zurich, 1532‑39). As early as 1512 he pronounced against transub‑

445
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
stantiation, and in 1524 in favor of marriage of priests. Yet his was essentially a peaceable nature, abhorring strife. ‑He promoted the reprinting at Basel of Luther's writings, and had friendly relations with that Reformer, though he was not in agreement with him in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. He was also closely connected with Zwmgh, to whom he owed his call to Zurich. Among his characteristics were a sincere piety, great modesty, an iron diligence, and hospitality.
(H. L. STRACg.)
B113UOGPAPHY: Sources of lmowledge are: his Chronikon, ed. B. Riggenbaeh, Basel, 1877; a Germ. tranal. of the Hauschronik by T. Vulpinus (Renaud) appeared Strasburg, 1892; J. Fabricius. Miwellanea Tigwsna, iii. 413439 (funeral sermon); and A. Horawits and K. Hartfelder, Briefivechael des Beatus Rhenanus, pp. 547‑b48, Leipsic, 1886. Consult: Exaeh and Gruber, Encyklopadie, Ill., xv. 226‑237; E. Silberstein, Conrad Pellicanus, Berlin, 1900; R. Reuse, Konrad Pellicanw, Strasburg, 1892; L. Geiger, in Jahrbacher fur deutsche Theolopie, 1876, pp. 202‑217. A photographic reproduction, ed. E. Nestle, of the De modo legendi appeared Tiibingen, 1877.
PELOUBET, pe‑ls3'bet, FRANCIS NATHAN: Congregationalist; b. in New York City Dec. 2,1831. He was educated at William College (A.B., 1853) and Bangor Theological Seminary (1857). He then held Massachusetts pastorates at Gloucester (18571859), Oakham (1860‑65), Attleboro (1866‑71), and Natick (1872‑84). He retired from the active ministry in 1884, and since 1874 has been engaged as an editor of Sunday‑school literature. In theology he is a liberal conservative. He is the author of Select Notes on the lnternationml Sunday School Lessons (36 vols., Boston, 1875‑1910; partly written in collaboration with his wife and with Amos Russel Wells); Sunday‑school quarterlies in three grades (1880 sqq.); Suggestive Illustrations on the Nets Testament (3 vols., comprising John, Acts, and Matthew; Philadelphia, 1898‑99) ; Loom of Life (Boston, 1900); The Teacher's Commentary (2 vols., comprising Matthew and Acts; New York, 1901); The Front Line of the Sunday School Movement (Boston, 1904); The Book of Job, the Problem of the Ages (New York, 1906) ; and Gates to the Prayer country (1907). He also edited a revision of W. Smith's abridged Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia, 1884) and Select Songs for the Sunday School (2 vols., 1884‑93).
PELT, ANTON FRIEDRICH LUDWIG: German theologian; b. at Regensburg June 28, 1799; d. at Kemnitz (5 m. e.s.e. of Greifswald) Jan. 22, 1861. He studied philosophy and theology at Jena, Kiel, and Berlin; became privat‑docent in Berlin in 1826; professor at Greifswald in 1829, and at Kiel in 1835. He lost his position at Kiel in 1852, after the subjugation of Sleswick‑Holstein by the Danes; and was then called as pastor to Kemnitz. In 1857 he became superintendent of the diocM. Pelt was originally Hegelian in philosophy, but he drew near to Schleiermacher in theology. He was closely associated with Claus Harms (q.v.) is Kiel, but, in opposition to Harms, he approved the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches as well as all other efforts at Evangelical unity. His lectures at Kiel covered the field of exegetical, historical, and systematic theology, and the warm personal interest he showed in his students added
much to his influence. His great work, the Theologische Eneyklopddie als ,System, im Zusammanhange nit der Geachiehts der theologischsn Wasenechaft and ihrer einzelnen Zweige (Hamburg, 1843), witnesses to his untiring industry and comprehensive study, is characterized by spirituality of conception, and is executed in a scholarly manner. He published also a Commentariua in Epistolas ad Thessalonicenaee (Greifawald, 1829); collaborated in editing Theologische Mitarbeiten, a periodical which aimed to combine the old supernaturalism and rationalism into a higher unity (Kiel, 1838 sqq.); and wrote much for the later years of H. F. Reuter's Repertorium (Berlin, 1845‑BO).
(I. A. DoxrfxRt.)
PENANCE.
I. Biblical Teaching. The Old‑Testament Conception (1 1). Christie Teaching (¢ 2). Apostolic Teaching (5 3).
II. Development in the Church. Development of Penance (1 1). Penance as a Sacrament (; 2). Luther (§ 3). Later Non‑Catholic Teaching (; 4).
L Biblical Teaching: Among Protestante Repentance (q.v.) usually expresses sorrow for sin and the turning away from it to lead a new life, while penance refers particularly to acts of external selfcastigation produced by this sorrow for sin. Among English‑speaking Roman Catholics, however, the word penance commonly includes both these meanings. Repentance in the sense of the NewTestament word metanoia is a complete change of mental attitude consequent upon a realization of the obligation of God's commandments and of human sinfulness. It can have its full effect only when the power to overcome sin is assured and forgiveness and reconciliation are offered.
Even in the Old Testament a consciousness of guilt and a need of forgiveness are constantly recognized. This latter is promised by God on condition of real inward conversion. Victim
i. The Old‑ are brought to sacrifice as a means of Testament ensuring it; but, while sacrifice may
Conception. be designated an external satisfaction, it is not as though it had power in itself to ensure forgiveness, which is the outcome of the free grace of God. The whole tendency of the prophetic revelation and of the Psalmist's spiritual consciousness is to emphasize the necessity of a change of heart (Ps. li. 16, 17; Joel ii. 13 sqq.), the motive for which is not merely a consciousness of guilt with a fear of God's judgment, but a belief in God's merciful will to take away sin (Isa. xliv. 22). The change is God's own work (Ps. U. 10; Jer. xxxi. 18). In characteristic contrast with other oriental religions, which emphasize external penance, the prophets require fasting only as the outward expression of real sorrow for sin (Joel ii. 12). Under the Mosaic law the only day of fasting, as an expression of inward abasement, was the Day of Atonement (see ATONEMENT, DAy OF). The sufferings of the captivity and the subsequent oppression of the people brought about more frequent expres. eions of this attitude; a deeper and more abiding

Penance	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	446
consciousness of sin shows itself among the pious Israelites, with, at the'same time, a danger of confidence in the power of external forms to express this spirit, or even of themselves to effect the removal of sin (Dan. iv. 27).
The redeemer, like his herald, John, begins the proclamation of his message by a call to repentance (Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17; Mark i. 15). How thorough
this inner change and purification must z. Christic be is set forth by the act of immerTeaching. Sion; and Christian baptism is to be
with the Holy Spirit, who imparts new life from above. As part of the Gospel, the good tidings of the kingdom which he preaches, Jesus represents himself as " come to save that which was lost " (Matt. aviii. 11‑14, ix. 10‑13; Luke xv.). In the Sermon on the Mount he declares the nature of the righteousness which must characterise those who share in the blessings of the new kingdom, and begins with poverty of spirit, mourning, hunger and thirst, as ezrreesions of sorrow for the previous state of sin. Dying upon the cross, he accepts the penitent thief who bows to his punishment and with beseeching faith turns toward him. He has nothing to say of fasting or other external performances as productive by their own value of forgiveness.
The preaching of the apostles calls for a change of heart, the possibility of and impulse to which is found in the exaltation of Christ as the savior
(Acts v. 31, xi. 18), and with this bapg. Apos‑ tism in his name is connected. The tolic deepest expression of a fundamental
Teaching. moral change at the passage from a
state of sin into the communion of saints is found in Paul's conception of being buried with Christ, or of putting off the old man and putting on the new (Rom. vi. 2 sqq.; Col. ii. 12; Eph. iv. 22 sqq.), and in John's doctrine of the new birth from above (John i. 12, 13, iii. 3). Here appears the fundamental unity between real repentance and the process called Regeneration (q.v.). For those, however, who are at heart in the communion of the new life, but are still conscious of the rebellious motions of the flesh, Paul has an exhortation to a continuous renewing and putting on of Christ (Rom. 5th. 2, siii. 14); a fresh change of heart must take place when men have yielded to sinful desires or grown lag in the spiritual life (Rev. iii. 15‑19). For this, however, the New Testament knows no different essential elements from those which constituted the primary repentance; forgiveness is once more imparted in virtue of the atoning blood and continued intercession of Christ (I John i. 7‑9, ii. 1, 2).
B. Develooment in the Church: In considering the doctrine of repentance as it developed in the Church in the post‑apostolic period, distinction must
be made between the repentance pre‑. Develop‑ ceding baptism and that prescribed for meat of Christians who had fallen into grievous
Penance. sin after baptism, and between the
conditions imposed in the two cases. In baptism complete forgiveness is imparted in virtue of the redeeming work of Christ, repentance being required of the subjects only in the sense of a
thorough change of heart. In the penance of baptised Christians, which is compared by Jerome and Ambrose, and even as early as Tertullian, to a plank grasped by a shipwrecked man, there are required on the one hand certain external works of penance by which the sinner is to be freed of his guilt, and on the other his readmission into the fold by an ecclesiastical, hierarchic body, whose priests hear the confession of sin, give absolution, and impose certain external acts by way of satisfaction (see EXCOMMUNICATION; PENITENTIAL BOOBS; KEYS, POWER OF THE). At first this ecclesiastical action took place only in the case of grave sins, especially idolatry, adultery, and murder, and had reference to the scandal given to the Church and the necessity of its taking part in the act of readmission. This act occurred only after a prescribed period of public penance and the pronouncement (originally only in the form of an intercessory prayer) of the divine forgiveness. (For the controversies in regard to the restoration of penitents, see CYPRIAN; LAPSED; MONTANISII; NovATuN.)
Public penance was abandoned, first in the East, with the general relaxation of discipline and of the ties of church life, about the end of the fourth cen‑
tury. It went on longer in the West, at s. Penance least for notorious sins; a restoration of as a Sacra‑ the old discipline was attempted in the ment. Carolingian period. But from the end
of the eleventh century its place was taken by the private penance which had long been growing up by the side of it and was now imposed by the Church. All grave sins were to be confessed to the priest, who was to pronounce forgiveness (though not until the thirteenth century in a declaratory formula), and impose a fitting satisfaction. This act is called a sacrament as early as Peter Damian. The combination of absolution and subsequent satisfaction is explained (especially, in early days, by' Abelard) by the theory that absolution indeed remits the guilt and the eternal punishment of sin, but that there still remains a temporal punishment which must be worked off by these satisfactions. With this theory is allied that of Indulgences (q.v.). For any necessary satisfaction not made in this life, the suffering of Purgatory (q.v.) is provided. The Sacrament of penance, as described by scholastic theologians from Peter Lombard down, and in the canons of the Council of Trent, consists of three distinct acts on the sinner's part‑contrition, confession, and satisfaction. A distinction is made between true contrition, by which a man sorrows for his sins because they have offended the good God, whom he loves, and attrition, or " that incomplete repentance which exists when a man fears the divine judgments, abhors the hideousness of sin, makes a firm resolution to sin no more, and begins to love God as the source of righteousness " (H. Klee, %atholiache Dognwtik, 3 vols., Mains, 1835‑41). Most of the scholastic theologians, whose opinion was confirmed by the Council of Trent, maintained that the operation of the sacrament supplied what was lacking in such attrition‑that the Holy Ghost was at work even in it, and that while it was not sufficient to justify a

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
447
sinner, it could give him the necessary dispositions for receiving the sacrament.
The Reformers' revision of the doctrine of penance, especially Luther's, took for its starting‑point the Scriptural term metanoia, " to signify a transmutation in the mind and the affections ' (Luther,
Briefs, ed. de Wette, i. 118‑117). In
3. Luther. this sense Christ wills, as Luther main‑
tained in his Theses, that a Christian's whole life shall be one of repentance. Of repentance, however, in the sense of restoration to divine grace after sin, the dominant element is faith, which lays hold on the promise of that grace; for contrition of itself, were it ever so perfect, could not merit God's grace. According to the Augsburg Confession repentance is composed of " contrition, or the terrors of a conscience shaken by the realisation and soknowledgment of sin," and " faith, which is conceived of the Gospel or of absolution, and believes that sin is remitted for Christ's sake." Amendment and forsaking of sin are supposed to follow as fruits of repentance. Luther knows nothing of penance in the sense of exactly regulated penalties; the divine visitations which sometimes come upon pardoned sinners he considers in the light not of penalties but of trials and means of grace coming from divine love. Though Luther and Melanchthon still occasionally call penance a sacrament, it clearly falls in their view not under that head but into the class of various administrations of the Word of God as means of grace; the penitent may receive the declaration of pardon from the minister or from another Christian brother, but this does not differ from that which he may get for himself from the Gospel.
When the teaching of the first Reformers, in which Calvin did not differ essentially from Luther, had degenerated into formalism and a dead faith, with‑
out a real conversion of heart and
Later	will, Pietism in Germany and Method,
Non‑Catho‑ ism in England laid special emphasis
lic Teach‑ on the change of heart. In conneo‑
ing.	tion with this they insisted on the
necessity of a period, more or less prolonged, of inner conflict and of a sorrow approaching despair. Spener himself did not exaggerate this aspect, admitting that God had different ways of dealing with his children; but some of his followers went to great extremes, in which Zinaendorf was brought up‑though he and his brethren afterward reacted from them into a position more nearly approaching that which Agricola had defended, in which the principal stress was laid upon the allembra,eing love of God. The idea of the conflict has been characteristic of not a little Methodist practise, though less in England than in America. With the PietistS agreed both the rationalistic and the supernaturalistic movements in laying stress on the prao• tical side of repentance; but while the former had lost the conception of the heartfelt faith which was to found an entire new life, the latter did not sufficiently understand the significance of this faith for the creation and stimulation of a new good‑will, and this defect has characterised a good deal of modern Protestant teaching. Schleiermacher explained con‑
version as consisting of repentance (a combination of sorrow for sin and change of heart) and faith, in the sense of an appropriation of the perfection and blessedness of Christ. According to Ritachl, the will must, by virtue of its assent to good, renounce sin, and faith is substantially the direction of the will to God as the end of its being, with confidence in his guidance; true repentance is to strive after the good end proposed by the whole body, in the belief that as a member of that body one is no longer in sin. It is scarcely necessary to point out the divergence of these views from those of the Reformers, to whose position, however, there is a tendency to return among not a few of the more modern writers.
(J. KBamntt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Study of the subject as treated in the Bible
	can best be pursued in the standard works on Biblical
	theology, such as Schultz for the Old Testament and Bey
	schlag for the New (see BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION); for
	the dogmatic treatment consult the works on systematic
	theology given in the article DoaxA, and in treatises on
	ethics. Consult further: Bingham, Oripinm XVI., iii.
	2 1, and XVIII.; N. Marshall, Penitential Discipline of
	the Primitive Church for the first .(00 Years, London, 1714,
	reissue, Oxford, 1844; Muratori, Antiquitatee Italici medii
	envi, vol. v., Milan, 1741; L. Hahn, Die Lehr@ von den
	Sakramenten, Breslau, 1864; G. E. Steitz, Das r6miache
	Buassakrament nach seinem boliachen Grunds and aeina
	peschichtlichen Enewicklunp, Frankfort, 1854; J. Arndt, True
	Christianity; a Treatise on sincere Repentance, new ed.,
	Philadelphia, 1868 (a classic); F. Probst, Sakramente
	and Sakramentalien, Tilbingen, 1872; W. Elwin, Con
	fession and Absolution in the Bible; a Study of . . . Holy
	Scripture upon the Doctrine of Penance, London, 1883;
	R. A. Lipsiue, Luthere Lehre von der Busse, Brunswick,
	1892; K. MiiUer, in Theolopische Abhandlunpen K. von
	Weissecker pev»dmet, Freiburg, 1898; The Church's Min
	istry of Grace (" Penance " by Bishop C. C. Grafton), New
	York, 1893; F. Sieffert, Die neuesten theolVischen porach
	unpen aer Busse and Glaube, Berlin, 1896; J. Kbetlin,
	Theology of Luther in its Historical Development, ii. 425
	426, Philadelphia, 1898; G. Gerhard, Euchar%stie and
	Buesaakrament in den ersten sec". Jahrhundarjen der
	Kirche. Freiburg, 1908; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 381
	385, v. 1, pp. 729 sqq.
PENDLETOft, WILLIAM FREDERICK: New Church; b. at Savannah, Ga., Mar. 25, 1845. After serving as captain in the Civil War he was educated at Savannah Medical College (M.D., 1889), New York Medical College (1870), and the theological seminary at Waltham, Mass., from which he was graduated in 1873. He was pastor of the Chicago Society of the New Church in 1877‑84, Vice‑chancellor and professor in the academy of the New Church, Philadelphia, in 1881‑88, and professor Of theology in the same institution since 1888. In 1887‑97 he was assistant bishop and since 1897 has been full bishop in his denomination, and besides having been president of the academy of the New Church, Bryn Athyn, Pa., since 1897, is also pastor of the Society of the General Church of the New Jerusalem in the same town. He has compiled A Book of Doctrine for the Neto Church (Bryn Athyn, Pa., 1897) and A Liturgy for the New Church (1908). PENICK, CHARLES CLIFTON: Protestant Episcopal; b. in Charlotte County, Va., Dec. 9, 1843. He received his education at the Danville Military School, Hampden‑Sidney College, and Alexandria Theological Seminary (1889); served during the Civil War in the Thirty‑eighth Virginia Regiment, and reached the rank of quartermaster; at the end

raltentiall3ooa
Penn, William	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	448
of the war he took his theological course, as above, was made deacon, 1869, and priest, 1870; he then served his church at Bristol, Va., St. George's, Mount Savage, Md., and the Church of the Messiah, Baltimore; he was consecrated missionary bishop of Cape Palmas, Africa, in 1877, and did good service in healing divisions and establishing missions in Africa; in 1883 he resigned, and became rector of St. Andrew's, Louisville, Ky., and later at Frankfort, Ky. He has written : More than a Prophet: a Series of Expository Chapters of t‑'te Life of St. John the Baptist (New York, 1881); Our Deeds, our Memories, our Duties (1888); and Hopes, Perils, and Struggles of Negroes in the United States (1893), besides missionary reports and briefer papers.

PENITENTIAL BOOKS (Inbri pornitentiales): Collections of rules for the guidance of the confessor, prescribing the satisfaction he ought to demand before granting absolution. The pre‑Reformation Church taught, like the modern Roman Catholic, that the forgiveness of sins required, besides contrition and confession, the performance of some act of penance, which in the early Church was taken as evidence of the sincerity of the repentance (see PENANCE, REPENTANCE). Later, under the influence of Teutonic legal customs, the payment of a sum of money appears as compensation for an act displeasing to God. The earlier good works required for this purpose consisted usually in acts of selfdenial prescribed by custom, which the sinner imposed upon himself for a time; the later money payment, to be devoted to pious and benevolent ends, was taken in their stead as an act pleasing to God. It was the function of the confessor to determine, according to the gravity of the sins confessed, the amount of this payment; and rules grew up as a standard for the regulation of penances. Collections of rules for the performance of the confessor's office were known as libri pcenitential". In the early Church, the synods and councils held at Ancyra (314), Nica;a (325), and elsewhere, laid down such rules; and further influence on their development was exercised by three letters of St. Basil of Cwsarea (d. 379), which contain directions for penance. John Scholasticus (d. 578) selected therefrom sixty‑eight canons for his Syntagma, and the Second Trullan synod (692) confirmed them.
The later development of this literature in the Church of the East has little importance for the West; Basil was studied there, but the Church of the west had worked on the problem for itself a century before his time. Thus about the middle of the third century, Cyprian mentions the compilation, from the decisions of African councils on the question of the Lapsed (q.v.), of a little book of particular directions. The monastic discipline had its influence, and so had the secular law with its system of graded fines for all offenses, giving impulse in the old British and Irish Church to a whole literature of penitential books prescribing particular penance for respective sins. Fragments of these are preserved in later compilations; such as the Canones Patricii (e. 546), a Liber Davidis (St. David, bishop of Menevia, d. 544), and a penitential of Gildas (d. 583). Theodore, archbishop of Canter‑
bury (d. 690) made use of these works for the AngloSaxon Church, though he was in connection with Greek and Roman tradition also. The names of Bede (d. 735) and Archbishop Egbert of York (d. 767) are also attached to similar compilations.
These regulations were brought over to the Frankish kingdom by Columban (q.v.), when he came from Bangor to Gaul about 590; he wrote a Liber de parnitentia which was much esteemed and served as a foundation for later works. Still greater influence on the Frankish discipline was exercised by some of the confessional books ascribed to Theodore and by a Poenitentiale Commeani, dating probably from the beginning of the eighth century. The confusion resulting from this variety of authorities induced the Frankish synods to condemn them generally, in favor of a stricter discipline based on the old canons, Holy Scripture, and ecclesiastical custom. About 829 Ebo, bishop of Reims, induced Halitgar of Cambrai to compile a book of the kind himself; of this the first two parts are taken from Gregory I. and Prosper, books III.‑V. are an extract from an independent collection of his own; and book VI. is attributed to a Roman source, though it is certainly Frankish.
	Entirely independent of this is the Pwnitentiale
Romanum of which there is frequent mention from
the first half of the eighth century, and upon the
significance of which different opinions have been
offered. The proof, however, that a universal
system of penance approved by the Curia does not
exist is accepted. The title Ponitentiale Romanum,
never applied to one and the same work, really
represents the source of the principles of universal
application, as distinguished from local or national
bodies of penances. Other penitential books arose
in the Frankish kingdom of the ninth century, and
finally every diocese had its own; but all employed
the same material, which passed from one to
another, from the above‑mentioned sources through
the collections of Regino, Burchard, and others,
down to Gratian.	(E. FRIEDBERG.)
BIHLIoGnAPHY: A rich article is to be found in DCA, if. 1808‑16, with minute bibliographical detail. Consult further: F. W. H. Wasserschleben, Die Buasordnungen der abendlandiachen %irche, Halle, 1851 (learned and full); E. Friedberg, Aus deutachen Busabiichern, Halle, 1868; F. Masssen, Geschichte der Quellen and der LiUeratur des kanoniaehen Rechts im Abendlande, Gratz, 1870; R. Gibbings, The Taxes of the Apostolic Penitentiary, Dublin, 1872; E. Kate, Grundriss des kanonischen strafrechts, Bar. tin, 1881; H. J. Schmitz, Die Bussbacher and die Buss dissiplin der Kirche, Mains, 1883; H. C. Lea, A Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary;‑Philadelphia, 1892; P. Hinsehius, Airchenraht, v. 90 sqq•, Berlin, 1895; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 371 sqq.; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 137 sqq., 451 sqq.

PENITENTIAL ORDERS: A general name for numerous orders and religious corporations submitting to classification according to their practical relations and functions, for (1) the instruction of the young; (2) nursing of the sick; (3) spiritual ministration; (4) redemption of captives; (5) controversy with infidels; (6) public preaching (Franciscans and Dominicans); and (7) home and foreign missions (Lazarites of France). All have the one aim in common, to attain heaven by a life of asceticism or penance. Besides this general aim some of the

449	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Penitential amokWilliamoks
individual orders have penance as their special object, either to cultivate the spirit of repentance in themselves and obligate themselves outwardly to strenuous works of contrition, or in the mission of charity to afford a rescue for fallen persons and lead them to repentance. The following are mentioned: (1) The Regular Tertiaries of the Orderrs of St. Francis and St. Dominic. See FRANcis, SAINT, AND ORDER OF THE FRANCISCANS, IV., ii. 3; and DOMINIC, SAINT, AND THE DOMINICANS. (2) The Hermits of St. Augustine. See AUGUSTINIANS. (3) The Order of Font6vraud. See FONTtVRAUD, ORDER OF. (4) The Carmelite Nuns. See THERESA, SAINT. (5) Orders of St. Magdalen. See MAGDALEN, SAINT, ORDERS OF. (6) The Women of the Good Shepherd. See WOMEN, CONGREGATIONS OF. (7) Ordo pteraitentile sanetorum martyrum or Ordo Marine de Metro de pcenitentia, which flourished in Poland and Bohemia at the beginning of the sixteenth century; and (8) the Ordo religiosus de peenitentia called Scalzetti at Rome and sometimes Nazaretti, founded by the Spaniard John Varella y Losada (d. 1769) and approved by Pope Pius VI. in 1784; and a considerable number of organizations of only local significance.

	PENITENTIAL PSALMS: The Church catholic
classifies under this name Pss. vi., xxxu., ixxviii.,
li., cii., cxxx., and cxliii. The arrangement of these
seven psalms in a class by themselves is probably
later than Augustine, but was known in the seventh
century (cf. Cassiodorus on Ps. vi., MPL, lxx. 60, cf.
65, and on Ps. exlii., p. 1014). He associated them
with the seven " remissions of sin in the Gospels,"
viz: baptism, sufferings in martyrdom, almsgiving,
conversion of another, charity, forgiveness, and
penitence. Since that time the penitential psalms
have often been the subject of comment and were
used in private devotions and in the liturgy. The
Roman ritual prescribes their use in prayer for the
sick, during the anointing with the sacred oil. In
the Protestant Church the term was retained (cf.
Luther's exposition published 1517 and 1525, and
in his Werke, Erlangen ed. xxxvii. 340), without,
however, making use of the penitential psalms for
liturgical purposes. 	(A. Ii AUcg.)

PENITENTIARY: The term applied in the Roman Catholic Church to a priest who imposes penance, especially one who represents the bishop. The penitentiaries must not be confused with the father confessors. Something of the sort is mentioned at an early date in the East (Socrates, Hist. eccl., V., xix.), and employment of them is enjoined by the tenth canon of the Lateran Council of 1215. Accordingly, in many dioceses episcopal penitentiaries were introduced and specially empowered as members of the chapter. At the same time, the innovation was by no means universal, and some bishops laid stricter claim to jurisdiction in reserved cases (see CAsus RESERVATI). Under the modern organization of cathedral chapters increased regard is shown for the representation of the bishop in reserved cases by the appointment of one of his own canons. A distinct pomitentiariue major (°' chief penitentiary ") stands at the head of the Ptenitentiaria in Rome, and is officially represented by the VIII.‑29
panitentiarii minorea who are stationed at St. Peter's, at the Lateran, and in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore for the faithful of all languages.
E. SEHLING.

BiBIaoaBAPHY: Bingham, Originw, XVIII., iii. 11‑12; R. Hooker, Eccleeiaadieal Polity, VI., iv. "; J. C. W. Augunti, Handbuch der chriatlichen Arekl<olopie, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1838‑37; DCA, ii. 1616‑17.

PENITENTS: The term applied to those Christians in the early Church who, having fallen into sin, were under Church Discipline (q.v., I.) and were submitting to Penance (q.v.). The essential condition of penitents was that of probation prior to readmission into the Church. This period of probation differed at different times and in different places, varying from a few weeks to twenty years (the last only in a later period). In the early period the penitents were in four classes: mourners, hearers, kneelers, and co‑standers, these degrees representing in a rough way progress toward reconciliation with the Church. Duties in the first grade were repeated confession before the church with tears and lamentations, abstention from ornaments of dress and signs of repentance in dishevelled hair and the like, abstention from gratification of the senses, marriage being prohibited during the term; in all grades positive signs of repentance were to be given by works of charity and benevolence. For discussion of the treatment of those who fell under temptation in times of persecution see LAPSED.
BIBLIoaRAPHY: The literature and sources are, fully indicated in and under the articles to which reference is made in the text.

PENN, WILLIAM: Quaker; b. in London Oct. 14, 1644; d. at Ruscomb (5 m. e.n.e. of Reading), Berkshire, July 30, 1718. His parents were Admiral Sir William Penn and Margaret, daughter of Johann Jasper of Rotterdam. The family‑name is Welsh, meaning the crest of a hill. At the age of fifteen he was admitted as a gentleman commoner at Christ Church College, at Oxford, where he made large acquisitions as a scholar, and was distinguished for his excellence in field‑sports and manly exercises. The instructions of Dr. John Owen, dean of Christ Church, gave him serious views of life; and he was deeply impressed by the preaching of the Quaker, Thomas Loe, an old Oxford student. Expelled from college for non‑conformity (1661), he was harshly treated by his father, who because of his strict life sent him to France with a party of young nobles and gentlemen to be cured of the same. Presented to Louis XIV., he was a great favorite at court, and added to his former accomplishments all the social graces for which the French capital was famed, while at the same time he was kept pure from vice. At Saumur he attended with great interest the. lectures of the Calvinistic theologian, MoYse Amyrault (q.v.). After a short stay in northern Italy, he returned to London in 1664, a good French scholar and a finished gentleman, and entered as a student of law at Lincoln's Inn. The great plague, which broke out a year afterward, gave his thoughts again a serious direction, and his father, to distract his mind, sent him to the gay and splendid vice‑regal court of the Duke of Or‑

Penn, William
Pentecost	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	460
mond, in Dublin. Forming a warm friendship for the duke's son, the earl of Arran, he joined him in an expedition to put down a mutiny at Carrickfergus, acquitting himself in the action with great courage. ‑He wished to accept a commission now offered him in the army, but his father was unwilling. The only certainly authentic portrait of Penn is one taken at this tune, representing him in a full suit of armor. Placed in charge of the family estates in Ireland, he showed great capacity for business. Being at Cork one day, he heard the preaching of his old friend, Thomas Loe, who began his discourse with these words: " There is a faith which overcomes the world, and there is a faith which is overcome by the world." Penn was so deeply moved that he renounced the world at once and forever, and spent the rest of his life as a devoted servant of Christ. Attaching himself to the Society of Friends, he suffered much from persecution. Imprisoned in 1667, for attending a religious meeting of his fellow worshipers in Cork, he wrote a letter to the Earl of Orrery, lord‑president of Munster, in which he said: " Though to dissent from a national system imposed by authority renders men heretics, yet I dare believe your lordship is better read in reason and theology than to subscribe a mfg so vulgar and untrue." The earl ordered his release; but his father, hearing that he had turned Quaker, sent for him, and he returned home. Observing that his son did not uncover his head when he came into his presence, the admiral demanded an explanation. William answered that he could uncover only to God, and not in homage to any man. " Not even to the king? " asked the father. The son asked an hour for consideration, and, after meditation and prayer, returned with #,he answer, °` Not even to the king." His father 4•as very angry, disowned him, and turned him out of doors.
However excessive his scruples may have been, the servility of that age made greater demands for such a protest than our franker and more manly times. At all events William Penn gave the fullest proof of his sincerity and Christian heroism. Never did a young man sacrifice more when he renounced the world. Enjoying the intimacy and the favor of the king, admired at court, handsome in person, graceful in manners, adorned with every manly accomplishment, expectant heir of a title of nobility (that of Lord Weymouth), which the king was ready to confer upon his father, he was entering upon life with the most brilliant promise of distinction and success. All this he gave up to meet persecution and scorn. Hardest of all, he was forced to disappoint the fond and ambitious hopes of his father. But he never wavered. I$s father, the admiral, was before his death (1670) reconciled to him, and advised him to keep his " plain way " of life and of preaching.
Penn holds a high place as a champion of English liberty and of universal toleration. Imprisoned in the Tower of London from Dec. 12, 1668, to the end of July, 1669, at the instance of the bishop of London, for publishing without license a tract entitled The Sandy Foundation Shaken, he sent word to his father, " My prison shall be my grave before I
will budge a jot; for I owe my conscience to no mortal man." In the Tower he wrote, No Cross, No Croon, the most widely read of all his works. He said, in a letter to the secretary of state, " What if I differ from some religious apprehensions? Am I therefore incompatible with human societies? I know not any unfit for political society, but those who maintain principles subversive of industry, justice, fidelity, and obedience." " It ought to satisfy the most rabid sectarian that he can forbid his rival a share of heaven, without also banishing him from the earth." These views he maintained in his after‑life, before kings and people, and defended them in speeches before the House of Commons and by his pen. He told Dr. Stillingfleet, sent by the king to endeavor to change his judgment, " whoever was in the wrong, those who used force for religion never could be in the right." He was released from the Tower by the king, through the intercession of the duke of York.
On Aug. 14, 1670, on going to the meeting at Grace‑church Street, London, he found the house guarded by a band of soldiers. Not permitted to enter, the Friends gathered about the door in silence, and held their meeting in the street. Penn preached, but was soon arrested by the constables, together with William Mead. Penn's bold assertion of the liberties of an Englishman, and the noble constancy of his jury in acquitting him against all the threats of the court, have made this trial ever memorable. Within three months he was again imprisoned for preaching. He traveled in Holland and Germany, preaching fidelity to the light of Christ in the soul; and with his courtly breeding (speaking also Dutch, German, French, and Italian) he mingled with the highest orders of society as well as with the lowly. The princess‑palatine of the Rhine, granddaughter of James I., sought his society, and confided to him the story of her religious conflicts and experiences.
From early years Penn had nourished dreams of a home for the oppressed in the wilds of America. Becoming connected with New Jersey, and one of the proprietors of East Jersey, he drew up liberal laws for the province, and many Friends migrated thither. In. 1681 he obtained from Charles II. a grant of the lands now constituting the states of Pennsylvania and Delaware, in satisfaction of a claim of his father's against the crown for sixteen thousand pounds, and became the greatest landowner in the world. The king insisted on prefixing " Penn " to the name of the principality, against Penn's protest. Here he had opportunity for his " holy experiment." He granted perfect toleration and the fullest liberty consistent with order; he treated the Indians with justice and generosity; and under his government the province grew rapidly, and flourished. He spent a great part of his large estates in England and Ireland for the aid of the settlers‑in fact, thirty thousand pounds more, he says, than he ever got from the province; and yet, with an excess of liberality, he refused to accept an impost on exports and imports which the Assembly voted him. He found it difficult to collect the moderate annual quit‑rents, which as feudal proprietor he was obliged to exact, and through the

451	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
		Peant
frauds of his steward he became for a time impoverished. But he recovered himself, and his second wife was an excellent manager. He made two visits (1682‑84; 1699‑1701) to his American possessions, but felt it his duty to live at the court of James II., interceding with the king for the release of all victims of religious or political persecution. Thfs he did with great effect. The king, to whose special care he had been entrusted by the dying admiral, was his faithful friend, and sometimes attended his meetings, and listened to his preaching. Penn did not conceal from him his liberal political views, but labored openly for the election to Parliament of the republican Algernon Sidney. On the accession of William of Orange, Penn was charged with being a papist, and plotting for the return of the Stuarts, for which he was several times arrested, and once thrown into prison. He succeeded at length in establishing his innocence, and was made a welcome visitor at their courts by William and Mary, and afterward Queen Anne, thus enjoying the personal friendship of five sovereigns of Great Britain. Six years before his death he was attacked with an 4poplectic disease, )3y which his mind was impaired, but not the sweetness of his temper, nor the joy of spiritual communion with his Lord. " Clouds lay upon his understanding," says Cope; " but the sun shone on his eternal prospects, and the long evening sky was clear and full of light."
He was twice married: 1. Gulielma Maria Springatt (1672‑1693‑94), who bore him three sons and four daughters; 2. Hannah Callowhill (16951696), who survived him, dying in 1726. She bore him two daughters and four sons. As an author Penn appears as a defender of the views of Fox and Barclay, a writer of sententious ethical precepts, an opponent of judicial oaths, an advocate of a Congress of Nations for the settlement of international disputes, and a champion of complete and universal religious liberty. Many of his books and pamphlets were translated into German, French, Dutch, and Welsh. Among the more important of them are, Truth Exalted (a defense of Quakerism, 1668); No Cross, No Crown (1670); The People's Ancient and Just Liberties asserted (1670); A Caveat Against Popery (1670); A Guide Mistaken (against J. Clapham's A Guide to True Religion, 1670); The Great Caw of Liberty of Conscience once more briefy debated, etc. (1670); A Treatise on Oaths (1675); England's Present Interest discovered, with Honour to the Princes, and Safety to the Kingdom (1675) ; The Continued Cry of the Oppressed for Justice (1675); A Letter to the Churches of Jesus throughout the World, A Call or Summons to Christendom (1677); A Persuasion to Moderation (1686); Good Advice to the Church of England, and Catholic and Protestant Dissenters, for the Abolition of the Penal Laws and Fasts (1687); A Key (elucidating the peculiar tenets and features of Quakerism); The New Athenians no Noble Bereans (1692); An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by the Establishment of a European Diet, Parliament, or Estates (1693); Fruits of Solitude (1693); Travels in Holland and Germany, anno 1677 (1694); Primitive Christianity Revived (1696); The Quaker a Christians (1698). An edition of his Works, with Life by Joseph Besse, appeared in 2
vole. (London, 1726), and his Select Works, ed. J. Fothergill (1771); in 5 vols. (1782) and 3 vole. (1825). W. J. MANNt.
BIHLzoa$Amy: The principal sources of knowledge are Penn's Journal; the publications of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, vole i ‑ix • and the life by Besse in the Works, ut sup. A good list of lesser authorities and seoondary materials is given at the end of the sketch in DNB, xliv. 311‑319. Consult: Mrs. C. Grant (a deeoendant), Quaker and Courtier. The Life and Work of iY. Penn, London and New York, 1908; J. Maratfse, 2 vole., Paris, 1791 T. Clarkson, 2 vols., London, 1813; M. L. Weems, Philadelphia, 1835; E. Lewis, Philadelphia, 1837; W. H. Dixon, London, 1856 new issue, New York, 1905; $. M. Janney, Philadelphia, 1852; J. Sparks, American Biography, vol. xii., Boston, 1852; C. Vincens, Paris, 1877; T. P. Cope, Passages from the Life and Writings of William Penn, Philadelphia, 1882; W. J. Mann, Reading, 1882 (in German); J. Stoughton, London, 1882 B Rhodes, Three Apostles of Quakerim, London, 1885• W. J. Buck, William Penn in America, Philadelphia, 1888; F. E. Cooks, London, 1899; A. C. Buell, William Penn as she Founder of Two Commonwealths, New York, 1904; C. E. Hewitt~ Spirit of Penn, ib. 1909. The British Museum Catalogue gives about ten pages to works by and on William Penn.
PENOLOGY. See PRISON REFORM.
PENRY (AP‑HENRY), JOHN: English Puritan and separatist; b. in the parish of Llangamarch, northern Brecknockshire, Wales, 1559; hanged in London May 29, 1593. He studied at Peterhouse, Cambridge, and at St. Alban's Hall, Oxford (B.A., Cambridge, 1584; M.A., Oxford, 1586). He is Said to have been brought up a Roman Catholic, but became an extreme Puritan at Cambridge; preached there and at Oxford with fervor and acceptance, although it is doubtful if he ever took orders. In 1587 he published at Oxford a plea for the better preaching of the Gospel in Wales; he criticized unsparingly the non‑residence and incompetency of the clergy and other abuses, was brought before the high commission court in consequence, and suffered an imprisonment of a few days. In 1588 he was at Moulsey, Surrey, connected with the surreptitious press from which the Marprelate tracts were issued. When the press was seized by the authorities at Manchester in Aug., 1589, he escaped to Scotland, was well received and protected by the clergy there, and remained till Sept., 1592, maintaining his attacks on the bishops. Returning to London he joined Johnson and Greenwood's congregation of separatists; was arrested as a suspicious character in Mar., 1593, brought to trial in May on a charge of inciting a rebellion, was found guilty on somewhat forced testimony, and executed at St. Thomas‑a‑Watering, Surrey. It is admitted that he was the chief agent in publishing the Marprelate tracts, and it is held by many that he was their principal author [though this distinction seems rather to belong to Henry Barrow (q.v.) A. H. N.]. His acknowledged writings are very similar in tone and manner.
BIBLIoaHAPHY: Besides the literature on the Marprelate Tracts (q.v.), consult: J. Waddington, John Penry the Pilgrim Martyr, London, 1854; C. H. and T. Cooper, Atheno Cantabripiensea, ii. 154‑158, London, 1861; H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, pp. 246‑252, New York, 1880; DNB, xliv. 346‑350. PENTATEUCH. See HExATEuCH.
PENTECOST: The name of two feasts, one Jewish and the other Christian, so called from their

Pentecost	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	452
Pepper
observance fifty days after the offering of the first
sheaves and after Easter respectively.
	Jewish: For the ancient Israelites Pentecost
was the second of their three pilgrimage festivals,
and formed a religious close for the harvest time,
so that it was called " the feast of harvest " in Ex.
xxiii. 16. More often, however, it was termed " the
feast of weeks " (Ex. xxxiv. 22; Dent. xvi. 10),
	since seven weeks were counted from the solemn
act of the opening of the harvest, the offering of the
	first sheaves, to the closing festival of thanksgiving.
	Like the offering of the first sheaves, this harvest
	festival, fifty days later, was to be held on the mor
row after the Sabbath (Lev. xxiii. 11, 15‑16), and
consequently on the first day of the week.	In
	Josephus' time, the offering of the first sheaves was
	fixed on the sixteenth day of Nisan; at a later
	period Pentecost was observed on the sixth of
Siwan, regardless of the day of the week.
	In Ex. xxiii. 16‑17 (cf. Ex. xxxiv. 22‑23) Pen
	tecost was counted among the three principal feasts
	on which every male must come to the place of
	worship. It was a joyful festival in which the poor,
	the Levites, and the strangers were not forgotten.
	A more definite idea of the celebration is gained
	from the regulations in Lev. xxiii. 15‑21; Num.
	xxviii. 26‑31. One of the principal offerings was
	that of two loaves, made of fine flour and leavened.
	This bread must be offered from " your habita
	tions " (Lev. xxiii. 17), i.e, from grain grown on
	the sacrificer's own land, since it was a symbolic
	offering of the whole community, like that of the
	first sheaves. Besides the bread, there was to be a
	burnt offering of seven lambs, one bullock, and two
	rams, as an accompaniment to the meat and drink
	offerings. One kid was also to be sacrificed as a sin
	offering, and two lambs as peace offerings; these
	latter were to be waved like the bread, and, like
	this leavened bread, did not belong to the altar,
but to the priests.
	Besides these sacrifices of the whole community,
	individuals brought voluntary offerings according
	to the size of their harvest (Dent. xvi. 10). The
	day was to be marked by Sabbath rest and festive
	assemblies (Lev. xxiii. 21; Num. xxviii. 26; Dent.
	xvi. 11). In later times, since the date of the Pass
	over, upon which that of Pentecost depended, could
	be known only after the appearance of the new
	moon, and as the news of this could not always
	reach the distant diaspora in time, a second holiday
	was added, so that all should celebrate at least one
day in common.
	Pentecost, which is mentioned only once in the
	historical books (II Chron. viii. 13), was originally
	an agrarian festival, a thanksgiving for the comple
	tion of the harvest: At a later period, however, a
	historical basis was ascribed to it. In Jubilees, vi. 17
	sqq., Noah is commanded to observe the feast as a
	memorial of the covenant made with him after the
	flood. A theory formed in Talmudic times, which
	was accepted by Maimonides (Morel Nebukim, iii.
	43) and gained general recognition, was that Pente
	cost was a memorial feast of the giving of the law
on Sinai.	(C. VON ORELLI.)
	II. Christian: Pentecost, the fiftieth day after
	Easter, is the third great annual Christian festival
and the last in the cycle of the festivals associated with our Lord. It appears to be not only essentially connected with the Hebrew feast of firstfruits by the historical event recorded in Acts ii., but the Christian festival of thanksgiving for the first‑fruits of the Spirit also corresponds to the Jewish festival of the first‑fruits of nature (Rom. viii. 23), a view advanced as early as Augustine. In Christian literature the name Pentecost originally signified the whole period of fifty days from the first Easter to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and was so understood by Tertullian, Origen, Basil the Great, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Ordo Romdnus, and other sources. During this time fasting was forbidden, prayer was offered standing, the theaters were closed and games were suspended in the circus, the book of Acts was read in the liturgy, and the Hallelujah was frequently sung.
The name Pentecost was first used in its restricted sense of the closing day of the fifty days' festival in the canons of the Council of Elvira, in 305, where the occasional custom of celebrating the feast of Pentecost on Ascension Day, the fortieth day after Easter, was forbidden as heretical. At an early date the feast of Pentecost became one of the most important in the calendar. Its vigil was soon observed with fasting, and became a favorite time for the administration of baptism. In like manner the entire octave of Pentecost came to be honored much as was the octave of Easter; but from the eighth century, in order to limit the number of holidays, this celebration was often abridged, so that it first ended on Thursday, then on Wednesday, and was finally confined to three days. In the Anglican and Lutheran Churches only the Monday and Tuesday in Whitsun Week are now ob
served. The name Whitsunday, frequently applied to Pentecost, is derived from the custom of wearing white garments at this festival. (0. Z6cx1.ERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Add to the pertinent literature for I. given under EASTER, FEASTS and FESTIVALS, and PAssovER, F. Hitaig 0stern and Pfingaten, Heidelberg, 1837; C. C. W. F. Blihr, Symbolik dea moaa%scheR Cultua, iii. 613 sqq., 645 sqq. Heidelberg, 1839; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, face. xxxi.. cola. 119‑123; JE, ix. 592‑595; DB, iii. 739‑742; BB, iii. 3649‑53 (these deal also with the feast in the N. T.). For IL: Bingham, Origises, XI., vi. 7, XIV., iii. 3, and especially XX., vi.; J. C. W. Augusti, Denkwurdigkeiten, ii. 343 Hqq., 384‑385, Leipsic, 1818; J. E. Riddle, Manual of Christian Ant4uitim, pp. 679 aqq., London, 1843• H. E. F. Guericke, Lehrbuch der christlich‑kirchlichen Archbologie, pp. 190‑196, Leipsie, 1847; N. Nilles, Kalen. darium manuale, ii. 279‑.280, 431‑432, Innsbruck, 1897; K. A. H. Kellner, Heortologie, pp. 72‑76, Freiburg, 1901.

PENTECOST, GEORGE FREDERICK: Presbyterian; b. at Albion, Ill., Sept. 23, 1841. He was
educated at Georgetown College, Georgetown, Ky., leaving college in 1862, before taking his degree, entering the Eighth Kentucky (Union) Cavalry as chaplain, and leaving the service in 1864 with the rank of captain. In 1864 he entered the Baptist ministry, and held pastorates at Greencastle, Ind.
(1864‑66), Evansville, Ind. (1866‑67), Covington, Ky. (1867‑68), Hanson Place Baptist Church, Brooklyn, N. Y. (1868‑71), and Warren Avenue Baptist Church, Boston (1871‑77); he was engaged in evangelistic work (187781), and in 1881 became pastor of Tompkins Avenue Congregational Church,

483
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Brooklyn, where he remained until 1887. He was then engaged in evangelistic work in Scotland in 188788 and as a missionary to English‑speaking Brahmans in India in 1889‑91; was minister of Marylebone Church, London, until 1897; was pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Yonkers, N. Y. (1897‑1902); and since 1902 has resumed evangelistic services. He became a member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1884, and in 1902‑04 was a special commissioner of that organization to the Philippines, China, Japan, and Korea. In theology he is a conservative Evangelical, and, besides his work as editor of Words and Weapons for Christian Workers, has written: The Angel in the Marble (Boston, 1876); In the Volume of the Book: or, The Profit and Pleasure of Bible Study (New York, 1876); A South Window: or, Keep Yourselves in. the Love of God (1876); Bible Studies (10 vols., New York, 1880‑89); Out of Egypt: Bible Readings on the Book of Exodus (London, 1884); Birth and Boyhood of Jesus (New York, 1896); Grace Abounding in the Forgiveness of Sins (1896); Systematic Beneficence (1897); Precious Truths (1898); The Coming of Age of America (Yonkers, N. Y., 1898); and Protestantism in the Philippines (Manila, 1903).

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE: A body formed in 1907‑08 by the union of several organizations of churches holding to the doctrine of entire sanctification as a work of grace distinct from and subsequent to justification. Independent holiness churches in New England associated themselves together as early as 1890. Subsequently a similar association was formed in New York and these were united in 1897 under the name " Association of Pentecostal Churches of America." In 1895 a body called "The Church of the Nazarene " was organized in Los Angeles, Cal. This, with similar congregations, resulted in an associar tion. In 1906, a delegation from the Eastern body attended a general assembly of the Church of the Nazarene in Los Angeles to propose the union of the two bodies. The general assembly, finding that the Church of the Nazarene and the Pentecostal Churches were " at one in doctrine, basis of church membership, general superintendency, basis of ownership of church property," and as to " Scriptural holiness," adopted resolutions in favor of the union of the two bodies. The merging was accomplished at Chicago, Ill., in Oct., 1907, and a manual adopted. There was a further union, in Oct., 1908, at Pilot Point, Texas, with the Holiness Church of Christ, a Southern body composed of churches in various southwestern States, some of which were organized as early as 1888. At the time of union this organization had about 100 churches, the other having about 130.
The manual contains a statement of belief in eight items, assent to which is required as a basis of church membership: the Trinity, the divinely inspired Bible, the fall of man, the eternal loss of the finally impenitent, the atonement of Christ, the entire sanctification of believers by faith subsequently to justification, the witness of the Spirit to justification and sanctification, the return of the
Pentecost Pepper
Lord, and the resurrection and final judgment. General rules, similar to those formulated by John Wesley, are set forth for the conduct of members. A chapter on special advices declares against the use of spirituous and fermented drinks and tobacco and membership in secret societies.
The polity provides for a general assembly and district assemblies. The general assembly elects general superintendents to hold office in the interim. They are to preside over the general assembly and over the district assemblies, arrange the assembly districts, ordain elders, appoint evangelists, and have general charge of the work of the Church. Licensed preachers, after having served as pastors, may be elected to elder's orders by district assemblies. Church boards arrange with ministers directly for the pastoral relation.
The Church has foreign missions in India, Japan, Cape Verde Islands, and Mexico, and home missions in various parts of the United States. It has a collegiate institute at North Scituate, R. I., doing preparatory work and giving theological training, the Deets Pacific Bible College, at Los Angeles, Cal., for Bible training, and a Bible Institute and Training School, at Pilot Point, Tex. It recommends to the patronage of its people the Texas Holiness University, Peniel, Tex., and the Arkansas Holiness College, Vilonia, Ark. As official organs of the church the Nazarene Messenger, Los Angeles, Cal., the Beulah Christian, Providence, R. I., and the Holiness Evangel, Pilot Point, Tex., are recognized. There were reported at the close of 1908, 575 ministers, 230 churches, and 12,000 members.
H. K. CARRoLL.

PENTIN, HERBERT: Church of England; b. at London Jan. 31, 1873. He received his education at Weymouth College (B.A., 1898; M.A., 1901); was made deacon in 1896 and priest in 1897; was curate of Chilvers‑Coton, Nuneaton, 1896‑99, and of Stratford‑on‑Avon, 1899‑1901; and has been vicar of Milton Abbey, Dorset, since 1901. He became fellow of the Royal Historical Society, 1895, and of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, 1904, and is a member of the Royal Asiatic Society. He is the founder of the International Society for Promoting the Study of the Apocrypha, has been its warden since its inception (1905), and is interested in antiquarian matters, having lectured on the subject extensively. His theological position is that of a loyal but liberal‑minded member of the Anglican Church, in full sympathy with reasonable but reverent, as opposed to rationalistic, criticism. He has edited or written: The First Book of the Acts (London, 1904); Deutero‑Canonica (1905‑06); Memorials of Old Dorset (1907); The Book of Judith (1908); Devotions from the Apocrypha (1909); Readings from the Apocrypha in Japanese (1910), and other works dealing with antiquarian subjects. He is general editor of Apocrypha in English Literature, and of the Apocrypha in English and Foreign Drama Series; and editor, since 1907, of the International Journal of Apocrypha.
PEPPER, GEORGE DANA BOARDMAN: Baptist; b. at Ware, Mass., Feb. 5, 1833. He was edu‑

Peresa
Peroival
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
464
cated at Amherst (A.B., 1857) and Newton Theological Institution (1860). In 1860 he was ordained to the ministry of his denomination; was pastor of the First Baptist Church, Waterville, Me. (18601865); professor of ecclesiastical history at Newton Theological Institution until 1867, and of systematic theology at Crozer Theological Seminary (1868‑82), and president of Colby University (1882‑89). In 1889 he resigned on account of failing health, and spent the next three years chiefly in travel; he was professor of Biblical literature at Colby University (1892‑1900), and retired in 1900. He has written Outlines of Theology (Upland, Pa., 1873).
PERNA.

Varied Use of Term (¢ 1). Inhabitants in Early Period (§ 2). Early History; Roads and Cities (4 3). Jewish Pea (§ 4). Non‑Jewish Perm Q 5).
Pereea is the Greek form for the Hebrew expression " (the land) beyond the Jordan." Inasmuch as the Hebrew expression took form west of the Jordan, it follows that the region referred to lay east of the river. The Greek word Peraia as first found in Polybius and Strabo is applied to the coast regions of Asia Minor; Josephus introduced it into Palestine and applied it to that part of the
region east of the Jordan which was z. Varied inhabited by Jews. Eusebius used the
Use of word in a more general way. The New‑
Term.	Testament reproduction of the Septua‑
gint rendering of the Hebrew "beyond the Jordan " (Mark iii. 8; Matt. iv. 25) refers to the more limited region. This article, however, deals with the larger area connoted by the word, viz., that from the Yarmuk to the boundaries of the Moabites in the district of Heshbon, a region closely connected with Hebrew history from the period of the settlement until the conquest by the Assyrians, and again in Maccabean times. For the natural features of the country see PALESTINE, II., § 12.
The name usually applied in the Old Testament is Gilead, originally belonging to a place and a mountain and then extended to the district. As given to a city, Gilead is found in Judges x. 17; Hos. vi. 8, xii. 11, for which the Septuagint sometimes uses Gilgal, located by Burckhardt at Jal'ad or Jal'ud three hours south of the Jabbok. The mountain of the name is probably the
modern Jebel Jal'ad, on the northern s. Inhabi‑ declivity of which the ruins are situated. tants in Probably Gen. xxxi. has reference to
Early	this mountain as the boundary between
Period.	Jacob (Israel) and Laban (Aram), and
Gilead is taken as compounded of the two Hebrew (and Aramaic) words for,' stone‑heap', and " witness," a popular etymology. The mention in Cant. iv. 1, vi. 5, implies that the mountain was used as a pasture land for goats. In the Old Testa, ment Gilead, meaning a region, is used in widely different senses. It may designate the entire land east of the Jordan (Gen. xxxvii. 25; Josh. xxii. 9; 11 Kings x. 33; Amos i. 3); sometimes a distinction is made between Gilead and Bashan (Josh. xiii. 11; IT Kings x. 33), and a third district is
sometimes added, viz. Jazer (IT Sam. xxiv. 5). At the entrance of the Hebrews this region was inhabited by the Ammonites, while immediately north of them dwelt Aramean tribes. Schumacher's discovery in the year 1900 of Bet Rihab, doubtless the Beth‑rehob of IT Sam. x. 6‑8, makes probable that Aram Zobah is to be sought east of the Jordan and in the eastern part of Gilead, a fact which explains the campaigns of both Saul and David. From IT Sam. x. 6, it is likely that the Land of Tob (cf. Judges xi. 3, 5) is to be placed in this region. That Gilead was anciently thickly inhabited by Arameans is clear. The " people of the east " of Gen. xxix. 1 must have been Arameans (cf. Gen. xxxi.). The Tsraelitic tribes settled here were Manasseh and Gad. The family of Jair (q.v.) had the northern part, that near the Jabbok; the family of Machir was settled southward of Jair, but probably at a later time owing to the campaign of Saul. These two families seem to compose the half‑tribe of Manasseh which inhabited Gilead, the rest of the Manassites dwelling in Argob and Bashan, and the family of Machir was doubtless the leading one (Josh. xvii. 1). The southern part of Gilead was inhabited by Gad (a tribe which in the genealogical scheme is not accredited with full blood but is derived from Zilpah the maid of Leah, Gen. xxx. 10). This is corroborated by the Moabite Stone (q.v.): " And the men of Gad occupied the land of Ataroth from of old, and the king of Israel built Ataroth for himself." The possessions of Gad were not clearly defined, especially toward the south, where those of Reuben joined them. TT Sam. xxiv. 5 uses the order Gad, Jazer, Gilead, as though Gad was on the extreme south; elsewhere the Jabbok is the northern boundary of Gad (Deut. iii. 16), while Mahanaim is also said to be the boundary between Manasseh and Gad (Josh. xiii. 24‑27). According to the delimitation indicated in Josh. xiii. 24‑27, 30‑31, the larger part of Gilead belonged to Gad, and in Judges v. 17 Gilead is used for Gad, while according to verse 14 Machir (Manasseh) had not settled in Gilead. In I Sam. xiii. 7 Gad and Gilead designate the region east of the Jordan, in Num. xxxii. 26 Gilead is the land of Reuben and Gad (cf. Deut. iii. 12). So that Jair and Machir inhabited the northern half of Gilead, and Reuben and Gad the southern half.
According to the preceding, therefore, Gilead, properly the name of a region (not of a tribe), denotes the districts of el‑Belka (south of the Nahr el‑Zerka) and 'Ajlun (northward to the Yarmuk). In early Hebrew times the name Gad was applied to the southern part; Josh. xiii. 24‑27 deals with the frontiers of the tribe Gad. Gilead was celebrated for its pasturage (Mic. vii. 14) and for its balsam (Jer. viii. 22). For Gilead Israel was often compelled to give battle. On the south dwelt the
3. Early Moabites, on the east the Ammonites,
History; and on the northeast the Arameans.
Roads and The conquests of Saul and David enCities. sured the possession to Israel for a long period. Between 900 and 780 B.C. it was often in the hands of the Syrians; Jeroboam reeonquered it, but in 733 B.C. it was taken by the Assyrians, though in Post‑exilic times Jews formed a part

455	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Parses
		Percival
of the population. Of the roads in Gilead not much
can yet be said. From Edrei (see BAsHAN) there
went a road to the Jordan; from El‑Muzeirib, the
old Astaroth, one led to the west shore of the Sea of
Tiberias; two roads from north to south follow in
part the watersheds. Of the cities but little is
known. Concerning Camon (Judges x. 5)*see JAIR.
Of Jabesh (I Sam. xi.) no certain traces have yet
been found. Thisbe, the home of Elijah, is prob
ably to be located at the ruins of Lisdib south of
the Wadi Yabis, near which is a hill which bears his
name, while the wadi itself sometimes has his name.
The name Mahanaim (Josh. xiii. 26) is perhaps
preserved in the village Milme, an hour north
of Listib.	Complete uneertainty attaches to the
site of Mispeh, the home of Jephthah and an
ancient sanctuary (Judges xi. 11). Judas Mac
cabeeus captured and burned it about 164. De
pending upon Gen. xxxi. 49, xxxii. 2‑3, it has
been sought north of Mahanaim; it has also been
identified with Ramath‑mizpeh in Gad (Josh. xiii.
26) and with the Levitical city of Ramoth in Gilead
(Josh. xxi. 38). Schumacher discovered a Ma!~fa
northwest of Jerash, a name which reproduces the
Hebrew name. In the neighborhood a Ramath is
to be placed (Josh. xiii. 26) which is to be differen
tiated from the Ramah of'II Kings viii. 29 and the
Ramoth‑gilead of i Kings iv. 13. Eusebius placed
it fifteen Roman miles west of Philadelphia, (Rab
bath Ammon), but in all probability mistakenly.
The Zaphon of Josh. xiii. 27 is explained in the Tal
mud by 'Amato, the modern Tell 'Amate, not far
from the Jordan. Succoth (Gen. xxxiii. 27) is given
in the Talmud as Tar'ala, which corresponds to the
modern Tell Deir Alla on the lower Nahr el‑Zerka.
The site of Penuel (Gen. xxxii. 31) is uncertain.
Jogbehah (Judges vii. 11) is found in the ruins of
Ajbeihat near the sources of the Zerka. The Amor
itic city of Jaazer (Num. xxi. 32), later belonging
to Gad (Josh. xiii. 25), and in a region noted for
its wine (Isa. xvi. 8‑9), is located by Eusebius ten
Romalt miles west from Philadelphia and fifteen
from Heshbon on a brook flowing into the Jordan,
possibly the modern Khirbet Zar.
	The second period of the attachment of this re
gion to the Hebrews was brought about through
the Maccabees. At the beginning, according to
I Mace. v. 9‑54, Judas removed the Jews then living
in Gilead to Judea as his brother Simon did with
those living in Galilee, and no thought was then
entertained of permanent conquest of trans‑Jor
			danic territory. Fifty years later John
	4. Jewish Hyrcanus conquered Medaba in the
		Pertea.	old Moabitic region, and Alexander
			Jannaeus determined to add Gilead to
his realm. The control of the Seleucidae had been
loosened, and the land was partly in control of
Greek cities like Gadara, Pella, etc., and partly under
remnants of the Moabites and Ammonites, while
other parts were attached to the realm of Demetrius
of Gamala and Theodore of Amathus. In numerous
campaigns Alexander Janna;us succeeded in sub
duing the whole district, except Philadelphia, and
judaized it (see HASMoNEANB). But when in 63
B.c. Pompey " freed " large portions of Syria from
Jewish dominions, they reverted to their old relig‑
ious preferences. But the region of Peram after the time of Pompey remained attached to the Jewish realm (for its area and boundaries at that time cf. Josephus, Wars, III., iii. 3). The eastern boundary is closely fixed by Josephus (Ant., XX., i. 1), who relates that there was a strife between the Jews of Pera;a and the Philadelphians over the boundary of Mia, identified in the OnomaWcon as Zia, fifteen Roman miles west of Philadelphia.
The rest of Persea fell to the " free " cities, probgbly united with the permission of Pompey to the Decapolis. In this region were Gadara, Abila, Pella, Dium, Gerasa, and Philadelphia. For Philadelphia see AmmoNrrES. Gadara is the modern Mukeis, an hour south of the hot springs in the valley of the Yarmuk, on an elevated ridge. According to its coins, its era was reckoned from the time of Pompey, 64‑63 B.e. About
5. Non‑ 30 B.c. Augustus granted it to Herod,
Jewish at whose death it regained its inde‑
	Perma.	pendence under Roman protection. It
		controlled the district north to Hippo,
and that northwest to Tiberias and Scythopolis,
thus touching the Sea of Galilee.	Gerasa corre
sponds to the modern Jerash, the ruins of which
comprise a heathen temple, two theaters, a basilica,
a mausoleum, etc. Abila is given in an inscription
of the time of Hadrian as belonging to the Decapolia
(CIO, no. 4501). Pella is placed by the Onomasticon
six Roman miles from Jabeah, and is possibly indi
cated by the ruins of Tabakat Fahil, the name given
to it in the Talmud. Pella seems to have taken its
name from the Macedonian Pella; it was the refuge'
of the Christians of Jerusalem during the siege of
that city. Dium is located by Ptolemy to the east
of Pella. Gadara, metropolis of Jewish Peraea (Jo
sephus, War, IV., vii. 3) is the modern al‑Salt. Tell
`Amate on the Jordan marks the site of the old
fortress Amathus taken by Alexander Jannaeus. The
noteworthy ruins `Arak al‑Emir in the upper Wadi al
Z,it mark the site of the fortress of the Hyrcanus whose
doings are related in Josephus, Ant., XII., iv. 11. At
the foot of the highlands of Jericho is Tell Nimrin,
which corresponds to Beth‑nimrah of Num. xxxii. 36.
Tell al‑Rameh is the Bethramphtha of Josephus,
the Beth‑Haram of Josh. xiii. 27, and the Beth‑haran
of Num. xxxii. 36. 	(H. GUTHE.)
BIBLZaa8APHY: A. Reland, Palaatina, pp. 103 eqq., Utrecht, 1714; A. Neubauer, La Gdopraphie de Talmud, Paris, 1868; $. Merrill, Bas! of the Jordan, London, 1881; L. Oliphant, The Land of Gilead, New York, 1881; C. R. Conder, t?Rh and Moab, London, 1883; idem, The Survey of Eastern Palestine, vol. i., ib. 1889; G. Schumacher, Acrosa the Jordan, ib. 1886 (contains G. Le Strange, A Ride through 'Aylun and the Belka during the Autumn of 188.¢); idem, Pella, ib. 1888; idem, Abila of the Decapolia, ib. 1889; idem, Northern 'Ajlun, ib. 1890; idem, in ZDPV, xviii., 1895, xaiv., 1901; SehUrer, Oeachichte, vols. i. ii., Eng. tranal., I., i., II., i.; G. Clermont‑Gannesu, iudes d'archbolopie orientate, pp. 139 sqq., Paris, 1897; DB, iii. 743‑744; EB, ii. 1729; JE, ix. 595.
PERATE. See OPHITEt3.
PERCIVAL, JOHN: Church of England bishop of Hereford; b. at Brough (36 m. s.e. of Carlisle), Westmoreland, Sept. 27; 1834. He was educated at Queen's College, Oxford (B.A., 1858; fellow, 1858‑63); was ordered deacon in 1860 and ordained priest in the following year; was headmaster of

Pereira
Pergamos
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
456
Clifton College (1862‑78), president of Trinity College, Oxford (1878‑87); and headmaster of Rugby School (1887‑95); examining chaplain to the bishop of Exeter (1869‑82), and to the bishop of London (1884‑86); prebendary of Exeter (18711882); canon of Bristol (1882,87); select preacher at Oxford in 1882 and 1888. In 1895 he was consecrated bishop of Hereford.
PEREIRA DE FIGUEIREDO, ANTONIO: B. at Macao (85 m. n.e. of Lisbon) Feb. 14, 1725; d. at Lisbon Aug. 14, 1797. He was educated by the Jesuits at VillarVigosa, and entered the society of the Fathers of the Oratory; he devoted himself to art and literature, and attracted much attention by his Exereicios da lingua Latina a Portugueza (Lisbon, 1751‑52) and his Novo methodo da grammatica Latina (1752‑53). In the contest between Don Joz6 I. and the ultramontanist party, he threw himself with violence on the royal side; wrote Doctrina veteris ecclesia (1765), Tentativa theologica (1766; French transl., Lyons, 1772; Eng. transl., Episcopal Rights and Ultramontane Usurpations, London, 1847). He was a protagonist of Pombal in his contention for the supremacy of the State over ecclesiastical persons and property; was appointed a member of the board of censors, 1768; counselor of foreign affairs and war, 1769; retired from his order in the same year; became minister of public instruction, 1772; and soon after a member of the Portuguese Academy‑of Science, and dean in 1792. The list of his works numbers 169. He translated the entire Bible into Portuguese with introduction and notes (23 vols., Lisbon, 1778‑90). The translation is circulated by the British and Foreign Bible Society (London, 1819, 1821) and the American Bible Society (New York, 1857).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. C. F. Hoofer, Nouvelle biopraphie gWrale, xxxix. 572, 46 vole., Paris, 1852‑66; %L, ix. 1805‑07;
Lichtenberger, EBR, x. 455‑456.
PERFECTION: In the widest sense of the term, realization of the ideal harmony of the phenomenon v =th its ideal expression. Within the sphere of religion and morality it is that purity and potency of divine fellowship and human activity which evokes the full approbation of the religious and moral conscience. At the same time, genuine perfection must be distinguished from the lower grade of subjection to the law, such as was possessed by Paul while still a Pharisee (Gal. i. 14; Phil. il1i. 6). In Greek philosophy the Stoic system, followed here by Cicero, distinguished between the morality of the virtuous sage, who had attained perfection through the suppression of all passion, and the average morality practised by the masses. Rabbinical literature made a threefold ethical division into perfect, ordinary, and deficient morality, the criterion being the degree in which each individual concerned fulfilled the law. Jewish concepts such as those just noted were carried over into the early Church, and a twofold standard of perfection arose, as is shown not only by the Didache, but also by the De opere et eleemosynis of Cyprian and the De ofciis cleric corum of Ambrose. The process was aided by the rise of monasticism, which came to be regarded as the type of perfection, with its exaltation of celibacy and asceticism. Augustine, on the other hand,
maintained that grace is necessary to perfection, and that, since sinlessness is impossible on earth, perfection can be realized only in the life to come.
The typical medieval doctrine of perfection was developed by Thomas Aquinas (Summa, II., ii., quastio 184). He accepted the distinction between " beginners, progressing, and perfect," and he delimited earthly perfection as compared both with the perfection of God and that of those made perfect. The highest perfection attainable by the " beginners " and those " progressing " is that which excludes both the mortal sins which oppose love of God, and also all that hinders the soul from turning entirely to God. Thus the condition of perfection was found in monasticism, although Thomas held that ascetic practises were only a means to an end. But while the laity can, and must, reach a certain stage of perfection, the highest is attained through a " spiritual augment." For the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church see PERFECTIONISM.
Protestantism, proceeding from the theory that ethical conduct is evidenced in love of one's neighbor, denied all value to asceticism and rejected the distinction between clerical and lay perfection, maintaining that it was equally possible of attainment by all (cf. Augsburg Confession, xxvii.). At the same time, Protestant dogmatic theologians emphasized the imperfection of the utmost holiness possible on earth, though with the rise of pietism was involved a marked tendency to seek absolute perfection.
From the time of the primitive Church perfection and sinlessness have been identified (I John i. 9). The Gnostics, influenced by Platonic and Stoic philosophy, ascribed perfection to the Pneumatics (q.v.), and Anabaptists likewise claimed to be able to attain perfection. Similar views are held by many Methodists. While, however, the concept of perfection is essential to Christian ethics (cf. Matt. v. 48; Col. iii. 14), perfection and sinlessness are not to be equated (cf. I John iii. 6, 9 with i. 10). John, in the passages just noted, implies simply that sinful activity as such is not included in the regenerated personality, even though the fleshly nature may still sin in defiance of the vital impulses of the child of God. Adherents of the teaching of perfection are apt to take a superficial view which passively measures perfection by the absence of faults, and neglects the active discharge of virtuous obligations, these evils being intensified by a failure to recognize personal faults since such recognition would stultify the claims made to perfection.
Perfection is not a universal Christian predicate, as is shown by Paul's distinction between children and perfect, between carnal and spiritual (I Cor. ii. 6, iii. 1, xiv. 20; Eph. iv. 13‑14). Discipleship and its moral authentication are clearly differentiated by Christ himself (Matt. vii. 21 sqq., xxv. 34 sqq.; John xv. 2 sqq.), who also represents the life of faith as a process of development (Luke xix. 12 sqq.; John viii. 31, etc.). The same position is held in apostolic teaching (Eph. iv. 13‑14; Col. i. 28; II Tim. iii. 17). Paul sees Christian perfection in love (I Cor. xiii.; Col. iii. 12‑14); and the same position is maintained in the Gospels, where per‑

46'7	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pereira
		Pergamos
fection, analogous to that of the Heavenly Father,
is made to consist in free, unselfish, and independ
ent love (Matt. v. 44 aqq.). From his disciples
Christ expected self‑sacrificing and unselfish love
(John xiii. 12 sqq., 34‑35, xv. 12 sqq.); and in
like manner John taught that the divine love re
vealed in Christ was realized where brotherly love
was manifested in deeds, not in mere words. James
found perfection of faith displayed in deeds, the
working out of the perfect law of liberty and of the
Golden Rule, and in love to one's neighbor (James
i. 25, ii. 8). The feeling of imperfection is a neces
sary part of Christian practise, and Paul himself
condemned the excesses of the perfective theory
(Phil. iii. 12‑15), since to him perfection in its com
plete sense belonged to the life to come (I Con xiii.
10). See PERFECTIONISM.	(L. LEMME.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the literature in and under PRR
	FEen0HIsM.
	PERFECTIONISM: The doctrine which teaches
a possibility or actuality of freedom from sin in the
present life. Calvinists and Lutherans deny any
perfection in this life; the theory is, however, ad
vocated in other branches of the Church. (1) Ro
man Catholics teach that in some cases by a special
privilege of God one who is justified may avoid all
sins. He may even offer an obedience beyond the
demands of the law (cf. Canons and Decrees of the
Council of Trent, sess. vi., chap. xi., and can. 23,
25, given in Schaff, Creeds, ii. 100‑102, 115). (2)
Wesleyan Arminians teach a perfection which is
not angelic, Adamic, or absolute, but relative, i.e.,
" according to the special economy introduced by
the atonement, in which the heart, being sanctified,
fulfils the law by love." " The highest perfection,"
says Wesley, " which man can attain while the soul
dwells in the body does not exclude ignorance and
error and a thousand infirmities." The cause of
this perfection is variously conceived, as due, e.g.,
to repression of unholy thoughts and desires (R. S.
Foster, Christian Purity, New York, 1869), to erad
ication of unchristian dispositions (A. Lowrey, Pos
s"itie8 of Grace, New York, 1884), to maturity of
grace and holiness, to be distinguished from the
fulness of glory of the redeemed in heaven (J. Miley,
Systematic Theology, 2 vols., New York, 1892‑94).
(3) Friends teach that, in the case of the justified,
" the body of death and sin comes to be crucified
and removed, and their hearts united, and subjected
unto the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion or
temptation of the Evil One, but to be free from
actual sinning, and transgressing the law of God,
and in that respect perfect. Yet doth this perfec
tion 'still admit of a growth; there remaineth a
possibility of sinning where the mind doth not most
diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord "
(" Confession of the Society of Friends," prop. viii.;
cf. Schaff, Creeds, iii. 974‑975). (4) The Oberlin
school (A. Mahan, Scripture Doctrine of Perfection,
Boston, 1839; C. G. Finney, Systematic Theology,
Oberlin, 1878; cf. J. H. Fairchild, Elements of The
ology, ib. 1892) teaches that " as virtue and sin
belong only to voluntary action, and are contra
dictory in their nature, they can not coexist in the
soul. The beginning of the Christian life is entire
obedience. Every lapse into sin involves, for the
time, an entire interruption of obedience. The
promises of God and the provisions of the Gospel are
such that, when fully and continually embraced,
they enable the believer to live a life of uninter
rupted obedience‑an attainment. which may be
properly encouraged and expected in the present
life." (5) In addition to the above are scattered
groups of Christians, either members of or offshoots
from several denominations who advocate entire
holiness or sanctification or perfection in this life.
In such persons this theory is commonly associated
with an impossible psychology of moral action, and
with defective ethical standards, and those who
claim to have attained to this singular virtue are
often characterized by an exaggerated individual
ism, a loose antinomianism, and by unsocial con
duct even though dwelling in communities. See
CoMMmvIsM, II., 8. 	C. A. BEcgwrra.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the literature named in the text consult: S. J. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 815, New York, 1896 (Roman Catholic); C. Hodge Systematic Theology, iii. 245, New York, 1873 (Presbyterian); W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ii. 551. New York, 1889 (Presbyterian). The following are principally from the Methodist standpoint: J. Wesley, Works, vi. 483531, New York, n.d.; J. Fletcher, Works, ii. 491‑889, New York, 1833; W. Bates, Spiritual Perfection Unfolded, London, 1848; S. A. Franklin. Critical Review of Wesleyan Perfection, Cincinnati, 1857; J. A. Wood, Per fed Love, Boston, 1862• J. T. Crane, Holiness the Birthright of All God's Children, New York, 1874; D. Steele, Love Enthroned: Essays on Evangelical Perfection, New York, 1875; idem, Defence of Christian Perfection, ib., 1899; A. Hovey, Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life Compared with the Teaching of the Holy Scriptures, Boston, 1876; P. T. Forsyth, Chrietian Perfection, new ed., London, 1909.
PERFECTIORIISTS. See CoMMuNIsM, II., 8.
PERGAMOS: A city of Mysia in Asia Minor, the modern Bergamah, situated on, the river Selinus, which flows through the city and is a tributary of the Caicus, which last, being navigable, gives access to the tEgean Sea, twenty‑two and a half miles away. The ancient city was connected by road with Adramyttion to the north, Sardis to the southeast, and Ephesus to the south. According to tradition, the place was founded by Telephus, the son of Heracles, or by Asclepias.. It was an obscure place till Lysimachus, one of Alexander's generals, chose it as the repository of his treasure. Philetaerus, the guardian of the treasure, made himself independent 283 B.C., and inaugurated the continuous policy of the city which involved favor to the Romans in their eastern conflicts. This course met reward from the Romans in the gift of all Asia Minor west of the Taurus, and thus the city became the capital of a powerful kingdom. In 133 B.C. the direct line lapsed, the last king, Attalus III. Philometor, bequeathing the kingdom to the Romans, who made of it the province of Asia. The city long retained its eminence, so that Pliny could speak of it as " by far the most distinguished in Asia." But it declined under the Byzantine dominion. It gave its name to parchment (charts Pergamea), which was one of its chief manufactures, and its library, said to consist of 200,000 volumes, went to Alexandria by gift from Antony to Cleopatra. For the Biblical relations see Asuk MINOR, IV.

Periooye	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	4'58
Meaning of the Term (4 1).
Scripture Reading in the Early Church (¢ 2).
Series of Lections not Fixed (§ 3).
Indications of the Liturgies (¢ 4).
Early Eastern and Western Lectionaries (¢ 5).
The Comes as a Lectionary ($ 8).
PERICOPE, pe‑rie'o‑pe.

Early Western Pericope System (¢ 7).
Evidences of Orderly Planning (§ 8).
Effects of Use of Latin in Worship ($ 9).
Roman Catholics and Early Lutherans
(4 10.
Luther's Position; its Consequences (§ 11).
Pericope, a word not found in Biblical Greek, means in ordinary Greek a short passage. Justin Martyr cites as pericopes Isa. xlii. 5‑13; Jer. xi.
19, and other like short sections (Try‑
:. Meaning pho, chaps. lxv., lxxii., etc.). Clement of the of Alexandria (Strom., III., iv., VIL, Term. xiv.) so uses the word; Origen (Hom.
xix. on Jer. xx. 1‑6) applies the word to a selection of Scripture read in worship by appointment, and further divides the whole text into pericopes, so that a Scriptural lesson may have several pericopes. Later teachers of the Church use the word in the sense of a passage or selection of Scripture. But among neither Greeks nor Latins did the word become a liturgical term; even yet the Greeks call the prescribed lessons from Scripture anagnoseis or anagnoamata, the Latins lectiones epistolo; et evangelica. The use of " pericope " to denominate set Scriptural lessons‑the " epistle and Gospel " of the early Church‑is (German) Protestant and dates from the sixteenth century (cf. the work of Brenz, Pericopce evangeliorum expoaito:, 1566). In theological literature the word has its general signification, only in the modern period has it the sense of prescribed Scriptural lessons.
The development of what " pericope " stands for depends upon the lectionaries, and these upon the practise of reading Scripture in the early Church.
In the uncertainty which attaches to z. Scripture the early history of liturgies and lee‑
Reading in tionaries (see EvANGELIARIUM; LrrURthe Early Gics), one must depend upon incidental
Church. notices. I Tim. iv. 13 refers not to
Timothy's private reading, but to his activity for the congregation in the reading of the Scriptures (of the Old Testament). Col. iv. 16 and Rev. i. 3 refer to other passages which are to be authoritative for the community. A passage in the liturgy of James mentions the reading forth of holy words of the old covenant and the prophets, but speaks of the exposition of the incarnation, the passion, etc., during divine worship. Here there is a distinction between reading before the congregation and instruction; the Old Testament is read, the New is set forth. But Justin Martyr (1 Apol., 1xvii.) speaks of reading also from the New Testament at divine worship on Sunday, using the words " memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets." Tertullian's expression (Hwr., xxxvi.): " (The Church)‑ unites the law and the prophets in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles," makes in the same direction as showing an authoritative source of Christian teaching. From the practises involved in the foregoing the custom of reading from the Old and the New Testament de‑
Anglican System ($ 12). Defense and Attack on the Continent (§ 13). Historical Conclusidna (§ 14). German Revisions ($ 15). Theory of the Pericope (§ 18). Suggestions for a Lectionary (¢ 17). The Anglican Readings (§ 18).
veloped. From the East there is the testimony of Cyril of Jerusalem (" Catechetical Lectures," iv. 35; the Scriptures " which we read openly in the Church "), Apostolic Constitutions (VIII., v. 5), and Basil (Hom. xiii. on Baptism); and for the West Ambrose (Epist., xxii. 2) and Augustine (Sermon xxix. 1)‑sll of these implying the reading of Scripture at divine service. Heaping up of testimony is unnecessary. Probably in Justin's time the church at Rome had its prescribed readings from both Testaments; the later Roman Church had its " epistle and Gospel." But custom varied, even in the same church (cf. Augustine, Sermon xlv.). A completed and fixed system of lessons one may not yet assume (cf. Justin's expression, " as long as time permits," 1 Apol., lxvii., showing that definite length was not yet prescribed). On the other hand, Chrysostom (" On Lazarus," iii. 1; and also his Hom. on John x. 1) urges his hearers to read in advance the selections which will be read before them at worship; and his Hem. lvii. 1 further implies a fixed series of lessons recurring year after year. The fact that in certain seasons of the year definite Biblical books furnished the readings in divine service is established. In some ecclesiastical districts during Quadragesima Genesis was the book read (cf. Chrysostom in his seventh " pillar homily "); it is probable that the homilies of Basil on the Hexaemeron were delivered in the fasting‑season, when daily sermons were delivered. Possibly Genesis was chosen because in some parts of the Greek Church the church‑year began in spring. Another book which served as the basis for selections in the fasting‑season was Job (cf. Origen on Job, at the beginning; Ambrose, Epist. ad Marcellum, xx. 19; possibly here belongs the beginning of the homily ascribed to Chrysostom, which implies a yearly return to that book as the source of lections). A third book used in this way was Jonah (Ambrose, Epist. ad MarcelLum, xx. 25: " according to custom, the lesson will be from Jonah "; in a Gallican lectionary given by Mabillon Jonah i. is the reading for Holy Saturday; in the Mozarabic Liturgy [q.v.] the entire book is so set). In some communities it was the practise between Easter and Whitsuntide to read from the Acts, a practise to which Augustine testifies (Tract. 6 on John xviii.).
But the reading of such books was not so definitely settled as to prescribe fast‑fixed excerpts. In this respect the sixty‑seven homilies of, Chrysostom on Genesis are instructive. The first thirtytwo deal with Gen. i‑xii.; in the thirty‑third the author says that the series has been interrupted by the coming of the celebration (of passion week), and then follow the thirty‑five other homilies on selected portions of the book. That is to say, the

469	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pwicoys
reading in course of Genesis was interrupted by the passion season; it appears that special seasons had their appropriate lessons (Chrysoatom, Cur. in
Pentec. . . , in Princ. Ad., Hom. iv.;
3. Series of Augustine on I John); Aug‑tine Lections speaks of the " order of the lections,"
	not Fixed.	the indispensable history of the celebra
		tion, and the free choice of the preacher.
Augustine says further (Hom. ccci., chap. 1) that
" on the day of the resurrection, according to cus
tom, there are readings taken from all the books of
the holy Gospel," and a closer description of these
readings is found in Hom. cexxxii., chap. 1. Still,
the order given there is not absolutely binding, and
he himself made changes‑to the discomfort of
some who had not heard what they were accus
tomed to hear. The preacher ~ had a certain inde
pendence over the reading, this being in the inter
est of his discourse or in view of congregational
needs (Augustine, Sermon ccclxii.). The first at
tempt, at least for a diocese, to fix definite readings
for a part of the year was in Gaul in the middle of
the fifth century. Gennadius (De scriptoribus ecde
siasticas, lxxix.) reports that Musa'us of Marseilles
excerpted from the Scriptures readings for the year
suited to the days celebrated. The second comes
from the present Clermont, where Bishop Apol
linaris Sidonius reports in an epitaph of a certain
Claudianus that he prepared lections for the annual
celebrations. Both these were, however, only for
special seasons, not the whole year. The Lediono
rium Gallicanum (MPL, lxxii.) belongs to a later
period and to Burgundy. For the same period
there is known a Greek lectionary. But in general,
so far as present knowledge goes, the reading in
course never extended, in this early period, to the
whole Scriptures; yet the custom was gradually
becoming fixed of reading certain passages or from
certain books at certain seasons, though the choice
was not yet narrowly limited.
The liturgies confirm the conclusions reached. Yet it must be confessed that the liturgies them‑
selves offer a difficult problem as to 4. indica‑ origin and age, worked over and altions of the tered as they have been, some bearing Liturgies. celebrated names which are supposititious or unreal so far as authorship goes. The Syrian edition of the Liturgy of St. James names the reading from Paul and the Gospel. The Armenian Liturgy mentions prophetical, apostolic, and Gospel readings. That of the Coptic Jacobites omits the Old‑Testament lection, but has two from the epistles, one from the Acts, and one from the Gospel, and the Ethioplc liturgy agrees with this. The Nestorian Liturgy for Ascension Day has lections from TI Con, Acts, I Tim., and Luke. Renaudot (Liturgiarum orientalium eouedio, ii. 61‑62, Paris, 1716) notes that among the Syrians the Scriptures were read in Syriac with an interpretation in Arabic following; the interpretation of the Gospel was twofold, literal and paraphrastic. This last confirms what appeared from the sermons of the Church Fathers, that the sermon pericopes developed from the lections, and that entire freedom was not the fact. For indexes and indications of just what selections were chosen for certain times the libraries
of churches and monasteries in the East must be searched; but the lections of the East and the perioope system of the West are not interworked. The Evangelarium Hierosolymitanum was apparently completed 1030, but probably depends upon a collection of readings much older. The lectionary is in Syriac,, and was for the use of the Melchites; it begins with Easter; the lessons till Whitsuntide are from John, those till September 11 (feast of the cross) from Matthew, from then till Septuagesima from Luke, and after that fro& Mark with selections from the other Gospels. A second lectionary, Palestinian‑Synac, has among the epistolary selections many from Old‑Testament books and from Acts, while a sort of series appears for the sixteen Sundays before Christmas.
The lections of the present Greek Church reach back into the Middle Ages. A distinction is made between aynaxarion and menologion, the former corresponding broadly to " church year," the latter to the calendar called in Roman usage De sandis. Synaxarion may also mean exposition of
5. Early the lives of saints and martyrs (see Eastern and ACTA MARTYRUM, etc., II., § 1). Al‑
	Western	latius describes among the books of
Lectionaries. the Greek Church the lectionary, then
		the Evangehum, the latter adapted for
use on certain days and festivals (De libris eccleaim
Grwca, dissertatio 1), and the Sundays take the
name from the lection, as also the week preceding
that Sunday. The partition of the Gospels among
the church seasons resembles that of the Evangelia
rium Hierosolymitanum (ut sup.; cf. F. A. H.
Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the
N. T., pp. 74 sqq., London, 1894). Another lec
tionary is named~by Allatius as inferior in dignity,
named by some Apostolos because in great part it is
taken from the Pauline writings, by others Prax
apostolm because it contains also readings from
Acts. The third book contains selections from the
Old Testament fitted to the days of the year, and
is called Anagnosmata or Anagnowia (see § 1 above).
The Greek Church has a second series of lections,
for days of saints and martyrs, contained in the
Menaion or Menologion (qq.v.), corresponding to the
Proprium missarum de eandis of the Roman missal.
Some lectionaries of the Western Church have dis
tinct interest as being the predecessors of the les
sons or pericopes. Some of these, as they have
come down, are of early date‑pre‑Carolingian
like the two Gallican lectionaries found at Luxeuil
and Bobbio (in MPL, lxxii.). Others, like the
Mozarabic and the Milan forms, had their begin
nings in the early period, though their present form
is that developed in the Middle Ages. The oldest
is the Liber comicus (ed. G. Morin, in Anecdota
Maredsolana, vol. i., Oxford, 1893 sqq.), the form
of which is of the sixth century, being threefold,
Old Testament, epistle, and Gospel, covering Ad
vent to Whitsuntide, special festivals, and twenty
two Sunday readings. Morin makes it Carthagin
ian. This is the region of the Mozarabic form (see
MozARABic LrruROY), which has much in common
with Liber comicus and . also many divergencies.
These western lectionaries are distinguished from
the Greek by emphasis upon Advent.

Perioo"	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	480
In the history of the (German) pericope system it is to be remembered that Luther retained the epistle and Gospel selections used before the Reformation on Sundays and festivals. There are also remains of a medieval lectionary which
6. The is most probably derived from that inComes as a troduced into the Frankish realm by
Lectionary. the founders of that kingdom, which was superseded by the later national church lectionaries. Present opinion is that Jerome was not the compiler, as the prologue (or title) states (cf. E. Ranke, Das kirchliche Pericopensystem, appendix III., Berlin, 1847). Morin (Revue BEn6dictine, 1890, pp. 416 sqq.) suspects that Victor of Capua was the compiler for Bishop Constantius of Aquino. The book is interesting as teaching what is meant by the term Comes which is so frequently met in this relation. The word occurs in the title of this book and in the preface; it appears also as marking a special collection alongside " codices, Gospels, the Apostolum, and the Psalter," and clearly means a collection of " heavenly readings," and not merely an index with the data of day, place in Scripture, and extent. Thus the Liber comicus was a comes, containing as it did the selections in full. The same conclusion is reached through the Comes Albini corrected for Charlemagne, the copyist of which notes that the Comes is in many hands, but mostly in defective form; for this reason the king had Alcuin correct it, and the copyist, having made a correct exemplar, hopes that it will be kept in that shape by following transcribers. The word comes, " companion," arose from the book's being used at the service, for which it was designed, private use being only secondary. The clerics used it at the altar since the sacramentary did not contain the lections. From such a " comes," indeed from a lectionary which may be called " the comes," are the early ecclesiastical (German) pericopes derived. But this source lies in several differing recensions ‑the Comes Albini, Comes Theotinchi, Liber Comitis secundum Pamelii codices expressus, and Leotianarius misso; juxta ritum eccbesice Roman. While these do not go back of the age of Charlemagne, they embody older lectionaries, indeed the preCarolingian Roman lectionary is their root. Present pericopes embody epistle and Gospel, as did the Roman mass. With this agrees the Sacramentarium Gregorianum (MPL, lxxviii.). Two lections to the mass is the rule with the complete recensions of the comes. . The comes has more selections simply because Luther lopped off many occasions of special service.
With the exception of Milan, which retained the old lectionary with the old mass, and some Spanish churches which retained the Mozarabic liturgy, the Western Church had an essentially
	y. Early	identical pericope system, not derived
	Western	immediately from the needs of the
	Pericope	medieval period but from the past
	System.	usage of the church at Rome. Whether
		it goes back to Gregory the Great or
his time is uncertain, though in his time a system
of lections was in use (of. the preface to Gregory's
forty homilies on the Gospels). The medieval ex
positors also give no clue. The Advent group of
pericopes find explanation in the construction of Isidore of Seville, that the Advent refers first to the birth of Christ and then to his coming in a wider sense. The epistles are selected from a like point of view. The Gospels of Christmastide are self‑explanatory; the Gospel of the flight into Egypt and of the slaughter of the innocents fall on the days which precede the Gospel of the Epiphany; also, since the second part of the narrative precedes the first, it is indicated that the first pericope is not to be regarded as the continuation of the others. With Jan. 6, called in the comes " Theophany " and in the homiliarium " Epiphany," a new point of view comes in‑the revelation of the glory of Jesus.
It is not sought here to show how every epistolacy and Gospel pericope has been set for its day, but merely to illustrate that, choosing the fasting season par excellence, certain groups re8. Evidences veal a definite orderliness and plan. A
	of Orderly	double point of view.comes into sight
	Planning.	‑preparation for the passion and the
		resurrection, and the discipline of fast
ing. It can not be said that the Gospels for the
fasting‑season have exclusive reference to the fast
ing and penitential discipline of catechumens, for
in Quinquagesima the thought is directed to the
passion (Luke xviii. 31‑43) and in Quadragesima
in the sixteenth century some places read on the
first or second Sunday the transfiguration instead
of the temptation. Other points of anticipation of
the period of the passion might be cited. The sec
ond point of view, the discipline of fasting, appears
in other Gospel pericopes of this period. For this
reason the history of the temptation is placed at
the beginning of Quadragesima (Gregory the Great,
Hom. on the Gospels, xvi., clap. 5); the two follow
ing Sunday pericopes deal with expulsion of demons.
It is not improbable that the purpose of these se
lections was, by calling attention to the attacks
and power of the devil, to urge the faithful to fast
ing, almsgiving, and prayer (cf. Augustine, Sermon
ccm, chap. 6). The epistolary pericopes bear out
this construction and so fall into the general scheme.
The examples cited show that they were selected
with due care, and that the point of view involved
is in part still available, though also in part obso
lete. It is not improbable that other portions of
the collections of readings, the plan of which is not
now perceptible, were not put together at haphaz
ard. In the Homiliarium the Gospels for the Trin
ity period are in four groups: after Pentecost, after
June 29, after Aug. 10, and after Sept. 29. In the
second section, which is that of Peter and Paul, on
the first Sunday was read the call of Peter, and on
following Sundays addresses and commissions of
Jesus to his disciples. While this last construction
is only hypothetical, if it is true, it shows purpose
within certain groups.
In the West during the centuries in which the pericope system developed, a second transformation occurred which had the highest importance for the reading of Scripture as lessons in worship. The language of the service ceased to be intelligible to the people. The high opinion of the lection held in the early Church is easily shown: the lector

461	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Pericope
was a prophet for whom was besought at ordination the Holy Ghost, and the prophetical gift (Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 22). Augustine de‑
clares (Sermon clxx., chap. 1) that the g. Effects lections hang together because all pro‑
of Use of ceed from one mouth, not that of the
Latin in minister, but of him who 'fills the
Worship. reader's mouth. The lection so highly
valued in the early Church became in the Middle Ages worthless to the congregation because it was in Latin. Then came the demand for the sermon in a tongue intelligible to the worshipers, and later this became a fixed custom. It is a question, however, how far in the early part of the Middle Ages the lection was made understandable to the people. Walafrid (q.v.) indicates (De exordio, vii.) that this was done among the Goths, and Xneas Sylvius reports (Historia Bohemica, chap. xiii.) a like practise among the Slavs which seems to dead with the lections. John VIII. directed in 880 that the Gospel be read in Latin and afterward translated. Lingard (History and Antiquities of the Anglo‑Saxon Church, i. 307, London, 1845) reports the rendering of epistle, Gospel, and sermon in the vernacular, and this is confirmed by the Evangelarium of Cuthbert (ed. W. W. Skeat, Oxford, 18711887), in which the Latin text is accompanied by an Anglo‑Saxon interpretation; which may have been meant to assist in making the lesson intelligible to the people. According to Harduin (Concilia, vi. 1, p. 783) it was desired of priests that they be able to read well the epistle and Gospel and to give the sense. The second item here refers to the sermon, which was then in part the rendering of the pericopes into the vernacular or the paraphrasing of them. Many preachers prefixed an interpretation of the pericope. After the rise of printing came the "plenaries " (see PLENARY), the forerunners of which were in England manuscripts containing the Gospels and epistles for the church year. The printed plenaries (cf. J. Alzog, Die deutschen Plenarien, Freiburg, 1874) contained much more matter, e.g., translation of the liturgy, sermon, epistle, and Gospel, aiming to give to those unskilled in Latin knowledge of the service (cf. preface to the plenary printed at Basel, 1516). But the Church held fast to the reading of the pericopes in Latin. The Hussite delegates to Basel in vain sought permission to use in the vernacular the Gospel, epistle, and Apostles' Creed.
The fact that demand for the use of the vernacular came from the opponents was more influential with the later papal theologians than the interest in instructing the people. So Clichtoveus (Propugnaculum eeelesia contra Lutheranos, book i., chap.
4, 1526) gives expression to the fear io. Roman that the laity would wrest Scripture to
Catholics their own hurt, though that, the lections
and Early be made intelligible is not forbidden.
Lutherans. This was the tenor of the conclusions of
the Council of Trent, but the lectionary was reN ised. Hence, in spite of their common origin, the Evangelical pericope system and the Roman do not coincide, though the differences are not great, some lections having fallen out of the Evangelical system because the observances at which
they were read have lapsed, because transpositions have been made, additions have been interpolated, or new sections substituted. When Luther first took up the improvement of the church service, for the sake of scholars he desired to retain the Latin mass and consequently the Latin lections, though later he was not unwilling to permit the use of other languages in worship; for the congregation he wished the lection in the vernacular. Probably his Bible translation was made with this in view, though direct proof of it is not forthcoming. He was also aware of the defects of the existing pericopes. In the Formula missce Luther distinguishes between the selections for the Gospel and the epistle, regarding the former as much better chosen than the latter. In fact the epistle is usually chosen from the hortatory portion of the book from which it is taken. From this Luther proceeded to express the necessity for reform, and pronounced judgments upon individual lections showing the erroneous views of the authority which had chosen them, in other cases, however, admitting the suitability of the readings. Accordingly, numerous instances can be pointed out in which the choice of the Reformer has resulted in a betterment of the selection read. In some cases, while the lection was retained, new sections were added to those already in use. It can be alleged that a new choice altogether would have been better in some of these instances, such as that between Easter and Whitsuntide the significance of the period might be noted and instruction given respecting the resurrection from the dead by using I Cor. xv.
In order rightly to understand Luther's position with regard to pericopes and the system, distinction must be made between lections and sermon texts.
So far as the existing pericopes served ii. Luther's as selections for reading, he would Position; its have set them aside or at least rad‑
Conse‑ ically revised them, though as a ser‑
quences. monic basis he retained them‑with
improvements, though he was not a decided advocate of the prescribed text pericopes. As early as 1523 he had no objection to the preacher using in the morning the usual Gospel and in the afternoon the epistle, but thought that the preacher might use one or two books which seemed to him most useful. Indeed, in the Deutsche Mease of 1526 he disclaimed criticism of particular matters of this sort. Preaching along the lines of the pericopes he recognized as having its own rights; but as he himself preached a great number of sermons in series, it is clear that he preferred to expound books in successive sermons rather than to preach on the pericopes. If the lectionary, from which the Sunday and festival pericopes were only in small part taken, had been used, at least by the clergy, in its completeness (supposing that they performed their duty conscientiously), then it was as a whole completely lost by a singular proposal by means of which Luther would introduce a sort of serial readings while avoiding monotony. For week‑days he set a series of readings for worship: on Monday and Tuesday the catechism, on Wednesday the Gospel of Matthew, on Saturday the Gospel of John, on Thursday and Friday the daily lectiona for the week

Bertoove	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	462
in the epistles and other New‑Testament matter. A remainder of this infelicitous arrangement has in some places continued till the present in the usage of reading weekly a chapter of some Biblical book in series. Unfortunately, the projected lectionary was not provided by Luther or by any other, but through the church orders the traditional Sunday and festival readings were placed in authority, though sometimes with improvements. This was the case with the Brunswick church order of 1528 and the agenda of Pomerania of 1568. There were demands for more of Scripture in the Sunday service than the old lections afforded, and this was provided for in the Brandenburg‑Nuremberg church order of 1533 and that of W ilirttemberg of 1536. Provision was made for sermons on whole books alongside those from the Sunday Gospel, and the Pomeranian agenda provided for sermons on the most useful books of the Bible. In general, however, in the chief service the old pericopes remained the principal basis. To this end not merely need and pedagogical considerations led, confessional reasons had their influence. Carlstadt in 1522 retained the mass as a concession to the weak in faith, and so introit, epistle, and Gospel were still used. Thomas Mower declared in 1523 in favor of entire chapters in place of the epistle and Gospel. In Switzerland abolition of the pericopes had been begun; in Zurich Zwingfi preached upon whole books‑Matthew, Acts, I and II Timothy, Galatians, Peter, Hebrews, and in 1525 he began Genesis; Bullinger, in the course of his first twelve years, preached on nearly all the books of the Bible. Official abrogation of the pericopes may not be cited, but practically they had fallen out of use; this was the case with Calvin.
In the Anglican Church the lection and pericope system had a singular development. A sort of forerunner was the Reformatio eccleaiarum Hassim (1526), which directs reading through the Old Tes‑
tament at morning service and through ra. Anglican the New at evening service. But this
System. work was never introduced and may
have been unknown to the compilers of the Anglican liturgy. Another pattern was the lection system in the reconstruction of Franciscus Quignonius (1536), which sets out to read through Scripture in the year and the Psalms once a month. The first edition of the Book of Common Prayer (Introduction, " Concerning the Service of the Church," with notes reproduced in J. H. Blunt, Annotated Book of Common Prayer, pp. 100‑101, New York, 1908) remarks upon the decay of the early system of reading Scripture and the use of the Latin. Its new system follows mainly the Latin translation of 1549; each day has morning and evening service, at each of which a selection from each Testament is read, the Biblical books being read in course (e.$„ on Jan. 2, morning, Gen. i. is read, evening, Gen. u.; the, New Testament is so divided that at morning service Gospels and Acts are read, at evening the epistles), except Chronicles, Canticles, and part of Leviticus; during Oct. 5‑Nov. 27 readings are from the Apocrypha. The New Testament, except Revelation, is read through three times a year, and Psalms once a month, so that a complete break is here made with the strict
pericope system. In the calendar nearly all the saints' days disappear, though the old Sunday terminology is retained with the related pericopes. The later editions have besides for Sundays and festivals special lections, mostly from the Old Testament; the alterations in these later issues follow the same principle‑to read much of Scripture and to retain at least as readings the old pericopes. See further, J 18 below.
On the continent the question of retention or abolition of the traditional pericopea developed into a confessional controversy. Westphal proposed to Calvin in the sacramental 13. Defense controversy that the pericopes be and Attack sanctioned as sermonic basis, and Cal‑
on the vin replied with an attack upon them Continent. (Defeneto 11 contra Westphalu‑), the one ground for their retention being their convenience for the preacher. The Lutherans entered the battle as defenders, though they were not blind to the defects of the pericopes; they could not dispense with the system while looking to the interests of the congregation, which to a great extent the pericopes served. The preachers needed helps, and collections of sermons on the pericopes existed; the postilla: (see PosTiL) were in great use by preachers. The Lutherans were demanding that preaching should deal with the necessary truths of salvation, a result, they thought, better obtained by dealing with selections than with whole books; so the Lutheran sermon brought about affection for the old pericope (of. Simon Saccus, Erkldrung caber die Sonntagsevmngelien, 1599). The very repetition, it was urged, brought about the better instruction of the hearer. Calvin's attack upon the pericope system and Saccus' defense of the same contain practically all that can be said against and for it. Among Lutherans, Luther's free position regarding it was forgotten. Habermann began his sermon on the pericope for the fourth Sunday in Advent with the remark that the teachers of the early Church were led, not aimlessly or thoughtlessly, but for weighty causes, to read that text on that day. Yet Spener regretted the restriction of the preacher which the use of the pericopes had brought about, such that often essentials had to be dragged in as if by the hair. A growing opposition developed among Lutherans. Mosheim (Anwetaung erbaulich zu predigen, Erlangen, 1771) noted that the pericopea furnished only a partial basis, and that often not the most seemly. Indeed, many prominent teachers wished that the established custom with respect to these miE ‑t be abolished. Mosheim pointed, in addition, to the danger to the form of the sermon inherent in the system‑the preacher is likely, when bound to certain texts, to mold his discourses in a certain manner; the text is often repeated, yet the sermon must be changed. Reinhard notes that the consequence is to awaken and sharpen inventiveness. Herder opposed the system, though with no new arguments (Revision der Laturgie, 1787); yet he thought the reading of the Gospel necessary on account of the peasantry, for whom it provided a means of instruction while it also served as a sort of calendar; the enlarging of the lections, he argued, opened up a wider field for a richer teaching

463	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Perioope
of doctrine. While these objections were founded upon considerations of usefulness, difficulty, or limitations in the pericopes, the rationalistic party objected on account of the contents of the readings; they regarded them as the legacy of the darkest Middle Ages, of which only few were considered as worthy while the rest fostered superstition cc offended good taste or committed some other offense. To this the defense was weak and practically yielded the case (C. Harms, Pastoraltheolo*, lecture 6, Kiel, 1830).
These conclusions rested upon personal experiences, practical and doctrinal considerations, and subjective impressions. Little attention was paid
to the question of origins; even Mos‑
r4. His‑ heim was satisfied with the most gen‑
torical eral results. Ernst Ranke was the first Conclusions. to approach the subject from this side
(Das kirchliche Perikopenaystem aus den dlteaten Urkkunden der ramischen Liturgie, Berlin, 1847), and reached the conclusion that, apart from some lections for the chief festivals, a great part of the pericopes were set for purposes, days, feasts, and actions which have fallen into disuse or even into oblivion, that they belonged to a church year which coincided only in part with our own. Then came to consciousness what might have been learned from Luther, that from the old pericopes only fragments had been retained for the Lutheran service. Schleiermacher (Praktische Theologie, . 137, Berlin, 1850) followed this up by assertingthat no special wisdom underlay the system. But this opposition had for long no results, it did not reach the congregations in its effects. Moreover, the lections, especially the Gospels, had become established as an essential part of the cultus, were more than what Herder called " a calendar." They had become a sort of Bible for laymen, containing a great store of necessary and priceless truths made living through the serial preaching upon them. The very sparsity of instruction in the schools aided to render the hold of the system upon the people abiding. The Ulm church order of 1747 directed the use of the Gospel for sermonic basis on Sundays and other celebrations, and ordered the reading of the epistle, proclaiming the utility for the congregation of instruction depending from certain known recurring texts, and asserting that in them was afforded opportunity sufficient for the true teacher.
The development in Germany was somewhat as follows. In Brunswick‑Liineburg in 1765 in the village churches preaching was permitted alternately on epistle and Gospel; in Hanover, 1769, the
old pericopes in revised form together r5. German with Biblical lectures upon short in‑
Revisions. structive selections from the canonical
books became the order. Since 1876 four new series, for the afternoon service, have been introduced. The Baden‑Durlach order of 1793 favors free choice of texts, but does not approve entire abandonment of the pericopes, while advancing a plan for newly selected texts from the Old Testament, epistle, and Gospel; the church year is abandoned. Since 1881 there have been in Baden two series of Gospels and two of epistles, the first in each being a revision of the old pericopes. In
Weimar three new series were introduced, the old Gospel remained as reading. selection, the fourth year witnessed the use of the old pericope system of epistle and Gospel. In Nassau the system of Heydenreich is recommended, the third and fourth series containing dogmatic texts for teaching. In Saxony in 1810 a new series of texts came into‑ use; since 1890 there has been a fourfold series of perieopes, the first and second the old pericopes revised; there are two series of lections in place of the old epistle and Gospel ‑$hen these are used as sermonic basis. In Wurttemberg in 1830 and 1894 a second and third series of pericopes covering each a year were introduced. Bavaria has permitted the use of the series compiled by Thomasius, and the course of readings covers four years. In the Bavar rian Palatinate there is a four‑year course; Gospel, freely chosen texts, epistle, and a new series of pericopes furnish the textual basis. In Prussia, for the older provinces, for epistle and Gospel first come the old pericopes, then a new series, including selections from the Old Testament; in the Rhine province the old system alternates with a new series, with a year upon the Old Testament for the minor services. In 1897 in Mecklenburg‑Schwerin selections from the four Gospels practically displaced the old Gospel for reading, which is retained for preaching texts. The efforts of the German Evangelical Church Conference (1896) through its commission were directed toward a revision of the old pericopes, selection of a series of readings from the Old Testament for the church year, the fixing of a series setting forth the sufferings and death of Jesus, the setting up of a second series of epistles and Gospels parallel to the old system. The results have not led to a general acceptance, and the matter is still in flux, conditions in different parts changing the situation with reference to adoption of the new series.
	The course of the development of the sermon has
been away from treatment of whole books of Scrip
ture‑indeed, the intrusion of festivals always hin
dered this. The necessities of the congregation led
to the insertion of other selections, and this was the
		beginning of pericopes. Strictly serial
16. Theory preaching would be in fact abrogation of the of church festivals. Even for the pePericope. riods when special observances do not occur all books of Scripture are not wholly suitable; there must be selection of books in any case. Then, where the custom obtains of preaching not on any one book in series but on individual selections, shall the preacher have the choice or be restricted to pericopes? Existence of a series of pericopes does not protect the congregation from arbitrariness or other vagaries of the preacher; if so disposed, he will treat pericopes as he would his own selections. Determining factors here are the relation of the preacher to the congregation, of the latter to the denomination, of this to the Church at large, of the last to Scripture, and of Scripture to the truths of salvation. What is to be brought out in worship is the distinctive character of Christianity, then of the denomination. With this would fit well a prescribed recurring order of pericopes, chosen with fitness for this purpose.

Perl°°ne
Perowne	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	484
While the old system is but a fragment of a lost whole, related originally to what is no longer in existence, and suffering from special faults, it has one great advantage in that it contains indispensable selections setting forth the person, life, and work of the Lord Jesus. A new system must contain or parallel these, conserving variation and incitement for the preacher, but not changing the essentials. Especially in the epistle is there room for improvement. If in the pericopes the choice is restricted to the New Testament, the series can hardly cover more than two years; if in the epistle the really choice parts are in the first series, the second can be little more than supplementary.
The Reformed churches vary in practise as to possession of a lection system alongside the text. German Lutheran and union congregations have an independent lection system. This is regarded as a necessity for the life of the congregation, because of the importance for it of the iy. Sugges‑ Bible; this requires not merely sermon tions for a texts but independent lections. When Lectionary. the sermon pericopes are derived from the New Testament, the Old Testament falls out of use in case the lection is missing. A requirement of the lection is that it have inherent significance, since the difference between this and the text is that the latter is explained in the discourse while the lection has to speak for itself. To install a lectionary which shall meet the demands implied in all that precedes is a task the Protestant Church should no longer defer. In doing this the experiences of the past should be utilized, especially the fact that the serial reading of the Bible has not maintained itself. Indeed, this sort of reading is based upon a wrong principle, inasmuch as all books of the Bible are not equally suited for the edificar tion of the congregation, which last is one aim of the Church in its reading of Scripture. On this account the Church will install pericopes, that is, a fixed and obligatory system of lections. This will meet the needs of the congregation in that it will represent the great things of God and will minister to personal Christianity. Both these ends are provided for in the church year, the former in the special celebrations, the latter in the ordinary Sundays. Appropriateness in these two directions is consequently to be sought in the pericopes; moreover, both Testaments are to be represented; but in this department the Psalms are to be at best only slightly used. In the lection God speaks to the congregation; the Psalms are largely prayers ‑the address of the congregation to God, therefore unsuitable for lections proper. For the lections read at special celebrations of the Church the Old Testament is not a source. The spirit of these is foreign to the Old Testament, hence a full year's course of readings can not be derived from that part of the Bible. Yet in the periods which are the preparation for particular observances, such as the Advent season and passion week, passages from the prophets are appropriate; similarly, when the catechism is the basis of the service, and the Decalogue, e.g., is under review, passages from the Old Testament are seasonable. So single passages from Revelation, like the letters to the seven churches, and
other parts having an eschatological bearing, are
available. And, finally, the wording, for example,
of the. introduction to the reading is to be so looked
after that abruptness and infelicities shall be
avoided. 	(W. CASPARL)
	The portions of Scripture selected and appointed
for reading in the congregation in the Anglican
		prayer‑books fall first under two heads
	:8. The	‑those appointed for the service of
	Anglican	the Eucharist or the Holy Communion,
	Readings.	and those appointed for the daily
		services of morning and evening prayer.
The former corresponds with the Latin missal, the
latter with the breviary. In the former there are
always read two passages, one from the epistles and
one from the Gospels. In the latter there are, be
side the appointed portion of the psalter (so ar
ranged that the whole shall ordinarily be recited
in every month), a lesson from the Old Tes
tament and a lesson from the New Testament.
The epistle and Gospel at Holy Communion are se
lected as specially appropriate to the season, holy
day, or occasion. The epistles and Gospels for Sun
days and holy days in the prayer‑book follow the
arrangement of the fifth century given in the comes
more closely than does the present Roman use.
The general principle of the selection seems to be
this. In the earlier half of the Christian year, from
Advent to Trinity, the appointed Gospels set before
the people declarations or illustrations of the great
facts of the creed commemorated at the different
seasons, and the epistle is adapted to the Gospel
or to the season. In the second half of the year,
from Trinity to Advent, the epistles take the lead,
with teaching concerning the Christian life, which
the Gospels for the most part serve to illustrate.
	At morning and evening prayer the Old‑ and
New‑Testament lessons for Sundays and holy days
follow the same general rule of appropriateness to
the season or special commemoration, while on
week‑days the readings are in course, providing for
the reading through of the greater part of the Old
Testament once in each year, and of the New Tes
tament twice. In this way an attempt is made to
familiarize the people with the whole of the Scrip
tures, safeguarding them from the narrow prefer
ences of the individual minister, while on the other
hand he is not bound in sermons to confine himself
to the Scriptures appointed to be read in the
congregation. 	A. C. A. HALL.
BIBIZOQRAPHY: A long list of printed editions of lectionaries in Greek, Latin, English, and polyglot, with commentaries, etc., is given in the British Museum Catalogue. under " Bible," columns 1018‑30, and Appendix, columns 404‑110. Special note may be made of Evan• gelardum Hierowlymitanum, ed. M. Erizzo, Verona, 18611884; Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, and Palestinian Syriac Lectionary or the Gospels, ed. A. S. Lewis and M. D. Gibson, London, 1897‑‑99. For description of lectionariee consult: F. H. A. Scrivener, Introduction to Criticism of N. T., i. 74‑77, ii. 413‑414 (i. 80‑87 gives the table of lessons for the year. in the Greek synaxaria), London, 1894; C. R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., pp. 384‑393, New York, 1907; idem, Prolegomena, u. 887, Leipsic, 1890 (discussion and catalogue of manuscript lectionaries). Consult further: J. Goar, Euchologium, pp. 711 eqq., Paris, 1847; E. Ranks, Rritisehe Zuaammenstellunfl der . . . neuen Perikovenkreiae, Berlin, 1850; H. A. Daniel, Codex liturgieus, iv.. 213 sqq.. Halls, 1855; w. Benham, Companion to the Leetionary, London,

465	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	perioope
		Perowne
	1884; B. Wohlfahrt, Perikopen• and Textbuch, Gotha,
	1888; J. L. Kibbon, in Hartford Seminary Record, iii.
	(1892‑93). 292‑295; P. Batiffol, Hid. du brbuiare romaine,
	Paris, 1893; P. Savi, in Revue biblique internationals, ii
	(1893), 303‑328; C. J. Ellicott, in Expositor, 1898, pp.
	241‑253; Siona, axii (1897), 5‑11; F. Wiegand, Das
	Homiliarium %arla der Groasen, Leipsic, 1897; A. C A.
	Hall, Use of Holy Scripture in the Public Worship of the
	Church, New York, 1903; F. Procter and W. H. Frere,
	New Hint. of the Book of Common Prayer, London, 1905;
	S. Beissel, Enestehunp der Perikopen des rtmiachen Mess
	buchea, Freiburg, 1907.
	PERIODEUTZ (Gk. " travelers, visitors "):
Presbyters appointed in the Eastern Church to aid
the bishops in rural districts. They were first es
tablished by the Phrygian Synod of Laodicea (c.
350), which enacted that no bishops should be ap
pointed for the country regions, but that the perco
deutce should be subject to episcopal jurisdiction.
This ruling. was adopted in the Corpus jurie canon=,
chap. v., dist. 80; and as the periodeutas was de
signed to replace the Chorepiscopus (q.v.), the two
orders, though distinct, had much in common.
The periodeutce had no fixed residence and could
not ordain, but were empowered to dedicate bap
tistries and churches, administer chrism, and super
vise the regular and secular clergy. Their preroga
tives varied widely at different times and places.
The office seems to have survived in the East till
the end of the twelfth century, outliving that of
chorepiscopus, with which, as with that of Exareh
(q.v.), it was often identified.	(H. ACHELIs.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Orepinm II., mv. 12; J. S.
	Aa=_emani, Bibliothxa orienialis, iii. 2, pp. 829 sqq•, Rome,
	1728; and older literature noted in Hauck‑Hersog, RE,
	xv. 159.
	PERITRACHELION. See VEsTMENT$ AND IN
SIGNIA, ECCLESIASTICAL.
	PERITZ, ISMAR JOHN: Methodist Episcopa
lian; b. at Breslau, Germany, Jan. 8, 1863. He is
of Jewish origin, but in 1880, while in Berlin, be
came a convert to Christianity. He then went to
London, where he entered the Church of England.
Three years later he was called to New York City
to engage in mission work. Meanwhile, he had be
come a Methodist Episcopalian, and, after studying
for the ministry of that denomination at Drew The
ological Seminary (1884‑87), held various pastor
ates until 1895. He pursued advanced studies in
Semitics at Harvard from 1892 to 1895 (A.M., 1893;
Ph.D., 1898), and since 1896 has been professor of
Semitic languages and Biblical literature at Syracuse
University, Syracuse, N. Y. In theology he is con
servatively progressive, standing midway between
the traditional and radical extremes.
	PERIZZITES. See CANA", CANAANrrEs, § 10.
	PERKINS, JUSTIN: American missionary in
Persia; b. at West Springfield, Mass., Mar. 12, 1805;
d. at Chicopee, Mass., Dec. 31, 1869. He was grad
uated at Amherst College, 1829; studied at Andover
Theological Seminary, and in 1833 was sent by the
American Board to the Nestorians in Persia. He
established himself at Oroomiah (1834), and for
thirty‑six years conducted the mission. He trans
lated the Bible into modern Syriac, and also other
books. In 1842 he made a tour through the United
States, accompanied by Mar Yohanan, an early
		VIII.‑30
convert, who had been a Nestorian bishop. In 1843 at Teheran he successfully defended the Protestants against misrepresentation and persecution. He wrote: A Residence of Eight Years in Persia among the Nestorian Christians (Andover, 1843); DJw&wnary Life in Persia (Boston, 1861).

PERKINS, WILLIAM: B. at Marston Jabet in Warwickshire, Eng., in 1558; entered Christ's College, Cambridge, 1577; was chosen fellow of the same in 1582; entered the ministry, and was appointed lecturer at Great St. Andrews, Cambridge. He married in 1590. Ile was called before the High Commission for inquiry as to his participation with Cartwright in the Puritan movement. He seems, however, to have taken little interest in ecclesiastical affairs, but was a High Calvinist and scholastic. He was a powerful preacher. Fuller says, " He would pronounce the word `damn ' with such an emphasis as left a doleful echo in his auditor' ears a good while after." He was an extreme Calvinist in doctrine. His Armilla aurea, published in 1590 at Cambridge, stirred up Arminius to reply in 1602, and had a great deal to do in bringing on the Arminian controversy, on the continent as well as in England: His catechism, entitled The Foundation of Christian Religion into Six Principles (1592, London, 12mo), made its influence felt in numberless Puritan catechisms in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. ‑ He wrote a large number of books and tracts, the most of which were collected, and published in three volumes folio, Cambridge, 1603, London, 1606. He died in 1602. C. A. BnIOOS.
Brsraoaasmy: C. H. and T. Cooper, Athenoi Cantabripienees, ii. 335‑341. London, 1861; F. L. Colvi7e, Worthies of Warwickshire, pp. 573678, ib. 1870; W. H. Frere, The English Church (1658‑IB25), pp. 343‑345, ib. 1904; DNB, XIV. 8‑9.
PEROWNE, JOHN JAMES STEWART: Church of England bishop; b. at Burdwan (60 m. n.n.w. of Calcutta), Bengal, India, Mar. 13, 1823; d. at Southwick, near Tewkesbury, Gloucester, Nov. 6, 1904. He was educated at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (B.A., 1845; M.A., 1848; B.D., 1856; members' prize Latin essay, 1844, 1846, 1847; and Tyrwhitt Hebrew scholar, 1848). He was ordained deacon, 1847, and priest, 1848; was examiner for classical tripos, 1851‑52; select preacher to the university, 1853, 1861, 1873, 1876, 1879, and 1882; vice‑principal of St. David's College, Lampeter, 1862‑72; .examining chaplain to the bishop of Norwich, 1865‑78; prebendary of St. Andrew's, and canon of Llandaff Cathedral, 1869‑78; prelector in theology in Trinity College, Cambridge, 1872‑78; fellow of Trinity College, 1873‑75; Hulsean professor of divinity, 1875‑78. In 1868 he was Hulsean lecturer; in 1874‑75, Margaret preacher; in 18741876, Whitehall preacher. He was a member of the Old‑Testament company of Bible revisers, 1870‑84, and of the royal commission on ecclesiastical courts, 1881‑83. In 1875 he was appointed honorary chaplain to the queen; in 1878, dean of Peterborough; and in 1890 he became bishop of Worcester, but retired in 1901. He was the author of The Book of Psalms, a New Translation, with Notes, Critical and Exegetical (2 vols., London, 1864; 9th ed., 1898);
Immortality (Hulsean Lectures for 1868; 1869);

Perpetua
Persecution	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	466
Sermons (1873, 1889); and The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1887, 1899). He was general editor of The Cambridge Bible for Schools (Cambridge, 1877 sqq.; New York, 1879 eqq.), of which Haggai and Zecharjah (1888), Obadiah and Jonah (1889), and Malachi (1890) were his own.
PERPETUA, SAINT: North African martyr; b. about 180; d. at Carthage Mar. 7, 202 or 203. The historicity of her martyrdom is confirmed by the Depositio martyrum of the Liberian chronicle of 354, Tertullian (De anima, Iv.), and the Latin Passw se. Perpetute et sociorum, which are essentially authentic (ed. T. Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta, Regensburg, 1859, pp. 137‑146). The latter source contains a wealth of historically interesting details. While essentially Montanistic in spirit, its author, who can not have been, as some have maintained, Tertullian, had not broken with the Church.
Perpetua and her fellow martyrs were among the first victims of the persecution of Septimius Severus (q.v.), coming under the scope of the edict of 202, which forbade conversion to Judaism or Christianity under heavy penalties. According to the Passio, she and three of her companions were catechumens. The Governor Hilarianus condemned them all indiscriminately to fight with the wild beasts in the amphitheater for treason in refusing to sacrifice to the genius of the emperor and his eldest son, Antoninus Caracalla. Herein he was guilty of an illegal act, for Perpetua, whom her passion describes as belonging to the higher classes, could lawfully be punished for high treason only by being beheaded.
The Acta of Perpetua are extant in several recensions, notably a Latin version (ed. B. Aubd, Les Chr&iens dans l'empire romain, pp. 521‑525, Paris,' 1881), and one in Greek (ed. J. A. Robinson, TS, vol. i., part 2, Cambridge, 1891). Both these recensions erroneously date the martyrdom of Perpetua in the persecution of Valerian and Gallienus (254 or 255). Authorities differ as to which is the original recension, the Latin or the Greek, and Adolf Hilgenfeld has even maintained (ZWT, xxxiv. 367‑369) that both the Greek and the Latin versions are based on a Punic original. X
(FRANZ GSRRES.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ASB, Mar., i. 632 sqq.; B. Aub6, ut sup.,
pp. 53‑277, 509‑525; G. N. Bonwetsch, Tertuman, pp. 75‑84, Bonn, 1878; F. GSrres, in JPT, iv (1878), 273327, 313‑315; idem, in ZWT, xxxiv (1891), 235‑243; A. Pellet, Les Martyrs d'Afrique, Lille, 1885; P. Allard, Hist. dea persbcutiona, ii. 2‑157, Paris, 1886; J. Fdhrer, Bin Beitrag zur Ldsung der Felicitas‑Frage, Leipsic, 1890; L. Duchesne, En queue langue ont M fcrits lea Ades ds., saintm Perp&ue et Filicitk7 Paris, 1891 (cf. on the same subject Massebi€su. in RHR, 1891), 97‑101; CQR, xxxu (1891), 68‑69; Analecta Bollandiana, xi (1892), 100‑102, 369‑373; DCB, iv. 305‑307; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 818819.
PERPETUAL ADORATION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT: A continuous act of worship performed by several orders in the Roman Catholic Church. It consists in the constant presence of some one or more of the members of the particular order before the altar engaged in devotion which has the sacrament as its special object. Probably the earliest of the orders was that founded in Paris in 1654 by Mother Mechtilde, a Benedictine nun
and abbess whom the troubles of the period had driven from her position. The foundation was stimulated by Picottk, a Sulpician priest, at the instance of Anne of Austria, who wished a vow made in behalf of the deliverance of France from war. The order adopted the rule of St. Beliedict (see BENEDICT OF NURsIA AND THE BENEDICTINE ORDER), to which special constitutions were added and printed in 1705. The order spread through France and is represented in Holland and Poland. The perpetual adoration is observed also by the Monachette del Corpus Domini (founded in 1683), a body of Dominican tertiaries; and numerous congregations of Franciscan, Augustinian, and other monks and nuns have adopted the ceremony.
PERRIN, WILLIAM WILLCOX: Church of England bishop; b. at Westbury‑on‑Trym (3 m. n. of Bristol) Aug. 11, 1848. He received his education at King's College, London, and Trinity College, Oxford (B.A., 1870; M.A., 1873; D.D., 1893; honorary fellow of King's College, London, 1902); he was made deacon in 1871 and priest in 1872; was curate of St. Mary's, Southampton, 1871‑81; and vicar of St. Luke's, Southampton, 1881‑93; being consecrated bishop of British Columbia in 1893.
PERRINISTS. See LIBERTINES, 2.

	PERRONE, GIOVANNI:	Italian Jesuit; b. at
Chieri (9 m. s.e. of Turin) Mar. 11, 1794; d. at
Rome Aug. 28, 1876. He studied at Turin, and in
1815 entered the Society of Jesus. Soon afterward
he was appointed professor of dogmatics at Orvieto,
and in 1823 was transferred to the Roman College
at Rome. After being rector of the College of Fer
rari in 1830‑33, he resumed his professorship in
Rome, but in 1848 he was obliged to flee on account
of the revolution. He found refuge at Stoneyhurst,
England, but as soon as the Jesuits were reestab
lished in Italy, he returned to Rome. He was head
of the Roman College in 1853‑73, and finally be
came rector of the Gregorian University, as well as
consultor to several congregations and theologian
of the Dataria. Perrone aided materially in the
condemnation of Hermesianism (see HERMEs,
GEORG); and no less important was his participa
tion in the definition of the dogma of the Immacu
late Cohception (Dec. 8, 1854). His chief work is
the Prmlectiones theologicte (9 vols., Rome, 1835
1842; abridged ed., 5 vols., 1845; 47th ed., 2 vols.,
Turin, 1896). He also wrote many dogmatic, eth
ical, and ecclesiastical treatises, of which the most
important are the following: De immaculato Beatce
Yirginis Marim conceptu, an dogmatico decreto de
finiri possit (Rome, 1847); IL Protestantesamo a la
regola di fede (3 vols., 1853; a storehouse of modern
Jesuit polemics against Protestantism); San Pietro
in Rams, ossia la veritd storica del v1aggio di San
Pietro a Roma (1861) ; De Domini nostri Jesu
Christi divinitate adveraus hujus otatis incredulos,
rationalistas et mythicos libri tres (3 vols., Turin,
1870); and De Romani pontificaa infallibilite aeu
Yaticana definitio contra novos ha‑reticos asserta et
vindicate (1874). 	(PAUL TSCHACKERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. and A. de Backer, BibliotUque dew &,‑rivains de la soci&k de Jisua, ed. C. Sommervogel, vi. 559 aqq., Paris, 1891 sqq.; KL, ix. 1813‑15.

487	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Perpetna
		Persecution
	PERRY, GEORGE GRESLEY: English church
historian; b. at Churchill (13 m. s.w. of Bristol),
Somersetchire, Dec. 21, 1820; d. at Waddington
(4 m. s. of Lincoln) Feb. 10, 1897. He received a
scholarship at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 1837
(B.A., 1840; M.A., Lincoln College, 1843); was
fellow of Lincoln College, 1842‑52, in which he was
tutor, 1847‑52; master of the schools, 1847‑48;
ordained deacon, 1844, priest, 1845; was rector of
Waddington, Lincolnshire, after 1852; rural dean
of Longoboby and canon and prebendary of Milton
Manor in Lincoln Cathedral from 1861; proctor for
the diocese of Lincoln, 1867‑81; proctor in the
convocation of Canterbury, and archdeacon of
Stow, 1894‑97. He was. the author of History of
the Church of England from the Death of Elizabeth
to the Present Century (3 vols.; London, 1861‑64);
Victor: a Tale of the Great Persecution (1864); Life
of Bishop Grosseteste (1865); History of the Cru
sades (1865; 3d ed., 1872); Croyland Abbey (1867);
Christian Fathers (1870); Voz ecclesice Anglicance
(1870); The Students English Church History (First
Period, 1871; Second Period, 1878; and Third
Period, 1887; New York, 1879); Life of St. Hugh,
Bishop of Lincoln (1879); and The Reformation in
England (1886).
	PERRY, WILLIAM STEVENS: Protestant
Episcopal bishop; b. at Providence, R. I., Jan. 22,
1832; d. at Dubuque, Ia., May 13, 1898. He was
educated at Harvard College, 1850‑54, and at the
Alexandria Theological Seminary; was ordained
deacon in 1857; was assistant at St. Paul's, Bos
ton, 1857‑58; rector at Nashua, N. H., Portland,
Me., Litchfield, Conn., and Geneva, N. Y., 1858
1876. For a short time president of Hobart Col
lege, Geneva, N. Y., he was consecrated bishop of
Iowa in 1876. He was one of the editors of The
Church Monthly (Boston, 1864). A full list of his
numerous writings is contained in The Sketch‑book
of the American Episcopate, H. G. Batterson (Phila
delphia, 1884). He was author of The Connection
of the Church of England with Early American Coloni
zation (Portland, 1863); Historical Collections of the
American Colonial Church (vol. i., Virginia, 1871;
ii., Pennsylvania, 1872; iii., Massachusetts, 1873;
iv., Maryland, 1875; and v., Delaware, 1878); His
torical Notes and Documents Illustrating the Organ
ization of the Protestant Episcopal Church (1874);
Historical Sketch of the Protestant Episcopal Church,
1784‑1884 ,(New York, 1884); The History of the
American Episcopal Church, 1687‑1883 (vol. i., The
Planting and the Growth of the American Colonial
Church, 1687‑1873; ii., The Organization and Prog
ress of the American Church, 1788‑1888, Boston,
1885); and The Episcopate in America (New York,
1895). With F. L. Hawks he edited the Docu
mentary History of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in South Carolina (No. 1, 1862); and the Docu
mentary History of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States (containing documents relating
chiefly to the Church in Connecticut; 2 vols., New
York, 1863‑64).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult his own Episcopate in America, ut
	sup., pp. 245‑247.
PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN THE
ROMAN EMPIRE DOWN TO DECIUS.

I. The Historical Record. New Sect Distinguished from the Jews ($ 1). Legal Status before Decius; Trajan (¢ 2). Persecutions under Decius (¢ 3). Political Character of Persecutions (§ 4). Results (¢ 5). Subsequent Persecutions (§ 6).
II. The Ten Persecutions.

	I. The Historical Record: The persecution of
Christians in the Roman Empire will be treated
here in its relation with legal enactments. Just
when the Roman State first began to regard the
Christians as a sect distinct from the Jews can not
be stated with certainty. Tertullian's statement
(Apol. v.; Eng. transl., ANF, iii. 21‑22) to the
effect that Tiberius was aware of the distinction
between Christianity and Judaism and submitted
to the senate the question of the recognition of the
		former by the State is incredible. But
x. New Sect the differentiation seems presupposed
	Distin‑ in view of the Neronian persecution
guished from (64 A.D.) when, according to Tacitus
	the Jews. (Annals, xx. 44), the Christians were
		visited with punishment not as in
cendiaries, but as those who had brought down upon
themselves the " hatred of mankind." Yet in spite
of the clear prominence in which the adherents of
the new sect appeared at this time, it is very prob
able that, for a generation at least, the Christians
continued to be regarded and dealt with by the
magistrates as a Jewish sect. A change must have
ensued when (especially under Domitian, 81‑96),
in order to enforce the payment by the Jews of
tithes to the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter at
Jerusalem, odious investigations were instituted,
and the non‑Jewish Christians undoubtedly refused
to pay the tax. In addition, the Roman magis
trates must have been aware that the attitude of
the Christians toward the great calamity which
overtook the Jewish nation was different from that
of the rest of the people, and that the Jews un
ceasingly persecuted the Christians as their enemies,
and that the customs and religious practises of the
Christians were radically different. It may there
fore be accepted that, from the time of Domitian,
Christianity appears everywhere as a new religion,
and in that character was subject to the applica
tion of the laws directed against new and secret as
sociations, which, owing to the peculiar character
of the Christian faith, were applied with more than
the usual rigor. This policy probably attained
complete development under Trajan (98‑117 A.D.),
in the second half of whose reign the relations of
the State toward Christianity, must have assumed
definite shape. Pliny could not otherwise have
written his celebrated letter (Epistolcu, x. 92 aqq.)
ppening with the statement: " In the examination
of Christians I have never taken part; therefore I
know not how and to what extent it is the custom
to punish them and to investigate." Long, there
fore, before the year 112 the trials of Christians in
the provinces must have been carried on in the
same manner as they were carried on subsequently.
	As to the period from Trajan to Decius (249‑

Persecution	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	488
Perseverance
	261) s summary of the facts which are known may
	be reviewed before proceeding to the underlying
	principles which it is much more dif
	s. Legal ficult to grasp. Up to the middle of
Status the third century the number of Chris
before tian martyrs was small, although there
Decius;	was no decade, perhaps no year, with‑
	Trajan.	out its victim. In all classes and vo
		cations there were to be found Chris
tians whose faith, though it was a matter of public
knowledge, brought them no harm; but in single
provinces and under particular emperors they were
subjected to severe persecutions. Christians brought
to trial were punished as Christians, that is, the
" name " itself was punished by the magistrates,
who, as a rule, did not seek to discover actual trans
gression (Eusebius, Hist. ecd., V., i. 44; Eng. trand.,
NPNF, 2 series, i. 216; Tertullian, Apol., ii.; Eng.
tranal., ANF, iii. 18‑20). To what extent the name
represented what was regarded as worthy of pun
ishment is not shown by the apologists; but CeLm
has positively indicated in the introduction to his
writings: " The Christians form secret associations
among themselves outside of the legal order."
Whenever the Christian apologists speak of laws
that were invoked against the Christians, they al
ways mean the general laws under which Christians
presumed guilty of certain transgressions were pun
ished, and not laws directed specially against the
Christians. In addition, however, to the general
regulations of the State, there were, after the time
of Trajan, imperial rescripts relating to the new
sect occasioned by varying conditions in different
provinces, the different attitude of the emperors,
and deficiencies of the existing penal law. These
rescripts wgre collected by Domitius Ulpian in the
time of Caracalla (211‑217); they were not in
cluded in the body of the criminal law, but were in
serted under the heading of De officio proconsulia,
which dealt with extraordinary proceedings and
police jurisdiction. A universal imperial law spe
cifically prohibiting Christianity as such can not
have existed before Decius, and before the time of
that emperor the Christians in general were not
hunted out.
The question how the Christians were brought to trial in the time of Decius is obscure: probably at the instance of private persons; yet private denunciations had become more and more 3. Persecu‑ restricted, being, for instance, espetions under cially forbidden to slaves and held
	Decius.	in check by punishments. Christians
		brought to trial might obtain in
stant freedom by denying their faith (see LAPSED)
unless the magistrates assumed that they had com
mitted a penal offense. The methods of exculpa
tion were negative, such as invoking maledictions
on the name of Christ, or positive, such as sacri
ficing before the images of gods and especially be
fore the image of the emperor, or the taking of an
oath by the genius of the emperor. The last method
was the common one, and it shows that what con
stituted the essence of criminality was the denial
of the state deities, the withdrawal of devotion due
to them and to the emperor, which was regarded as
the motive of their obstinacy. The magistrates as
a general rule exerted themselves to persuade the accused by representations, admonitions, and even tortures, to undergo the test; and the very fact that the magistrates under certain circumstances during the process used torture bears proof that the Christians were regarded as charged with the crime of majestaa. This is more clearly evidenced by the mode of punishment, which was decapitation for Roman citizens, exile for Roman matrons, and burning, crucifixion, or the amphitheater, for all others. It is certain, however, that the magistrate acting on his discretion might dismiss the accused Christian or sentence him to various terms of imprisonment.
From these facts Mommsen has drawn the conclusion that adherence to Christianity was not a defined and codified crime like high‑
4. Political way robbery or murder, and, therefore,
Character was not punished through the ordinary
of Perse‑ process of criminal law, but fell rather
	cutions.	within the province of the general
		police power, which might be regarded
as an extraordinary process of the law. The series
of marks of procedure indicated above do not admit
the ordinary process; besides the great multitude of
Christians were not prosecuted and the religion con
tinued to flourish. It is incorrect, therefore, to say
that the Christians were directly touched by the
laws against murder, incest, majestas, mcrilegium,
or magic; but they formed an organization which,
being religious, demanded toleration but could not
be recognized, and as an unlawful society became
subject to magisterial repression. Of all accusa
tions brought against the Christians those of sacri^
kgium ("atheism") and majestas ("treason),)
were the commonest. There was no Latin equiva
lent for " atheist," but the political loyalty of the
people was involved in the Roman religion, typified
especially in the cult of the emperor; and a test of
loyalty to the state deities and in the main to the
emperor‑cult was a test of loyalty to the empire.
Hence, sacrilegium and majeatas became more and
more to be merged in the latter.
This discussion explains (1) why the Christian problem was seldom brought before the senate, the authority of which extended to mat‑
g. Results. ters of religion; (2) the relative scarcity of Christian trials before the time of the Emperor Decius, for if the crime of the nomen chridianum was a political one it was nevertheless a patent fact that the Christians were not enemies of the State, but quiet citizens; and (3) the uniform process pursued in the trials of the Christians. The accused were called upon to clear themselves of the suspicion of mapedas through certain acts. If they complied they were free ipso fado; if they refused, their refusal was equal to a confession of apostasy from the state religion and of sedition against the emperor and State. It explains (4) why Christianity in the beginning was treated not as a new religion, but why stress was laid rather upon the seditious character of the Christians. The monotheistic principles of Christianity did not appear to the politicians and pagans of the time as a religion so much as a form of atheism and as a vicious and inordinate obati‑

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Persecution
Perseverance
nacy. Only with the beginning of the third century, as the national religion entered upon its decay and the principles of monotheism gained ground, does the religious character of Christianity seem to have been recognized. There explain themselves (5) also the policies pursued by emperors like Hadrian (11713$) and Antoninus Pius (138‑161), who, in response to the petitions addressed by fanatical provincial assemblies asking power and permission for the persecution of the Christians (in Greece especially), ordered that trials for purely religious causes should not be initiated and that charges brought by individuals should be made the basis of prosecution only when those were accompanied by evidence of criminal guilt. The magistrates thus were naturally left free to adopt such repressive measures against the Christians as public necessity might dictate, but a policy of general persecution such as the provincial assemblies demanded was not allowed in the Roman state before Decius.
Although their collegaa (churches) were illegal, in practise they were tolerated. They could not soquire the rights of a legal person; but,
6. Subse‑ in indirect ways, the churches by the
quent Per‑ time of Decius had acquired posses‑
	secutions.	sion of landed property, buildings, and
		movable treasures throughout the
empire. Persecutions in the strict sense of the word
there were not on the part of the State, but when
ever the observance of the imperial religion had to
be insisted upon, the result was an increase in the
number of Christian trials. The rescript of Severna
against the missionary activity of the Christians
issued in the year 202 aims at restricting their
growth and not at destroying them. It was a law
of Mayimmus Thrax (235‑238) that first aimed at
the destruction of the organization of the Church
and therefore of the Church itself through the an
nihilation of its leaders. The law, however, was
never put into execution, and it is with Decius that
the great struggle began which was to decide the
fate of the old national religion. Only then was the
injunction laid upon every citizen publicly to tes
tify his adhesion to the old national religion on a
certain day. The failure of this persecution was as
rapid as its first measures were sanguinary and
overwhelming. Monotheism triumphed by its own
inherent power and served for the termination of
the absoluteness of imperialism:
(ADoLF HARNACg.)
111. The Ten Persecutions: From the fifth century tradition tells of the " Ten Persecutions of the Christians." The number, however, has no basis in fact and was probably suggested by the ten plagues of Egypt or the ten horns of the beast in the Apocalypse. As already pointed out, there was probably no time from an early date when persecution . or annoyance was not going on somewhere, induced by local circumstances or the character of the governor, and only two persecutions (that under Decius and that under Diocletian and his successors) were even theoretically coextensive with the empire. The traditional ten persecutions with approximate dates are: ‑under Nero, 64; Domitian, 96; Trajan, 112‑113; Marcus Aurelius, 177; Sels
timius Severus, 202; Maximinus, 235; Decius, 249251; Valerian, 257; Aurelian, 274; and Diocletian and his successors, 303313. For further information we the articles on the various emperors.
BreLI0aRAPHY: The. sources are to be found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church (the " Apologies " of Justin Martyr, Melito, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Origen, and Lactantiue, De mortibus peraecvtorum; in the early church histories, e.g., of Eusebius), and in the Acta Mar tyrum‑eee the article. Great care is necessary in .the use of this literature and of the earlier treatises named below, in accordance with the principles enunciated in the text. The subject is, of course, treated in the works on church history dealing with the first three centuries. Consult further: Gibbon, Decline and Fall. chap. xvi (in some respects epochal; it caused a reexamination of the subject and a reversal of part of the traditional position respecting the extent and motives of the judicial processes and persecutions); H. Kritzler, Die Heldenzeiten des Chridenthuma. Leipsie, 1858; O. Hunsiker, Regiarunp and Chridenverfolpunp des Kaisers Dioddianus and seiner Nachfolger, Leipsic, 1888; T. Preuss, Kaiser Diocletian and seiner Zeit, Leipsie, 18e9; B. Aub6, Hilt. des pers&utions de 1'iglise, 2 vole., Paris, 1875‑78; A. J. Mason, The Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge, 1876; K. Wieseler, Die Chrsdermerjolpunyen der Cuaren, Gutersloh, 1878; A. Thibault. Les Rmpereurs remains d 1'bpliae chr&ienne. Paris, 1879; G. Uhlhorn, Der %ampf des Christenthums ‑nit derv Heidenthum, Stuttgart, 1879, Eng. tranal., Conflict o) Christianity with Heathenism, New York, 1879; C. T. Keim, Rom and daa Chntstenthum, Berlin, 1881; T. W. Allies, Church and State in the Formation of Christendom, London, 1882; H. Doulcet, Easai sur lea rapporta de rholise av®c l&at remain durant lee trou premiere each*, Paris, 1883; P. Allard, Hist. das peradeutions pendant lea dew premiers a0eles, Paris, 1885; idem, Hid. des pers& cudions pendant la premidre mo4W du trouiame sickle, Paris, 1886; idem, La perskution de Diocmien d Is triomphe de Piylise, Paris, 1890; P. Hochart, nudes au sufd de la persfcution soua NBron, Paris, 1885; C. F. Arnold, Die neronisshe Chridenverfo4unpsn, ‑Leipsie, 1888; R. Plebwe, Die Chnatenverfolpunpen der erden drei Tahrhunderten, Berlin, 1889; C. J. Neumann, Der rtimische Stud and die allgencine %irehe bis auf Diodddan~ Leipsie, 1890 (indispensable); J. Balser, Zur diokldianische Chridenverjoigunp, TQbingen, 1891; E. Le Blant, Les perskuteurs d las martyrs aux premiers aiacles, Paris, 1893; T. Modimeen, in Hidoriachs Zeitwhrift, new series, xxviii. 389‑•129; idem, Abriss des rdmischen Stnatareehta, passim Leipsie, 1893 (both important); E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, London, 1894 (of importance); L. E. Is Bourgeois, Les Martyrs de Rome d'aprts 1'hiatoire d rarcuolopit chrmennes, Paris, 1897; M. Cohn (afterward Conrat), Der Chrsdenverjolgrarflen im r6misehen Reithe vom Standpunkte des Juriden, Leipsie, 1897; J. A. F. Gregg, The Decian Persecution, Edinburgh, 1897; D. C. Munro and E. Bramhall, The Early Christian Persecutions, Philadelphia, 1897 (contains bibliography); B. Reynolds, Church History. The Early Persecutions and Martyrs. London, 1897; G. Boissier, La Fin du papanisme, 2 vols., Paris, 1901; J. E. Weis, Chriatenverfolgungen, Marburg, 1901; The Epistle o) Psenoairis. A Document from the Diocletian Persecution, ad. A. Deissman, London, 1902; O. Seeek, Gesahichte des Untervanpea der antiken Welt, 2 vols., Berlin, 1902; H. D. M. Spence, Early Christianity, and Paganism, London, 1902; J. Herkless, Early Christian Martyrs and their Persecutions, London, 1904; P. J. Healy, The Valerian Persecution, ib. 1905; A. J. Mason, Historic Martyrs of the Primitive Church, ib. 1905; E. G. Hardy, Studies in Roman History, New York, 1906 (contains considerable on the subject); H‑. B. Workman, Persecution in the, Early Church, London, 1906; E. T. Klette, Die Christenkatadrophs unter Nero, TObingen, 1907; G. Schoenaich, Die Chriatenverfolpung des Raisers Deciua,Jauer, 1907; Cabrol, Dictionnaire, i. 268‑307, 373446, 450‑462, 2042‑47 (contains much illustrative matter); F. X. Kraus, Realencyklopadie der chridlichen Alterthemer, i. 215‑288 (•' Christenverfolpunp," by F. G6rrea, covering the first six centuries), Freiburg, 1880‑85.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: The fifth of the so‑called " Five Points of Calvinism r' is thus

Perseverance	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	470
Persia
set forth in the Canons of Dort (cf. Schaff, Creeds,
iii. 592 sqq.).
		" Whom God calls, according to his purpose, to the com
munion of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerates
by the Holy Spirit, he delivers also from the dominion and
slavery of sin in this life, though not altogether from the
body of sin and from the infirmities of the flesh, so long as
	they continue in this world." (Art. I.)
		" By reason of these remains of indwelling sin, and the
temptations of sin and of the world, those who are converted
could not persevere in a state of grace if left to their own
strength. But God is faithful, who, having conferred grace,
	mercifully confirms, and powerfully preserves them therein,
even to the end." (Art. III.)
		" Of this preservation of the elect to salvation, and of
their perseverance in the faith, true believers for themselves
may and do obtain assurance according to the measure of
their faith, whereby they arrive at the certain persuasion
that they ever will continue true and living members of the
Church; and that they experience forgiveness of sins, and
will at last inherit eternal life." (Art. I%.)
		" This certainty of perseverance, however, is so far from
	exciting in believers a spirit of pride, or of rendering them
	carnally secure, that, on the contrary, it is the real source
of humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in every
tribulation, fervent prayers, constancy in suffering and in
	confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God; so that
	the consideration of this benefit should serve as an incen
	tive to the serious and constant practise of gratitude and
	good works, as appears from the testimonies of Scripture
	and the examples of saints." (Art. XII.)
		" The carnal mind is unable to comprehend this doctrine
	of the perseverance of saints and the certainty thereof,
	which God hath most abundantly revealed in his Word, for
	the glory of his name and the consolation of pious souls, and
	which he impresses upon the hearts of the faithful. Satan
	abhors it; the world ridicules it; ‑the ignorant and hypocrite
	abuse, and heretics oppose it. But the spouse of Christ
	hath always most tenderly loved and constantly defended
	it as an inestimable treasure." (Art. XV.)
		This doctrine was first clearly set forth by
	Augustine in the Pelagian controversy (De dono
	perseverantice), was renewed by the Reformers,
	and is held by all Calvinistic churches, as a logical
	consequent of the doctrine of election (cf. West
	minister Confession, chap. xvii.). Arminius at
	first hesitated about it, and then left it an open
	question. The later Arminians took strong ground
	against it, and affirmed the possibility of a total
	and final fall from grace. This is the position of
	the Wesleyan Arminians to‑day in Europe and
	America. The Lutheran Confessions hold a middle
	position. The Church of England leaves room for
	both theories.
		The doctrine of the perseverance of saints is be
	coming difficult to maintain, even theoretically, in
	view not merely of the well‑known Arminian ob
	jections to it, but of the disclosures made by the
	psychology of Christian experience. The difficulty
	arises from two directions. (1) The theory of con
	version: this, instead of being explained by refer
	ence to a miraculous cause or a cataclysmic act of
	choice, is in many cases a normal adolescent expe
	rience, with more or less of unification of the emo
	tions and of permanence in the character (see CoN
	vER6ION). (2) Induction of religious experience
	puts it beyond question that the Christian life may
	after conversion be partially arrested or radically
	overthrown. This conception, however, in no way
	militates against the real grounds of Christian as
	surance, drawn from God's purpose of redemption
	and from the influence of the Spirit of God, nor
even against predestination, which, since it is sub
ject to historical conditions, will, if not in this world
yet in the future world, attain its goal in the final
perfection of all souls in God (cf. F. D. E. Schleier
macher, Der chrlstliche Glaube, §§ 117‑120, new
ed., Goths, 1889). 	C. A. BECgwITH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature pertinent is contained in the doctrinal systems by Calvinists (e.g., Turrettin, C. Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd; see also bibliography under PREsBYTERIANa) and Methodists (C. Sheldon, B. P. Bowne; see also bibliography under MaTHOmara). Note further: D. Whitby, A Discourse on the Pive Points, London, 1817; E. Colet, Procticad Discourse of Gods Sovereignty. with . . . Persenera"ce, Philadelphia, 1854.

PERSIA. See MEDO‑PERSIA.
PERSIA, MISSIONS IN.
I. The Early and Medieval Periods. Christianity till the Arab Conquest ($ 1). Medieval Period (§ 2). II. The Modern Period. Beginnings (§ 1). Work of Congregationalists and Presbyterians (§ 2). Other Protestant Missions (§ 3). Roman Catholic and Greek Church Missions (§ 4). Results (§ 5). Conditions of Work (§ f6.
	I. The Early and Medieval Periods: The first
great center of Christianity in the East was Edessa
as early as the second century (cf. F. C. Burkitt,
Early Eastern Christianity, New York, 1904). Ac
cording to Harnack, Die Mission and Ausbreitung
des Christentums, Leipsic, 1902, 2d ed., 1906; Eng.
transL, Expansion of Christianity, 2 vols., London
and New York, 1904‑05, new ed., 1908) there were
		Christians in the same century also in
	z. Chris‑ other parts of Mesopotamia and along
	tianity till the lower Tigris. Legendary Christian
	the Arab history of course goes farther back and
	Conquest. ascribes the origins of Christian mis
		sions to the Apostle Thomas (q.v.) or
to Adds!, supposed to have been one of the Seventy,
or even to the Magi. Perhaps the first authentic
name in connection with missions is that of Mari,
the founder of the see of Seleucia‑Ctesiphon (see
MARONITES, § 2). During the third century Chris
tianity spread through Mesopotamia, and by the
fourth century it seems to have entered the Iranian
highlands in the southwest. (Khuzistan, Hormizd
shahir, Ahwaz) and farther north about Holwan.
This expansion was due to the transportation of
Christian captives from Syria as well as to conver
sions. The establishment of Christianity as the im
perial Roman religion marks also the beginning of
its persecution by the Persian Sassanian kings. The
Syriac Acts of the martyrs show that there was in
spite of persecution a very true missionary spirit
evidenced by conversions of Zoroastrians and by
a fairly definite apologetic of Christianity. Tile
names of the martyrs and the high rank of some of
them would indicate that Christianity was gaining
followers from Iranians as well as from Arameans.
Meantime it spread eastward. There is mention of
a bishop of Tus in Khorasan in 422, of the martyr
dom in 447 of Pithion, a successful missionary
among the mountaineers, and a generation later
of Mar Saba, a convert from Zoroastrianism, who
spent his life as a missionary to the Kurds. The

471	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Perseverance
Persia
great figure in the Sassanian period,* both as a church administrator and as a missionary leader, is the Nestorian Patriarch Mar Aba (d. 552). He was himself a convert to Christianity and, rather than renounce the right to evangelize, he endured nine years of imprisonment, which terminated only shortly before his death. The remainder of the Sassanian period was marked by the vigorous extension of Monophysite (Jacobite; see JACOBITES) tenets, probably almost altogether among Christians and not among heathen. Jacobite bishops were established in the sixth century in Seistan, Herat, and Azerbaijan. In general, it may be said that in the Sassanian period Christianity, and especially Nestorianism (see NESToRIANs), extended steadily in spite of the opposition of the State and the state religion, and also steadfastly refused to abjure its right to win converts. Many of the higher Nestorian clergy were themselves converts to Christianity. There were bishoprics in every section of the country. Nevertheless, Christianity did not become properly naturalized in Persia. Its strength was among the Arameans of the plains of the Tigris and the Euphrates and among captives transported into the eastern provinces. Its language was Syriac and there was no popular translation of the Bible into the Iranian tongues.
	Probably	the Arab conquest, by overthrowing
the organized foes of the Christian propaganda,
gave an increased opportunity to Christian mission
		aries, and in the early centuries of
2. Medieval Arab rule Christianity extended so far
	Period.	eastward as to make an entrance into
		the Chinese empire. There is evidence
of missionary work along the borders of the Caspian,
in the valley of the Araxes, and in the mountain
regions of Kurdistan. The extension of Christian
ity in central and eastern Asia is outside the scope
of this article; though it should be noted that it
went from Persia eastward and that the Turkish
tribes bordering on Iran and steadily pressing west
ward were affected by it. Probably the Christians
from the first tacitly at least accepted the terms of
toleration given by Islam, viz., abstention from the
proselyting of Mohammedans, missionary efforts
being confined to non‑Mohammedans. It should be
noted, however, that there are evidences of oral
and literary discussion of the two religions by Chris
tians and Moslems. The glory of the Sassanian
period had departed and martyrology ends. The
Mongol conquests of the thirteenth century gave
for a brief time a new hope to the Christian propa
gandists; for none of the conquerors were fanatical
or even zealous in religious matters, and some were
Christians. The Christianity, however, was of a
very low order, and Islam carried the day with the
leaders. These hopes perished in the general ruin
resulting from the Mongol and Tatar invasions.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century the only
remains of Christianity were the ruins of ancient
churches and the little bodies of Nestorian and
* It should be remembered that the name Persia does not represent a constant geographical quantity. Its meaning varies with the political status and hence in the Sassanian period was far wider than at present extending then as far west as the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire.
Armenian Christians, in all not over 100,000 souls. As all through the Nearer East, so in Persia there is an almost forgotten chapter of medieval Roman Catholic missions. During the Mongol rule in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries several embassies (of Dominicans and Franciscans) were sent by the popes to the Mongol rulers both in the Far East and in Persia, but their efforts brought no permanent results; similarly without success were the attempts to bring the Nestorians into the Roman communion. In the early part of the seventeenth century political considerations led the Suffavean kings to desire friendship with Europeans, and the Roman Catholics again made an attempt to establish Roman Catholicism in Persia. Ispar han was the scene of the most determined efforts and was made an episcopal seat. Carmelites, Minorites, and Jesuits had establishments there, while Augustinians and Capuchins were also represented, and their converts were not only from the Armenians but also from Mohammedans. But the tide turned again and persecution and anarchy followed. The foreign missionaries were forced to flee, and the number of Christians in Ispahan was greatly diminished. This was in the early part of the eighteenth century. A hundred years later the number of Syrian Christians in the region of Uremia and Salmas had increased and among them were some who had joined the Roman Church, through influence emanating from the efforts to proselyte the Nestorians of the Mosul plain.
II. The Modern Period: The modern era of missions begins with Henry Martyn (q.v.), whose heroic career left the legacy of an undying inspiration and also the translation of the New Testament and Psalms into Persian. The published accounts
of the journeys of Joseph Wolff (q.v.)
r. Begin‑ served to draw the attention of Amer‑
	nings.	ican Christians to the remnants of the
		Nestorians. A few years before this
the Basel Missionary Society and the Scotch Mis
sionary Society each began work in Transcaucasia
and each, compelled by the Russian government to
leave its dominions, sent its missionaries into Persia.
Among the Basel missionaries was Karl Gottlieb
Pfander (q.v.), the author of the Mizan ul Hakk
(" Balance of Truth"; See MOHAMMEDANS, MIS
SIONS To), one of the most remarkable contribu
tions to the controversy with Islam; and among
the Scotch missionaries was William Glen, whose
translation of the Old Testament into Persian is
still in use. These all attempted to work directly
for Moslems. The societies that have established
permanent work in Persia have all, to a greater
or less degree, found a basis for their work in the
non‑Mohammedan population. In proportion to
the total population this is an insignificant part,
but from the missionary point of view it is impor
tant. Out of about nine millions population, there
are about 150,000 non‑Mohammedans, divided as fol
lows: Armenians (originally all Gregorians) 70,000,
Syrians (originally all Nestorians) 40,000, Jews
25,000, Parsis 10,000. The bodies which support
missionary work are the following: of Protestants:
Presbyterians, who took up work begun by Con
gregationalists; Church of England, Church Mis‑

Persia	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	472
sionary Society, and the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission; Roman Catholic; Russian Orthodox.
The American Congregationalists in 1834 sent Justin Perkins and in 1835 Asahel Grant (qq.v.) as missionaries to the Nestorians, commissioning them
to strive " to enable the Nestorian
2. Work of Church, through the grace of God, to
	Congrega‑	exert a commanding influence in the
	tionalists	spiritual regeneration of Asia." They
	and Pres‑	settled in Uremia in 1835. Perhaps it
	byterians.	was not to be expected that Puritan
		Christians would be able long to work
within the bounds of the most ancient of the sepa
rated Eastern churches. The separation of the
Evangelicals was perhaps inevitable, but it was
gradual and not until about 1870 was it complete.
The Evangelical church thus formed is recognized
as a member of the Alliance of Reformed Churches
holding the Presbyterian system. It has about
3,000 communicant members. In 1870 the work
of the A. B. C. F. M. was transferred to the Board
of Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the
U. S. A., and since has been expanded by the es
tablishment of stations at Tabriz, Teheran, Rama
dan, Resht, Kazvin, and Kermanshah. The
branches of the work that have been most strongly
developed and have had the largest general influ
ence in the country are the educational and med
ical. The best known and most efficient schools
and hospitals in Persia are those connected with
this mission. (Perhaps the names that best deserve
special mention are those of Justin Perkins, who
established the mission and more than any one else
reduced modern Syriac to literary form; Fidelia
Fiske, who began female education and whose life
has become a classic in missionary annals; John
H. Shedd (q.v.), who did much to organize the work;
Benjamin Labaree, who perfected the translation
of the Scriptures, and J. P. Cochran, M.D., who
gained a very unique influence over Persians of
every class.) In connection with this mission the
American Bible Society has done an important work
in publishing and distributing the Scriptures, espe
cially in Syriac. The present statistics (1909) are
as follows: Missionaries, 37 (besides wives and in
cluding 6 male and 3 women physicians); native
ministers 35, communicants 3,110, adherents about
7,000; contributions $4,200; 62 schools with 2,692
pupils (of whom 1,120 are girls, and not less than
500 Moslem children), school fees over =3,000; 4
hospitals, 617 in patients, out patients over 50,000,
and medical fees nearly =10,000.
Similar to the work of the Presbyterians is that of the Church Missionary Society in southern Persia.
The work was established in Isfahan
g. Other in 1869 by Robert Bruce, who will also Protestant be remembered for the revision of
	Missions.	Henry Martyn's translation of the
		New Testament into Persian. Special
prominence has been given to medical and educa
tional work. Stations have been established in
Kerman, Yezd, and Shiraz as well as Isfahan. The
statistics of the work is as follows: 33 missionaries,
including 4 men and 5 lady physicians; native
clergy 1; native teachers 28; communicants 189 and
Christians 412; schools 8 and scholars 409, of whom 161 are girls; hospitals 6. The British and Foreign Bible Society does an extensive work in southern Persia.
After a series of communications with the Nestorian patriarch and repeated appeals, Archbishop Benson founded the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission. The headquarters were established in Urumia in 1884, and were removed to Van, Turkey, in 1907. Most of their work has been for the Syrians in Turkey, especially since the adhesion of most of the Syrians in Persia to the Russian Orthodox Church. The purpose of the mission has been to strengthen the Nestorian Church to resist propaganda from without and to stimulate spiritual life within that body; and this purpose has been adhered to in a very conservative sense. The main work of the mission is educational and literary. The present statistics of the work in Persia are as follows: Missionaries 2, schools 30, scholars 470 (of whom about 150 are girls). There are 12 other Nestorian schools with about 300 pupils. The number of Nestorians in Persia is probably about 4,000.
The present Roman Catholic mission was founded in 1840 by the Lazarists, in consequence of the representations of M. Bord, a French sa•
4. Roman vant. In 1856 they were reinforced
Catholic	by Sisters of Charity. The Lazarists
and Greek .and the Sisters of Charity (Sisters of
Church	St. Vincent de Paul) have establish‑
	Missions.	ments in Urumia, which is the episco
		pal seat, Salmas, Tabriz, and Teheran.
There are also Armenian Catholics at Isfahan, and
Chaldeans in Sena. At the head of the work is the
apostolic delegate, at present Mgr. Lesn6, titular
archbishop of Philippopolis. Most of the native
Roman Catholics are of the Chaldean rite with
Archbishop Audo, at their head, whose seat is at
Urumia. Under the vigorous direction of Mgr.
Cluzel (died 1882), their propaganda among the
Syrians made rapid though not solid progress; but
recently it has been stationary. In their schools
are Moslem as well as Christian pupils. The statis
tics of the work are not obtainable, but the number
of adherents is probably about 5,000.
The Syrians (Nestorians) living in northwestern Persia, have long had close industrial relations with Russia, and the expectation that long existed was that Russia would ultimately be political master of northern Persia. The Russians were looked on as the expected saviors from Mohammedan rule. Aceordingly repeated petitions were offered by the Syrians to the Holy Synod and orthodox bishops to receive them into the Orthodox Church. The priests sent to investigate the conditions were received in 1897 with an enthusiastic welcome and the next year the large majority of the Syrians in the Urumia district were received into the Orthodox fold after renouncing the errors of their national church. A monastic mission under the headship of an archimandrite has been established and the Orthodox Syrians were organized under two Syrian priests. The clergy are mainly converted Nestorians. At first not only the bulk of the Nestorians, but also not a few members of the Protestant and Roman

473	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Persia
communions joined the new movement, but the tide turned again. There is, however, every probability that the majority will remain in the Russian Church. Statistics for 1909 are as follows: Russian clergy, 1 archimandrite, 3 priests, 1 deacon; Syrian clergy, 3 bishops, 30 priests, and 3 monks; Orthodox Syrians about 15,000; schools, 2 higher with 55 boys and 30 girls, 68 village schools with about 2,000 pupils.
Four missions representing the great divisions of Christendom might well suffice for a body of Christians not exceeding 30,000 souls; but neither the importunity of the Syrians nor the foolish zeal of western Protestants has been content. The result is that Urumia has been the seat of constantly changing but usually wasteful efforts by Lutherans, Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, and others. The outburst of sympathy among German Christians caused by the massacres of Armenians in Turkey in 1895 left its mark in the establishment by the " German Orient Mission " of Berlin of two orphanages, one in Khoi for Armenian boys and one in Urumia for Syrian girls, each containing about 60 children.
There is, it will be seen, an extended missionary work by Protestants in every part of the country, except the extreme East, and by Roman Catholics in the three chief cities. Besides there is a concentration of missionary effort on the part of all the great churches in the region of the Syrians. This work for Syrians is, except on the part of the Russian mission, connected with work for the larger body of Nestoriana living in the Turkish Empire, carried on either by the same body or on the part of the Roman Catholics by a different body, the Dominicans instead of the Lazarists.
The question of results can best be answered by considering separately the different classes. Among the Syrians the most obvious effect has been to project into a very small compass the
5. Results. great divisions and some of the smaller divisions of Christendom, with the result that in Persia the ancient national church has nearly reached the point of extinction. This is surely to be deplored for other than antiquarian reasons. Other and perhaps more unfortunate results of this undue multiplication of missionary agencies have been sectarian spirit, degeneration in morals, the cultivation of an undue feeling of dependence, and the promotion of mercenary aims in religion. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that the preservation of the old ecclesiastical allegiance without a revival of spiritual and intellectual life could not have stemmed the tide of demoralization due to social and industrial influences. From the Protestant point of view it may further be remarked that under very special difficulties a Christian body has been built up, which has taken firm hold of Evangelical truth, has its independent organization, exerts an influence out of proportion to its numbers, and proves its sincerity by its gifts. It is the only considerable body of native Christians animated by missionary purposes. The influence of missions on the Armenians has been much less. The ecclesiastical bonds have been merged into the bonds of nationality, of which the Armenians are
unusually tenacious. A small number of Armenians have left the Gregorian for the Protestant and Roman Catholic communions. The Roman Catholics have done something and the Presbyterians and the Church Missionary Society have done more for the education of Armenians, both directly and by stimulating the Armenians to raise the grade of their national schools. Evangelical views have also made progress among the clergy and laity of the Gregorian church. The Jews and Parais have benefited to some extent from the missionary educational work; and in Hamadan a small church is made up of Jewish Christians.
Lord Curzon, while he acknowledges in his monumental work on Persia (G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question, 2 vols., London, 1892), the benefits of the humanitarian work done by missions, denies both the fact and the possibility of converts from Islam to Christianity. One can not but suspect that his disbelief in the possibility of conversion affects his judgment of the fact. Of course the reality of conversion must ultimately be a question of opinion, and opinions will differ; but there is probably no Protestant missionary long resident in the country who has not in his own experience and to his best judgment known more than the halfdozen genuine converts allowed by Lord Curzon as the utmost limit of such converts from the days of Henry Martyn. Still converts are few, and are nowhere numerous enough to be collectively of any influence. There is no open movement toward Christianity. Nevertheless real and important advantages have been gained. Christianity was very imperfectly known and that only as the despised faith of the ignorant fragments of conquered peoplea. The political changes of the past century have brought Christianity to notice as the religion of powerful and civilized nations. Increase of commercial intercourse has been another powerful influence for change. This impact of civilizations and religions was inevitable and necessarily changed the conception of Christianity. Political power and commercial enterprise could at best most inadequately represent Christianity, and it is due to missions that the humanitarian and benevolent side of Christianity has been presented. It is still more true that missions alone have presented the doctrinal and spiritual elements of Christianity, or, in other words, Christianity itself. The Gospel as a message of salvation has been preached to multitudes and the Bible has been put in the hands of very many of the educated. Through these agencies Christian truth is entering the current of religious speculation, which is never stagnant in the Persian mind. The medical work has made many personally grateful to the followers of the merciful Jesus. Missionary schools lead the educational movement in the country. The special representatives of Christianity are recognized as men of the highest character. Christian missions have gained a place not merely of tolerated existence but of real honor in the land.
Much might be said as to the conditions of work in Persia. Perhaps in no other country does Islam present so interesting a history as in Persia. Here the history is one of dissent, of schism, of heresy,

Persia	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	4"74
Pessimism
of new doctrines and strange survivals, of bold
speculation and poetical mysticism. Within the
last century Babism, developing into Behaism
		(qq.v.), has been offered by Persia to
	6. Condi‑ the world as a universal religion. The
	tions of	claims made for it are extravagant, and
	Work.	it is making little progress, but it testi
		fies to the fertility of the Persian mind,
to its discontent with Islam as a social system, and in
some of its teachings to the influence of Christianity.
The Sufi teachings finding their expression in the
Masnwvi of Jalal ud Din and the cosmopolitan
morality of Sheikh Saadi have not lost their influ
ence. The yearning after a closer communion with
the divine than that offered in orthodox Islam finds
expression in many ways. All of these influences
make many restive under the intolerance of Islam;
and while there is little prospect of the proclama
tion of religious freedom at present, many forces
are working in that direction and are already in
creasing the amount of freedom realized. A ma
jority of the Persians are adherents of the mutas
hari scholastic Shiite Islam, which makes life center
in the fulfilment of the law; although even with
them the greatest religious season is the Muhar
ram, the time of mourning for the propitiatory suf
ferings of the Imam Hussein. Less numerous and
yet wide‑spread are the more liberal Sheikhis, as are
the many branches of 'Arifs (or Sufis). Then one
must mention the growing class of the modern type
of free‑thinkers. These have some European edu
cation and are apt to be theists with little definite
theological belief. The Sunnis, mainly Kurds,
though numerous (probably a million), are outside
the current of national life and are mostly very
ignorant. The Ali Illahis are a numerous sect of
obscure but ancient origin, having secret rites and
a merely nominal attachment to Islam. This com
plex of sects and beliefs is made more intricate lay
race and language divisions and by tribal and diar
lect subdivisions. Finally to all these influences
and counter‑influences must be added the new
movement in Islam with its new patriotism and its
new attachment to European civilization and liberty.
Unless this force is very quickly spent, religious
change must result from it; for it is marked by two
anti‑Islamic ideals, national patriotism and the
regulation of society by legislation originating in
society itself and not enforced by religious sane
tions. The disintegrating effect of modern science
must also be taken into account. Meantime the
variety of belief, the heritage of heresy, and the
speculative tendency of the Persian mind, which
have leavened even the Turkish population of north
ern Persia, all give openings to Christian truth.
The need for missionary activity is great; and the
missionaries must be strong in character, wise and
alert in action, and full of intellectual and spiritual
power in order to make the inevitable change a
movement Christward.	W. A. SHEDD.
BIBLIOoBAPBr: Beside the literature named in the text
consult: W. A. Shedd, Islam and the Oriental Churches,
	Philadelphia, 1904; B. Brisson, De repio Persarum prin
	cipatio, Strasburg, 1710 (bested.); J. Perkins, Residence
	of Eight Years in Persia Among the Nestorian Christians,
	Andover, 1843; idem, Missionary Life in Persia; Glimpses
of a Quarter of a CsnturVa Labor among the Nestorian Christians, Boston, 1881; T. Laurie, Woman and her Saviour in Persia, Boston, 1883; D. T. Fiske, Faith Working by Love, Boston, 1888; D. W. Marsh, Tennessean in Persia and %oordistan: Scenes and Incidents in the Life of S. A. Rhea. Philadelphia, 1809; W. Guest, Story of a Consecrated Life (Fidelia Fiske), London, 1870; R. Anderson, Hist. of the Missions of the A. B. C. F. M., Oriental Missions, Boston, 1874; Berthold‑Ignake, Hiat. de la mission de Perse . . . IB04‑1,9, Brussels, 1887; A. Riley, Progress and Prospects of she Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission, London, 1889; J. Bassett, Persia;. Eastern Mission, Philadelphia, 1890; A. J. Maclean and W. H. Browne, The Catholicos of the tad and his People, London, 1892; E. A. Lawrence, Modern misaiona in the East, New York, 1895; S. G. Wilson, Persian Life and Customs, London, 1898; V. V. Barthold, Zur Geschichte lea Chrietenthuma in Mitud‑Asian bie our mongoliachen Broberunp, TObingen, 1901; J. B. Piolet, Lea Missions eatholiquea francaiaea aux xix. sickle, 8 vole., Paris, 1901; C. H. Stileman, The Subject. of the Shah, London, 1902; Hamd Allah, Mesopotamia and Persia under the Mongols in the 14th Century, London, 1903; J. Labourt, Le Chriatianieme dana (empire pares . . . 824‑$32, Per. 1904; W. A. Essery, The Ascending Cross. Some Results of Miasiona in Bible Lands, London, 1905; E. R. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, London, 1908; F. H. Davis, The Persian Mystics, Jalalu ddin Rumi, London, 1907; E. Aubin, La Parse d'aujour d'hui. Iran. Mesopotamia, Colin, 1908; J. G. Wishard, Twenty Years in Persia, New York, 1908; Mrs. M. E. and A. Hume‑Griffith, Behind the Veil in Persia and Turkish Arabia, Philadelphia, 1909; M. Jewett, Reminiscences of my Life in Persia, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1909; V. Bemrd, Rivolutions de la Perm. Lea Provinces, lea peuplea, d Is pouvernement du roi lea roia, Paris, 1910; the literature under GRANT. ABAREL; MAR'yN, HsNBr; and STODDARD, DAVID TAPPAN.
PERSONA, GOBELINUS: Canon and dean at Bielefeld; b. probably at Paderbom in 1358; d. at the monastery of BSddeken, near Paderbom, c. 1421. After a prolonged sojourn in Italy, especially at the court of Urban VI.; he received an appointment at the cathedral of Paderbom and later became pastor of the Market Church. As dean at Bielefeld under Bishop Wilhelm von Berg of Paderborn (1400‑14) he contributed greatly to the reform of the Paderbom monasteries. He is to be mentioned chiefly for his work Cosmodromium, hoc est chronicon universals complectens res erclesite et reipublicas ab urbe eondita usque ad annum Christi 148 (ed. H. Meibom, Frankfort, 1599; ed. the younger H. Meibom in Scriptores rerun Gernmnicarum, i. 53 sqq., Helmstadt, 1688). Although a worthless compilation for the earlier times, it is a valuable source of information for the conditions and opinions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
(A. HAUcg.)
BIHwoaRAPBl: E. A. Bayer, Gobelinua Persona, Leipsie, 1873; A. Hogemann, Ueber die Quellen des Gobdinus Per sons, Halle, 1874; ADB, ix. 300‑301.

PERSONNE, JOHN WILHELM: Swedish theologian; b. in Stockholm 1849. He studied at Upsala (Ph.D., 1875; Th.D., 1897), and at Tilbingen (1877); he was appointed reader at the North Latin School in Stockholm (1881); was inspector at the catechist schools (1883‑97); since 1885 he has been member of the committee revising the Swedish translation of the Bible; and since 1897 he has been provost of the cathedral in Linkdping. Among his works may be mentioned De mosaiska allaroffren (1874); v. Rydbergs Bibelns ldra on %ristus granskad (1880); Grunddragen NU Gamla testamenteta sedeliira (1881); Bibelkritikew nyasta hypoteser om

fills	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Persia
Pessimism
Gamla testamentet (1886); Skolungdomens sedliga
uppfostran (1888). 	JOHN O. EvJEN.
PERSONS, ROBERT. See PARSONS.
PERTH, FIVE ARTICLES OF: Five articles agreed upon in the General Assembly of the Scottish Church at Perth Aug. 25, 1618. They enjoined kneeling at the Lord's Supper, the observance of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Pentecost, and confirmation, and sanctioned the private administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper. They were obnoxious to the Presbyterians of Scotland and were adopted only at the command of King James VI. (James I. of England), being a part of his plan to unify the ecclesiastical policy of England and Scotland (see PBEs:SrrERL‑‑Ns). They were ratified by parliament, Aug. 4, 1621. The General Assembly at Glasgow in 1638 declared the action at Perth " unfree, unlawful, and null," and condemned the five articles.
BIBLiooRAPHY: P. H. Brown, Hist. of Scotland, ii. 285‑271, Cambridge, 1902; W. M. Hetherington, Hilt. of the Church of Scotland, p. 125, New York, 1881; C. A. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp. 49, 50, 58, ib. 1885; G. P. Hays, Presbyterians, p. 54, ib. 1892.

PERU: A republic of South America, bounded by Ecuador on the north, Brazil and Bolivia on the east, Bolivia, and the Pacific Ocean on the south, and the Pacific Ocean on the west; area, 695,730 square miles; population about 3,000,000. Of this, the natives comprise at least one‑half, those of mixed blood about one‑third. According to article four of the constitution of 1860, the Roman Catholic is the established religion, and no other worship is legally tolerated. Though all the territory is included in the diocesan distribution, some of the Indians in the eastern part are now in the process of being Christianized. The national church is administered by the eight bishops of Iquitos, Chachopoyas, Huanaco, Truxillo, Ayacucho, Cuzco, Puno, and Arequipa; and by the incumbent of the archbishopric of Lima, which was erected in 1546. The government maintains an extensive control of the clergy. Thus, when an episcopal vacancy occurs, the government proposes three ecclesiastics to the joint national legislature, which selects one, subject to the confirmation of the pope. The chapters are supplied by appointees of the State, and the archbishop can not hinder any such from assuming his office. While the State's allowance for the archbishop amounts to $20,000, the remaining dignitaries are ill‑supported. The entire parochial clergy receives no state contribution; but its labors are in a great measure supplemented by those of the orders and congregations which have many establishments. Lima alone has thirteen nunneries and eight cloisters for men. The orders represented are mainly the Dominicans, and next, .the Franciscans, Barefoot Friars (see BAREFOOTED MONKS AND NuNs), Augustinians, and Jesuits. There are many lay fraternities in honor of Mary. Congregations of Sisters still chiefly attend to the diffusion of elementary instruction, universal compulsory education not being enforced. Excepting the four at Lima, there are few intermediate schools. The University of San Marcos at Lima has a theological de‑
partment which provides a six‑years' course, after the custom of the orders. Owing to the meager immigration of Europeans and North Americans, there are but few Protestants in Peru. However, there are a German union congregation at Callao, a smaller Anglican congregation at Lima, and one of Presbyterians from the United States at Callao. [Missionary enterprises are carried on by the Regions Beyond Missionary Union, " the Brethren," and the Methodist Episcopal Missionary Society, I7. S. The last‑named reports 2 stations, 5 missionaries, 39 native workers, 231 communicants, and in all 400 professing Evangelical Christians. There are in Peru a total of 5,000 Evangelical Christians and 500 Jews.] WiL1iELM GOETZ.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. R. Markham, Hist. of Peru, Chicago, 1892; E. W. Middendorf, Peru, 3 .vols., Berlin, 1895; W. G. Mortimer, Peru, New York, 1901; J. Lee, Religious Liberty in South America; with special Reference to recent Legislation in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, Cincinnati, 1907; C. R. Enoek, Peru; its former and present Civilization, New York, 1908; G. Guinness, Peru, its Story, People and Religion. London, 1908; Marie R. Wright, The Old and New Peru, A Story of the Ancient Inheritance and the Modern Growth and Enterprise of a Great Nation, Philadelphia, 1909. PESHIT0. See BIBLE VEROIONS, A, III., 1.

PESSIMISM: A word employed as the antonym of Optimism (q.v.). The term came into use in the first half of the last century. The dissatisfaction with life which the philosophcial theory aims to embody is, however, of long standing. The feeling was voiced in India by Guatama, the founder of Buddhism (d. about 475 B.c.), among the Hebrews in a modified form in the book of Ecclesiastes in the third century B.c., among the Persians in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (about 1120 A.D.). Arthur Schopenhauer (1860) was the first representative of modern pessimism. According to him the world is as bad as it can possibly be, if it is to continue to exist at all. The ultimate reality of the universe appears only in will‑in any blind force of nature and in all organic existence‑an endless striving without intelligence or aim. The radical evil of life‑the will to live‑is to be eradicated by denial of the " principle of individuation " and by the perfect denial of the will to live by means of asceticism, by destroying illusions of pleasure, by charity, by absolute refusal of the sexual impulse, and by total abstinence from food. Eduard von Hartmann (d.1906) sought to overcome the dualism of will and knowledge in Schopenhauer's philosophy by reducing them to a unity, which he calls the Unconscious. To the working of the irrational will of the Unconscious, he ascribes alike the origin of existence and of evil. Will has broken away from the primitive harmony of the Unconscious, and nature and life are the deplorable consequences. Reason follows after, to undo, as far as possible, the evil which will has produced, and to convince it of the mischief which it has caused and is causing; but, before it succeeds, all history must be traversed, all delusions experienced, all follies committed. He will not say that the world is the worst possible; he will not deny even that it may be the best possible, since we do not know what is possible: but he holds decidedly that it is worse than would have been no world at all. He believes himself able

Pessimism	TIE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG	47'8
Peter of Aloaatwrw
	to prove, by an appeal to the experience both of
	individuals and of society, that pain preponderates
	in a high degree over pleasure, evil over good. He
	does not deny that there is a kind of progress and
	plan in history; and yet he regards history as, on
	the whole, an irrational process, the successive
	epochs of which are so many stages of illusion. The
	progress of history is, in his view, not the growth
	of any positive good in history, but the growth of
man's consciousness of the nothingness and vanity
of human life.	The most thorough and uncom
	promising of the advocates of pessimism is Julius
	Friedrich August Bahnsen (d. 1881). He maintains
	that the world and life are not only essentially ir
	rational and wretched, but will be eternally so;
	that his fellow pessimists have no right to promise
	that the agony of creation will ever terminate; that
	the hope of the extinction of evil in a world essen
	tially evil is an unreasonable hope, and can be based
	only on blind faith (Der Widerrprueh im Wisaen
and Weaen der Welt, 2 vols., Berlin, 1580‑‑82).
	(ROBERT FLMT.) C. A. BECHwrrH.
	Hmuoaasray: A. Sehopenhauer, Studies is Pessimism,
	London, 1891, another tranal., ib., 1896; Agnes Taubert.
	Der Pessimiamus and seine Geyner, Berlin, 1873; J. Tulloeh,
	Modern Theories in Philosophy and Religion, Edinburgh,
	1874; E. Pfleiderer, Der moderns Pessimismue, Berlin, 1875;
	K. Frantz, Der Peasimiamus; seine Deurftndunp in der mo
	dernen Philosophie, Carleruhe, 1876; J. Hilber, Der Pesai
	mismua. Munich, 1878; J. Rehmke, Die Philosophic des
	Weltechmerses, 3t. Gallon, 1876; idem, Der Pessimismus and
	die Sittenlehre, Leipsic, 1882; J. F A. Babrmm, Das Tra
	0iache ale Waltpesds, ib. 1877; idem, Peseimiste‑Breuier,
	Berlin, 1879; idem, Der Widerspruch in Wisaen and Weeen
	der Welt, 2 vole., ib. 1880‑‑82; G. Borries, Ueber den Pes
	simismue, Leipsic, 1880; A. Baemeieter, Der Pessimit
	mus and die Sittenkhre, GOteraloh, 1882; J. W. Barlow,
	The Ultimatum of Pessimism, London, 1882; P. Christ,
	Der joeasimiamua and die Sinenlehre, Leipsic, 1882; H.
	Sommer, Der Pesaimmmua and die Sittenlehre, Berlin,
	1883• idem, Die Religion des Peeaimiamue, ib. 1884; C.
	William a, Modern Pessimism; its Cause and Cure, Bod
	min, 1885; J. Hinton, The Mystery of Pain, Boston, 1888;
	G. KOamer, Kritik des Pesaimismua, Halle, 1888; O.
	PIOmaeher, Der Passimismua, Heidelberg, 1888; E. von
	Hartmann, Philoaphie des Unbewuaasaeins, Leipsic, 1890.
	Eng. tranel. of earlier ed., Philosophy of the Unconscious,
	8 vole., London, 1884; idem, Zur Geschichts and Beprnrai
	unp des Pessimismua, Leipaie, 1892; J. Sully, Pessimism:
	a History and Criticism, London, 1891; P. Cadine, Le
	Passimiame lipitime, Paris, 1894; K. Hollensteiner, Daa
	Weitdsnd and die Welterlbsunp, GOtersloh, 1894; R. M.
	Wenley, Aspects of Pessimism, London, 1894; $. Faure,
	La Douieur unioemelle, Paris, 1895; J. P. Hopps, Pessi
	mism, Science, and God, London, 1895; H. Fierens‑Geviert,
	La Triatesas tontemporaine, Paris, 1899; A. Kowaleweki,
	Studien scar Psychoiopie des Peasimiamua, Wiesbaden, 1904;
	G. Balkinowits, Pessimistische Strnmungen im Judentum,
Bern, 1908; and the literature under Orriauses.
	PEfALOZZI, JOHANN HEINRICH: Philan
	thropist and founder of the modern educational
	system; b. at Zurich Jan. 12, 1746; d. at Brugg
(18 m. n.w. of Zurich) Feb. 17, 1827.	He was
	brought up by his mother, his father, a surgeon,
	having died in 1751; he began the study of theol
	ogy and of law, but gave up both to become a re
	former in education, the stimulus having come in
	part from Rousseau's smile, in part from the death
	of a friend. His earliest effort was an attempt to
	show the advantage of combining agriculture with
manufactures and the education of children.	To
	carry this out, he bought a tract of waste land in
	the canton of Aargau. This venture proved a fail‑
ure, partly through Pestalozzi's inexperience in business, and with it went (1780) also his educational institute for poor children, which he had opened in the farmhouse with fifty scholars. At this time, which was one of great privation and dire poverty, he began to write, the earliest results being Abendstunde eines Einsiedlers (1.780; aphorisms which contain his educational program); his celebrated Lienhard and Gertrud (4 vols., Frankfort, 178189; Eng. tranal., Leonard and Gertrude, 2 vols., London, 1825), which achieved instant and universal success, being translated into practically all European languages; and the sequel Christoph and Else (Zurich, 1782). The Lienhard urul Gertrud protures the reformation of a household and then of a village by the efforts of a good woman. The next important contribution was his Nachforachungen caber den Gang der Natur in der Entwickelung des Menschengeachlechts (1797), which reflects the influence of Fichte, whom he had come to know in 1792. When the French invaded Switzerland in 1798, Pestalozzi was given honorary citizenship. In consequence of the devastation of Unterwalden, many children were left orphans and destitute. Pestalozzi collected eighty of these in an old nunnery and took sole care of them, sharing their want and teaching them at the same time. This work was stopped and the children dispersed in 1799 when the French took the building as a hospital. He failed to ‑interest Napoleon in his educational schemes, but published in 1801 Wie Gertxud ihre Kinder lehrt (Eng. trend., Hoto Gertrude Teaches her Children, London, 1894) and in 1803 Buch der Matter, oder Anleitung fur Matter, shre Kinder bemerken and reden zu lehren. His ideas were now influential, and the government of Bern gave him a cloister for his school (1804), and the next year he removed to Yverdun on Lake NeuchAtel, where the rest of his active life (till 1825) was spent, the institution being for the instruction of both children and teachers. After his retirement in 1825, Pestalozzi wrote Schwanengesang and Lebensachichaale.
The revolution in teaching brought about by Pestalozzi consisted in beginning the education of a child by training the observation, passing then to the realization in consciousness of the facts thus gained, and next to the formulation of them in language. From measuring he passed to drawing, then to writing, counting, and reckoning. The entire aim was thus to evoke the child's native abilities instead of following the earlier method of pouring information into the mind. The centenary of his birth was celebrated in many places on the continent, occasion being taken to found institutions to carry out his ideas, especially his philanthropic plans for the poorer classes. The most noted of these is the Deutsche Pestalozzi‑Stiftung at Berlin.
His works were collected as SBmtliche Schriften (15 vols., Stuttgart and Tabingen, 1819‑26), and SBmtliehe Werke (20 vols., Berlin and Liegnitz, 1881‑96; ed. Seyffarth, 12 vols., Liegnitz, 18991902) and by P. Natorp in 3 vols. (ib. 1905). A work appearing in English was Letters on Early Education (London, 1827).

477	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	pe°'dm4so'
		Peter of eldmtari
	BIHLIoaRAPBY: For list of writings of and on Pestalossi
	consult A. Israel, Yersuch einen Zueammenetdlunp der
	Schriften con and fiber Pedafossi, Zsohopsu, 1894; ifonr
	menta Germania padapopica, vols. zzv., XxiX., sm.,
	Berlin, 1901‑05. Biographies are by: E. Biter, St. Gall,
	1827, Eng. tranal., London, 1831; C. J. Bloahmann, Leip
	sic, 1848; R. Christoffel, Zurich, 1848; H. Morf, 4 vols.,
	Winterthur, 1884‑89; P. Kruei, New York, 1875; P. P.
	Pompbe, 2d ed., Paris, 1882; R. de Guimps, 2d ed., Lau
	sanne, 1888, Eng. tranal., London, 1890; J. G. Guillaume;
	Paris, 1890; W. Kayser, Zurich, 1895; L. W. Seyferth,
	8th ed., Leipsic, 1904; P. Natorp, Langensalas, 1905,
	A. Heubaum. Berlin, 1910. Consult further: C. von
	Raumer, The Life and System of Peatalosri, London, 1855;
	J. Payne, Peetalozn~ the Influence of his Principlea and
	Practice, London, 1875; A. Vogel, Syatsmatiache Dar
	stellunp der Pbdapopik P:dalozsia, Hanover, 1886; H.
	Scherer, Die pedalozziabhe Pddagopik, Leipsic, 1896;
	C. Rothenberger, Pedalozai ale Philoaoph, Bern, 1898;
	A. Pinloche, Peatalozai d l'Educatson populaire moderns,
	Paris, 1902; H. Bernard, Peatalowi and his Educational
	System, New York, 1906; J. G. Compayrd, Peataloszi and
	Elementary Education, Boston, 1907; W. S. Monroe, Xiat.
	of the Pedalozzian Movement in the United States, Syra
	cuse, N. Y., 1907; R. Seidel, Der unbekannte Peatalowi
der Sozial‑Politiker and Sosial‑Pddapope, Zurich. 1910.
PETAVIUS, DIONYSIUS (DENIS	MAU):
	French Jesuit; b. at Orl6ans Aug. 21, 1583; d. at
Paris Dec. 11,. 1652.	Educated at Orleans and
	Paris, he began to teach at Bourges in 1602, but
	three years later resigned both his professorship
	and a canonry of Orl6ans to enter the Society of
	Jesus. He then studied at the college in Pont‑h
	Mousson, taught at Reims, La Flkhe, and Paris,
	was professed in 1618, and from 1621 to 1644 was
professor of positive theology at Paris.
	Petavius' range of learning was vast, extending
	over classical philology, chronology and history,
	polemics, patristics, and the history of dogma. He
	began with classical philology, where his learning
	was evinced by his editions of Synesias (Paris,
	1611), sixteen orations of Themistius (1613), three
	orations of Julian (1614) and the same author's
	complete works (1630),. Nicephorus with fragments
	of other Byzantine historians (1616), and, the most
	important of all his contributions to this sphere of
	learning, an edition and translation of the complete
works of Epiphanius (1622).	He likewise com
	posed Orationes (Paris, 1620), Opera poetica (Latin;
1620), and Carmine Greece. (1641).
	From classical philology and patristics Petavius
	was led to the studies in chronology which occu
	pied him for many years. In his De doctrine tem
	porum (2 vols., Paris, 1627)‑written largely in
	criticism of the De emendations temporum (Paris,
	1583) of Joseph Justus Scaliger (q.v.)‑Petavius
	sought to reestablish universal chronology.; and
	this work was supplemented by him in his Tabulte
	chronologie(e regum, dyntaatarum . . . a mundo con
	dito (1628), Uranologion eive systems variorum au
	thorum qui de aphwra et eideribua eorumque motibus
	Greece commentati aunt (1630), Rationarium tem
	porum (2 parts, 1633‑34; lasted., 3 vols., Venice,
	1849; Eng. trend. by R. P., The History of the
	World: or, An Account of Time, 2 parts, London,
	1659), and La Pierre de touche chronologique (1636).
	Among the polemic writings of Petavius, aimed
	at those who would impair the teachings of the Ro
	man Catholic Church, mention may be made of the
	following: against the Calvinistic Claudius Sal
	masius (q.v.), Dissertationum eccleaiastiearum libri
duo (Paris, 1641) and De eccUsiaetica hierarchic libri tree (1643); against Maturin Simon, dean of Orleans, De ptenitentim ritu in roeteri eccleeia (Paris, 1624); against Hugo Grotius (q.v.), De potentate conseeraadi et aaerificandi aacerdottbua a Deo concessa (Paris, 1639); and against the Jansenists, De libero arbitrio (Paris, 1643), De la p6nitenee publique et de la priparation d la communion (1643), De legs et gratis (1648), De Tridentini coru;ilii intarpretatione et Sancti Augustini do~,chwna (1649), and Do adjutorio sine quo et adjutorio quo (1651).
Though Petavius' Greek Paraphraais Psalmorum et canticorum (Paris, 1637) was highly esteemed for its exegetical value, his greatest service to theology was rendered by his avowedly anti‑scholastic, De theologicis dogmatdcia (5 vols., Paris, 1644‑50), which he did not live to complete. The first volume discusses the doctrine of God and the divine qualities in eight books, and predestination in two; the second, the doctrine of the Trinity in eight books; the third, the doctrine of angels' creation, and the hierarchy in twelve books; and the fourth and fifth, the incarnation and the person and work of Christ in sixteen books. The sixth volume, which none but Petavius himself could have written, was to have set forth the doctrines of the sacraments, the law, faith, love, hope, virtues, and vices. After the merits of the work became fully recognized, repeated editions appeared, of which the best is that by J. B. Fournials (8 vols., Paris, 1865‑67).
	Petavius' correspondence with scholars in France,
Italy, Holland, etc., is of value both for the history
of learning in the seventeenth century and for his
own biography. Only a comparatively small por
tion, however, has been preserved, this appearing
posthumously in his Epiatolarum libri tree (Paris,
1652), reprinted in the editions of the De doctrina
temporum at Amsterdam (1705), Verona (1734),
and Venice (1757). The sum total of his works is
reckoned at forty‑nine. 	(O. Z6Cg1.ERt.)
BIHLjooRAPH7: The principal sources are his own letters, ut sup.; the funeral oration by H. Valesius, Paris, 1653; and Nioeron, Mbmoiree, vii. 81‑234. Consult further: F. Stanonik, Dionyaiua Pdaviue, Gras, 1876• J. C. V. Chatellain, Le Pare Denis Pdau Paris, 1884; Bayle, Dictionary, iv. 800‑802 (worth consulting); HL, ix. 1841‑13; Lichtenberger, ESR, _. 507608.

PETER OF ALCANTARA: Spanish Franciscan and reformer of his order; b. at Alcantara (110 m. s.w. of Salamanca) 1499; d. at Arnas (near Alcantara) Oct. 18, 1562. He entered the order at the age of sixteen, became guardian of a new monastery at Badajoz in 1519, and was ordained priest in 1524. He later lived as a hermit near Soriana, where he wrote his De orations et meditations (Eng. tranal., by G. Willoughby, A Golden Treaties of Mentall Praier, Brussels, 1632; reprinted Liverpool, 1843). In 1538 he was made provincial of Estremadura„ and at once began measures to reform his order‑ in 1554 he commenced the establishment of a Franciscan congregation of strict observance, and secured the sanction of Julius III. No monastery of these rigidly ascetic " Minorites of the Strictest Observance " (as they were officially known) might contain more than eight monks,

Peter of Alexandria
Peter the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERzOG	478
and their rule formed a partial prototype for the discalced Carmelite nuns of St. Theresa (q.v.). Peter of Alcantara was beatified in 1622, and canonized in 1669. The treatise De animi pace seu tranquillitate (Eng.. tranal., by T. W., Pax animce: a short Treatise declaring how necessary the Tranquillity . . . of the Soul Is, London, 1665; reprinted London, 1876) seems to have been the second part of the De orations rather than an independent composition.
	The congregation founded by Peter of Alcantara
numbered some twenty provinces in the seventeenth
century, and had monasteries in Spain, southern
Italy, Rome, the Tyrol, South America, the Philip
pines, and Japan. 	(0. ZSexLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Laurentius a Divo Paulo, Portentum pcenitentio;, seu vita S. Petri de Alcantara, Rome, 1669 (also in ASB, Oct., viii. 700‑809; this is based upon the earlier works of Johannes a S. Maria and the Oratorian Francesco Marchese, Rome, 1667); Acta canonizationis S. Petri de Alcantara et S. Magdalena; de Pazzis, Rome, 1669 ; F. Hueber, Leben, Tugend and Wunderwerke des heiligen Petrus von Alcantara, Munich, 1670; Helyot, Ordres monastiques, vii. 137 aqq.; O. ZSckler, in Zedtachrift fur die gesamte luthersache Theolopie, 1864, pp. 39‑78; %L, ix. 1880‑84.

PETER OF ALEXANDRIA: Bishop and martyr; d. at Alexandria 311. He seems to have been the second successor of Theognostus as the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria.; and though only scanty fragments of his writings have survived, it is known that he was an opponent of Origen, criticizing his opinions on the relation of the body to the soul and on the resurrection of the dead, but at the same time agreeing with him that Christianity must supply an inerrant knowledge as a condition of attainment to the perfect life.
From Peter's treatise " On penitence " are drawn fourteen " penitential canons " which have been incorporated in canon law. These canons were evidently composed by Peter himself in an epistle written in 306 to the Egyptian churches; and in them he pleaded for greater leniency toward the Lapsed (q.v.). Those who had denied the faith under torture might be received after forty days of penance; those who had lapsed during imprisonment, after a year; those who had denied the faith without compulsion should be judged according to Luke xiii. 6 sqq.; and the impenitent should be excommunicated. Those who had pretended to abandon Christianity might be restored after penance of half a year; masters who had caused their slaves to offer sacrifice for them were required to do penance for three years, and their slaves for one year; but those who had suffered imprisonment for the faith were to enjoy the rights of Christian fellowship. Such of the clergy as had needlessly exposed themselves to persecution and had lapsed during the trial of their faith could never be restored to more than lay communion with the Church. On the other hand, those who had paid for immunity were deemed the reverse of blameworthy, and flight was also considered justifiable, even if others were taken instead of the fugitive.
The attitude taken by Peter toward the lapsed has been assigned as the cause of the schism of Meletius of Lycopolis (q.v.), though the real rea‑
son was more probably the rivalry between the two bishops. Meletius having unwarrantedly consecrated bishops and ordained priests in place of those who were imprisoned or had fled, he was excommunicated by Peter. According to another, but more dubious, tradition, the two bishops became estranged while fellow prisoners, in consequence of their conflicting views regarding the treatment of the lapsed. The acts of Peter's martyrdom also record that he ordained Arius to the diaconate, but afterward excluded him from the fellowship of the Church because of his adherence to the excommunicated Meletius. The imprisonment and execution of Peter of Alexandria seem to have been quite unexpected. His day is Nov. 26. An interesting document on the observance of the Sabbath, which has been edited by C. Schmidt (TU, xx., 1901, pp. 4 sqq.), is ascribed to Peter, though its authenticity is still a matter of doubt. A number of other fragments obviously referring to Peter of Alexandria have also been discovered, but these, like the treatise on the Sabbath, seem to show many interpolations. Equally doubtful is a fragment of a " Teaching of Peter," and the same statement holds good of the fragments " On Blasphemy " and " On the Passover " which have been ascribed to him. Finally, if the acts of the martyrdom of Peter may be believed, he fled from persecution from place to place through Mesopotamia, Syria, and the islands of the Mediterranean, so that he must have left Egypt and interrupted his immedis~e supervision of his diocese.
(N. BoNwETscm)
A second of the name (d. Feb. 14, 380) was bishop of Alexandria in succession to Athanasius, who nominated him just before his own death in 373. He suffered persecution from the Arians, who called in the pagan prefect, and was compelled to flee. He lived five years in Rome, and returned in 378. He was highly honored by Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Remains of Peter's writings are edited in M. J. Routh, Reliquios sacra, iv. 19 sqq. Oxford, 1846; P. de Lagarde, Reliquits juris ecclesior antiquio', pp. 6373, 99‑117, cf. pp. xlvi.‑liv., Leipsic, 1856; MPG, xvi. 449‑522; J. B. Pitra, Analecta Sacra, iv. 187‑195, 425430, 8 vols., Paris, 1876 aqq.; Schulthess, in ZDMG, 1902, pp. 257‑258; W. E. Cram, in JTS, 1903, pp. 387397; C. Hear, in Oriens Christianus, ii. 2, pp. 344 eqq. An Eng. transl. of some fragments is in A NF, vi. 269‑283. The Acts of his martyrdom are in F. Combefis, Illustrium Christi martyrum lecti triumphi, pp. 189 aqq., Paris, 1660; and J. Viteau, Passions des saints Ecaterine et Pierre d'Alexandrie, Barbara, et Anysaa, Paris, 1897, and in MPG, xviii. 453 sqq. (all these, the Greek Acts); the Latin Acts are in A. Mai, Specilegium Romanum, iii. 673 eqq., Rome, 1840, and thence reprinted in MPL, exxix. 691 eqq.; the Syriac are in P. Bedian's Acts martyrum, v. 543 eqq., Paris, 1895; the Coptic are in H. Hyvernat, Les Actea des martyres, i. 263 eqq., ib. 1886‑87.
Further sources are: Euaebius, Hist. eccl., VIL, xxxii. 31, VIII., xiii. 7, IX., vi. 2; Epiphaniua, Har.,1xviii.; Socrates, Hist. eccl., I., vi.; Sozomen, Hist. ecd., L, xv. Consult (for a list of works, principally old) ANF, Bibliography, p. 74. For discussions: C. Schmidt, in TU, xx. 4 (1901); O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der allkirchliche Litteratur, ii. 203 sqq., Freiburg, 1903; L. B. Radford, Three Teachers of Alexandria, Cambridge and New York, 1908; Kruger, History, pp. 219‑222; idem, in ZWT, xxxi (1888), 434‑448; Analecta Bollandiana, vols., xix.‑xx., Harnack, Litteratur, i. 443 Hqq., ii. 2, pp. 71 aqq.; idem, Dogma, vols. iii.‑iv., passim; Ceillier, A uteurs sacres, ii. 615‑616, in. 56‑61; HL, ix. 1884‑85; DCB, iv. 331‑336.

479	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peter of Alexandria
		Peter the Apostle
PETER THE APOSTLE.
I. Life.
Name and Early Career (¢ 1).
Position among the Apostles II. ($ 2).
Character and Temperament (§ 3).
Activity and Position in Palestine (§ 4).
His Teachings as Recorded in Acts (¢ 5).
Confused and False Traditions Con
	cerning Peter (§ 8).
Writings.
Occasion and Circumstances of I
	Peter ($ 1).
Relation to Other N. T. Writing
	Q 2).
Its Theology (§ 3).
Place and Date of Composition;
Attitude toward Gentile Christians		Authenticity (§‑4).
	(§ e).	II Peter ($ b).
The Closing Years (§ 7).	III. Apocryphal Petrine Literature.
	L Life: The sole source for the biography of
the Apostle Peter during the earthly ministry of
Christ is the canonical Gospels. He originally bore
the very common Jewish name of Shimeon, Sim
eon, or Simon (cf. Acts xv. 14; TT Pet. i. 1), the
first of these forma being the earliest, and the last
the latest. He likewise had the Aramaic honor
		ary surname of Kephn (Gk. Kephas),
	:. Name or " Rock," which was translated into
	and Early its Greek equivalent Petr08, " Peter."
	Career. Christ himself, however, termed his
		apostle Peter only thrice (John i. 42;
Matt. xvi. 18; Luke xxii. 34), elsewhere using either
the name Simon (Matt. xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 37;
Luke xxii. 31) or, in more solemn moments, Simon
son of John (Matt. xvi. 17; John i. 42, xxi. 15‑17).
The phraseology of the Evangelists varies. Mark
terms the apostle Simon until he receives the sur
name of Peter (Mark iii. 16), after which he is called
Peter; and a similar, though less consistent, course
is followed by the other two synoptiats (cf. Matt.
iv. 18, viii. 14, xvi. 16; Luke v. 8). In Acts he is
invariably called Peter, even when addressed (Acts
x. 13, xi. 7). In the Fourth Gospel he is called
Simon only when first mentioned, elsewhere being
usually termed Simon Peter, Peter alone being used
only when the double name either precedes or fol
lows. Paul almost invariably terms him Cephas
(I Cor, i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5; Gal. i. 18, ii. 9,
11, 14), the use of Peter here being extremely rare
(Gal. ii. 7‑8). The father of the Apostle Peter was
named John (John i. 42, xxi. 15 eqq.) or, in abbre
viated form, Jona (Matt. xvi. 17). He was prob
ably from Bethsaida (John i. 44), although Mark
i. 21, 29 makes him a resident of Capernaum, the
apparent contradiction being explicable by the fact
that at marriage (cf. T Cor. ix. 5) he had removed
to the latter town, making his living by fishing, to
gether with his younger brother Andrew, in the Sea
of Galilee (Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 3).
Andrew had early become one of the disciples of
John the Baptist (John i. 40), and it was this younger
brother who brought Peter into contact with Jesus
(John i. 42). There is, however, no reason to sup
pose that he then became a member of the Messiah's
circle, or that he was present among the disciples
at Cana (John ii. 2), at Jerusalem (ii. 17), in Judea
(iv. 2), and in Samaria (iv. 8). It would rather
seem that, after returning with Jesus to Galilee,
Peter there resumed his trade, so that there is no
real discrepancy between the account in the Gos
pel of John and the synoptic records of the calling
1. The Gospel. Early Mention ($ 1). Rediscovery (§ 2). Contents (§ 3). Date, Sources, Character (§ 4).
2. The Apocalypse. Early Mention (§ 1). Contents (§ 2). Literary Influence; Date (¢ 3).
3. The Preaching.
4. The Acts.
of Peter (John ii. 41 sqq.; Matt. iv. 18 aqq.; Mark i. 16 sqq.), but, on the contrary, the synoptic account presupposes the Johannine, which alone renders it intelligible as the documents now read. With the second calling, however, Peter seems to have become the constant follower of Jesus throughout all his wanderings, so that his incorporation among the twelve apostles (Matt. x. 1 sqq.; Mark iii. 13 sqq.) evidently makes little real change in his relation to Christ.
While Matthew and Luke ascribe a slightly more marked preeminence to Peter among the apostles than does Mark, which is based largely
z. Position on Petrine sources, there is no real among the discrepancy between them. Matthew Apostles. and Luke have included certain passages, omitted by Mark, which emphasize the leadership of Peter (Matt. xiv. 28‑31, xvi. 17‑19, xvii. 24‑27, xviii. 21; Luke v. 3, xii. 41, xxii. 32, xxiv. 12, 34); words ascribed by Mark to the apostles in general are attributed by Matthew and Luke to Peter (cf. Matt. xv. 15 and Luke viii. 45 with Mark vii. 17, v. 31); Peter is expressly mentioned where Mark gives no name (cf. Luke xxii. 8 with Mark xiv. 13); Matthew explicitly stresses the priority of Peter among the apostles (cf. Matt. x. 2 with Mark iii. 16 aqq.; Luke vi. 14 sqq.; Acts i. 13 sqq.); and the position which be held according to Mark (v. 37, xiii. 3, xiv. 33) was little leas than that ascribed to him in Matthew and Luke. Nor is this position altered by the relation of Peter to John in the Fourth Gospel. Here John has a certain preeminence because of his greater sympathy with the mind of Jesus, whereas Peter owed his position to his quick decision and action, a position which the Fourth Gospel not only does not minimize, but, on the contrary, brings into full prominence.
Generally speaking, the character of Peter is described with essential harmony in all the Gospels. He appears as an admirable type of the Galilean, well‑meaning, confiding, freedom‑lov‑
3. Charac‑ ing, and courageous, yet changeable, ter sad capricious, and eager for novelty (Jo‑
Tempera‑ sephus, War, III., iii. 2; Life, 1f3‑17;
	meat.	Matt. xi. 7 sqq., 16 sqq.). At first
		blush it seems strange that Jesus should
have given the epithet of " Rock " to one of such
character, yet he saw far beneath the surface and
grasped the inherent strength and stability that
underlay the changing and inconstant exterior.
Nor did Peter prove unworthy of this confidence;

Peter the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	480
his trust became ardent devotion; and his quick resolution was strengthened and steadied. Yet in the account of his walking on the water (Matt. xiv. 28‑31) his natural instability of character, even after being long under the influence of Jesus, comes clearly to the fore; while his denial of Christ still more strongly marks his wavering and his weakness. Nevertheless, he had already shown himself worthy of his title, as when at Caesarea Philippi he boldly declared Jesus to be the Christ, not a mere precursor of the Messiah (Matt. xvi. 13 sqq.; Mark viii. 27 sqq.; Luke ix. 18 sqq.; John vi. 66 sqq.), especially as this was the very time when many, disappointed in Jesus, were abandoning him. Yet even the faith of Peter was not uncommingled with hopes of the earthly power and glory of Christ, and from the first foreshadowing of the sufferings of Christ, made at Csesarea Philippi, until their close the alternate strength and weakness of Peter appear in ever‑increasing clearness. He incurred the severe rebuke of his master by deprecating the necessity of such sufferings (Matt. xvi. 23‑24; Mark viii. 33), yet on the mount of transfiguration he again wished to make permanent the glory there apocalyptically revealed (Matt. xvii. 3; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33). Equally typical was his desire to extend forgiveness as far as possible, though he still fell far short of the Christian ideal (Matt. xviii. 21‑22); and the same statement holds true of the words in which he reminds Christ how both he and the other disciples had left all to follow him (Matt. xix. 27; Mark x. 28; Luke xviii. 28). As the time of the passion approached, the moral perils of Peter thickened. In the scene recorded in John xiii. 6 aqq. his impetuosity is revealed, as well as a certain lack of understanding of the love of Jesus which was to reach its culmination in the passion. Immediately afterward he vowed, despite the prophecy of the denial, to remain faithful to Jesus even unto death (Matt. xxvi. 33 aqq.; Mark xiv. 29 sqq.; Luke xxii. 33‑34; John xiii. 37‑38). But he had overestimated his strength, nor could he even keep awake for his master's sake in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 40; Luke xxii. 45). It is true that he drew his sword when Jesus was seized (Matt. xxvi. 51; Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50; John xviii. 10‑11), but when he saw that this was useless, he fled with the other disciples (Matt. xxvi. 56 and parallels). Nevertheless, he made his way into the palace of the high priest, where he was put to the real test, only to deny Jesus with the utmost vehemence (Matt. xxvi. 69 sqq.; Mark xiv. 66 sqq.; Luke Vii. 56 sqq.; John xviii. 15 sqq.). This last fall receives only a partial explanation from the vacillating character of Peter; the real reason seems to lie in the fact that inaction undermined his resolution, which activity would have kept consistent. Yet in all this he never really lost faith in Christ for an instant, and when he became aware of what he bad almost unconsciously done, his remorse and shame, while finally purifying his character, kept him away from Christ until after the resurrection. Then, however, his old energy reappeared, and though at the tomb he was outstripped in running by the younger disciple John, he was still the first to find that the grave was empty (John xx. 3 aqq.),
and in the account of the appearance of the risen Christ at the Sea of Tiberias, the old character of Peter once more becomes manifest (John xxi. 7 sqq.). The temperament of Peter, as here outlined, was inseparably connected with his position of preeminence among the apostles. Not only was he closely associated with the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and once with his own brother, Andrew, as one of the favorite and most trusted disciples of Jesus (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3 sqq., xiv. 33 aqq.; Luke viii. 51, ix. 28), and not only were he and John commissioned to make preparations for the Last Supper (Luke xxii. 8 sqq.), but the entire content of the Gospels mark him as preeminent over the other disciples. This position seems to have been due essentially to his quick resolution and to his energy, and it was confirmed by Jesus both for the present and for the future; for the present by addressing to him questions and answers which concerned the other disciples as well (Matt. xvii. 25 sqq., xviii. 22, xxvi. 40; John xiii. 36); and for the future by the remarkable words recorded in Matt. xvi. 18‑19, a prerogative which even temporary wavering and recreancy could not annul (cf. Luke xxii. 31‑32).
The apostolic activity of Peter in Judea and the neighboring districts after the resurrection of Jesus is recorded chiefly in Acts, although the Pauline epistles contain a few valuable allusions. It must be borne in mind that a certain amount of editorial change may be traced in the speeches ;. Activity ascribed to Peter in Acts, but there is
and Posi‑ no reason to doubt the essential au tion in thenticity of the facts there recorded.
	Palestine.	After the ascension, Peter, undis
		mayed by the threats of the Sanhe
drin at Jerusalem, preached and worked in Samaria
and along the Syro‑Phenician coast, especially in
Lydda, Joppa, and Cassarea (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix.
32‑x. 48), performing many miracles (Acts iii. 4
aqq., v. 15, ix. 34, 40). Returning to Jerusalem,
he was imprisoned under Herod Agrippa after the
death of James, the brother of John (Acts xii. 1
aqq.), but escaping, he left the city, though he
seems again to have taken up his residence there
after Herod's death. Paul visited him there three
years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18), and he was
there at the time of the council of the apostles re
corded in Gal. ii. 1‑9. With Jerusalem as a base,
he visited other churches (Gal. ii. 11), accompanied
by his wife (I Cor. ix. 5). Despite the existence of
a Petrine faction in Corinth (I Cor. i. 12; cf. ix.
5), there is no reason to suppose that Peter ever
labored there (cf. also I Cor. iv. 15), and the tradi
tion, preserved by Eusebius, that Peter founded
the church in the Syrian city of Antioch is refuted
by Acts xi. 19 aqq. As to the position of Peter as
the leader . of the apostolic church, Acts and the
Pauline epistles are in full accord. He took first
place in the meeting which chose Matthias to suc
reed Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 15 aqq.), he was the
spokesman of the whole company of apostles both
in winning a large body of Jewish converts (Acts
ii. 14 sqq.) and in defending the Gospel against the
Jewish hierarchy (Acts iv. 8 sqq., 19 sqq., v. 29
sqq.), he reformed conditions within the mother

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peter the Apostle
church at Jerusalem (Acts v. i sqq.), he watched over relations with other Christian communities (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix. 32 sqq.), and he was the first to receive a pagan into the new church (Acts x. 1 sqq.). On the other hand, he enjoyed no absolute preeminence. He labored in Samaria together with John (Acts viii. 14), and he was called to account for associating with gentiles (Acts xi. 3 sqq.). At the council of the apostles, moreover, he was not only sot the leader, but was even subordinate, in a sense, to James (Acts xv. 6 aqq.). In like manner Paul at first describes Peter as the leader of the church at Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), but by the time of the apostolic council he was, although still the virtual representative of the mission to the Jews, only one of the three pillars of the church, the other two being James and John (Gal. ii. 8‑9).
	The teaching of Peter, as recorded in Acts, was
essentially apologetic, hortatory, and practical.
Special stress was laid by him on the sufferings of
		Christ, which could allege no obstacle
5. His to full acceptance of his Messianic mis‑
Teachings sion, since his death was an undoas Recorded served and unrighteous act of murder
in Acts. on the part of the Jews through pagan hands (Acts ii. 23, iii. 13 sqq.; cf. iv. 10‑11, v. 30, x. 39). Christ was a true prophet (Acts iii. 22), anointed by the Holy Ghost (x. 38), and attested by miracles, wonders, and signs (ii. 22); and his death was due not to chance, but to the divine plan (Acts ii. 23) as foretold by the prophets (iii. 18), the purpose being the first of all the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, including the forgiveness of sins (cf. iii. 18‑19). The proof of the Messianic kingship of Jesus, even during his human life and suffering, was sought in the fact that, in harmony with prophecy, he had been raised by God from the dead on the third day (Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, 26, iv. 10, x. 40), had been manifested to chosen witnesses (x. 40‑41), and had been exalted to the right hand of God (ii. 31 sqq.). This resurrection, of which it was an essential duty of the apostles to be witnesses (Acts i. 22, ii. 32, iii. 13 sqq., v. 30 sqq., x. 40‑41), had made Jesus the Messianic king (ii. 36, v. 31), the cornerstone of the divine kingdom (iv. 11), lord of all (x. 36, cf. ii. 36), the perfection of the divine kingdom established since the days of the patriarchs (iii. 13), and the consummation of the Messianic days foretold by the prophets (iii. 24). His mediation, therefore, conditions all the promised blessings of the perfect kingdom of God, forgiveness of sins (Acts u. 38, iii. 19, v. 31, x. 43), peace (x. 36), the gift of the Holy Ghost (ii. 38, xi. 17), salvation from a perverse generation (ii. 40), physical health (iii. 6, 16, iv. 10), all salvation (iv. 12), and every divine blessing (iii. 26). The condition on which man shares in these blessings is repentance (Alts ii. 38, iii. 19, viii. 22), which first becomes fully possible through the death and resurrection of Clirist (v. 31, xi. 18, of. iii. 26), as well as obedience to God (v. 32) and acceptance of the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the pledge and the expression of acceptance on both sides being baptism in the name of Christ (ii. 38). The full realization of the VIII.‑31
divine kingdom, however, will be impossible until the last judgment, when God will send Jesus as the judge of the quick and the dead (Acts x. 42), and to bring to the faithful of all ages rest from the affliction of the present wo (iii. 19 sqq.).
While Peter realized that, in accordance with his divine promises, God would extend the blessings established in Christ to all the world and would call all the gentiles (Acts ii. 39, iii. 25‑26), he also
knew that thesd boons were primarily
6. Attitude for the children of the old dispensation
toward (iii. 25, x. 36), and he hoped that, de‑
Gentile spite their unbVief and rejection of
Christians. Jesus, they might still be won for
Christ (ii. 39). He was, moreover, certain that he and the other apostles were ordained to preach solely to the Jews (x. 42), and so strong was his aversion to the gentiles that only special divine commands could make him enter the house of the Roman centurion Cornelius in Caesarea and preach the Gospel to him and his family, concluding by baptizing them (Acts x.). The growth of the Church in non‑Jewish territory, however, forced Peter and other Judeo‑Christians to modify their views, and at the council convened at Jerusalem to decide on the requirements to be laid upon gentile converts to Christianity, Peter deprecated excessive ritual exactions of the converts, though agreeing with James that the gentile Christians should refrain from all things forbidden in the Noachian laws binding on every gentile (Acts xv. 7 sqq.). Further light is cast upon this council by the account given by Paul (Gal. ii. 1 sqq.), according to which the final conclusion was complete harmony, and it was decided that James, Peter, and John should preach to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas to the gentiles. Neither does the disagreement between Paul and Peter recorded by the former as taking place at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.) point to any opposition of principle between the two, particularly as they both agreed that true righteousness was to be sought, not in works of the law, but solely in faith in Christ (Gal. ii. 16). There can be little doubt that Peter's sudden change of attitude at Antioch was hypocritical, although at the same time it must be remembered that some uncertainty as to the proper course to be pursued may have existed in Peter's own mind.
Except for the prophecy in John xxi. 18 sqq. and the Petrine epistles (see below), the New Testament gives no information regarding the closing years of Peter. The sole remaining source is tradition, which, though constantly receiving unhistoric
accretions, seems to preserve a kernel
7. The of truth in the legend that the apostle
Closing went to Rome toward the close of his
Years, life and there suffered martyrdom
under Nero. Thus Clement, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, written in 95‑97, records: " Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and, when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him " (ANF, i. 6). It is also noteworthy that no source describes

Peter the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	482
the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome, the place evidently implied by Clement, as the context shows. It would also seem that Papias of Hierapolis knew of Peter's residence at Rome (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III.; xxxix. 15). There are, however, a number of direct statements that Peter lived at Rome. Dionysius of Corinth (about 170) states that Peter and Paul founded the church at Corinth and then taught in Italy, both suffering martyrdom at Rome (Eusebius, Hist. eod., IT., xxv. 8 ; and like declarations are made by Irenseus (Hor.,~iii. 1, of. iii. 3), Tertullian (De prmscriphom, xxxvi.; cf. Scorpiace, xv.; Adv. Marcionem, iv. 5), Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. ecd., VI., xiv., II., xv.), and the Roman presbyter Caius (Eusebius, Hist. eecd., II., xxv. 7). A similar story is told both by the late second‑century Acts of Peter (perhaps Gnostic in origin) and by the almost contemporary Acts of Peter and Paul. Reference must also be made to a tradition, evolved in the small pseudo‑Clementine circle and devoid of historicity, that Peter carried on a conflict at Rome with Paul, here represented as a false apostle masked as Simon Magus. There is no evidence that Simon Magus was ever at Rome, the alleged proof being an erroneous interpretation of an inscription to the Sabine deity Semo Sancus as being in honor of the sorcerer (NPNF, 2 ser., i. 114, note 11). The residence of Peter in Rome is first brought into conneetion with the alleged presence of Simon Magus there by the Acts of Peter (chap. cxc.). The attempt has also been made to prove that Peter really suffered martyrdom by crucifixion at Jerusalem as a result of the Neronian persecution, evidence being drawn from a combination of the Romans Albinus and Agrippa, mentioned by the Acts of Peter as the persecutor and judge of the apostle, with Albinus, the successor of Festus as procurator of Judea, and Agrippa II., tetrarch of Galilee; but the argument is inadequate, as is another theory that Peter suffered at some unknown place in the East.
Of the other patristic traditions concerning Peter's residence at Rome probably the only one which may be regarded as certain is that which makes Mark his companion at Rome, where & Confused the second Gospel was written after
and False Peter's death on the basis of his oral Traditions communications. When, however, Concerning Jerome declares (De vir. ill., i.) that
	Peter.	Peter, after being bishop at Antioch
		and laboring in Pontus, Galacia, Cap
padocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, went to Rome
in the second year of Claudius to oppose Simon
Magus, and was bishop of the church there for
twenty‑five years, finally being crucified head
downward in the last year of Nero's reign and
buried on the Vatican, his statements rest on a
combination of fugitive allusions. The Antiochian
episcopate is based on Gal. ii. 11 sqq., his activity
in Asia Minor on I Pet. i. 1, his crucifixion is per
haps drawn from a literal interpretation of John
xxi. 18, while the manner of it (cf. Eusebius, Hid.
eccl., III., i.) savors of post‑apostolic rather than of
apostolic taste, and his burial on the Vatican is de
duced from the statement of Caius (see above) that
there was a monument on that hill to commemorate the martyrdom of the apostle. The twenty‑five years' episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr regarding the labors of Simon Magus at Rome (see above), combined with the tradition of Peter's residence in the same city, especially as it would seem that the Roman Church had actually been formed early in the reign of Claudius through the indirect influence of the Petrine Christianity of Palestine. All this giving rise to the belief that Peter himself came to Rome early in the reign of Claudius, the combination of it with the tradition of his martyrdom toward the close of Nero's reign evidently gave rise to the legend of his twenty‑five years' residence in Rome. A further element of confusion was added by the increasing parallelism of Peter and Paul, leading not only to the unhistoric tradition of their joint founding of the church at Corinth, but also to their simultaneous labors in Rome; and a similar idea may have given rise to the belief that the death of Peter, almost coincident with that of Paul, took place in 64, the year of the general persecution of the Christians instigated by the burning of Rome. Still later the death of both apostles was put on the same day, June 29, although the persecution actually took place in July or August. Moreover, Eusebius (Flist. eccl., ill., ii., xxi.), like Irenaeus, the Apostolic . Constitutions, and Rufinus, seems to have regarded Linus, not Peter, as the first bishop of Rome; . and it was not until the middle of the third century that Peter was definitely claimed as bishop of Rome (Cyprian, Epist., lv. 8, lie. 14). The reckoning of the twenty‑five years in Rome varies irreconcilably in different sources, and the whole is rendered impossible by the data of the New Testament, which shows that he was living in Jerusalem at the time of the council of the apostles in 53 (Acts xv.), whence he later visited Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.), while Paul's failure to mention him either in his epistle to the Romans (written in 59) or in his letters from Rome (in the seventh decade of the first century) would imply that Peter was not in the city even then. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death in Rome toward the close of Nero's reign, some time after the cessation of the general persecution. Absolute certainty is, however, unattainable.
II. Writings: The authenticity of the two epistles canonically ascribed to the Apostle Peter has been severely attacked by modern criticism, although the problems connected with each are essentially different in character. The first epistle purports (I Pet. i. 1) to be addressed to readers in Pontus, Galatia (doubtless including, as in official Roman parlance, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and part of Lycaonia), Cappadocia, Asia (Caria, r. Occasion Lydia, Mysia, and probably Phrygia),
and Cir‑ and Bithynia. There is no reason to cumstances suppose, as has long been maintained,
	of I Peter.	that the Petrine epistles were intended
		solely, or even primarily, for Jewish
Christians, especially as the only known churches
in Asia Minor were the gentile congregations estab
lished by Paul and his associates (cf. Gal. iv. 8, 19;

483	RELIGIOUS. ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peter the Apostle
Eph. ii. 11‑iii. 13; T Cor. iv. 15, xv. 1‑3; Acts xv. 3, 12, 19, xxi. 19), as well as in view of Peter's own attitude toward gentile Christians (Gal. ii. 12). The fact that the epistle was addressed to recent converts from paganism, not to Jewish Christiahs, is clear, moreover, from repeated allusions, such as i. 14, 21, ii. 10, iii. 6, and iv. 3. A similar meaning is plainly contained in ii. 25, while " the strangers " of i. 1 (R. V., " sojourners of the Dispersion ") clearly denote, not the Jewish Diaspora, but gentile Christians regarded as the true Israel scattered among the heathen (cf. ii. 9‑10), even though Peter plainly considered these gentile churches as daughters of the mother church at Jerusalem. The epistle implies that the gentile Christians of Asia Minor had already been assailed by their pagan compatriots (iv. 4). Although the apostle evidently regarded acts of violence as a very possible eventuality (iv. 15‑16; cf. i. 6, iii. 14, 17), at the time the only dangers were taunts and insults (iv. 4, 14) and the charge that the Christians were evil‑doers (ii. 12, iii. 16), based on their rejection of heathen vices (iv. 3), an attitude attributed by their enemies to a hatred of the human race which might lead even to theft oz murder (iv. 15). Such accusations were, generally speaking, unjust, but it is clear, from Peter's earnest admonitions to uprightness of life (I Pet: n. 13‑iii. 22), that he feared that the charges might prove real ones, and was also apprehensive that the Christians would relapse into pagan abominations to gain the friendship of the world (ii. 11, iv. 2). The general situation described in the epistle points to the period of the Neronian persecution, not, as some maintain, to the persecution under Trajan, for Christianity had not yet been made a crime against the State (cf. ii. 12, iii. 6, 13, 16, iv. 15), and obedience to temporal superiors could still be urged, a thing impossible after the faith was officially proscribed. Apart from these sufferings of the Christians of Asia Minor, and their consequent perils, nothing is known regarding their condition. It was these distresses and these dangers which had evoked the letter and had formed its purpose (cf. v. 12).
The contents of I Peter can scarcely be systematized. The introduction, with its hopeful outlook beyond the evils of the present (i. 1‑12), is followed by general admonitions to upright life (i. 13‑21), brotherly love (i. 22‑25), and the building of a spiritual temple (ii. 1‑10). Then s. Relation come admonitions bearing more di‑
to Other rectly on present conditions of earthly ft. T. Wri‑ pilgrimage. (ii. 11‑12), obedience to tinge. earthly superiors, even though they be oppressive (ii. 13‑25), mutual respect between husbands and wives (iii. 1‑8), abstinence from revenge (iii. 8‑12), and patient endurance of suffering (iii. 13‑17), herein imitating Christ (iii. 18‑22). The Christian must not relapse into pagan licentiousness (iv. 1‑6), but must show sobriety, service, and affection (iv. 7‑11), as well as endurance of undeserved affliction (iv. 12‑19). Both old and young are admonished to perform their several duties (v. 1‑5), and all must trust in God and be ever watchful (v. 6‑9); while the epistle concludes with a benediction (v. 10‑11), notes on the apos‑
tle's purpose in writing (v. 12), and salutations (v. 13‑14). The epistle shows unmistakable dependence on Romans, Ephesians, and James (cf. I Pet. i. 14‑15 with Rom. xii. 2; iv. 10 with xii. 3‑8; iv. 8, i. 22 with xii. 9; iii. 9 with xii. 17; ii. 13‑14 with xiii. 1; ii. 19 with xiii. 5; ii. 1, iv. 13 with xiii. 1213; ii. 24 with vi. 2; i. 5, iv. 13 with viii. 17‑18). There is, on the other hand, no reason to assume that I Peter is dependent on Hebrews, Colossians, or any other Pauline epistles and what dependence there is must be considered ~ather as general reminiscences than as mechanical borrowing.
There is, moreover, a marked individuality both in style and in dogmatic content, so that, despite a certain adoption of Pauline material (cf. I Pet. iv. 1‑2, ii. 24, iii. 22 with Rom. vi. 7, 18, via. 34), the type of doctrine represented is primitively apos‑
tolic, and is essentially a further de3. Its velopment of the Petrine passages reTheology. corded in Acts. In both there is the
same basal concept of Christianity as the realization of the Old‑Testament kingdom of God, harmonizing with prophecy and brought into being by the crucified but risen Christ. There is, however, no such antithesis between the law and the Gospel as in the Pauline writings, nor is there the Pauline stress on the atonement or on justification by faith; . but soteriology is more prominent in Peter than in James. Faith is not so much an acceptance of the forgiveness of sins based on the death of Christ upon the cross (as in Paul's teaching) as a trust in God grounded on the recognition of Jesus as the glorified Messiah who shall be revealed in the fulness of time. The moral life, consequently, is regarded as connected with faith from the first, rather than as a mere fruit of faith. The close union of prophecy. and the entire theocracy of the Old Testament leads Peter to the conclusion that the salvation sought by the prophets is become the possession of the Christian, while the spirit which worked in the prophets was essentially the same as the spirit of Christ (I Pet. i. 10 sqq.). The ideal of the Old‑Testament people of God is realized in the Christian Church (I Pet. ii. 9), which is to include all gentiles called of God (Acts ii. 39). The sufferings of Christ are not only the model for the Christian's patience under outward affliction (I Pet. ii. 21, iii. 18, iv. 1), but, since they most clearly reveal his moral greatness (ii. 22 sqq.), they inspire the Christian to all self‑denial and to all struggle with sin (iv. 1 sqq.). Redemption from the power of sin is founded on the redemptive wor
of the death of Christ (I Pet. i. 18‑19), which has crushed the might of sin forever (iii. 18, iv. 1). From this it follows that Christ is the great shepherd of his flock (v. 4), that the salvation of the risen Lord extends even to the dead (iii. 19, iv. 6), that the moral effect of baptism, as " the answer of a good conscience toward God," is given through the resurrection of Christ (iii. 21), and that the sufferings of the Christians mark the beginning of the judgment (iv. 12). The result of all this is a lively hope (i. 3, 13, 21, iii. 15) in the Christian, who is but a pilgrim and a stranger in this world (i. 17, ii. 11), a situation which should only inspire him to still greater moral earnestness.

Peter the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	484
According to I Pet. v. 13, the epistle was written at " Babylon." The ruined condition of the great Babylon at the time, however, as well as the fact that in the reign of Caligula the Jews
4. Place had been driven from it by pestilence and Date and persecution, render it certain that of Composi‑ Peter did not compose his epistle there.
	tion; Au‑	It is equally improbable that " Baby
	thenticity.	lon " here means Mesopotamia in gen
		eral or the Egyptian town of Babylon
in the Nile delta. Neither is there any tradition
during the first five centuries of any activity of
Peter in either Babylonia or Egypt. So it is in
dubitable that here, as elsewhere, " Babylon "
means Rome (cf. Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii.
2, 10, 21; Oracula Sibyllina, v. 153; II Esdras, iii.
1; cf. also I Pet. v. 14; Col. iv. 10). The letter
can not have been written before 64, both because
of its dependence on James and Romans, and be
cause of the designation of Rome as Babylon,
which did not come into vogue until the Neronian
persecution had begun. It may be concluded, then,
that it was written either soon after the outbreak
of the persecution, shortly before the return of Paul
from Spain and the martyrdom of both Peter and
Paul, or, if the death of the former be placed shortly
before the fall of Nero, in the closing years of this
reign. The testimony of the early Church favors
the authenticity of the epistle. Besides the allu
sion to it in II Pet. iii. 1, it is mentioned by Her
mas, Papias, Polycarp, is cited by Irenseus, Ter
tullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and is
placed in the canon by Eumbius. On the other
hand, it was rejected, for dogmatic reasons, by the
Paulicians, and in the nineteenth century its au
thenticity was denied by many critics; while others
supposed either that it was translated from the
Aramaic of Peter into Greek by Mark or Silvanus,
or that one of these two developed the outline given
by Peter. It has also been maintained that it was
written later and then ascribed to Peter, although
no credible motive can be assigned for such a pro
ceeding. The optimism which pervades the epis
tle, like the theological attitude midway between
James and Paul, is in entire accord with the tem
perament and position of Peter as revealed through
out the New Testament. Hence there is, in short,
no good reason to doubt the authenticity of I
Peter.
With the second Petrine epistle the case is different. The occasion of its writing was the rise of false teachers, some of them libertines like those described by Jude, and others mockers and deniers of the second advent (II Pet. ii.‑iii.), 5. II Peter. although it seems probable, on the whole, that only one class of false teachers is really meant. The epistle is composed of an introduction reminding the readers of the boon of salvation and urging them to remain faithful (i. 1‑10), and three parts: an assurance of the certainty of the second coming of Christ (i. 11‑21); a characterization of the libertinism of the false teachers and their sure punishment (ii. 1‑22); and prediction of the destruction of the world by fire, the delay of the day of judgment through the mercy of God, and an admonition to righteousness and Pa‑
tience (iii. 1‑13); the whole concluding with an allusion to the writings of Paul, warning, admonition, and glorification of God (iii. 14‑18). The epistle is clearly influenced profoundly by Jude (cf. ii. 4, 11, 13 with Jude 6, 9, 12); but, on the other hand, a comparison of the second Petrine epistle with the first shows a marked difference in style, as well as in dogmatic position. The concepts of " knowledge " and " godliness," unmentioned in I Pet., are prominent in II Pet., while the characteristic optimism of I Pet. here disappears.. The center of expectation is the end of the world rather than the perfection .of salvation; but, on the other hand, the second advent is thought of as more remote than in I Pet. Christ appears in II Pet. especially as the Savior, but the pattern of his life and passion, so stressed in I Pet., is as little mentioned in II Pet. as are his death and resurrection. The difference between the two epistles can not be explained from their divergent purposes; and a considerable time must have elapsed between the composition of the two, since II Pet. is later than Jude, which was probably written after the fall of Jerusalem (see JuDE, EPiOTLE oF). Certain points in II Pet., moreover, imply a date subsequent to the apostolic age (cf. II Pet. iii. 3 sqq., 15‑16), and the tradition of the Church is unfavorable to the authenticity of the epistle. There is no clear evidence that it was known to the apostolic Fathers or to the church writers of the second century. In the time of Origen only I Peter was considered canonical, and Eumbius reckoned II Peter among the antilegomena (Hint. eccl., III., xxv. 3,), although Firmilian of Csesarea in Cappadocia seems to have considered it authentic (Cyprian, Epist., lxxv.). Despite certain doubts of Gregory Nazianzen (Carmina, xxxiii. 35), Jerome, who himself recognized the fact that the epistle was rejected by most critics on the basis of its stylistic deviation from I Peter, was largely responsible for securing general acceptance of the epistle. At the Reformation period its authenticity was again doubted by Calvin and Erasmus, and since the time of J. S. Semler (q.v.) it has generally been deemed spurious by adherents of the critical school. (F. SiEFFERT.)
III. Apocryphal Petrine Literature: Of writings of this class four claim mention here, the Gospel, the Apocalypse, the Preaching, and the Acts.
1. The Gospel: That such a gospel existed has been known since the end of the second century. The most explicit account of it is found in several passages in Eusebius (Hist. ecd., VI.,
1. Early xii‑the longest reference‑, III., iii.
Mention. and xxv., Eng. tranal. in NPNP, 2d ser. vol. i.) and it is mentioned by Origen (" Commentary on Matthew," x. 17), Jerome (De vir. ill., i., Eng. transl. in NPNP, 2d ser., iii. 361), Theodoret (Hcereticarum Fabularum, ii. 2), and in De~ cretum Gelaaianum (De libris recipiendis). The Principal notice by Eumbius includes a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch 190‑191‑211‑212, to the church at Rhosms in GSlicia, on the Mediterranean coast on the bay of Issue in Asia Minor. This church had been using the Gospel of Peter in its services, and when Serapion visited them he had granted

486	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peter the Apostle
permission to continue this use, though he did not himself examine the document closely. But he later read the book and found it tinged with Docetic heresy, though " most of it belonged to the rightteaching of the Savior, but some things were additions." The clear implication is that Serapion wished the reading suspended till a secbnd visit, when he would probably give directions to cease using it. The other references to the gospel add little information beyond the fact that these documents attributed to Peter were not accepted or generally used as testimony by ecclesiastical authorities.
Being heretical, or at least being regarded as heretical, the Gospel was lost for centuries. Finally a Frenchman, Urbain Bouriant, discovered in the winter of 1886‑87 at Akhmim in Upper
2. Redo‑ Egypt a vellum manuscript in Greek
oovery. containing on thirty‑three pages parts of three Christian works, the Book of Enoch (pp. 21‑56), the Gospel of Peter (pages 2‑10), and the Apocalypse of Peter (reversed pages 19‑13). The pages measure about six by four and three‑quarters inches, and the manuscript itself is not earlier than the eighth century. The identification of the fragments as parts of the works named is granted by all critics. The documents were not published, however, till 1892, when they were issued under the auspices of the French Archeological Mission at Cairo as vol. ix. of a series devoted to Egyptology (pp. 137 sqq., Paris, 1892). The reason for the delay was probably that French scholars did not at first realize the importance of the documents. Immediately on the publication intense interest was manifested in the discovery, and discussions by leading scholars in the New Testament and in patristics issued in great numbers, as a result of which the principal questions which were raised may be regarded as settled.
The fragment of the gospel is about 150 lines in length, and deals with the passion and resurrection of Jesus. It begins abruptly in the midst of the 8. Contents. account of the trial, and closes as abruptly in the middle of a sentence which in complete form possibly recorded the first appearance of Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection. Evidently what preceded was the account of Pilate's washing of his hands (Matt. xxvii. 24). The document then proceeds to state that none of the Jews washed their hands, not even Herod, who gives Jesus up to the Jews to do as they would with him. Then Joseph, a friend of Pilate and of Jesus, begs of Pilate the body (in anticipation of the crucifixion), and Pilate refers the request to Herod, who accedes. Then follows the account of the mocking, scourging, and crucifixion, Jesus (" the Lord ") being silent " as if in no wise feeling pain " while the Jews would not have his legs broken in order to prolong his agony. The document tells of the midday darkness, and the administration of gall and vinegar. " The Lord " thereupon cried out: " My Power, my Power, hast thou forsaken me " (or, " thou hast forsaken me "), and then died. The veil of the temple is rent, and the Jews draw the nails " from the hands of the Lord " and remove him from the cross. To Joseph is given the
body, and he performs the last rites and lays it in his tomb. Then the Jews come to a consciousness of their sin and a fear of the coming judgment. The murmurings and dread anticipations of the people lead the scribes and Pharisees to ask of Pilate a guard for the tomb lest the body be stolen and resurrection be fictitiously claimed. The tomb is then sealed. Early in the morning the guard hear a great voice, see two men descend from the open heavens, and the stone of the tomb‑door roll away of itself; the men enter the tomb, and emerge supporting a third, while a cross follows them. The two men's heads reach to heaven, the head of the third is still higher. A voice asks: " Hast thou preachers to them that are asleep? " and the cross answers yea. The soldiers deliberate whether they shall tell Pilate, and from the open heavens a man descends and enters the tomb. The soldiers relate all to Pilate, who asserts innocence in the matter, but enjoins silence through fear of the Jews. At dawn " of the Lord's day" Mary Magdalen and her friends come to mourn Jesus, find the tomb open and a young man sitting there who tells them Jesus is risen. In the closing paragraph, on the last day of unleavened bread " the twelve disciples " after weeping and grieving withdrew to their homes. Simon Peter (the narrator) and Andrew took their nets and went to the sea with " Levi . . . whom the Lord . . ."
The date of composition of this gospel must be placed in the second century. This is proved by the fact that it was in use at Rhossus in the early part of the episcopate of Serapion;
4. Date, and it must have been some time in
Sources,	circulation to have gained the favor
	able reception which the Church there
and
Character. accorded it. It is evident, also, from a remark of Serapion that sit was in quite extensive use among Docetic Christians. How far back into the second century it can be carried is doubtful. Harnack and MeGiffert find traces of its use by Justin Martyr in his First Apology, therefore before 161 at the latest. But the majority of scholars, probably with good reason, reject this hypothesis, explaining the parallelism by a common use of sources, so that the terminus a quo can with assurance not be placed very high. There is no clue to the authorship, the one mark being a very evident and somewhat extreme antagonism to the Jews. Thus there is brought out in bold relief at the very beginning of the fragment the assumption by the Jews, including Herod, of responsibility for the death of Jesus. It is probable that the author was not a Palestinian (he speaks of the temple " at Jerusalem "). The relation of this gospel to the four canonical Gospels is clear, as it uses them all (this is perhaps best exhibited to the eye in H. von Schubert's Das Petrusevangelium, synoptische Tabedde, Berlin, 1893, Eng. transl., Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical Tables, Edinburgh, 1893), noteworthy here being the employment of the Fourth Gospel. But the material is used with freedom, and with a view to the author's purpose. Joseph, e.g., is made to ask the body of Jesus as soon as the condemnation of Jesus is assured. The character of the gospel is by nearly all the com‑

Peter the Apostle	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	488
mentators called docetic, following the classificar tion of its users by Serapion as cited by Eusebius (ut sup.). That it is Gnostic is clear, that it is docetic is vigorously denied by McGiffert, who is not, however, strongly supported by other scholars. Docetism is on the surface of the document: to deny that quality requires strenuous argumentation. The docetism is of an early type. The reports referred to above (§ 1) all indicate that this book was outside the circle of ecclesiastically permitted writings. That it should be lost is therefore less strange than that it lingered so long as to become the object of copyist's care in the eighth century. Its recovery, however, showed it in pseudepigraphic company, and this company was in high favor in Egypt at a late date.
2. The Apocalypse: This work is one of those which received frequent and to some extent favorable mention in early Christian literature, and left their impress of ideas and even of ex‑
1. Early pression upon it, and yet vanished
Notices. under the stress of authority acquired by the canonical New Testament. The Muratorian Canon (q.v.) mentions it as a book which " some of our number will not have read in the churches "; Clement of Alexandria commented on it (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI., xiv. 1), and three passages from it are quoted in fragments of his " Miscellanies," in one of which it is " Scripture "; Methodius (q.v.) cited it as inspired; Eusebius (ut sup., III., iii. 2, xxv. 4) pronounced against it, as against the gospel and the Preaching, though not as being heretical in tendency; Macarius Magnes (see MACARITTB, 3) used it, possibly citing from Porphyry of the third century, and speaks of it as in agreement with prophecy and the Gospel. The Nicephoran list of apocryphal books (c. 850) says that it contained 300 lines (about equal in size to Galatians, which has 311) and this agrees approximately with the length as given in Codex Claromontanus (D2) of the fourth century and with other evidence. After having been used with more or less reserve, sometimes being absolutely rejected, in Rome, Egypt, and Asia Minor, it survived in Palestine and Egypt till the eighth or ninth century. Certain fragments were known through the citations indicated above before the rediscovery (given in J. E. Grabe, Spin cilegium, i. 74, Oxford, 1698; and in J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, The Gospel . . . and . .
Revelation of Peter, pp. 94‑96, London, 1892). The knowledge of this book was greatly extended by the discovery, on the same manuscript as that which contained the fragment of the gospel, of a considerable part of the Apocalypse also.
The newly recovered fragment of about 140 lines (nearly half the reported length of the book) consists of three parts: (1) the conclusion of an eschatological discourse, (2) a vision of paradise, and 2. Contents. (3) part of a vision of hell. The eschatological part predicts false prophets, and the coming of God for the relief of the saints and the judgment of the lawless. The vision of paradise comes after the Lord had taken the twelve disciples into a mountain to pray, and is given them for encouragement in their preaching. While they are at prayer two of the righteous ap‑
pear as glorious forms, and then a view of paradise with its inhabitants is granted. The vision of hell is more extended, and shows the punishment of blasphemers of various sorts, of adulterers, murderers and abortionists, persecutors of the saints, false witnesses, the wealthy and uncharitable, usurers, lewd persons, idolaters, and apostates from Christianity. The situation in which the book is placed is apparently a period after the resurrection of Christ and before the ascension, during which he instructs his disciples in order to their encouragement and equipment for the world‑mission which (impliedly, according to the fourth complete sentence) they have already received.
The literary influence of this Apocalypse is very far‑reaching and important. Its general ideas affiliate with those of such books as Enoch and the Apocalypse of Baruch. But it has a much closer connection with (1) The Testament of our Lord
Jesus Christ, (2) the Sibylline Oracles 3. Literary (ii. 6‑30, 154‑213), the vision of JosaInffuenoe; phat in " History of Barlaam and Jos.
Date. aphat " and (4) II Peter. It appears to be very probable that the Testament is an expanded paraphrase of the first part of the Apocalypse, and that from it a fair idea can be gained of the content of the lost first part of the original. The Sibylline lines show close relationship with both the Testament and the Apocalypse, following the latter in the part where the Testament fails, and so making tenable the conclusion that the Sibyl employed as its source the Apocalypse. The description of paradise in the vision of Josaphat so reproduces not only the ideas but the language of the Apocalypse that identity of theme does not suffice to explain the close resemblances in expression. Finally, the connection between the verbal statements of II Peter and the Apocalypse (conveniently exhibited in DB, iii. 814‑815) has made it clear either (1) that the writer of II Peter borrowed from the Apocalypse, (2) that both are by the same writer, or (3) that the authors were of the same school. Other Christian books which were influenced by the Apocalypse ®f Peter are the Apocalypse of Paul and the Apocalypse of Esdras, the Acts of Thomas, and the Passion of Perpetua. The notes of citation show that the document was composed in the second century, and the place of composition may have been either Palestine or Egypt.
S. The Preaching (Gk. Berugma Pelrou, L at. Prcedicatio Petri et Pauli): This book is cited by Eusebius (Hilt. eccl., III., iii.) as one of the four spurious works attributed to Peter; Clement of Alexandria (Strom., i. 29, ii. 15, vi. 5‑7, 15; Eng. transl. in ANF, vol. ij.) uses it as a .genuine writing of Peter; Origen (In Johannem, xui. 17) quotes Heracleon as employing one of the passages used by Clement, but is generally unfavorable in his attitude to the book; still earlier use seems assured on the part of Justin Martyr, Aristides, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, and later use by Apollonius of Asia Minor. It is possibly the same as the" Preaching of Peter and Paul " quoted by Lactantius (" Divine Institutes," iv. 21; Eng. transl. in ANF, vii. 123). The extant fragments

487	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Peter the Apostle
have been collected by A. Hilgenfeld in Novum Testamentum extra canonemt (iv. 51 sqq., Leipme, 1884); by E. von Dobschiltz, in TU, xi. 1 (1894); and by E. Preuschen, Antilegomena (pp. 52‑54, 143‑145, Giessen, 1901). Its date is placed by Harnack (and Von Dobschiitz) as between 110 and 130, and by Zahn between 90 and 100 (tpo early!); Harnack and Von Dobschiits agree upon Egypt as the place of composition, the latter more definitely settles upon Alexandria. The fragments preserved indicate that the work was given as the substance of discourses by a spokesman for the apostles, the first person plural being used. It seems to have inculcated particularly a Christian monotheism, and to have been a polemic against Judaistic error and paganism, and an apology for Christianity. The faithful or saints are " a third race " (Gk. triton genos) among heathens and Jews.
4. The Acts: Brief mention should be made of the fact that about Peter's name there grew up a considerable literature, much of it having the character of " tendency writings." Of "Acts " there are two series quite distinct, the " Gnostic Acts " and the " Catholic Acts," which cover practically the same ground but with a marked difference in form of statement. For references and description of these see APOCRYPHA, B, II., and for part of the literature which developed on the same basis as these series of " Acts " see CL1;mENTnwA.
GEo. W. GILMOBE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life and development of Peter is treated with more or less completeness in the works on the life of Christ (see under Jzsus CHRIST); sketches usually appear also in the introductions to the commentaries on the epistles. For further treatment of his life and activities consult: T. W. H. Grifth, The Apostle Peter, New York, 1905; M. Marquardt, Simon Petrus ala MiUcl‑ and Auegangapunkt der ehrisaichen Urkirehe, Kempten, 1908; G. V. Lechler, Dos apostolische and daa each‑apoatolische Zeifalter, Gotha, 1857, Eng. ‑tranel., The Apostolic and Post‑Apostolic Times, Edinburgh, 1888; E. Renan, Lea Apdtrea, Paris, 1808, Eng. transl., The Apostles, London, n.d.; A. Hausrath, Neulestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich, 1879, Eng. tranal., particularly Times of the Apostles, London, 1895; J. Sehmid, Petrua in Rom, Lucerne, 1879; F. W. Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, London, 1882; J. S. Howson, Studies in the Life of St. Peter, ib. 1883; C. von Weizahcker, Das apostoliache Zeitalter, Freiburg, 1888, Eng. transl., Apostolic Age, 'London, 1894; H. A. Birks, Life and Character of St. Peter, London, 1887; J. B. Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers, S. Clement of Rome, ii. 481 sqq., London, 1890; C. Fouard, St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity, London, 1892; F. W. Puller, Primitive Saints arid the See of Rome, London, 1893; W. M. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, London, 1893; idem, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, ib. 1895; A. C. McGiffert, Hint. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York, 1897; J. V. Bartlett, Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1900; J. G. Greenhough, Apostles of our Lord, London, 1904 (devotional); W. H. G. Thomas, The Apostle Peter, London, 1904; J. Ninek, Simon Petrus, der Fischer sue Galilt`a, Leipsic, 1903; G. Matheson, Representative Men of the N. T., London, 1905; A. Brun, Easai our 1'ap4tre Pierre, Montauban, 1905; L. C. Fillion, Saint Pierre, Paris, 1908; A. J. Southouse, The Making of Simon Peter, New York, 1908; A. Drews, Die Petruslegende. Bin Bntrag our Mythologic des Chrsslentums, Frankfort, 1910. The discussions in the dictionaries usually cover both the life and the epistles: DB, iii. 756‑‑818 (elaborate); EB, iv. 4599‑4827 (life), iii. 3877,85 (epistles); JB. Xi. 388‑388; DCG, ii. 349‑351; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fmp. xxxi., cols.358‑379 (valuable citation of literature).
On the theology of Peter consult the pertinent sections in the works on N. T. theology mentioned in and under
BIBLICAL THBOLOOY; also C. A. Briggs, Messiah of the
Apostles, pp. 21 l1, NeV York, 1895; R. W. Dale, Tlw
Atonement, pp. 97‑148, London, 1875.
On questions of introduction to the epistles the reader should consult the relevant sections in the works on N. T. introduction and on the Canon (see BIBLICAL INTROnOCTION; and CANON OF SCRIPTURE). Consult further: Harnaek, Littemtur, ii. 1, pp. 450‑475; D. V51ter, Der crate Petruabrief, seine Ent"ung and Stellung in der Geschichte des Urchriatenthuma, Strasburg, 1908; B. Weiss, Der crate Pstrusbrief and die neuere %ritik, Gross‑Liehterfelde, 1908; E. T. Mayerhoff, Einleitung in die petrsniwhen Schriften, Hamburg, 1835; B. Weiss, in TS%, 1866, pp. 258 sqq.; Grimes, in TSB, 1872, pp. 857‑894; B. B. Warfield, in Southern Presbyterian Reeiem Jan., 1882, Apr., 1883; F. Spitta, Der Zweite Brief des Pdrua and der Brief des Judas, Halle, 1885; P. J. Gloag, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, Edinburgh, 1887; H. Groeeh, Die Echtheil des zlaeiten Briefea Petri, Berlin, 1889; E. Saharfe, Die pdrinische Str6mung der neuteatamentlichen Literntur, Berlin, 1893; G. A. Deissmann, Beibelatudien, pp. 244245, 277 sqq., Marburg, 1895; L. Moonier, La Premidre Epftre de 1'apdtre Pierre, Paris, 1902; L. Gontard, Eseai critique et hiatorzque our la premigre gpftre de S. Pierre, Lyon, 1905; Link, in TS%, 1898, pp. 405‑138; E. A. Abbot, in Expositor, 2 ser., iii. 49 sqq.; Vigouroux, Die. tionnaire, fates. uxi.‑xuii., cola. 380‑413.
Commentaries are: C. Bigg, in International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh and New York, 1901; J. B. Mayor (on II Peter and Jude), London, 1907; W. Steiger, Berlin, 1832 (I Peter); J. Brown, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1848‑58; T. Demarest, 2 vols., New York, 1851‑85; A. Barnes, New York 1859' T. ‑ Schott, 2 volt., Erlangen, 1881‑33; T. Adams, Edinburgh, 1882 (II Peter); F. Steinfam, Rostock, 1883 (II Peter); R. Leighton, republished Philadelphia, 1884; J. Lillie, New York, 1889; T. Harms, Hermannaburg, 1873 (II Peter); G. F. C. Fronmaller, in Lange's commentary, Eng. tranal., New York, 1874; J. C. K. Hofmann, Nbrdlingen, 1875; in C. J. Ellicott's Handy Commentary, New York, 1883; E. H. Plumptre, in Cambridge Bible, 1883; G. D. F. Salmond, in P. Schaff's Popular Commentary, New York, 1883; F. C. Cook and J. R. Lumby, in the Bible Commcntary, London, 1881; J. E. Huther, in Meyer's commentary, Eng. transl., 1881; in the Pulpit Commentary, London and New York, 1887; J. M. Usteri, Zurich, 1887; R. Johnstone, Edinburgh, 1888; F. B. Meyer, London, 1890; M. F. Sadler, London, 1891; H. von Soden, in Hand‑%ommentar. Freiburg, 1892; S. Goebel, Gotha, 1893; J. K. Lumby, in Expositor's Bible, London, 1894; K. Burger, Munich, 1895; H. Couard, Potsdam, 1895; J. T. Beck, GOtersloh, 1895; E. Kiihl, GSttingen, 1898; W. F. Besser, Halle, 1899; J. Moonier, Paris, 1900 (I Peter); E. Hopp, Giltersloh, 1901; B. Weiss, Leipsic,1902; K. Henkel, Freiburg, 1904 (II Peter); J. H. Jowett, London, 1905; H. Gunkel, in Die Schrifte» des Neuen Testament fberaetzt and ftir des Gegenwart erklnrt, ii. 25 sqq., Giittingen, 1908 (I Peter), and G. Hollmann, in the same, ii. 81 sqq. (II Peter).
On the Apocryphal literature: The principal worbs on the Gospel are named under APocRYPHA. Of the books named there (vol. i., p. 229, col. 1, bottom), those by Harris, Robinson and James, Von Gebhardt, Hamack, and Lode deal also with the Apocalypse. Further literature covering either Gospel or Apocalypse, and sometimes both, is: Funk, in TQS, lxxv (1893), 25&‑288; A. Hilgenfeld, in ZWT, i (1893), 439‑454; J. Kunze, Das neu aufgefundene Bruchat tlck des . : . Petrusevangeliums, Leipaic, 1893; H. von Soden, in ZT%, iii (1893), 52‑92; H. B. Swete, The Akmim Fragments of the Apocryphal Gospel o Peter, London, 1893; W. C. Van Manen, Hot Evangelic roan Petrus, Leyden, 1893; E. Klostermann, Rears des Petrue‑Evangelium, der Petrua Apokalypae and des Kerypma Petri, Bonn, 1894; A. C. MoGiffert, in Papers of the American Society of Church History, vi. 101‑130, New York, 1894 (contains a very full bibliography, including aontributione to periodicals, which may be supplemented from Richardson, Encyclopmdia, pp. 37, 412‑413); E. Koch, in Kirchliche Monateachrift, xv (1898) 311388; G. Salmon, IntrMudion to the Study of the . . . Now Testament, pp. 581‑591, new ed., London, 1897; V. H. Stanton, in JTS ii (1901), 1‑25; idem, The Gospels as Historical Door menta, Cambridge, 1903; L. Henneeke, Neutsdamendicha Apokryphon, pp. 2732, Tubingen, 1904; Haraaek Lit‑

Peter the Apostle
Peter Comestor	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	488
teratur, ii. 1, pp. 470‑475, 822 sqq., 898‑897, 716; Bardenhewer, Geechichte, pp. 392‑399, 471‑475.
On the " Preaching " ooneult~ besides the works named in the text: T$, i. 1, pp. 86 eqq., Cambridge, 1891; T. Zahn, Geechidde lea neutedamenuichen Kanona, ii. 2, pp. 820832, Leipsic, 1892; Harnack, Lilteratur, ii. 1, pp. 472‑474; E. Henneeke, Die Neuteatamentlichen Apokryphen, pp. 168‑171, Tilbingen, 1904; DCB, iv. 329‑331; Vigouroux, Didionnaire, faac. xxxii., 414‑415; Harnack, Litteratur, ii. 1, pp. 472 eqq.
The " Acts" are collected by R. A. Lipsius in Acta apostolorum apocrypha, part I., Leipsic, 1891, and are discussed very thoroughly in the same scholar's Die Apokryphen Apoddpeechidten and Apodeldwenden, 3 volt., Brunswick, 1883‑90. Consult further: A. Bell, Lives and Legends of the Broanpelida, Apodlm, and other Sainte, London, 1901; E. W. Budge, The Contendinpe of the Apostles, 2 vole., ib. 1901; A. Baumetark, Die Petrusund Pavluaadex in der litterariachen UdrerlieJenaW der eyrischm Kirche, Leipsic, 1902; C. Schmidt, in T U, xxiv. 1 (1903); G. Fieker, Die Pdrumden, Leipsic, 1903; A. S. Lewis, is Horm Semitica, iv. 175‑216, London, 1904; Harnack, Litteratw, ii. 1, pp. 549 eqq., and ii. 2, passim; DB, iif. 773‑778.

PETER THE APOSTLE, FESTIVALS OF: The calendar of the Western Church from the close of the early period indicates four feasts in honor of Peter.
L The Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul: This festival on June 29 commemorating the interment of the remains of Peter and Paul, said to have taken place under consuls Tuscus and Bassus in 258, is already noted in the %alendaraum Liberianua prepared in 354. Ambrose and Prudentius both testify to it in the fourth century and no Western list of martyrs from the sixth century fails to notice it. In the Eastern Church the ecclesiastical history of Theodorus Lector states that this festival was already celebrated in Constantinople toward the end of the reign of Anastasius I. (518). It also appears in the calendars of the Copts, Ethiopians, and Armenians, the last of these naming Dec. 27 as well as June 29 as a memorial day of the martyrdom of Peter. The Roman Catholic Church regards this, together with Saint Paul's day on June 30, as one of the leading annual festivals. Benedict authorized a celebration of eight days in 1743, and Pius IX. lent new glory to this feast by the pompous celebration of the eighteenth centennial anniversary in 1867.
IL Feast of the Antiochian Accession of St. Peter: This festival, assigned to Feb. 22, in honor of the assumption of Peter of the bishopric is mentioned in the Calendarium Liberianum in 354. This oldest source as well as the calendar of Polemius Silvius of 448 leaves the seat of the bishopric to which the celebration pertains undetermined. The Ambrosian liturgy and the sacramentary of Gelasius I. do not mention this festival; after the Gregorian sacramentary mention is made in all the liturgies of the West but with a variation as to the seat. One recension of the Gregorian sacramentary refers the installation festival to Antioch and another to Rome.
131. Feast of Saint Peter's Accession at Rome: This festival, celebrated on Jan. 18, was not clearly distinguished from the last preceding before the eighth century. For example, some old liturgies of the Gallican Church knew of but one feast of installation, that of Jan. 18. Only from the Carolin‑
gian epoch were both feasts firmly established as well as the tradition of a double installation of Peter.
IV. Feast of the Chains of Saint Peter: This feast, celebrated on Aug. 1, mention of which is lacking in the older sources, is sdmetimes referred after the ninth century to the imprisonment and miraculous deliverance of Peter under Herod Agrippa and by some older sources like the martyria of Jerome and Bede rather to that under Nero. In the Western Church the feast assumed the character of a thanksgiving for the harvest, since bread made of the first‑fruits was offered in the churches. In the Eastern Church this feast is celebrated on Jan. 16; in the Armenian Church on Feb. 22.
V. Feast of the Finger of the Apostle Peter: Nothing is known with reference to the origin and meaning, except that it took place among the Armenians on May 24.
VL A Memorial Day of Saint Peter: This was
celebrated on July 31 among the Abyssinians. There
is no further record. 	(O. Zt9C$l.Lxt.)
BIaraoanerH:: S. A. H. Kellner, Heortolopie, pp. 163‑166, 173‑178, Freiburg, 1901; J. C. W. Augusti, Denkwiirdip‑
keeten, iii. 175 sqq., Leipsic, 1820; F. X. Kraus, Real‑
Bneyk1opddie der chriaaichen Altertiamer, i. 496‑498, Frei‑
burg, 1882; N. Nilles, %alendarium manuals vtrduaqus
wxleaix, vol. ii., Innsbruck, 1885; F. Probst, Die Meeks
rbmiwhen Sacramentarien and Ordinee, pp. 102, 272, 359,
Munster, 1892; DCA, ii. 1623‑28; %L, 187980.
PETER OF ASPELT. See AICHBPALT.

PETER OF BLOIS: Ecclesiastical author; b. at Blois (100 m. s.w. of Paris) about 1130; d. between 1204 and 1212. While he was not among the foremost in rank and station, he was in positions which make his productions worthy sources for the church history of his times. His education was begun young and was extended by wide reading before he went to Bologna for the study of law and medicine; he afterward took up the study of theology, but that he did sounder John of Salisbury (q.v.) is not proved. In 1167 he accompanied Stephen, archbishop of Palermo, to Sicily, where he became keeper of the seal during the minority of King William IT., but the disfavor of the Sicilians for Stephen compelled Peter to leave in 1169. Later he was called by Henry II. to England, where he served several persons of distinction as secretary or chancellor, among them Baldwin of Canterbury, Queen Eleanor, widow of Henry II., and possibly Archbishop Hubert Walter. He had also relations with the bishop of Bath, whose archdeacon he was 1175‑91; he spent a joyless service also as dean at Wolverhampton, where his attempts at reform were opposed by the chapter.
The personality of Peter does not make a pleasant impression upon one. He seems to have suffered from discontent because he did not meet the recognition his abilities seemed to demand. He did not lack philosophical talent or practical skill; but he was not creative, nor did he seem to grasp opportunities to put himself in a commanding position. He possessed sincerity and an earnest ethical spirit, was a partizan of Pope Alexander III. and a foe to heretics, and also upheld his episcopal superiors against their unruly subordinates. His letters are

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peter the Ayoetle
		Peter Oomeetor
among the most interesting and important of his
literary remains, containing much relating to the
political, ecclesiastical, and social affairs of the
period; though whether they are as completely the
results of personal observation as they purport to
be has been questioned. He had a double, a Peter
of ~Blois who was chancellor of Chartres.
		(S. M. DEuTsCHt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera were edited by J. Merlin, Paris.
	1519; more completely by P. de Goussainville, Paris, 1667;
	J. Busaeus, Mains, 1600; J. A. Giles, in PEA, 4 vols.,
	Oxford, 1846‑47; and in MPG, cevu. There is an ample
	sketch in DNB, slv. 46‑52 (contains a critical list of the
	works, genuine, doubtful, and false, and a list of scatter
	ing notices of value to the student of sources). Consult
	further: L. E. Dupin, Nouvelle bibliothlqus lea auteura
	eeclhiaatiquea, is. 167‑175; 35 vols., Paris, 1689‑1711;
	Hist. litt&aire de la France, xv. 341 113; T. Wright, Bio
	praphia Britannica literaria, Anglo‑Norman Period, pp.
	366‑379, London, 1846; and Ceillier, Auteura sacrha, uv.
	764‑784.
	PETER OF BRUYS: Leader of a radical oppo
sition to the ecclesiasticism of the Church in the
twelfth century [1104‑25J. Knowledge of him comes
mainly from his opponent, Peter the Venerable of
Cluny (Adveraus Petrobrusianos horeticos, MPL,
clxxxix. 719850) and from a short notice in Abe
lard'e Introduetio ad theologian (MPL, elxxviii.1056).
The former writing had as a purpose the controvert
ing of the most dangerous heretics of the times and
the strengthening of the faithful, and the knowl
edge it gives is incidental to this aim. Of the
early life of Peter of Bruys nothing is imparted;
only that for twenty years he disseminated his doc
trines, and that through burning the cross he en
raged the people and was burned at St. Gilles. It
seems that, after the death of Peter, his doctrines
were changed, but not bettered, and diffused by
Henry of Lausanne (q.v.). The doctrines of Peter
and the Petrobrusians appear to have been about as
follows: his chief authority he found in the Gospels
taken literally, and next in the epistles; his posi
tion on the Old Testament is doubtful; baptism he
regarded as for adults, since it presupposed faith
impossible in infants; he therefore rebaptized those
who had received this ordinance in infancy; he re
jected transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass,
and the Lord's Supper‑Christ had given once his
flesh and blood to his disciples, and repetition was
impossible; he rejected the ceremonies and forms
of worship, even church buildings; he discarded
singing as worship, and especially the veneration
of the cross because it was a means of crucifying
Christ afresh. There is no decided clue to the source
from which Peter derived these doctrines, suspicion
points, however, to the Cathari (see NEw MANl
CIEANS, II.).	(S. M. DEuTscat.)
	For knowledge of the specific teachings of Peter
of Bruys dependence has to be placed upon
Peter the Venerable. These are antapedobaptism,
believers' baptism, denial of the sanctity of church
buildings in the interest of spiritual religion, an
iconoclastic attitude toward crosses, rejection of
the Roman Catholic mass as idolatrous, with pos
sible neglect of the Lord's Supper because of its
idolatrous associations (" That the Church has not
the body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar,
and that what is done by the priests in this matter
is utterly vain and destitute of any true effect;
since Christ gave his body not for those who were
to be Christians in all times, but only for all his
disciples who were present "), rejection of prayers
for the dead and, on account of purgatorial suffer
ings, rejection of ecclesiastical chantings, a predi
lection for the Gospels and especially the words of
Christ without rejection of the epistles and the Old
Testament. D611inger's effort to identify the Petro
brusians and Henricians with the Cathari was shown
by the present writer (Papers of the American So
ciety of Church History, iv. 183‑189, New York,
1892) to be futile. Neither Peter the Venerable
nor Bernard of Clairvaux charges them with dualis
tic teaching or with Manichean abstinence from
animal food; Cathari rejected marriage, while Peter
and Henry are charged with compelling monks
and others who were living unchastely to marry
and with taking up collections for dowries. The
Petrobrusians and Henricians seem to have been
absorbed by the more wide‑spread and better or
ganized Waldenses to whom they may have im
parted the more radically Evangelical spirit of the
later as compared with the earliest representatives
of the party. 	A. H. NEwMAN.
BIHLioa8APHY: C. U. Habn, Gewhichte der Kdzer im Mindalter, i. 408 sqq., Stuttgart, 1845; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, Bereaies, . . . . pp. 422‑423, Philadelphia, 1874; J. J. I. von D611inger, Beardge our Sdttenpeschichte lea Mittdalters, i. 75 sqq., Munich, 1890; Neander, Christian Church, iv. 595‑698, 602, 604.
PETER OF CELLE (PETRUS CELLENSIS)
Abbot of St. Remy at Reims and bishop of Chartres;
d. at Chartres in 1183. He was born of a noble
family in Champagne, became abbot of La Celle
at Troyes in 1150, hence his surname; abbot of
St. Remy in 1162; and in 1181 bishop of Chartres.
He is interesting as a representative of the practical
type of monasticism introduced with Bernard's
reforms. His voluminous correspondence with
monks, dignitaries, popes, and princes has a dis
tinct historical value, showing him to be an earn
est representative of the ascetic high‑churchly ideals
which prevailed at that time; as, for instance, in
his support of Alexander III. and Thomas h Becket.
The new dogma of the Immaculate Conception he
declined on the ground, besides the authority of
Bernard, that the Roman Catholic Church had not
yet spoken. He was not the first to use transubstan
tiatio, as has been claimed; the word was not new
but only as yet unusual. 	(R. ScaMrDt.)
BIHuooBAPHY: The letters and sermons are most easily consulted in MPL, ccii., while some of the letters are found in the collections of those of Alexander III. and Thomas of Canterbury. Consult: The dissertation of Gillet, De Pdro Cellenai, Paris, 1881; Hidoira liWraire do la France, uv. 236 sqq.; H. Reuter, Geechichta Alexandera Ill., 3 vols., Leipsic, 18604; %L, ix. 1897‑98; Ceillier, Autaurs awrh aiv. 680 sqq.
PETER OF CHELCIC. See BOHEMIAN BlzmItEN, I., 11.

PETER COMESTOR: Biblical scholar of the twelfth century; d. at Paris in 1179 or 1198. He is known first as deacon of the Church of 6t. Peter in Troyes; became chancellor at the cathedral in Paris in 1164; and until 1169 was professor of theology there. Afterward he resigned all his offices

Peter Damiaa	THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG	490
and entered the Augustinian monastery of St. Victor at Paris where he remained until his death. He left eighty sermons (MPL, cxcviii.) and the Historic scholaatica (Strasburg, 14707; Augsburg, 1473; MPL, excviii., after the edition, Madrid, 1690; French trand., Paris, 15107). This work treats of Biblical history in the Old and New Testaments as far as the second year of Paul's sojourn in Rome and abounds in references to the Hebrew text and ancient versions, giving now a literal and now an allegorical interpretation and employing also secular writings in its philosophical and theological explanations. The work was for a long time very famous and seems to have been a main source for medieval writers. See BIBLE VBxsioNs, B, III., and VI., § 2.
BIHLIOaRAPHY: Ceillier, Avteurs aacrh, riv. 744 sqq.; Histoire littbrairs de la France, uv. 12 sqq.; L. G. Michaud, Biopraphie Universelle, viii. 679, 45 vols., Paris, 1843‑65; HL, ix. 1903‑04.
PETER DAMIAN (PIETRO DAMIANI), SAINT.

I. Early Career. Education and Training (¢ 1). Monk and Reformer of Monastic Life (¢ 2). Church Reformer (¢ 3).
II. Official Activities. Cardinal, and Bishop of Ostia (§ 1). In the Time of Hildebrand 0 2). In the Time of Alexander 11. (§ 3). Mission to Henry IV. of Germany (¢ 4). III. Influence.
IV. Characterisation.

L Early Career: St. Peter Damian, cardinal and reformer, was born at Ravenna in 1006 or 1007; d. at Faenza (31 m. s.w. of Ravenna) Feb. 22, 1072.
A joyless youth was his lot; he was r. Educa‑ neglected by his parents, and after tion and their early deaths by his elder brother. Training. Another brother, named Damianus,
took him up‑in grateful recollection of whom, perhaps, he assumed his second name Damianus‑and made it possible for him to study in Faenza and Parma. When he began to lecture on grammar and rhetoric he was much appreciated, but the ideal of the ascetic life gained power over him and he fled, perhaps in the year 1035, to the settlement of hermits at Fontavellans near Gubbio in the Apennines, founded possibly by a disciple of Romuald. See CAmALDOmTEB.
Peter was allowed to omit the novitiate and take the vows at once. Soon he had so distinguished
himself that he was called to other 2. Monk monasteries to revive the discipline. and Re‑ In 1043 he succeeded to the position former of of prior of Fontavellana. Under his Monastic leadership the monastery flourished,
Life.	and the number of those who came
from outside to escape the world increased; and from the new settlements was formed the Congregation of Fontavellana. In this circle Peter found his favorite form of activity, to cultivate and to advance himself and others in the monastic virtues. Rigorous fasting and self‑scourging were fostered, the latter especially by Dominicus Loricatus (see FLAoELLATIoN, I., 1 2); but the reading of Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers, and manual labor were not neglected.
But even if the charm of this cloister life completely satisfied him, Peter was far too actively constituted not to turn his attention to
3. Church church life outside his cloister. Cry‑
	Reformer.	ing needs called for reforms; above
		all, the two fundamental evils of the
eleventh century, Simony (q.v.) and Nicolaitanism
(see NiCOLuTAN6). Peter entered the lists against
them. When the priest Johannes Gratianus ascended
the papal throne in 1045 as Gregory VI. (q.v.),
Peter hailed him with acclaim, but he turned out
to be incapable and, moreover, was polluted with
simony; hence Damian's hopes turned toward the
German King Henry III., and without mistake.
This morally strict and energetic monarch, con
vinced of the necessity of thoroughgoing reforms Of
ecclesiastical life, brought aid to the Church. In
1046 he appeared in Italy, had the three popes
Benedict IX., Sylvester III., and Gregory VI. de
posed by synods at Sutri and Rome, and took care
that the Church obtained a worthy supreme head.
Clement II. towered above his predecessors; but
his was not a vigorous personality, and Peter,
who had already been brought into contact with
the German king by their common interest in the
reform of the Church, and had been instructed by
him to support the pope, was impatient with the
weakness of the latter. The sudden death of Clem
ent II. brought a second German bishop, Poppo of
Brixen, as Damasus II. to the Holy See, but he
also had only a brief reign. It was all the more
important then that in his successor Leo IX. a
man was found who took up reform systemati
cally and with great energy. Peter placed great
confidence in him, and this was reciprocated
by the pope. His relation to Victor II. was not so
close.
II. Official Activities: Hitherto the activity of Peter in the cause of the elevation of church life had been entirely free of any official attitude. This state of affairs ceased under Pope Ste‑
t. Cardinal phen IX. In the hope of increasing and thereby the efficiency of Peter for the
Bishop Church, he appointed him, in 1057, of Ostia. cardinal and bishop of Ostia. This promotion was no joy to the man thus distinguished; he shrank from reentering the world from which he had fled; but his sense of duty compelled him to accept the position. From the moment of his appointment he dedicated himself with great devotion to the new tasks, and supported the reform policy of Stephen with all his might. But this pope, too, reigned but a short tune. When after Stephen's death the Roman nobility elevated Bishop John of Velletai as Benedict X., Peter with other cardinals fled from Rome, and went to Fontavellana. When he had returned to the old conditions, he became fully aware of what he had given up in leaving the monastery. He therefore addressed to Nicholas II., who had been elected by the cardinals successor of Stephen, the most pressing petition for release from his offices in the government of the Church. Whatever he could adduce in favor of this request he brought forward; but he was not mistaken when he thought that Hildebrand (see GBEaoxx VII.), who had procured

491	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peter Damian
his appointment as cardinal, would oppose his desire.
The relationship between him and Hildebrand was a remarkable one. At one as to their great aims, the two differed fundamentally both in regard to the means to be employed
z. In the and in their own characters. Hilde‑
	Time of	brand had by far the stronger will;
Hildebrand. Peter therefore yielded to him, al
		though not without resistance. He
calls him " the flattering tyrant, who showed pity
with the love of a Nero, caressed by boxing the
ears, stroked with eagle's talons "; in bold paradox
he called him " holy Satan." Nicholas II. refused
Peter permission to resign; the times were far too
serious to let a power like his expend itself in the
service of a single monastery. Not merely did
Peter remain a cardinal; he had also to assume the
administration of the bishopric of Velletri. When
through the movement of the Patarenes (q.v.) in
Milan intolerable conditions had arisen, and the
moment seemed to have come for Rome to inter
vene, Peter was sent thither as legate, together
with Anselm of Lucca (Alexander II.). He justi
fied to the full the confidence which had been placed
in him. He succeeded in inducing the clergy of
Milan to abjure simony and the marriage of priests,
and in bringing the church of St. Ambrose into sub
jection to the see of Peter.
The schism which, after the death of Nicholas II., broke out between Alexander II. and Honorius II. found Peter on the side of the former.
3. In the For him he labored with glowing zeal,
Time of by means of letters to the antipope as
	Alexan‑	well as by composing the Disceptatio
	der II.	synodalis in view of the assemblage
		summoned to Augsburg for Oct., 1062,
which was to decide between the rivals. When
Alexander II. had actually attained recognition,
Peter exerted himself anew for permission to return
to his monastery. The answer was that the pope
sent him as a legate to France, to settle a quarrel
between the cloister of Cluny and the bishop of
Macon. This journey, too, was a success. But Peter
could also become disagreeable. That on his own
responsibility he asked Archbishop Anno of Cologne
to work for the calling of a general council for the
purpose of doing away with the schism, did not
correspond with the wishes of Alexander II. When
the synod met at Mantua, Whitsuntide, 1084, it
ended indeed in a triumph for Alexander. The
papal court was also dissatisfied when Peter, with
out being instructed to that effect, sent in 1065
an earnest exhortation to King Henry IV. of Ger
many to come to Italy, annihilate Cadalus and get
himself the imperial crown; this journey to Rome
might easily have led to a strengthening of the
royal influence in Italy, to undermine which had
been one of the chief aims of papal policy since the
days of Stephen IX.
In the year 1067 Peter finally brought about his release from his episcopal duties; yet, not only did he continue to have the titles of cardinal and bishop, but was also occasionally further employed by Alexander II. in difficult cases. Thus he was sent to Germany as legate in 1069, when Henry
IV. wished to be divorced from his consort Bertha. In this case, too, the persuasive power of his
oratory was brilliantly exercised; at
4. Mission the diet at Worms he succeeded in
to Henry making Henry yield. He was also sucIV. of cessful in reconciling Ravenna‑which
Germany. had allowed itself to be drawn by
Archbishop Henry over to the side of Cadalus‑with Rome after the archbishop's death.
III. Influence: The greatest merits of Peter Damian lie in the reform of life within the Church. In the struggle against the " incontinence " of the clergy, under which concept were included not merely immoral acts (cf. the Liber Gomorrhianus, MPL, exlv. 159‑190) but also the marriages of priests, he was the most important and most persistent of those in the front rank of the fight; he was second to none in preparing the way for the legislative measures of the papacy intended to enforce the compulsory celibacy of priests. His second great life‑task was the conflict with simony. This evil had taken on vast dimensions and forms so various that its fundamental character, the purchase of an ecclesiastical position, was often disguised. Of especial difficulty was the question of what corollaries are to be drawn from the simoniacal transfer of an office, whether the office of priest or bishop could be obtained at all in this way. On this problem views within the Gregorian party were very divergent. Peter stood for the view (Liber gratissimus, MPL, cxlv. 99‑154) that, since the quality of a consecrating priest can never affect the consecration performed by him, even a simoniac can impart real ordination, and that the orders are valid even in case the person ordained had knowledge of the simoniacal taint of the ordainer. Therefore, he rejects the repetition of an ordination which had been performed by a simoniac, and wishes to leave in office those who have, free of charge, received orders from a simoniac. In his time the question of Investiture (q.v.) by laymen was not yet in the foreground, but from numerous passages in his writings it is plain that he considered Church and State to be two coordinated powers with different spheres of duty; that he wished their harmonious cooperation; and that, though he disapproved of investiture by secular princes, he did not reject it in principle. In these maxims of ecclesiastical politics is seen an after‑effect of the time of Henry III. The controversy between Berengar of Tours and Lanfranc about the doctrine of the Eucharist did not much concern him; neither did the outbreak of the great schism between Rome and Byzantium in 1054.
IV. Characterization: Peter Damian was through and through a monastic; he remained so even when he entered involuntarily the college of cardinals. But he possessed great gifts which procured him signal successes when he was compelled to come out into the world. Not with injustice did a contemporary 'name him " old Jerome," whom indeed he resembled in many respects. His greatest achievements pertained to the religious and moral elevation of the Italian monks and secular clergy. In the Roman Catholic Church he was soon reverenced as a saint, even though he was not canonized. In

Peter the Deacon
Peter Lombard	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	492
1828 Leo XII. admitted him to the list of the doc‑
tares ecdesim. 	CARL MIRBT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera of Peter, ed. C. Caietan, were published 3 vols., Rome, 1606‑15, 4 vols., Paris, 1663, with two lives, also 1743, and Venice, 1783, and are in MPL, exliv.‑cxlv. His " Glory of Paradise " appeared in English, London, 1857. Of his life, besides the accounts in the Opera, ut sup., and in ASB, Feb., iii. 406 flqq., there are sketches by: J. Laderchi, Rome, 1702; A. Vogel, Jena, 1856; A. Capecelatro, Florence, 1862; F. Neukirch, GUtingen, 1875; A. wambera, Breslau, 1875; and J. IOeinermanns, Steyl, 1882. Consult further: J. Fehr, in Oeaterreichische Vierteliahrschrift tar katholische Theologie, vii (1868), 189‑240; E. Steindorff, Jahrbitcher des deutachen Reichs unter Heinrich 111., 2 vols., Leipsic, 1874‑81; H. C. Lea, Sacerdotal Celtbacyy, chap. xii., Boston, 1884; F. w. E. Roth, in Studien and Afittheilen aus dem Benediktinerorden, vii.‑viii., 1886‑87; J. Langen, Geschichte der rbmischen Kirche, vol. iii., Bonn, 1892; C. Mirbt, Die Publizislik im Zeitalter Gregory VII., Leipsie, 1894; F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, vol. iv. passim, London, 1896; W. F. Barry, The Papal Monarchy 590‑1503, New York, 1902; Neander, Christian Church, vol. iii., passim (valuable); Schaff, Christian Church, vol. v., part 1, passim; KL, ix. 1904‑98; the literature under the articles on the popes named in the text and under FLAGELLATION.
PETER THE DEACON: The name of several men of considerable note in ecclesiastical history or literature.
1. One of the Scythian monks who was sent to Rome in connection with the theopaschite controversy under Pope Hormisdas (q.v.). He wrote De incarnations et gratia domini nostri Jesu Christi (MPL, lxii. 83 sqq.), addressing it to Fulgentius of Ruspe (q.v.), and aimed in it to oppose the Scythian monks and especially the doctrine of Faustus of Riez concerning grace. Fulgentius replied in his Epist., xvii. (MPL, lxv. 451 sqq.). The De incarnations is often printed among the works of Augustine or Fulgentius.
2. Saint, and pupil and friend of Gregory the Great; d. at Rome c. 605. He was one of the stimuli which operated in the production of the works of Gregory, being especially influential in urging that Father to produce his Dialogorum libri iv. He was the sponsor for the story that the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove often hovered over Gregory (cf. ASB, March, ii. 211).
3. Peter of Monte Cassino, often known as Peter the subdeacon of St. Januarius at Naples. He lived in the tenth century, and was active in the compilation of hagiologies, among other works being part author of the Vita. et translatio Athanasii episcopi Neapoleos. He had a namesake at Naples about 1100 who translated legends of the saints from the Greek.
4. The most important of the name is another Peter of Monte Cassino, often called " the Librarian " (Bibliothecarius). He was of high birth, and in 1115 entered the abbey at Monte Cassino to receive his education; he left there about 1127, and did not return till 1136, and then as the chief partizan of Reinald, who had just been chosen abbot, opposing in this Innocent II. He became chaplain and then secretary of Emperor Lothair II., and was satisfied with this place; but he was desired at Monte Cassino, and returned thither to take charge of the archives, to which he furnished an index which became celebrated. Alexander III. named him abbot of Venoea. He continued the
" Chronicle " of Leo Marsicanus; wrote De viris idlustribus Casinensibus; De loeis sanctis; the rhythm De novissimis; and is regarded as the author of Anastasii Chronicon Casinense (in Muratori, Scriptores, ii. 351 sqq.). His other works are in MPL, clxxiii. 439 sqq.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A list of the editions of the works of the last‑named is given in Potthast, Wegweiser, pp. 919‑920. Consult further: U. Balaano, Le Cronache Italiane nel medic evo, Milan, 1884; Wattenbaeh, DGQ, i (1893), 86, u. 236, 237, 492, 498; and E. Caspar, Petrus Diaconua and die Monte Cassineser Falschungen, Berlin, 1909.
PETER OF DRESDEN: Reputed refugee in Bohemia; d. about 1440. 2Eneas Silvius in his history of Bohemia relates that the distribution of the communion in both kinds by the pastor of the Church of S. Michael in Prague, Jacob of Mies (q.v.), was at the suggestion of a certain Peter of Dresden, a German by birth who had once studied in Prague and had left the university in 1409, but having bean afterward driven from his native land on account of the Waldensian heresy had returned to Prague. Not only are good historical sources silent on Peter of Dresden; but the monk Nicolaus von Lacu (d. 1380) had already demanded both kinds of the communion. It is evident that the report that Peter of Dresden was the originator of this practise in Bohemia was an invention intended to make it unpopular among the Bohemians. Another story about Peter appearing in the seventeenth century was that he was the author of the macaronic church hymns, and, more particularly, of the hymn " In dulci jubilo." Hoffman von Fallersleben suggests that as Jacob of Mies wrote hymns in the popular dialect and sought to introduce them into the Roman liturgy, &neas Silvius secured also this reputation for Peter of Dresden. It may be doubted if there was such a person, yet F. Palacky properly suggests that those who were responsible for naming the originator of communion in both kinds would hardly have referred to any one not known to contemporaries. It seems to be certain that Peter of Dresden was school‑master at Prague for a time and was driven out. (FERDINAND COHRS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. G. Schreiber, De Petro Dreadenei, Leipeie, 1678; J. Thomasius, Curiose Gedaneken vom Dressdniachen Peter, Leipeic, 1702; F. Palacky, Geschichte von Bohmen, III., i. 333, Prague, 1845; $. HSfler, Geschichtschreiber der hussitischen Bewegung, 3 vols., Vienna, 18561866; E. H. Gillet, Life and Times of John Huss, i. 38, 483, 519, Philadelphia, 1861.
PETER THE FULLER. See MONOPHYSITES,
§ § 4 sqq.
PETER THE HERMIT: B. at Amiens in the middle of the eleventh century; d. in the monastery of Neumoustier, at Huy (25 m. s.s.w. of Lii'ge), Belgium, July 7, 1115. In 1093 he went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and brought back a letter from Simeon, patriarch of Jerusalem, to Pope Urban II. in which an appeal was made to deliver the Christians from the indignities they suffered at the hands of the Mohammedans. In delivering this letter Peter confirmed it by his own experiences and recited the sufferings of other pilgrims. His address made a great impression upon the pope. He also awakened interest as he told his story on his way back to Amiens. He was present at Cler‑

		Peter	~a
493	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA		tLo 		d
mont in Nov., 1095, when the first crusade was determined on (see CltusenEs) and afterward traversed southern France, and along the Rhine preaching to great crowds the duty of going on the crusade. The time set for the start was Aug. 15, 1096, but his converts insisted upon his leading them to Palestine as soon as possible, and in the spring 40,000, among them many knights, the archbishop of Salzburg, the bishops of Chur and Strasburg, and other ecclesiastics, made their way through Hungary. Only 7,000 reached Constantinople, many having been killed by the Bulgarians, and most of those who ultimately reached Asia were massacred by the Turks. Peter himself joined the regular crusading army and entered Jerusalem with it (1099). He returned to Europe and founded the monastery in which he died. On June 29, 1854, a bronze statue of him was unveiled in Amiens. It stands back of the cathedral, in the Place Pierre d'Amiens.
BIBxdoonAPH7: The principal literature is that dealing with the first crusade (see under CRUSADES). Consult further: William of Tyre, Gesta Dei per Prancos, i. 11‑17. The biography by D. A. Goodsell, Cincinnati, 1908; P. d'Oultreman, 2 parts, Valenciennes, 1832; J. F. Schachert, Peter van Amiens and GottJried roan Bouillon, Berlin, 1819; M. Vion, Pierre l'Hermite et les croisades, Amiens, 1853; L. Paulet, Dissertation Bur la naissance de Pierre l'Her mite, Namur, 1854; A. Ingerslef, Peter fro Amiene op del Jrirste Koratop, Copenhagen, 1859; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xxxiii.; Milman, Latin Christianity, iv. 25 aqq.; Schaff, Christian Church, v. 1, pp. 230 aqq.
PETER THE IBERIAN. See MONopHysrfre, §$2siq.
PETER LOMBARD.
Life (§ 1). Theological Position (§ 2). Method (§ 3). Analysis of the " Sentences " (§ 4). Attacks on the " Sentences "; Other Works (§ 5).
Peter, commonly known as " the Lombard " from his birthplace, and distinguished as " the Master of the Sentences " from his principal work, was one of the moat important scholastic theologians of the twelfth century. He was born
	:. Life.	probably at Novara, then in Lom
		bardy, scarcely earlier than 110,5‑‑10;
d. in Paris c. 1160 (1164). His family was poor, but
he early found powerful patrons, so that he was
able to gain a good education, first at Bologna, then
in France, at Reims, to which he came with a letter
of recommendation from St. Bernard, and in Paris,
at that time the headquarters of learning. Here he
remained, in close relations with the school of St.
Victor, to whose head Gilduin St. Bernard had
again commended him 'in a letter still extant. He
taught theology in the cathedral school of Notre
Dame, and found time to produce the works dis
cussed below. Their dates can be only approxi
mately fixed. The most famous of them, the Libri
quatuor sententiarunx, was probably composed be
tween 1147 and 1150, although it may be placed as
late as 1155. Nothing is certainly known of his
later life except that be became bishop of Paris in
1159. According to Walter of St. Victor, a hostile
witness, he obtained the office by simony; the more
usual story is that Philip, younger brother of Louis
VII. and archdeacon of Paris, was elected but de‑
clined in favor of Peter, his teacher. The date of his death can not be determined with certainty. The ancient epitaph in the church of St. Marvel at Paris assigns it to 1164, but the figures seem to be a later addition; and the demonstrable fact that Maurice of Sully was bishop before the end of 1160 seems conclusive against it, although it is possible that in that year he resigned his see and lives three or four years longer. His personal character, as far as it can be determined from the scanty indications, seems to have been deserving of respect, and even the opponent just mentioned, a former pupil of his, speaks of him with personal affection.
The historic importance of Peter Lombard rests on his " Sentences " and the position taken by them in medieval theology (see SoaoxnsTTCxsns). The earlier dogmatic theologians, such as Isidore of
Seville, Alcuin, and Paschasius R,ada. Theo‑ bert, had attempted to establish the logical doctrine of the Church from Bible
Position. texts and quotations from the Fathers.
In the eleventh century this method gave place to dialectical and speculative working over of the traditional dogmas. Peter Lombard came into the field at a time when the new methods and their dialectical artifices were still exposed to wide‑spread objection, but when the thirst for knowledge was exceedingly keen. One text‑book after another was being published, the majority of them either issuing from the school of Abelard, or in some degree inspired by him. Of these works the greatest influence was attained by that of Peter, which was, for the time, an admirable compendium of theological knowledge. It is written under the influence preeminently of Abelard, Hugo of St. Victor, and the Decretum of Gratian. Whether Peter had himself seen the early writers whom he cites is frequently uncertain; he was a man of wide reading, but the works of the Fathers had been used again and again in long catena' of " sentences " which rendered it unnecessary to go to the original treatises. As to his contemporaries, whom he knew thoroughly, he shows the influence of Abelard in his whole method and in countless details, while preserving a critical attitude toward his most propounced peculiarities. On the other hand, he follows Hugo very closely and often textually, though here also with a tendency to avoid the purely speculative elements. For his sacramental doctrine, Gratian is very useful, especially through the quotations adduced by him and his legal attitude toward these questions.
The moat marked characteristic of Peter's method is the cautious and reserved discretion of his treatment of dogmatic problems. He shows a strong disinclination to launch out into speculation, attempting simply to set forth clearly the Church's received doctrine. He does not touch disputes between Scripture and reason, authority and philosophy. He was unable to keep clear altogether of the technical terms of the philosophical schools; the
authorities, both earlier and later, 3. Method. whom be followed had worked with
these terms. But his explanations of them are rather non‑committal and eclectic, thus rendering his work of the broadest utility. Aesum‑

Peter Lombard
Peter bf Poitiers	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	494
ing as the grounds of his decisions the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the ancient councils with their creeds, he proceeds first of all to propound a question, offering next a solution by means of one or more patristic passages. Authorities which seem to contradict this conclusion are next adduced; and the opposition is met by one of two methods, both Abelard's~ither by the hypothesis that the words may be taken in two different senses in the two authorities, or by the weighing of authorities, in which case the Bible is assumed to be infallible, and Augustine has the greatest weight among the Fathers. Another way of posing the question is to cite some contemporary statement and confirm or refute it. Reason takes a secondary place. The natural reason is indeed a reflection of the presence of God, yet it needs to be helped and completed by revelation. He admits that the creation of the world by God was known to the heathen " by a course of philosophical reasoning," as well as the law of nature " by which man understands and is conscious what is meant by good and evil "; and he here anticipates the later scholastic attitude. Theology is bound to set forth the positive doctrine of the Church, but in its fundamentals it agrees with the natural and rational results arrived at by the human mind. The Lombard, however, does not reach the scientific clearness of his successors in relation to these questions, while, on the other hand, he usually resists the tendency to hair‑splitting so characteristic of many of them.
The first book of the " Sentences " deals, principally from a cosmological standpoint, with the evidences for the existence of God. For the doctrine of the Trinity he appeals to the analogies used since Augustine, while denying that a
4. Analysis real knowledge of the doctrine can be of the obtained from them without positive " ° Sen‑ revelation and faith, and emphasizing
	tences."	the fact that no human speech can
		give a satisfactory account of the na
ture of God. Joachim of Flore asserted that Peter
changed the Trinity into a quaternity, and the
charge was investigated at the Lateran Council of
1215. The basis of this charge was the manner in
which he distinguished the divine substance from
the three persons, asserting, as a realist, the sub
stantive reality of this common substance. Joachim
accused him of adding this substance to the three
persons; but Innocent III. and the council decided
that he was perfectly orthodox. The relation be
tween the prescience of God and events is conceived
in such a way that neither that which happens is
the actual ground of the foreknowledge nor the
latter of the former, but each is to the other a
causa sane qua non. Predestination is thus, as a
divine election, the preparation of grace, the fore
knowledge and preparation of the blessings of God,
through which man is justified. There is no such
thing as merit antecedent to grace, not even in the
sense that man can merit not to be cast away. The
omnipotence of God consists in this, that he does
what he wills and suffers nothing. A distinction is
made between the absolute uncaused will of God,
which is always accomplished, and what may be
called his will in a loose sense. To the gigna beneplaciti, the signs of the latter, including commands, prohibitions, counsels, operations, permissions, results do not always correspond‑"for God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, yet did not will it to be done." The second'book deals with creation and the doctrine of the angels, usually following Hugo. Peter considers the " image " and " likeness " of God as distinct, but does not decide for any of the three explanations of this distinction which he quotes. He rejects the traducianist theory of the origin of the human soul. He calls the will free, inasmuch as it " has power to desire and choose, without coercion or necessity, what it has decreed on grounds of reason," but he denies Abelard'a theory that the moral character of an act depends on the will of the doer. Of some importance is the strong emphasis laid upon the actually sinful character of the nature derived from Adam, in conjunction with the condemnation of Abelard's proposition that " we inherit from Adam not guilt but penalty." In regard to grace he shows some independent thought, which had its influence on later teaching. Grace (qratia operans) is a power (vartus) which frees and heals the will, enabling it to perform good and meritorious works; of the two coefficients to the production of these, grace and the will, grace is the more important. The third book deals with. Christology, reproducing the traditional orthodox conceptions, but showing some influence from Abelard. One portion of this discussion brought him into suspicion of Nilulianiam, of which he was accused by John of Cornwall and Walter of St. Victor, and more than one council took up the question, though without deciding it. The charge of Nestorianism, which Gerhoh of Reichersberg brought against the Christology of his time, was made also against the Lombard. In regard to the atonement, he endeavored both to follow out the accepted system of his day and to make use of suggestions from Abelard. Christ merited glorification by his life; and by his death man's entrance into Paradise, his liberation from sin and its penalty and from the power of the devil. Christ as man is a perfect and sufficient sacrifice to achieve reconciliation, through the revelation of God's love made in his death; " the death of Christ then justifies us, when by it love is awakened in our hearts." Further, Christ sets man free from eternal punishment relaxando debitum; but to set man free from the temporal punishment, which is remitted in baptism and mitigated by penance, " the penances laid upon those who repent by the Church would not suffice unless the penalty borne by Christ were added to release us." There is a lack of clearness about this whole subject; the ideas of Abelard (Anselm is not noticed) show themselves now and again through all the effort to preserve the objective notion of the work of redemption. The fourth book deals with the sacraments. Here Peter follows Hugo and the Decretum of Gratian; and his teaching was of great significance for the later development. He was probably the first to make a distinct classification of seven and only seven sacraments; he laid down the dogmatic questions to be discussed under the

496	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peter Lombard
Peter of Poitiers
head of each, and he introduced matter from church law into his discussion of the sacramental dogma. In regard to the Eucharist, he speaks of the " conversion " of one substance into the other, without defining any further, and denies both the symbolic view and the consubstantiation taught by some followers of Berengar. In his doctrine of penance he follows Abelard in seeking theoretical justification for the change which by this time had taken place in the practise.
	In spite of the cautious objectivity of the whole
treatment, some of the propositions laid down in
the " Sentences " were considered erroneous in
after years. Mention has been made above of the
		attacks on .Peter's doctrine of the
5. Attacks Trinity and his Christology. Walter of on the " Sen‑ St. Victor asserts that at the Lateran tences "; Council of 1179 it was proposed to
	Other	condemn the " Sentences," but other
	Works.	matters prevented a discussion of the
		proposal. From the middle of the
thirteenth century the University of Paris refused
its assent to eight propositions, of a highly tech
nical character, it is true, and Bonaventura declined
to press them. Others were afterward added; but
these objections did not interfere with the general
popularity of the work, which had increased to such
an extent by Roger Bacon's time that he could
complain (c. 1267) that lectures on it had forced
those on Scriptural subjects into the background.
Besides the " Sentences," other extant works of
Peter Lombard are Commentarius in paalmoa
Davidicos (first printed Nuremberg, 1478; in MPL,
cxci. 31‑1296) and Colledanea in omnea D. Pauli
epidolaa (first printed Paris, 1535; in MPL, cxci.,
cxcii.)‑both collections, in the manner of medieval
Catenm (q.v.), of quotations from patristic and early
medieval theologians, with occasional independent
remarks. A few unpublished manuscripts, some
of them of doubtful authenticity, remain in various
places. Of these the moat important for a complete
knowledge of the author are two manuscripts, one
early thirteenth century, the other fourteenth, in
the Bibliothbque Nationale at Paris,. containing
twenty‑five festival sermons representing a moder
ate type of medieval mystical theology, dominated
by allegorical exegesis, but making some excellent
practical points. Extracts from them are given
by F. Protois (P. Lombard, son elp6que, sa vie, ass
6crits et son influence, pp. 126‑147, Paris, 1881).
(R. SEEBERG.)
BmLIOGR&PH7: The Opera are collected in MPL, cxoi.excii. The " Sentences " were issued in the original in many editions in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. On Peter Lombard consult, besides the work of Protois, ut sup.; P. J. Haurdau, De la phaoeophie wolas<ique, i. 332 sqq., Paris, 1850; I. A. Domer, Lehre von der Person Christi, ii. 374 eqq.. Stuttgart, 1853, Eng. trend., 5 vols.. Edinburgh, 1881‑3; J. Breach, Essai sur lei " Sentences': de Pierre Lombard, Strasburg, 1857; A. St6ekl, Geschichte der Philoeophis dea Mittelaltera, i. 39o‑411, Mains, 1881; H. Denifle, Chartularium universaatis parisimsfa, vol. i., Paris, 1889; J. KW, Petrm Lombandus in seiner Stdlun, sur Philosophic des Afiuelaltera, Leipsio, 1897; J. N. Espenberger, is Beitrape sur Gewhichte des miudaltera iii. 5 (1901); O. Baltser, in Studien zur GewAiohu der Theolopie and %inche, vol. viii., 1902; Schaff, Christian Church, v. 1, pp. 831‑$38; Neander, Christian Church, iv. 409‑411 et passim; Hamack, Dogma, vol. vi. passim; and the works on the history of philosophy and of dogma.
PETER MARTYR (PETER OF VERONA):
Italian Dominican; b. at Verona 1205 or 1206; assassinated near Barlaseina. (14 m. n. of Milan) Apr. 6, 1252. Though his parents were probably Cathari, he seems to have become a Roman Catholie while a student at Bologna. In 1221, the year of Dominic's death, he entered the Dominican order, and soon gained wide reputation as an inquisitor and converter of Italian heretics. For twenty years he worked in the service of‑ the Inquisition at Florence, Cremona, Como, etc., and especially at Milan. It was here that he finally fell a victim to a conspiracy originated by the Cathari, who had him assassinated while returning from Como. The next year he was canonized by Innocent IV., and by the close of the fifteenth century had become a chief patron saint of the Holy Office. His martyrdom is frequently depicted in the art of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The whole scene of his death was represented by titian in a painting in the Venetian church of SS. Giovanni e Paolo; aRd he also frequently appears with a sword in his back, a knife thrust into his neck, or with a palm and sword. His day is Apr. 29.
(O. ZOc1;LERt.)
BrBUooasra:: The Vita, by Thoma Agni (Agnello de Lentino), with commentary, is in ASE, Apr., iii. 878‑719. The proceedings of the inquiry into his death are printed in Archivio aWrico Lombardico, iv (1877), 791‑794, and ed. G. Weitz, in MGH, script., xxv (1880), 320 aqq.; cf. H. C. Lea, Hid. of the Inquisition, i. 383, 417, 479, 511, ii. 278, New York, 1908. Consult further: R. de Visiani, vita a martirio dd s. Pietro, Verona, 1882; G, Mira, Bsblioprafa Sicilia»a, i., ii., Palermo, 1875; F. T. Perrene, is Rem historiqua, ii (1878), 337‑388; Bibliotheca hopiopmphim Latina, ii. 977 sqq., Brussels, 1901; HL, ix. 1925.
PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI. See VERMaGLI.
PETER NOLASCO, SAINT. See NOLAsC0.
PETER OF POITIERS: Scholastic theologian; d. 1205. He seems to have followed Peter Comestor at Paris as a teacher of theology about 1160 and became in 1192 his second successor as chancellor of the University of Paris. While he left as minor writings the unprinted Dietinccionea psalterii and Allegorise super Vetus et Nomem Teatamentum, he is known for his Sententiarum libri quinque, completed at the latest in 1175 (ed. H. Mathoud, Paris, 1655, reprinted in MPL, ccxi. 789 sqq.). The work is closely related to that of Peter the Lombard (q.v.), though it has its own peculiarities. Book i. deals with the Trinity; ii. with rational creatures, among which the sins figure; iii.‑v. are concerned with the restoration which comes (1) with the reestablishment of the virtues, (2) through the incarnation, and (3) through participation in the sacraments. The first subject, the Trinity, is handled in dialectic manner and at length; the second book is a treatment of cosmology, angelology, and anthropology; of the three theological virtues faith and hope are briefly discussed, charity more exhaustively; the sacraments are naturally seven, among which special attention is given to baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, and marriage. As distinguished from the Lombard, Peter cites fewer authorities and is more dialectic; as a consequence of the latter, he is addicted to minute subdivision of his subject. Thus he distinguishes between four

Peter of Sebaste	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	496
Peters
kinds of fear: worldly fear, fear of divine punish
ment, fear which comes from love of God, and filial
fear, which divides into reverence and fear of sepa
ration, from the last of which Christ was free. The
unison between this Peter and the Lombard was so
great that the latter overshadowed the former, in
spite of his numerous illustrations.
	Besides the foregoing, two other men bore the
name of Peter of Poitiers: a monk of Cluny, secre
tary to Peter the Venerable, who left a couple of
writings which are in MPL, clxxxix. 52 sqq., 56
sqq., 661; and a canonist of St. Victor, who left an
unpublished work De poenitentia seu canfesmone.
		(S. M. DEuTscat.)
BIBLaOGRAPBr: C. Oudin, Commentariua de scriptoribus
	ecdesim, ii. 1499 sqq., Leipsic, 1722, reproduced in MPL,
	eexi. 779 sqq.; Histo£re titt&aire de la France, xvi. 484
	sqq., xu. 349 sqq.; H. Denifle, Chartularium universitatis
	Parisiensis, i. 8, no. 8, note 1, and p. 61, Paris, 1890;
	HL, ix. 1934‑35.
	PETER OF SEBASTE:	Youngest brother of
Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyasa, and Macrina
the Younger (qq.v.); b. before 349; d. between
391 and 394. He was brought up and educated by
his sister Macrina, who early instilled it him the
desire for the ascetic life and was accompanied by
him when she and their mother retired to their re
treat on the Iris. He was skilful in. handicrafts, by
which he contributed to the support of his mother
and sister and to their charities. He succeeded
Basil in the presidency of the latter's monastery on
the Iris, and in 370 was made presbyter by Basil,
whose messenger he was on missions which required
diplomacy and delicate handling. In 380 he was
made bishop of Sebaste in Lesser Armenia, in suc
cession to Eustathius (q.v.), and took part in the
First Council of Constantinople, 381. He served
as almoner for Olympia the deaconess in the distri
bution of funds to the poor.
	The only extant literary work of Peter is a lettkr
to his brother Gregory (in the latter's Opera, ii. 268),
beseeching him to refute Eunomius and defend Basil
from charges brought against the latter. Yet all
accounts, as well as his own letter, seem to make
him the intellectual equal of his more renowned
brothers, give him a character for a lovely modesty
and for talents which sought a practical not a liter
ary outlet, and show that his was really the stimu
lus which resulted in several of Gregory's works,
notably the Ezplicatio apologetics and the De hom
inis opificio.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are his brother Gregory's " Life of
	the Holy Marina "; Nicephorus, Hid. ecd., xi. 19; Theo
	doret, Hilt. ecd., v. 8. Consult: TMemont, MEmoires,
	ix. 572‑580; Ceillie4 xluteurs sacrbs, iv. 349, 618; DNB,
	iv. 345‑346.
	PETER THE VENERABLE (MAURICE DE
MONTBOISSIER) : Abbot of. Cluny; b. in 1092
or 1094; d. at Cluny (11 m. n.w. of Mii,con) Dec.
25, 1155. Of noble lineage, he was devoted by his
mother to the religious life before his birth, and was
educated in the abbey of Soucilanges in the diocese
of Clermont. His ability led the abbot, Hugo I. of
Cluny, to make him prior of Vezelay and Domne
at an early age; and on Aug. 27, 1122, he was
elected abbot of Cluny to succeed Hugo II. Aided
by his loyal friend Mathieu, prior of St. Martin‑desChamps, later cardinal bishop of Albano, he reformed the mother house at Cluny; and by his tours of inspection secured discipline in the cloisters of the Cluniac congregation. While he was absent on a tour of inspection in Aquitaine, the former Abbot Pontius, who had resigned his office, returned to Cluny and seized the abbey, only to be deprived of it by Pope Honorius II., and to die at Rome in 1126. Peter succeeded, by his wise financial course, in gradually repairing the damages which the monastery had suffered from the extravagance of Pontius.
The next task of Peter was to check the dissension between the monks of Cluny and the Cistercians. In this he was at least partially successful, largely through his profound and sincere regard for Bernard of Clairvaux; and the schism which threatened the Church at the papal election of 1130 was averted chiefly through the combined efforts of the two abbots, both of whom supported the cause of Innocent II. Yet on the other hand, when Abelard, who had been condemned as a heretic by the Synod of Sens under Innocent II. at the instance of Ber nard, sought refuge at Cluny, he was welcomed by Peter (see ABELARD).
In 1146 Peter submitted to the chapter general of Cluny his Consuetudines Cluniacenses (see CLUNY, ABBEY AND CONGREGATION OF, § 5), a series of seventy‑six statutes providing stricter discipline and abolishing the chief abuses censured by the Cistercians; and in 1148 he supplemented these statutes by an ordinance governing the domestic economy of the monastery, adding a report of the conditions which he had found at Cluny when he became abbot.
With advancing years Peter again felt the longing of his youth to pass the close of his life in complete solitude as a hermit; but though he besought this privilege personally of Eugenius III. at Rome, the pope refused.
Among the extant writings of Peter the Venerable, his six books of collected letters, though not in chronological order, belong to the most important historical documents of the twelfth century. They include letters to popes Innocent II., Celestine II., Lucius II., and Eugenius III.; to kings Sigward of Norway, Roger of Sicily, Louis VII. of France, and his minister Suger of St. Denis; to the Greek Emperor John Comnenus; to the king and patriarch of Jerusalem; to Bernard of Clairvaux, the Carthusian Prior Guigo, Cardinal Mathieu of Albino, Bishop Henry of Winchester, and many others. Since, however, he lacked the gift of popular preaching, he strove to refute the foes of the Church by means of his pen. The earliest of his treatises is probably the Contra dicentes Christum nunquam se Deum dixisse, in which, while conceding that Christ nowhere in the Bible calls himself simply and unmistakably God, he declares doubt as to Christ's divinity to be a Mohammedan error and that the reserve in Christ's own expressions concerning his person was due to his deference to the Jews. An important source in connection with the sect of the Petrobrusians (see PETER of BRVxs) is found in Peter's treatise Contra Petrobrurianos, in

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
497
which he defends the doctrines of the sacrifice of the mess and transubstantiation. In his treatise Adversua Judworum in veteratam duritiam, Peter sharply attacks the Jews, who are said to be worse than the Saracens, since the latter deny only the divinity and resurrection of Christ, whereas the former do not believe in Christ at all.
	In 1141 Peter visited Spain, and there commis
sioned Peter of Toledo to translate the Koran. This
version, though really only an excerpt from the
original, was sent by Peter to Bernard with the re
quest that he refute it. When Bernard declined,
Peter himself wrote five books Contra nefandam
eectam Sarracenorum, of which only two books have
been preserved, though a table of contents of the
remainder by his secretary, Peter of Poitiers, is still
extant (the two books are published, ed. J. Thom&,
Leipsic, 1896). Peter sought to prove, in this work,
that Mohammed's alleged prophetic office was void,
since he lacked both the gift of prediction and that of
miracles, the two signs of the true prophet. Peter's
last literary task was his De miraeulis (see Bibliog
raphy, J. d'Avenal), in which he related the marvels
which he had experienced, as well as those of which
he had heard in his travels. Four of his sermons and
some of his Latin poems and hymns have been pre
served. Two of the hymns have been translated
into English: the Christmas hymn " Coelum gaude,
terra plaude " in 0. Shipley, Lyra Messianica (Lon
don, 1864); and the Easter hymn " Mortis portis
fractis fords " in the same collection and in E.
Charles, Tire Voice of the Christian, Life in Song
(London, 1858). 	G. GRLdTZMACHER.
BraLjoGRAPHY: The Opera are in M. de la Bigne, Maxima
	btbliotheca roeterum patrum, xxii. 826‑1142, 28 vols., Genoa,
	1877‑1707, and in MPL, clxxxix.; his two books against
	the Saracens are in E. Martkne and U. Durand, Vderum
	ecriptorum . . . ampliasima collectio, ix. 112080, 9 vols.,
	Paris, 1724‑33; sermons, letters, etc., are in hfartbne and
	Durand's Thesaurus novus anecdotum, i. 407 sqq., v. 1419
	1450, 5 vols., Paris, 1717; J. Mabillon, Vdera analecta,
	pp. 159 sqq., ib. 1723; L. d'Achery. SPicilegium, ii. 332,
	13 vols., ib. 1655‑77; and E. Balu$e, Miscellanea, v. 443,
	vi. 550, 4 vols., ib. 1761‑64. His EPiatoloi historicw are
	in A. Du Cheane, Historid Francorum wriptorea, vol. iv.,
	5 vols., Paris, 163619: and in Bouquet, Raueil, vol. xv.
	Sources are: The Vita, by a monastic pupil Rodulfus, in
	Martkne and Durand's Amplissima collectio, ut sup., vi.
	1187‑1202; a panegyric by Peter of Poitiers is in Bigne's
	work, ut sup., xxii. 820; and the Chronicon Cluniaeenae,
	in Bigne's work, ut sup., xxii., 813 sqq. Consult further:
	Hidoire liWraire de la Prance, xiii. 283 sqq., xxii. 241
	267, P. Lorain, Essai hiatorique sur rabbaye de Cluny ,
	Dijon, 1839 (Includes part of Peter's correspondence),
	C. A. Wilkens, Pdrua der Ehrwflrdipe, Leihsic, 1857; B.
	Duparay, Pierre‑le‑V 6nsrable, . • . as vie, ass oeuvres, et
	la socW monastique au xii aidcle, Chalons. 1862; J.
	d'Avenal, Vie de Pierre le Vbn&able, Paris, 1874 (with
	tranal. of De miraculis), M. Demimuid, Pierre‑le‑Vln&able,
	ou la vie et Finftuence mottaatiquea au douaidme aiikcle, Paris,
	1876; Schaff, Christian Church, vol. v., part 1, passim:
	Neander, Christian Church, vol. iv. passim; Ceillier,
	Auteura sacrb, av. 500‑‑525; and the literature under
	CLUNY, ABBEY AND CONGREGATION OP.
PETER, MARGARETA. See W ILDENSPUCH CRUCIFIXION.
	PETERBOROUGH: The seat of a bishopric in
Northamptonshire, Eng., situated on the left bank
of the Nene, seventy‑six miles north of London
The see was founded by Henry VIII., in 1541.
Peterborough Cathedral is a beautiful specimen of
		VIII.‑32
Peter o! 8ebasts Peters
Norman and Early English architecture. It was commenced by Abbot John de Seez, 1117, and completed in 1528.
BinmoGHAPHY: G. A. Poole, Peterborough, in Diocesan Histories, London, 1881; W. C. Ingram, Peterborough Cashedral, ib. 1898; W. D. Sweating, The Cathedral of Peterborough, ib. 1898; A. Percival, Notes on Old Peterborough, Peterborough, 1905.

PETERBIN, GEORGE WILLIAM: Protestant Episcopal bishop of West Virginia; b. at Clear Spring, Md., Mar. 21, 1841. He was educated at the University of Virginia (1858‑59), and, after serving in the Confederate Army throughout the Civil War, studied at the Theological Seminary of Virginia, near Alexandria (graduated 1868). He was ordered deacon in the same year and was advanced to the priesthood in 1869. After being curate to his father at St. James', Richmond, Va. (1868‑69), he was rector of St. Stephen's, Culpepper, Va. (1869‑73), and of the Memorial Church, Baltimore, Md. (1873‑78). In 1878 he was consecrated first bishop of Wett Virginia. Since 1886 he has been a member of the Board of Missions of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and in this capacity was in charge of the Protestant Episcopal missions in Brazil (1893‑99) and in Porto Rico (1901‑02). In theology he is a Low‑churchman. He has edited History and Record of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of West Virginia (Charleston, W. Va., 1902).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in America, p. 255, New York, 1895.

PETERS,	GEORGE NATHANIEL HENRY:
Lutheran (Wittenberg Synod); b. at New Berlin, Union County, Pa., Nov. 30, 1825; graduated at Wittenberg College, Springfield, 0., 1850; was pastor at Woodbury, Springfield, Xenia, and Plymouth, 0., but long since retired. He is a conservative premillenarian; and has published The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ (3 vols., New York, 1884).

PETERS (PETER), HUGH: English Independent; b. at Fowey (22 m. w. of Plymouth), Cornwall, in 1598; hanged at Charing Cross, London, Oct. 16, 1660. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1617‑18), and studied theology and preached in London in 1624‑29. Not being able to conform wholly, he traveled abroad and about 1632 became pastor of a congregation at Rotterdam, where he adopted Independent views. In 1635 he emigrated to America and became pastor at Salem, and it was he who excommunicated Roger Williams (q.v.). He was also one of the opponents of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson in the New England controversy over antinornianism (see ANTINOMIANISM AND ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSIE9, II., 2). In 1641 he was one of three agents t sent by the Massachusetts colony to England on a commission on commercial and religious affairs and j took part as chaplain with the expedition against Ireland in 1642. He was prominently identified with the Puritan movement throughout, and with affairs under the protectorate, and gained great unpopularity by his speech and actions. At the Restoration he was tried and executed as a regicide.

Peters
Petersen	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	498
He published a considerable number of small tracts, reports, and sermons (the British Museum Catalogtce devotes over two pages to him), and wrote A 1?ying Father's Last Legacy to an Only Child (London, 1660).
BIBL40ORLMY: Sources are: His Last Legacy, ut sup., pp. 97‑115; the materials indicated in G. C. Boase and W. P. Courtney, Biblaotheca Cornubienaia, i. 465, iii. 1310, 3 vole., London, 1874‑82; ‑and thirty‑five letters by bim~m Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 4 set., vi. 91‑117. vii. 199‑204. Consult further: :. B. Felt, Memoir and Defence or Hugh Peters, Boston, 1851. Other accounts are: W. Yonge, England's Shame, or the Unmasking of a Political Atheist, London, 1863 (" a scurrilous collection of fabrications "); (W. Harris), An Historical Critical Account of H. Peters, ib. 1751; S. Peters, Life of H. Peters, New York, 1807; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 70‑75, ib. 1859; DNB, xlv. 69‑77 (detailed).
PETERS, JOHN PUNNETT: Protestant Episcopal; b. in New York City Dec. 16, 1852. He was educated at Yale College (A.B., 1873; Ph.D., 1876), Yale Divinity School (1879), and the universities of Berlin (1879,81) and Leipsic (1882‑83). He was ordered deacon in 1876 and ordained priest in the following year, and was a tutor in Yale (1876‑79) and minister in charge of St. John's, Dresden (18811882). He was professor of Old‑Testament languages and literature in the Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia, from 1884 to 1891, as well as professor of Hebrew in the University of Pennsylvania (1885‑93), while in 1888‑95 he was director of the expedition of the University of Pennsylvania to Babylonia, and in this capacity conducted important excavations at Nippur. From 1883 to 1893 he was curate of St. Michael's, New York City, has been rector of the same church since 1893, and since 1904 be has been canon residentiary of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. In theology he terms himself " a conservative‑radical Churchman." He has edited The Diary of David McClure (New York, 1899), translated W. Muller's Political History of Recent Times (1882), and contributed extensively to The Bible as Literature (1896) and Lauda Zion (1896). He has written: Scriptures Hebrew and Christian (2 vols., New York 1886‑89); Nippur: or, Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates (2 vols., 1897); The Old Testament and the New Testament Scholarship (London, 1901); Early Hebrew Story (New York, 1904); Some Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (in collaboration with H. Thierseh; London, 1905) ; Annals of St. Michael's, New York, for One Hundred Years, 1807‑1907 (New York, 1907); and Modern Christianity; or, the Plain Gospel expounded (1910).
PETERS, MADISON CLINTON: Baptist; b. in Lehigh County, Pa., Nov. 6, 1859. He was educated at Muhlenberg and Franklin and Marshall Colleges, and at Heidelberg Theological Seminary, Tiffin, O., from which he was graduated in 1881. After preaching in the Reformed Church at Mulberry, Ind., acting as stated supply at Terre Haute, Ind., and being pastor of the Presbyterian Church at Ottawa, Ill., he was pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia (1884‑89), of Bloomingdale Reformed Church, New York City (18891900), of the Sumner Avenue Baptist Church, Brooklyn, N. Y. (1900‑02), and of Immanuel Bap‑
tist Church, Baltimore, Md. (1902‑04). In 19041905 he preached in Park Theater, Philadelphia, but then returned to New York City as pastor of Epiphany Baptist Church. This charge he resigned in 1906 to conduct non‑denontinational services in the Majestic Theater, New York City. He has written Justice to the Jew (New York, 1899; new ed., 1908); The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud (1900); The Jew as a Patriot (1901); The Birds of the Bible (1901); Why I became a Baptist (Philadelphia, 1901); The Man who Wins (Boston, 1905); The Jews in America (Philadelphia, 1905); Will the Coming Man Marry f (1906); Sermons that have Won the Masses (1908); and Abraham Lincoln's Religion (1909).
PETERS, NORBERT: Roman Catholic; b. at Allendorf (50 m. n.e. of Cologne) Aug. 5, 1863. He was educated at the gymnasia of Coesfeld and Paderborn, the universities of Munster, Bonn, Tfbingen, and Warzburg, and the seminaries of Richstltdt and Paderborn; became licentiate in 1883; and priest in 1887; taught at the high school at Geseke, 18871889; continued his studies at Bonn and Tiibingen, 1889‑92; became professor of theology at Paderborn, 1892, where he was dean 1898‑99 and 19041905; he was also prosynodal examiner 1896‑1904. He has issued a commentary on Obadiah (Paderborn, 1892); Die sahidisch‑koptische Uebersetzung des Buches Ecelesiasticus auf ihren wahren Werth fur die Textkritik (Freiburg, 1898); Beitrage zur Text‑ and Literarkratik aowie xur Erkltirung der Btlcher Samuel (1899); an edition with notes of the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes (1902); Die grundsatzliche Stellung der katholisehen Kirche zur Bibelforschung, oder die Grenzen der Bibelkritik naeh katholischer Lehre (Paderborn, 1905); Bibel and Naturwissenschaft nach den Grundadtzen der katholischen Theologie (1906); Papst Pius X. and das Bibelstudium (1906); Glauben and Wissen im eraten biblischen Schopfungsbericht (1907); and Kirche and Bibellesen, oder die grundsdtzliche Stellung der katholischen Kirche rum Bibellesen in der Landessprache (1908). He has served also on the editorial boards of such publications as Biblische Studien; Biblisehe Zeitschrift; Theologische Quartalsehrift; and Zeitschrift ftlr katholische Theologie.
PETER'S PENCE (Denarius Sancti Petri, cen‑
census Bsati Petri): A sum of money annually sent to the Holy See from several northern nations. It is first found in England, where later chronicles state that King Ins of Wessex paid it in 725, although this tradition may be apocryphal. The first certain mention of Peter's pence occurs in a letter of Leo III. to Cenwulf of Mercia, in which the pope states that King Offa had bound himself and his successors to pay to the Apostle Peter 365 mancusce annually for the care of, the poor and for lighting the church. Ethelwulf, in 855, is the first king known to have sent this amount, and after his reign the " Rome‑fee " (Romfeot) is frequently mentioned in the laws. After the middle of the tenth century a penny was required to be given by each household in England before St. Peter's day under severe penalties, and various minor regulations were later introduced.

499	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Peters
		Hetereen
	At first a free gift, Peter's pence later became a
legal duty, so that Gregory VII. could use it as a
basis for his claim to the full dependence of Eng
land as a vassal of the Holy See. The bishops were
required to attend to the collection of Peter's pence,
but delegated their task to the archdeacons; and
Alexander III. expressly forbade the use of stern
measures in raising the money. The clergy, how
ever, frequently tried to free themselves from their
duty, and the archdeacons often sent an insuffi
cient amount to Rome. The whole tribute, from
the middle of the twelfth century on, seems to have
been fixed at 299 marks in silver. The later Eng
lish kings, however, refused payment of this tax,
and finally it was annulled by an act of Parliament
on July 9, 1533.
	Attempts were made with varying success to in
troduce this custom into other countries. It is
found in Denmark as early as the eleventh century
(though it seems to have been paid only irregularly
after the fifteenth century), and about the same
time in Poland. The connection between Poland
and Prussia through the supremacy of the Teutonic
Knights gave John XXII. an excuse to demand
Peter's pence from Prussia, but the payment was
resisted and never became general. It was intro
duced into Sweden in 1152 by Nicholas Breakspear,
afterward Hadrian IV., and from there the custom
spread to Norway, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands.
Gregory VII. tried to introduce it into France in
1081, basing his appeal on ancient customs, but he
was as unsuccessful here as in his similar attempt
in Spain. With the sixteenth century the payment
of Peter's pence was abandoned. It did not, how
ever, end altogether with the Reformation, for a
Lutheranizing bishop in Iceland, Gissurus of Ska
holt, continued to collect it in 1539‑48, apparently
without sending it to Rome.
	The modern Peter's pence .has nothing in com
mon with the ancient system except the name. It
originated in 1860 as a free‑will offering to the pope,
a kind of compensation for the loss of his territories.
It was introduced first in Vienna, whence it spread
to Ireland, Germany, and other parts of the Roman
Catholic world. The amount is so considerable that
it enabled Pius IX. to reject the offer of the Italian
government of a yearly pension of 3,500,000 francs.
In 1861‑68 it is supposed to have amounted to
71,000,000 francs, and during the later years of the
pontificate of Pius it was estimated at from 20;
000,000 to 25,000,000 francs. No exact records are
kept, or at least published. During the pontificate
of Leo XIII. the sum produced by this contribu
tion fell considerably, so that in 1901 it was said to
have amounted only to about 2,300,000 francs.
		(0. Z6C1CC1,ERt.)
BZHLIaaHAPHY: P. Fabre, Recherchea sur le denier de Saint
	Pierre en Anpleterre su moyen‑dpe, Paris, 1892; L. Thomas
	sin, Vdua d nova ecdesioi dixiplina, III., 1. 1, chap. ‑ii.,
	3 vols., Paris, 1728; L. A. Muratori, AruiquitaW Italica,
	v. 851 sqq., 6 vole., Milan, 1723‑51; L. T. Spittler, Von
	der demalspsn Zinabarkeit der nordischen Reich. an den
	pdpatlichen Stuhl, Hanover, 1797; F. Hurter, Gewhichte
	InnOCenZ III., iii. 121‑122, 134‑135 Hamburg, 1836‑42;
	William of Malmesbury, De pestia repum Anpluorum,
	book ii., ed. T. D. Hardy, p. 152, London, 1840; R. W.
	Thompson' Papacy and the Civil Power, New York, 1877;
	P. Woker, Da$ ki"iche Pinanaweaen der Papde, Nbrd‑
lingen, 1878; C. Du Cange, Gloaaarium media d infnm latinitatia, ed. C. A. L. Venschel, iii. 62‑83, Niort, 1883; A. M. von Steinle, Der PeterapJennip, Frankfort, 1893; O. Jensen, Der enplischs Pderapjennip and die Lehenseteuer aus England and Irland an den Papstduhl in Mittelalter, Heidelberg, 1903; Ranks, Popes, i. 11, 28; DCA, ii. 1628‑29; the article of the French Assembly suppressing Petees Pence is in Reich, Documents, p. 414.
PETERSEN, FREDRIg: Norwegian theologian; b. at Stavanger (190 m. w.s.w. of Christiania), Norway, Apr. 23, 1839; d. at Christiania Jan. 9, 1903. He studied theology at the University of Christiania (candidate in theology, 1863) and Berlin, and pursued postgraduate studies in Germany, Sweden, and Denmark (1866‑68); was university stipendiary in Christiania (1868‑72); ordained (1873); and professor of theology at the University of Christiania (1873‑1902). He was very popular with the students, knowing how to enlist their sympathies for the researches of a modern‑conservative theology, though he was unjustly blamed for the liberal thinking now existing in the University of Christiania. He was neither a disciple of any school, nor did he create a school. His position was that of a progressive conservative eclectic, combining scientific method with Christian piety. His efforts at reconstructing the doctrine of inspiration, of the atonement, and of the theory of restitution are notable. As a youth he had been attracted to the writings of the Danish philosopher S. Kierkegaard, and his first theological production was a study of Kierkegaard, Dr. S6ren Kierkegaards Christendotnsforkyrrdelse (1877). Though he protested against Kierkegaard's dualism respecting faith and thought, he agreed with him in holding that faith is independent, and regarded the objects of faith as mysteries which, independent of anything else, possess the ability of creating certainty. Petersen became a circumspect but enthusiastic apologist, on the basis of positive Christianity. His two leading apologetic works are Om Skabelaen, Opholdelsen og Styrelaen, vol. i., Forakningen (18$3), vol. ii., Theologien (1885), revised ed., Forakningen og den Kristelige Tro (1886); and Pritdnkerne og Kristentroena moralake Vdrd (1891). Of his lesser works may be mentioned Hvorfor jeg troy pas Jeans Kristue, indicating a development from a hearsay belief passing through doubt over to independent faith in Christ. Of the larger works, just mentioned, the first deals with materialism in its opposition to the Christian conception of creation and preservation; the second treats of the attitude of evolution to revelation and the atonement. Petersen's knowledge of the various schools of thought, combined with his effort to harmonize faith and belief, arrested the attention of a wide circle of readers. He did not escape the criticism of the old‑orthodox party, nor of liberal theology and infidelity. Joan 0. EvfmN.
PETERSEN, JOHANN WILHELM: German Lutheran, mystic, and chiliast; b. at OsnabrGek (74 m. w.s.w. of Hanover) June 1, 1649; d. near Zerbst (22 m. s.e. Of Magdeburg) Jan. 31, 1727. He was educated at the universities of Giessen (16691671) and Rostock (1671‑72), and was then adjunct in the philosophical faculty at the latter institution in 1672‑74. Receiving a stipend from the Lobeck council in recognition of his attainments, he was

Paterson	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	600
enabled to visit the universities of Leipsic, Jena, and Wittenberg. On his return to Giessen he lectured in the philosophical faculty, a controversy between the theologians of Giessen and Marburg leading him to write his two treatises: De prodestinatione reformatorum non divina (Giessen, 1675), and De oseulo juris naturce cum primo prwcepto decalogi (1675).
About this same time Petersen became associated with Spener and his circle, and renouncing an academic career, retired to Liibeck in obedience to his father's wish. Here he hoped to become a preacher, but ruined his chances by a malicious poem on the Roman Catholic clergy. To escape prosecution for his action, he accepted a call to Rostock as professor of poetry; but the enmity which he had excited followed him there, and early in 1677 he accepted a call to the Church of St. Agidius at Hanover, where he found a defender in Duke John Frederick until, in 1678, he became superintendent of the diocese of Lubeck and court chaplain at Eutin.
Petersen's next ten years were the happiest of his life. His preaching was so popular that he issued a collection of his sermons, and he also advanced the cause of popular religious training by his SpruchCatechismus (Pl6n, 1680). In 1688 he became superintendent at Liineburg. His predecessor, Caspar Hermann Sandhagen, had first decided to take another position, but had changed his mind after Petersen had accepted the call. The ducal government and many of the people wished Sandhagen to remain, so that Petersen, by insisting on holding them to their call, had to contend with their opposition from the very first. This antagonism was intensified by a number of other factors, especially by the chiliastic views which Petersen put forth more and more, until all preaching on the subject was forbidden by the consistory of Celle. In 1691, however, his defense of the visions of Rosamunde Juliane von Asseburg (q.v.) in his Sendschreiben an einige Theologos (Eng. tranal., A Letter to Some Divines Concerning the Question whether God, since Christ's Ascension, doth any more Reveal Himself to Mankind by the Means of Divine Apparitions t With an Exact Account of what God hath Bestowed upon a Noble Maid, by Francis Lee, London, 1695), combined with his increasing promulgation of chiliasm, again brought him before the consistory, which, after receiving a formal expression of opinion from the theological faculty of Helmstiidt, on Jan. 28, 1692, deposed him and expelled him from the principality of Liineburg.
After a brief residence in Brunswick, Wolfenbtittel, and Magdeburg, Petersen purchased an estate at Nieder‑Dodeleben, near the latter city, through the assistance of his sympathizers, and settled down to a life of quiet study and literary activity. He now proceeded to defend his chiliasm,
END OF VOLUME VIII.
particularly in his Die Wahrheil des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, welches in der aiebenten Po8aunen nosh zu erwarterr ist (2 parts, Magdeburg, 1692) and Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, das ist Geheimniss der Wiederbringung aller Dinge (3 vols., Frankfort, 1700‑10). He likewise wrote commentaries on the Psalms (1719), Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (1719), Daniel (1720), the Minor Prophets (1723), etc., his mystical views appearing in these as well as in other writings. The last three years of his life were spent on his estate‑of Thymer, near Zerbst, whither he had removed from Nieder‑Dodeleben, and his literary activity was such that he could record the writing of nearly seventy printed books and pamphlets and of over a hundred more that remained in manuscript.
Despite his eccentricities, Petersen was one of the foremost theologians of his period of transition from orthodoxy to the conflicting extremes of pietism and rationalism. He is also known as a poet in both Latin and German, he himself mentioning 700 hymns in manuscript. His epic Uranias sive opera Dei magna carmine heroico celebrata was edited by Leibnitz (Halle, 1720), while his collections of hymns include the 300 prose Stimmen aus Zion zum Lob des Allmdchtigen im Geist gesungen (2 parts, Halle, 1696‑98) and Neue Stimmen aus Zion (1701), as well as the poetic Dreihundert Stimmen aus Zion (1721). Seven of his Latin hymns and eight of his prose German hymns were included by Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen in his Geistreiches Gesang‑Buch (Halle, 1704). Three of Petersen's hymns have also been translated into English: the " Ceme lapsum servulum," thrice rendered with the first lines " Look on me Thy servant fall'n," " Jesus cometh to fulfil," and " Lamb of God, all praise to Thee "; "‑ Salve crux beata, salve," of which the chief renderings begin " Welcome Cross and tribulation," " Cross, reproach, and tribulation," and " O Cross, we hail thy bitter reign "; and " Liebater Jesu, liebstes Leben," translated as " Jesus, Lord of life and glory."
	The doctrines in which Petersen departed from
orthodox Lutheran principles were hiss theories of
the millennial kingdom; the restoration of all
things; the heavenly God‑man, the first‑born of all
creatures; and direct miraculous revelations of God
at the present time. 	(CART. BERTHEAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief sources are his autobiography, Frankfort, 1717, and his Leben Frauen Johanna Eleonord Petersen (his wife), ib. 1718. Consult further: Kiirschner, J. W. Petersen, ein theologiaches Lebenabild, Eutin, 1862; J. G. Waleh, Einleitung in die Religionestreitigkeiten, ii. 586 sqq., v. 937 aqq., Jena, 1735‑38; 1. Moller, Cimbria literata, ii. 639 9qq., Copenhagen, 1744; C. G. JScher, Allgemeines Gelehrten‑Lexicon, iii. 1421 sqq., Leipsie. 1751; H. Schmid, Geschichte des Pietismus, pp. 186 sqq., NSrdlingen, 1863; A. Ritschl, Gewhichte des Pietismus, ii. 225 sqq., Bonn, 1884; ADB, uv 508 sqq.; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 218, 892, 988.