851	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Semitic Lanrnsses
shape; but of this primitive race we can say no more than that it goes back to a remote antiquity,
since of one of its daughters, the Babys. The Orig‑ lonian people, there are traces in the
inal Home. fourth millennium s.c. The attempt
has been made to determine the habitat of the Semites, before they broke up into separate nations, from their traditions, and from the vocabulary of the primitive tongue made out by a comparison of the existing dialects; but no trustworthy result has been reached. The oldest accounts say nothing definite. Gen. xi. 2, for example, contains the statement that the whole body of the descendants of Noah journeyed " eastward " (so miklcedhem is to be rendered), that is, toward the Tigris‑Euphrates region; but the starting‑point is not given, nor is there here anything of a separate Semitic people. Again, in the same chapter, the assembled human race is said to have been scattered from the city Babel, without, however, any indication of the points to which the descendants of Noah's three sons severally went. At most, a dim feeling may be discerned here that the Semites had once lived together in the Tigris‑Euphrates valley; but this might be referred to the fact that the Hebrews believed that they themselves had come from that region to Cars n. No other Semitic people has, so far as is known, any ancient tradition on this point. The evidence from the primitive Semitic vocabulary is equally vague. Its terms for land, mountains, rivers, seas, metals, grains, fruits, and animals, do not fix any particular spot in western Asia as the locality where such terms must have originated. Certain similarities between the Egyptian and Semitic languages have suggested the theory that the Semitic‑Hamitic community, out of which came later the Semitic and Egyptian peoples, once dwelt in Africa near the Mediterranean shore, and split into sections, one remaining in Africa, the other passing into Asia; but the arguments for this view are not convincing (some scholars, it may be added, place the home of the primitive Semitic‑Hamitic people in Arabia, q.v.). It is necessary, therefore, to regard as not established the hypotheses which make the mountains of Armenia, or the lower TigrisEuphrates valley, or the Arabian Desert, or Africa the cradle of the Semitic race, and to leave the question at present unsolved. The choice is between Arabia and Africa, the preponderance of present opinion being doubtful.
The Semitic territory was enclosed by that of Indo‑Europeans on the east and the west, and Egypt on the south. In ancient times, however, the lan‑
guage was little affected by foreign in3. Foreign fluence, except at one point. Accord‑
Influence. ing to the view now held by most
Assyriologists, the Babylonian‑Assyrians, conquering the non‑Semitic Sumerians, who preceded them as occupants of the Tigris‑Euphrates valley, in adopting the civilization of the conquered, adopted a number of their words. Hebrew made a few loans in early times from the Egyptian, and at a later period, possibly from the Indian, and then from the Persian, Greek, and Latin; and the ecclesiastical Aramaic was naturally greatly affected by Greek and Latin.
The loanwords are easily recognized, except those which come from the Sumerian.
All the Semitic nationalities, except the Arabian, and the Geez (Ethiopia), died out before the second century of the Christian era. The Babylonians and Assyrians disappeared as a political force in the sixth century s.c., and their language survived only a few centuries. The Phenicians lingered in Asia till the time of the Antonines, and their
q. Disap‑ language in Africa (Carthage) till
pearance	toward the fifth century of the Chris‑
of Semitic tian era (mentioned by Augustine and
Languages. Jerome). The Syrian Arameans lost their independence in the eighth century B.c., but continued to exist, and their dialect revived in the second century A.D. as a Christian language; and the Jewish Aramaic continued for some centuries (up to the eleventh century A.D.) to be the spoken and literary tongue of the Palestinian and Babylonian Jews. The Jewish people, broken up by the Romans in the first and second centuries A.D., and scattered over the world, have carried Hebrew with them as a learned, artificial tongue. The South Arabians (Minmans, Sabmans, and perhaps others), once a flourishing community, lingered till the Mohammedan conquest in the seventh century of the Christian era, and were then absorbed in the general Arabian mass. The North Arabians did not appear as a nation till the seventh century A.D., and their language is now widely spoken. Geez proper died out about the sixth century A.D., remaining, however, as the ecclesiastical and learned language; and the nationality is still in existence.
	III. Divisions: The various Semitic dialects
closely resemble one another, there being, for ex
ample, between no two of them such .dissimilarity
as exists between Greek and Latin; but. the family
is divided into two well‑defined groups and several
sub‑groups, the difference between the two main
groups, in vocabulary and forms, being considerably
		greater than that between any two
:. .Grouping. members of the same group or sub
		group. The relations of the dialects
may be seen from the following table, which is de
signed to include all Semitic forrwof speech that
can lay claim to linguistic individua~l except a
few modern jargons mentioned below.
I. NORTH SEMrrrc.
1. Eastern.
a. Babylonian.
b. Assyrian.
2. Northern.
Aramaic.
a. East Aramaic.
a. Syriac (Dialect of Edesea).
p. Mandean.
Y. Nabata=an.
b. West Aramaic.
a. Samaritan.
p. Jewish Aramaic
	(Daniel, Esra,
Targums, Talmud).
Y. Palmyrene.
a. Egyptian Aramaic.
3. Western.
a Phenician.
Old Phenician.
Late Phenician (Punic).
b. Hebrew.
c. Moabitish and other Canaanitieh dialect,.
II. SOUTH Smanc.
1. Northern.
Arabic.
2. Southern.
a. Babasan, or Himya. ritic; Minejan. Mahri. Ha)Nli (Ehldli).
b. Gees, or Ethiopic. a. Old Gees. R. TigrB. Y. TigriEa. a. Amharic. i. Iiarari.

8emitio Languages	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	3'52
From the cuneiform tablets discovered in 1887 at Tell el‑Amarna (see AMARNA TABLETS) in Egypt, near Thebes, it appears that c. 1400 B.c. Babylonian was the official language in Canaan and the language of intercourse between the
s. Use of kings of Babylonia and Egypt. The
Those Babylonians had before that time overTongues. run and occupied Canaan and impressed their culture on the land, so that, though Egypt then held Canaan, the Egyptian governors of the cities (among them the governor of Jerusalem) wrote to the Egyptian royal government in Babylonian, and Egyptian youth at court studied Babylonian.
Of these dialects, the following are now spoken: (1) Aramaic, by the Nestorian and Jacobite Christians in Upper Mesopotamia, near Mosul, thence eastward to the western shore of Lake Urmi, and northward in the Kurdish Mountains (N61deke, Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache, Leipsie, 1868); and by the remnant of the Mandeans in Lower Mesopotamia (Noldeke, Manddische Grammatik, Halle, 1874). West Aramaic is now spoken only in three small villages near Damascus. (2) Arabic is the only Semitic dialect that has now any real life. It is spoken in various sub‑dialects‑by the Bedouin of the Arabian Desert; in Egypt, and, as ecclesiastical language, in Turkey; in the Magreb (north coast of Africa); in Syria; in Malta, where the vernacular is a strange mixture, with Arabic as its basis, but with many Italian and other words; on the coast of Malabar (the Mapuli jargon). The Mozarabic, a Spanish‑Arabic jargon formerly spoken in the south of Spain, became extinct in the last century. (3) Geez: the four dialects, Tigre, Tigriiia, Amharic, Harari, are still spoken in Abyssinia. (4) Hebrew at a comparatively early date began to be displaced by Aramaic, which became the common language of intercourse in the greater part of western Asia and so the vernacular of the Jews. The earliest notice of the use of Aramaic by Jews is found in the Aramaic papyri discovered in the island of Elephantine in the Nile opposite Assuan. Here as early as the sixth century B.c. dwelt a Jewish community possessing a temple and carrying on a regular Jewish worship; their commercial and other documents are all written in Aramaic. This language gradually took the place of Hebrew in Palestine, and maintained itself till some time after the Mohammedan conquest, when the Jews gradually adopted Arabic. In general the Jews speak the language of the people among whom they dwell, keeping up, however, to a greater or less extent, the knowledge of the old tongue. Hebrew is now studied by the Jews as a sacred language, and by a few of them, chiefly the older orthodox bodies in Germany, Austria, and Russia, is to some extent written and spoken. This spoken language contains a large admixture of modern European terms. The literary Hebrew of today occupies about the same position among the Jews as Latin among us. The so‑called " Yiddish " (that is, German Jewish) is a Rhineland German speech, with admixture of Hebrew and Slavic words, now spoken by Jews in Russia, Austria, America, and elsewhere in the diaspora [and printed by them in the Jewish character].
Of languages which have been strongly affected by Semitic tongues may be mentioned the Iranian Huzvaresh or Pahlavi (the language of the Bundehesh), which is greatly Aramaized; the Iranian Persian, whose vocabulary is largely Arabic, and even its syntax appears to have been somewhat Semitized; the Indian Hindustani, which, developed under Moslem influence, also contains a large number of Arabic words; and the Turkish, especially the literary and learned language of Constantinople, which in like manner, and for the same reason, has a large infusion of Arabic.
IV. Characteristics: These may be divided into formal (grammar), material (vocabulary), and stylistic (rhetoric and thought). The Semitic phonetic system has a marked individuality. It is probable that the original Semitic alphabet was nearly identical with that of the classical Arabic, containing
six gutturals (Alef, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ayin, i. Grammar; Gayin), five uvulars (Iiaf, Ta, Z, a, Sad,
Phonetics. ]?ad), two palatals (Kaf, Gam), two
linguo‑dentals (Ta, Dal), two labials (Pa, Ba), six liquids (Ra, Ya, Lam, Waw, and the nasals Win, Nun), three sibilants (Sin, Sin, .Zayin), and perhaps six spirants (Kaf, dam, Ta, Dal, Pa, Ba). No existing dialect has all these letters, but there are traces of most of them in all. Thus, comparison of Assyrian and Arabic mal :s it probable that the former contained all these h‑sounds (ha, ha, ha), though only one of them (ha) is now found in it. From Septuagint transliterations it appears that Hebrew possessed Gayin, as well as Ayin; the South Semitic group shows all the uvulars, and the Hebrew all the spirants. It may be, however, that the parent Semitic speech had fewer uvulars and spirants, and that the Southern group developed the former, and the Northern the latter. It is doubtful whether Hebrew Samek and Sin represent two different sounds. It is likely, also, that not all the sounds above mentioned are original, i.e., some of them may be merely modifications of earlier and simpler sounds; but here the concern is only with the consonantal material possessed by the primitive Semitic tongue, and not with the material out of which its alphabet may have been formed. The Semitic alphabet is thus seen to be characterized by fulness of guttural, uvular, and spirant consonants. In the several dialects the movement has been toward a diminution of the number of gutturals and uvulars, namely, by changing these into similar letters pronounced farther forward in the mouth. Assyrian, Galilean Jewish, Aramaic, and Mandean threw off the most of the gutturals; modern Arabic has diminished the number of its uvulars, and Geez the number of its uvulars and gutturals. This is a tendency, observable in all languages, to bring the consonants forward in the mouth and thus facilitate their pronunciation. The vowel material of the primitive Semitic was simple, consisting, probably, of the three vowels, a, i, u, with the corresponding long A, s, u. These have been variously modified in the different dialects. Assyrian has €; Aramaic, e, o; Hebrew, a, 6, e, 6, 8; modern Arabic, g, e, s (aw), 6; Geez, 6, 4~, o.
Morphologically, the Semitic languages belong to the class called inflecting, standing in this respect

363	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Semitic Languages
alongside of the Indo‑European. Their most marked peculiarity is their triliteralism; most stems consist of three consonants, on which, by z. Morphol‑ prefixes, atfixes, infixes, and internal
ogy and vowel‑changes, all derived forms are
	Syntax.	made. The noun has gender (mascu
		line and feminine), number and case.
The verb has gender, number and person, but prop
erly no distinction of tense (in the sense of time),
instead of which there are two forms which denote
respectively completedness and ingressiveness of
action. The notions of reflection, intensity, causa
tion, are expressed by derived verbal stems made
by prefixes and infixes. The Semitic syntax is
marked by great simplicity of articulation. The
different clauses of the sentence are, for the most
part, connected by the most general word " and "; ,'
there is little or no inversion and transposition for
rhetorical effect; and there are no elaborate periods.
The structure is commonly and properly described
as monumental or lapidary. The most striking
special peculiarity of the syntax is the phonetic
abridgment of the noun (the construct state; [in
Hebrew, where one word is limited by another, not
the limiting but the limited word is changed in form
to the " construct state," so that the Indo‑European
genitive relation is in a manner reversed]) to show
that it is defined by the following word or clause.
The absence of compounds (except in proper names)
is another marked feature‑an illustration of the
isolating character of the thought. The whole
conception of the sentence is detached, isolated,
and picturesque. Of these general Semitic character
istics the Hebrew and Assyrian, which first pro
duced literatures, show the most, and the Aramaic
and Arabic, whose literary life began late, the
least.
The Semitic word‑material differs greatly according to the periods and the circumstances of the various peoples. The pre‑Christian literary remains are very scanty. From the Israelites
3. Vocabu‑ there have come down only a few prolary and phetical discourses, historical books,
Style. sacred hymns, and ethical works, together with several law books, no secular productions except the Song of Songs; from the Babylonians and the Assyrians, somewhat moreroyal and commercial inscriptions, geographical, astronomical, grammatical, and religious works, and fragments of epic and other poems; from the Phenicians, a few short inscriptions; and from the others, nothing. The Hebrew vocabulary is full in terms relating to religious feelings and acts, scanty in philosophical and artistic terms and in names of things pertaining to common life; the Assyrian has more of the last, but is almost equally rich in the first. In later times, however, the Aramaic (classical and Jewish), and the Arabic under Greek influence, created larger vocabularies, and developed some power of philosophical expression. The Hebrew vocabulary is now being enlarged in this direction by the Jews. From the nature of the national culture, these languages, though their vocabularies are sometimes (the Arabic especially) very large, do not satisfy the needs of western life. They multiply words for objects and acts which we do not care to particularX.‑23
ize, and.are deficient in terms for those which we wish to express with ,precision. The above description of the vocabulary and syntax will serve to characterize the style and thought of the Semitic tongues. The highest artistic shape they have not, either in prose or in poetry. They do not readily lend themselves to philosophy proper or to art. But in the simple expression of emotion, and the condensation of practical wisdom into household words, they are not surpassed by the most highly developed Indo‑European languages: in these respects the Bible has an acknowledged preeminence.
V. Literary Products: It will be sufficient here to mention briefly the general characteristics of the literature of the Semitic languages. Of the different forms of poetry the Semites have produced little more than the lyric, as in the Old‑Testament Psalms, the Syrian hymns, and the Arabian Kasidas. The old Babylonian inscriptions contain two cosmological poems of great interest, and the Gilgamesh (formerly written Izdubar) cycle of stories has an epic tone; but this cycle has not a definite literary unity like the Iliad, and it is uncertain how much of all the early poetical material is derived from a non‑Semitic (that is, Sumerian) source; the rhythmic form is in part Semitic. The Semites have never produced a native drama. Neither the Book of Job nor the Song of Songs is a drama; the former is a colloquy of five men who make long argumentative speeches, and the question is summed up in a group of discourses by Yahweh; the latter is a collection of loosely connected wedding‑songs, without plot or movement. The drama of the late poet Ezekiel has been regarded as an imitation of Greek models. The subjective character of the Semitic poetic thought is obvious: actions or phenomena in outward nature or in human life are generally described not for their own sake, but as a part of the feeling of the writer. As poetry it takes high rank. The Hebrew lyrics are sonorous and rhythmical; the Arabian are ingenious and lively; the Syrian, however, are tame. The metrical form of Hebrew poetry (see HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, III.), and to some extent of Babylonian, is parallelism of members, and the rhythmic progression is by stress of voice, not by length and number of syllables‑a member is defined as having two, three, or four beats; the Arabic, however, has a well‑defined system of feet characterized by number and length of syllables. Rime appears first in Syriac Christian hymns, and is feebly represented in Arabic. The historical writing of the Semites has never attained a scientific or artistic form. It is either baldly annalistic (as parts of the Old‑Testament Book of Kings, the Assyrian royal inscriptions, and the Arabic histories), or, when it attempts more connected presentation of the facts, it is subjective and pragmatic, arranging the historical facts so as to point a moral or support a theory. In one department, prophetic discourse, the Semitic literature is unrivaled; there is nothing in any other family of languages like the prophetic oratory of the Old Testament, or the declamation of the Koran. In other departments, as fiction and philosophy, the Semites have never been original, but always imitators (Thousand and One Nights, the Arabian philosophy;

smitio L&ng1Wsg*@	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	854
the Persian Arabic is, of course, not to be considered here).
VL Relation to Other Families of Languages: So far as present knowledge goes, it is doubtful whether the Semitic family is genetically connected with any other in the world except the Egyptian and Cushite groups. Various unsuccessful attempts have been made to show a relationship between it and the Indo‑European. The case is different with the Egyptian, between whose stock of sounds, personal pronouns, numerals, and verbal forms, and the Semitic there is a remarkable resemblance; but the great differences between the two families in other respects make great caution necessary in comparing them. There is a similar resemblance between the structure of the Semitic verb and that of the Cushite group of languages (the Galls, Saho, and others, near Abyssinia), but nothing definite. At most, an original Semitic‑Hamitic family may be conjectured out of which these two have grown; but in that case their separation took place so long ago, their paths since that time have been so different, and the traces of kinship have been so far obliterated, that little can be got from a comparison between them, except in the way of reconstructing the history of the original family. One main obstacle in the comparison of Semitic words with others is the triliteralism of stems of the former; and it has therefore been attempted to reduce these to biliterals, but hitherto with indifferent success. It need not be denied that this problem may hereafter be solved, and comparisons instituted between Semitic and other families that may be of service
to all. 	C. H. Toy.
BIBISOGRAPHY: General works are: F:. Littrb, Comment dans deem situations hiatonques Us s6miUs entrhrent en compitition avec In Aryens pour fh4pimonnie du monde, Paris, 1879; F. Delitsach, Wo lap das Paradies t Leipsic,1881; F. Hommel, Die Semiten and ihre Bedeutunp far die Kulturpeschichte. den Menxhheit, Leipsio, 1881; idem, Die semitischen Vblker and Sprachen, ib. 1881; F. Lenormant, Lee Oripines de Mist. d'apras la Bible et lee traditions des peuples orientaux, 2 vols., Paris, 188082, Eng. trawl. of vol. i., Beginnings of Hist., New York, 1882; T.. N81deke, Sketches from Eastern History (" Some Char acterietics of the Semitic Race "), New York, 1892; G. A. Barton, Sketch of Semitic Origins, New York, 1902; and the publications of the Congress of Arts and Sciences (St. Louis Exposition), vol. iii., Boston, 1906.
On the science of language consult: H Steinthal, Charakteriatik den hauptaachlichaten Typen des Sprachbaues. Berlin, 1860• F. Max MOller, Science of Language, New York, 1865; W. D. Whitney, 'Lanfluape and the Science of Language, New York, 1873; F. W. Farrar, Families of Speech, London, 1870; A. Hovelacque, La Lin• puistique, Paris, 1878; A. H. Sayce, introduction to the Science of Language, London, 1880; J. Byrne, Principles of the Structure of Language, London, 1885; H. Paul, Principles of the Mist. of Language, London, 1891.
On Semitic comparative grammar, lexicography, and Isnguage•hietory consult: T. Benfey, Ueber das Verhal6nwe den dgyptiwhen Sprache sum semitischen Sprochatamm, Leipsie, 1844; E. Renan, Hist. pl'n&ale et systlme compart des lanpues sdmitiques, Paris, 1863; F. Miller, Indogermanisch and semitisch, Vienna, 1870; F. W. N. Philippi, Statue construct. im Htbraiachen, Weimar, 1871; E. Schrader, in ZDMG, xxvii. 3 (1873); A. Koch, Der semitische Infinitiv, Stuttgart, 1874; W. Wright, Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, London and New York 1890 T. N81deke, in Encyclopddia Britannica, xai. 641‑8W; idem, Beitrape sw asmitisehen Spnochroissenachaft, Strasburg, 1904• item, Ne88 Beitrdpe sun semitischen Sprachwissenrchafl, ib.19m: H. Ewald. Abhandlunp fiber die peschichtliche Polge den semitischen Sprachen, G8t‑
tingen, 1871; C. Abel, Sprachmiasenxhafiliche Abhandlunpen, Leipsio, 1884; A. H. Huisings, Analogy in the Semitic Language#, Baltimore, 1891; J. Birth, Die Nominaldildunp in den semitisrhen Sprachen, Leipeie,1894; idem, Sprachwissenachaftlichs Untersuchunpen, ib. 1907; O. E. Lindberg, Verpleichende Grommatik den semitixhsn Sprachen. Gothenburg, 1897 sqq.,,,A Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions: a comprehensive Collection for the Study of Comparative Semitic Philology, Cambridge, 1898; H. Zimmem, Verpleichende Grammatik den semitiachen Sprachen, Berlin, 1898; E. Kbnig, Hebrdisch and Semitisch. Prolegomena and Grundlinien einer Geaehichte den semitischen Sprachen, Berlin, 1901; idem, Hebrdischee and aramaisches WBrterbuch sum Alien Testament wit Einschaltunp and Analyse aller ashwererksnnbarenFormen. DeutunaderEipennamensowie den maseoretischen Randbemerkunpen and einem deulschhebraischen Wortrepister, Leipsic, 1901‑10; G. Dalman, Grammatik des jadischen palaatinischen Aramdisch, Leipsic, 1905; W. Gesenius, Hebraiaches and aramaisches Handworterbuch, 14th ed. by F. Buhl and H. Zimmern, Leipsie, 1905; H. L. Strack, Grammatik des biblischaramaischen, Leipsie, 1905; F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the O. T., Boston, etc., 1906; C. Brookelmann, Grurudrias den verpleichenden Grammatik den semitMchen Sprarhen; part I., Berlin and New York, 1908; idem, Semitische Sprnchwisaenschaft, Leipsie, 1910; L. Belleli, An Independent Examination of as Assuan and Elephantine Aramaic Papyn with eleven Plates and taro Appendices on sundry Items, London, 1909; Beitrdpe sun christlich‑arabischen Literaturpeschichts, Leipsic, 1909; M. van Berchem, Arabieche Inschriften, ib. 1909; idem, Materiaua poursun Corpus inscriptionum Arubicarum, Paris, 1910; J. P. Alone. Short Manual (with Vocabulary) of the Amharic Language, London, 1910; E. H. Armbruster, Initia Amharica. An Introduction to spoken Amharic, ib. 1910; H. Bauer, Die Tempora im SemitiaeAen, Leipaic, 1910; C. Besold, Verbalsufxforrnen ale Alterakriterien babylonisch‑aesyriecher Inschriften, Heidelberg, 1910; Fabre d'Olivet, La Lanpue h6braique restituts, d le vhritable sense des mots hAbreuat ritabli d prouvi, Paris, 1910; J. B. Chabot. Les Lanpuea ei lee liturntures aramdennas, ib..1910.
SEMLER, semrler or aemrler, JOHANN SALOMO: Pioneer in Biblical criticism; b. at Saalfeld (6B m. s.w. of Leipsic) Dec. 18, 1725; d. at Halle Mar. 4, 1791. His father was archdeacon at Saalfeld, and introduced the son to the circles of Pietism (q.v.) in early youth. But young Semler, already a wide reader and possessed of a phenomenal memory, soon felt a profound disinclination toward all manner of Pietism, only by degrees; however, becoming conscious of his fundamental objection to this movement. At the University of Halle, which he visited in 1743, he was especially drawn toward Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (q.v.), whose erudition appealed to him, and there took his master's degree in 1750. In the same year he became an unsalaried professor in the gymnasium at Coburg, where he gave instruction in the elements of Arabic, and was also editor of the Coburg Staata‑ and GeZehrtenzeitung. The year 1751 brought him the call of a professorship in history and Latin poetry at Altdorf. But in 1752, at the instance of Baumgarten, he was called to Halle as professor of theology, where there opened up for him a field of labor suitable to his talents. After Baumgarten's death (1757), he grew more free and spontaneous, and a few years later he was one of the most celebrated theologians of Germany.
Semler's critical investigation was directed first of sill to the Scriptures. What he undertook was unheard of in German theology, yet there was no doubt of his right to make Scripture the object of scientific research. , His Biblical investigations

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ht
were concerned with the transmission and the nature of the text. He soon came to believe in various revisions of the New‑Testament text, strove after more certain standards for fixing the value of particular manuscripts, and discerned the importance of patristic citations. This new attitude respecting the text involved the germinating principles for a new valuation of the canon. To this problem was devoted his Abhandlung von der freien Untersuehung des Kanon8, nebst Antwort au
.f die tilbingische Vertheidigung der Apokalypsis (4 parts, Halle, 1771‑76). He came to recognize the fact that the canon of the Old Testament, like that of the New, underwent a historical development and grew up by degrees, and hence may not pass for " inspired " in the traditional sense and has not, therefore, the " authority " heretofore ascribed to it. This principle of the liberty of Christians to deal with the canon, involved the further task of gaining a criterion for gaging the value of the particular constituents of such a collection, offering as such the test of the presence in the books of the spirit of Christ. This led him to recognize in the Old Testament and the New two stages of religion, the Jewish national, and the universal religion of Christianity, and this showed the way to a wholly new explanation of Scripture. He established the point that the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles contains Jewish conceptions of only synchronous value. The problem of scientific exegesis is to determine what belongs to these " local " and " temporal " elements. So early as 1760, he gave expression to these maxims, and applied the same in De dtemoniacis, quorum in evangeliis fat mentio (Halls, 1760). Semler further developed the idea of utilizing Talmud and Apocrypha in exegesis.
With Semler there began a new epoch in ecclesiastical history. His historical labors exhibit him both as editor (TertuWani opera, 6 vols., Halle, 1769‑76; Apparatus ad libros aymbolicos ecclesim Lutherana, 1775), and as critic (Commentarii historica de antiquo Christianorum statu, 2 vols., 17711772; Versuch eines fruchtbaren Auszugea der Kirchengeachichte des N. T., 3 vole., 1773‑78). His guiding principles include constant return to the sources, the importation of purely natural factors in the history of the Church, employment of psychology to aid in the understanding of history, and recognition that development has taken place in the history of the Church. This new mode of survey showed its most pronounced reaction in the sphere of ecclesiastical dogma. One of Semler's most important theses was his distinction between theology and religion. By means of this distinction he created free course for his criticism and thereby liberated scientific research from the theological odium, his purpose being to grapple with the Christian faith itself. Another main idea of Semler's is that in all ages there has been a diversity of theological and religious views, and that this discrepancy exists of right. Consequently all doctrinal schemes are mere attempts to comprehend the truth, with the results that the practise of appraising the dogma of one's own church in distinction from that of other ecclesiastical fellowships was no longer to be upheld, the basis for a propaganda among adher‑
ents of an alien confession vanished away, and even
the gap between Christianity and non‑Christian
religions became lessened by coordination of all
into the divine cosmic, plan. The task of defining
the value and effective scope of the theology recog
nized by the Church, and the relation of this ecclesi
astical doctrine to the asserted freedom of the in
dividual, Semler sought to resolve by distinguishing
public religion i.e, Christian regulations in the
way of external ordinances‑from private religion,
i.e., the particular Christian's religious convictions.
	Semler excited great surprise among his contem
poraries by his attitude toward the practical life of
the Church. When the agitation over the " Wolfen
biittel Fragments " (q.v.) reached its height, Sem
ler undertook to controvert the " Fragmentists "
with keen polemics. Semler's attitude in various
disputes was the necessary result of the fundamental
thoughts of his theology. Yet he was no construc
tor, nor did he clearly define for himself the conse
quences of his own formal postulations. Indeed, he
himself often, fell far short of exercising the objec
tivity that he demanded abstractly; and his direct
interest was much more pronounced than he per
sonally admitted. He was far more accessible to
conservative sentiments than could be expected,
especially in his labors as critic. Similarly, the very
heaviness of his style is due to his continual strug
gling with new material and to his inability to wait
for publication until he had completely mastered
the subject‑matter. His real merit lay in assisting
to pilot theology into a new phase of development
by importing into theology the historical mode of
contemplation. In its final decade, Semler's liter
ary activity shows a change in his interests, as he
busied himself with natural sciences, alchemy, mys
tical theosophy, and freemasonry (Unpartheaiache
Sammlung zur Geschichte der Rosenkreuzer, 4 parts,
Leipsic, 1786,88). At the same time he did not
abandon theology (Letztes Glaubensbekenntnis,1792).
		CARL MIRBT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Semler's autobiography was published in two parts, Halle, 1781‑82. Consult further: J. G. Eichhom, Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, v. 1201, Leipsie, 1793; Diestel, in Jahrbitcher fiir deutsche Theologie, xii (1887), 471‑498; P. Gastrow, Johann Salomo Semler in seiner Bedeutung far die Thtologie mit besonderer Beracksichtipuig seines Streites mit a. E. Leasing, Giessen, 1905; the work by G. Karo with the same title, Berlin, 1905; H. Hoffmann, Die Theologie Semlera, Leipsie, 1905; L. Zscharnack, Leasing and Semler. Ein Beitrag zur Entatehungapeschicke des Rationaliemue and der kritischen Theologie, Giessen, 1905; F. Huber, Johann Salomo Semter, seine Bung far die Theologie. Berlin, 1906; ADB, a avtiii. 698‑704.
SEMPRINGHAM, ORDER OF. See GILBERT, SAINT, OF SEMPRINOBAM.
SEN, BESHAV CHANDRA: Hindu Theist; b. at Calcutta Nov. 19, 1838; d. there Jan. 8, 1884. As a boy he was imperious in character and selfwilled, not especially religious in spirit, but amid the low moral condition of the times he stood out as a pure‑minded boy, slay but self‑contained. As he passed into youth he became austere in his habits, a vegetarian, showing an antipathy toward all frivolities, and absorbed in philosophical and religious subjects. It was at this time that Christian literature began to make its deep impression on his mind.

Sense,	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	g$g
As an outlet to his feelings he started the Goodwill Fraternity, where those of like minds met for prayer and the expression of a deepening religious spirit. Devendranath Tagore (see TAQORE, DEvENDRANATH), then leader of the Brahma Somaj, attended on one occasion a meeting of this society, and this formed the first step in the later friendship between the two. At this time (1858) the family guru came to perform rites of religious initiation, precipitating a severe mental struggle for Keshav; in the face of the family pressure he stood out against idolatrous rites, and his victory brought him into still closer sympathy with Devendranath Tagore, who had been watching his struggles.
In Apr., 1859, in the establishment of the Brahmo School Keshav appeared in the r81e of an enthusiastic teacher of theism. Devendranath Tagore joined hands with Keshav in this new enterprise. Keshav lectured on the philosophy of theism, and Devendranath on the doctrine and theology of the Brahmo Somaj. In 1860 his first publication appeared, a tract entitled Young Bengal. This is for You, and was followed by twelve others, embodying the substance of his lectures before the Brahmo School. In Aug., 1861, he began publication of The Indian Mirror for the propagation of his ideas. In 1862 he was formally appointed a minister of the Brahmo Somaj, and into its development he threw his whole nature.
In Aug., 1862, the first intercaste marriage according to Brahmo rites took place, encouraged by Keshav, but disapproved by Devendranath. And as such marriages increased in number, the constitutional difference of opinion between the two leaders became emphasized. Devendranath was a conservative and drew his inspiration more and more from the Upanishads, while Keshav drew his from Christian sources. Though close friends, their radically different attitude to social reform finally created a cleavage that grew wider with every strain. In Feb., 1864, Keshav began his first tour over India, visiting Bombay, Poona, Calicut, and Madras. The welcome he received everywhere, and the apparent ripeness for his theistic message suggested the idea of a Brahmo Somaj for India.
On his returning to Calcutta both leaders became conscious that their differences were irreconcilable. And in 1866 Keshav and his radical followers seceded from the Somaj to found the Brahmo Somaj of India. Devendranath continued the old Calcutta Brahmo Somaj under the name of the Adi Braluno Somaj. In the midst of these troublous times, Keshav felt his separation from his old friend keenly, and, driven to seek comfort somewhere, found it for a time in retirement, spent largely in the study of the life of Christ. The lecture he soon after delivered on Jesus Christ, Europe and Asia created a sensation, separating him still more from Brahmos of the older party. His explanation five months later in a lecture on Great Men brought him little comfort, as it opened him to charges of recantation on the one side and of egotism on the other. On Jan. 24, 1868, the foundation of the Brahmo Mandir was laid. In Mar., 1868, he began his second missionary journey over India, ending it at Monghyr on the banks of the Ganges. Here Keshav
was received with the utmost enthusiasm, while people prostrated themselves before him calling him " Lord," " Master," and " Savior." His failure to rebuke this brought unfortunate consequences. On Aug. 22, 1869, the Brahmo Mandir was formally opened with imposing ceremonies. In Sept., 1872, he founded the Bharat Ashram, where Brahmos lived a communistic life, which continued for seven years but finally broke up because of internal discord and the gross misbehavior of some inmates. From 1875 to 1878 he developed an ascetic life, cultivated the Bhakti spirit characterized by singing and violent dancing, which aroused the disgust of many and the suspicion of others. In 1878 occurred the " Ouch Behar marriage " of his daughter under fourteen years of age to the Maharaja of G~Ich Behar yet under sixteen years of age, according to Hindu idolatrous rites. This marriage was severely criticized as a lapse from Brahmo principles. The confidence of many in his leadership was shaken, and they withdrew to found the Sadharan Brahmo Somaj. In 1881 Keshav formally announced the name "New Dispensation" as the name of his church, and himself as its prophet, and demanded immunity from all criticism, since he declared that he was guided by the direct commandment of God. This abnormal estimation of himself as an avenue of truth brought its unfortunate fruit in the worship of some, the disaffection of others, and discord in the Somaj. See INDIA, III.
JusTIN E. ABBOTT.

BIBuOGBAPHY: The most noted of the writings of geshav Chandra Sen are: The Brahmo Samaj; Lectures and Tracts, 2 series, London, 1870; The Brahma Samaj; Keshub Chunder Sen in England, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1881; and his Diary in England, Calcutta, 1886. For his life and activities consult: P. C. Mozoomdar, Life and Teachings of Chunder Sen, Calcutta, 1887; J. F. B. Tinling, An Evangelist's Tour round India, with Account of Keshub Chunder Sen and the Modem Hindu Reformers, London, 1870; S. D. Collet, Keshub Chunder SeW's English Visit, ib. 1871 (contains some of his speeches); Ramachandm Vasu, Brahmoism . . with . . Account of Keahub Chunder Sen's Connection with the Movement, New York, 1884; T. E. Slater, Keshab Chandra Son and the Brahma Samaj, Madras, 1884; and the literature under BRAHMo
SOMAJ.

SENDOMIR, CONSENSUS OF: An agreement drawn up in 1570 between the Lutherans, the Reformed, and the Bohemian Brethren at Sendomir, a town in what was formerly Little Poland (125 m. s. of Warsaw). While the state of affairs at the time rendered some agreement between these religious bodies desirable, it was decided that small preliminary conferences should be held, as between the Lutherans and Reformed at Vilna on Mar. 2, 1570, and between the Lutherans and Bohemian Brethren At Posen on Feb. 13, 1570, while the Sendomir Synod itself was held Apr. 9‑15, 1570, its object being the organization of a Polish Protestant Church. The nobility, desiring to oppose a solid front to Roman Catholicism, earnestly advocated union, and the Reformed ,passed lightly over doctrines which disturbed the more scrupulous Lutherans. The Bohemian Brethren took a middle ground, thus having the balance of power between the Lutherans and the Reformed, the representatives of the latter being the most numerous, and also being

357	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
		Seneca
favored by the nobility. The nobles, indeed, tacitly assumed that the conference was a Reformed synod, and they had plainly come prepared to declare the Second Helvetic Confession the national creed of Poland. The Bohemian Brethren, while regarding the Helvetic Confession as in agreement with their own, saw no reason to surrender the creed of their own communion; and the Lutherans, declining to abandon the Augsburg Confession, and at the same time far from insisting that it be made the formal creed of the synod, proposed the joint formulation of a new and distinctly Polish confession. It was accordingly resolved that the preparation of such a creed should be taken up by the next synod, scheduled to meet at Warsaw at Whitsuntide. Since, however, some expression of the unanimity already attained was desired, two ministers were delegated to draw up an agreement. This was submitted to the synod on Apr. 13, whereupon a Lutheran representative requested the addition of a statement on the Eucharist, as well as the adoption of an entire article from the Saxon Confession of 1551. This request was granted, but the Eucharistic doctrine was so modified as to represent essentially the position of Melanchthon, so that those Lutherans who, in the Formula of Concord, proscribed Philippism, rejected the Consensus of Sendomir.
The Consensus sought to provide a defense against Roman Catholics, sectarians, and foes of the Gospel, and also to obviate all strife and enmity. Each of the sects represented might conduct the worship and administer the sacraments of the other; each Church concerned might retain its liturgy and usages, except when these should interfere with purity of doctrine; and all weighty matters of religion in Poland, Lithuania, and Samogitia were to be considered in joint council. The proposed preparation of a distinct Polish confession was never realized, but, on May 20, 1570, a conference of Lutherans and Bohemian Brethren was held at Posen, where a number of resolutions were adopted which may be regarded as supplementing the Consensus of Sendomir. After considerable debate, it was decided that the Eucharistic teaching should be in accord with the Consensus of Sendomir and the Saxon Confession; each sect should retain its own usages, and where the same place had a congregation of each, the minister of either might, in case of necessity, represent the other; all polemics must be avoided, and proselyting was forbidden; mutual conferences for the furtherance of the union were to be held when necessary; no pastor should admit to the Lord's Supper the adherents of the other sect without the consent of the pastor of the persons concerned, except on the occasion of diets, general synods, and journeys; those excommunicated in one sect should not be admitted to the Lord's Supper in the other, and a similar rule should apply to the clergy in case of deposition; all rites of the Roman Catholic Church were gradually to be abolished; and in case it should prove impossible peaceably to correct any eventual error in teaching or liturgy in either sect, the matter was to be brought for final adjudication before the general synod of Great and Little Poland.
(H. W. ERBSAnft.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Consensus was first printed 1583, and reprinted Thorn, 1592, 1596, Heidelberg, 1805, Geneva, 1612, 1654, Frankfort, 1704; in D. E. Jablonski's Hiatoria consensus Sendomirienais, Berlin, 1731; in H. A. Niemeyer's Collectio confeasionum, pp. 551‑591, Leipsic, 1840; and in German in C. J. Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der evangeliachen Union, pp. 72 eqq., Bonn, 1853. Consult the pertinent literature under POLAND; the work of Jablonski named above; Schaff, Creeds, i. 586‑588; J. G. Waleh, Hiatoriaehe . . Einleitung in die Religionadredtigkeiten, iii. 1043, 10 vols., Jena, 1733‑39, and Nitzsch, ut sup., p. 1X8.

	SENECA, sen'e‑ca, LUCIUS ANN.EUS: Roman
philosopher and author; b. in Corduba (Cordova),
Spain, c. 8 B.C.; d. near Rome 65 A.D., being forced
to commit suicide. As a prodigy in versification
and rhetoric he soon rose to eminence, and entered
the senate. Exiled to Corsica at the accession of
Claudius, 41 A.D., he returned in 49 to become the
educator and counselor of young Nero. His great
talents were undoubtedly used to commend or
screen the criminal ambition of Agrippina and
the parricide committed by Nero. Seneca was
early attracted by Pythagoreanism, and, while he
became a devotee of this cult, his erudition for his
time was almost universal. In the bitter analysis
of the non‑spiritual strivings of actual mankind
Seneca has outstripped all his predecessors. Stoic
pride as well as a curious aspiration after spiritual
rest, submission to fatal mechanism, as well as a
striving after personal immortality, may be observed
in his brilliant essays, among which the epastulte
morales are the last and greatest. There is in him
also an unmistakable drift and trend away from the
pantheism of his school toward a theistic concep
tion of soul‑happiness and soul‑obligations. The
motto " know thyself " as applied to conscience and
motive has been more vigorously put into play by
Seneca than by any former philosophical writer of
classical antiquity (" Perchance, if you search dili
gently, you will find within your own bosom the
vice of which you ask "; De beneftciis, VIL, xxviii.
3). In the frank admission of essential moral weak
ness coupled with the assertion of the highest ob
ligation of moral conduct, Seneca not rarely reminds
his readers of the New Testament. Still, in his phi
losophy of freedom he emphasizes everywhere the
right and privilege of suicide. The historian who
was most like him, Tacitus, treats him with striking
coolness and reserve. The "correspondence" of
Seneca and St. Paul (their death was close together)
is a transparent fiction. 	E. G. SIHLER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Recent Eng. transls. of some of Seneca's works are: Morals: a Selection, by W. Clods, London, 1888; Minor Diatoguea, by A. Stewart, ib. 1889; On Bene fits, by T. Lodge, ib. 1899; Tranquillity of Mind and Providence, by W. B. Langsdorf, New York, 1900; Ten Tragedies . . . , by W. Bradshaw, London, 1902, and Tragedies .... by F. J. Miller, Chicago, 1907; Morals, New York, 1904; Select Essays and Satire on the DeOtcation of claudius, by A. P. Ball, ib. 1908; Tragedies, in English Verse, by F. J. Miller, London, 1908; Three Tragedies: Hercules Fureua, Troades, Medea .... by H. M. Kingery, London and New York, 1908; Qualationea Maturates, by J. Clarke, New York. 1910; Select Letters, by W. C. Summers, ib. 1910. On Seneca's life and activities consult: E. G. Sih1er, Testimonium anima, chap. 18, New York, 1908; A. Fleury, S. Paul et S&Wque, 2 vole., Paris, 1853; C. Aubertin, Etude critique our lea raPPorts aupposbs entre S€nhque et Paul, Paris. 1857; F. C. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geachichte der alien Philosophic, pp. 377‑430, Leipsic, 1876; J. B. Lightfoot, Essay on

8ennaoharib	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	858
Sequence
	Paul and Seneca in his commentary on Philippians, 4th
	ed., London, 1878; F. W. Farrar, seekers after God, Phila
	delphia. 1883; J. Kxeyberr, L. Annanu 3etteca card seine
	Beaiehunpen zum Chriscewhum, Berlin, 1887; S. Rubin,
	Die Ethik Senecas, Munich, 1901; R. Welts, Vie de
	36ntque, Paris, 1909; the literature under Nsao; and
	the worlm on the history of philosophy.
	SENRACHERIB. See AssYRIA, VI., 3, 1 12.
	SEPARATE BAPTISTS. See BAPTIm, II., 4 (f).
	SEPARATED BRITISH METHODISTS. See
MEHODI$TS, I., 2.
	SEPARATES: An American Calvinistic Meth
odist sect, composed of Whitefield's followers, which
sprang up in 1750 under the name of "New Lights."
They were, however, subsequently organized into
separate societies by Shubal Stearne, and then took
the name "Separates." Stearne became a Baptist
in 1751, and many of the Separates followed him into
that church; and the sect died out. "The distinc
tive doctrine of the sect was, that believers are
guided by the immediate teachings of the Holy
Spirit, such supernatural indications of the divine
will being regarded by them as partaking of the ner
ture of inspiration, and above, though not contrary
to, reason." See METHODISTS, I., 2.
	SEPARATISTS, THE. See ConsnsvNIaM, II., 9.
	SEPHARVAIM sef"err‑v5'im (SIPPAR). See
BABYLONIA, IV., $ 11.
	SEPP, CHRISTIAAR: Dutch Mennonite theo
logian and historian; b. at Amsterdam 1820; d. at
Wijk aan Zee (15 m. n. of Haarlem) 1890. His long
est period of active labor was spent as a preacher
for his denomination at Leyden (1854‑82). But
his work as a preacher was only a small part of his
activities; he edited the theological review Godge
leerde Bijdragen (1855‑70); and was the author of a
series of historical works which embodied the fruits
of diligent research in the history of Dutch Protes
tant theology and biography, orthodox and sec
tarian,'including the Anabaptists. Of these works
the following may here be noticed: Pragmatiache
Geschiedenis der Theologie in Nederland 1787‑1850
(Leyden, 1860); Johannes Stinatra en zijn Tijd: eene
Bijdrage tot de Geachiedenis der Kerk en School in de
18de eeuw (Amsterdam, 1865‑66);	Het God
geleerd Onderlvijs in Nederland gedurende de 18. en 17.
eeuw (2 parts, Leyden, 1873‑74); Bibliotheek van
Nederlandsche Kerkgeschiedachrijvers (1886); Ver
boden Leduur. Een drietal Indices librorum pro
hibitorum (1889). Many of his studies on men and
books are collected in Geschiedkundige Nasporingen
(3 parts, 1872‑75); and Kerkhistorische Studien
(1885).	S. CRAM=.
	SEPP, JOHANN ftEPOMUB: Roman Catholic
church‑historian; b. at TSIz (26 m. S. of Munich),
Bavaria, Aug. 7, 1816; d. at Munich June 5, 1909.
He studied at Munich; traveled in the East, 1845
1846; became professor of history at Munich, 1846;
was deposed and expelled from the city, 1847, for
his political opinions; reinstated, 1850; retired,
1867. He had considerable influence in politics.
Among his works are: Das Leben Jean Christi (5
vole., Regensburg, 18426; 4th ed., with Daniel
Haneberg, Munich, 1898‑1902); Daa Heidentlaum uud deaaen Bedeutung far das Chriatenthum (1853); Jerusalem and die Heilige Land (Schaffhausen, 1862‑63); Thaten and Lehren Jesu mit ihrer weltgeachichtlichert Beglaubigung (1864); Geschichte deer Apoatel room Tod Jesu bier zur Zersttirung Jeruaalema (1865); Kritische ReformentwurJe beginnend mit der Revision des Bibelkanona (Munich, 1870) ; Das Hebrdter Evangelium (1870); Deutschland and der Vatikan (1872); Gbrrea and seine Zeitgenosaen (NSrdlingen, 1877); Meerfahrt each Tyros zur Auagrabung der Kathedrale mit Barbarossas Grab (Leipsic, 1879); Kritische Beitrdge zum Leben Jesu and zur neuesten Topographie von Jerusalem (Munich, 1890); Die Religion der alter Deutac)sen. and ihr Fortbeafand in Vollcaaagen (1890); Die Geheime 0,fenbarung Johannia (1902); and Orient and Occident; 100 KaPitel caber der Nachtseite der Natur Zauberwerk and Hexenweaen in alter and neuer Zeit (Berlin, 1903).

3EPTIaIU3 SEVERUS, sf‑vl'rDS: Roman emperor 193‑211; b. at Leptia (62 m. s.e. of Carthage), on the north coast of Africa, Apr. 11, 148; d. at Eboracum (York), England, Feb. 4, 211. His family was of equestrian rank, and in 172 he seems to have been made a senator by Marcus Aurelius. In 190 he became consul, and in the following year received from Commodes the command of the German legions in Pannonia. On the murder of Pertinax by the troops in 193, they proclaimed Septimius emperor, whereupon he hurried to Italy and took possession of Rome without opposition. The legionaries of Syria, however, proclaimed Pescennius Niger emperor and those of Britain, Albinos; and only after bloody wars was Septimius able to make himself master of the Roman world. With Septimius Severus begins the series of military emperors and the motto of his life was his dying exhortation to his sons, "let us work 1 " His entire reign was devoted to the welfare of the empire, and he finally succumbed to overexertion in a campaign against the Caledonians. Stern, wise, and energetic, Septimius restored peace to the empire after the misrule of Commodes and the civil wars. No emperor before Constantine was so important for the development of Roman law.
It is generally assumed that Septimiua was friendly to the Christians until 202, when, for some,unknown reason, he became their enemy and persecutor. This rests upon an incorrect interpretation of the words of his biographer Spartianus: "In his journey, [through. Palestine in 202] he established very many laws for the Palestinians; he forbade the Jews to be placed under heavy punishment, but sanctioned this in the case of Christians." This was really no new law, but only a reemphasizing of laws already existing, and was designed to check the Christian propaganda rather than to set on foot s general persecution. Nor was there any wide persecution, and there are many evidences that not only was the emperor not personally hostile to the Christians, but he even protected them against the populace. There were doubtless Christians in his own household, and in his reign the church at Rome had almost absolute peace. On the other hand, individual officials availed themselves of the laws to

859	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	sennaoherib
		$eqnanoe
	proceed with rigor against the Christians. Natu
	rally the emperor, with his strict conception of law,
	did not hinder such partial persecution, which took
	place in Egypt and the Thebaid, as well as in pro
	consular Africa and the East. Christian martyrs
	were numerous in Alexandria (cf. Clement, Strom.,
	ii. 20; Eusebius, Hist. ecct., V., xxvi., VI., i. sqq.).
	No less severe were the persecutions in Africa, which
	seem to have begun in 197 or 198 (cf. Tertullian's
	Ad martyres), and included the Christians known
	in the Roman martyrology as the martyrs of Ma.
	daura. Probably in 202 or 203 Felicitas and Per
	petua (q.v.) suffered for their faith. Persecution
	again raged for a short time under the proconsul
	Scapula in 211, especially in Numidia and Mauri
tania.	Later accounts of a Gallic persecution,
	especially at Lyons, are legendary. In general it
	may thus be said that the position of the Chris
	tians under Septimius Severus was the same asunder
	the Antonines; but the law of this emperor at least
	shows clearly that the rescript of Trajan had failed
to execute its purpose.	(A. HAucg.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: The history of Die Cassius,
	chaps. lasiv.‑huvi., lux.; the work on Severus by Spar
	tianus; Lapridius a Alexander Severue: and Herodian,
	Hidoria, books v.‑vi. Consult further: C. Fuchs, Ge
	achichte dea Kaisers L. Septimius Seeerua, Vienna, 1884;
	Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chaps. v.‑vi.; G. Uhihorn, Der
	Kampf dea Christenthuma, pp. 284 sqq., Stuttgart, 1875;
	B. Aubl;, Hist. den ptra6cutions de 1'Epliae, pp. 53 sqq.,
	Paris, 1875; H. Schiller, Geschichte der romisehen Kaiser
	seit, i. 2, pp. 705 sqq., Goths, 1883; J. Reville, La Re
	ligion h Rome sous lee Sh&es, Paris, 1885; P. Allard, Hist.
	den persioutiona pendant la yremidre moitill du iii. siacie,
	ib. 1888; K. J. Neumann, Der r6miache Staat and die allpe
	fieine Kirche, i. 95 sqq., Leip®ie, 1890; A. Lineenmayer.
	Die Bekampfunp den Chriatentums durch den rdmiwhen
Staat, 109 sqq., 117 sqq.. Munich, 1905.
SEPTUAGESIMA. See CHuxcH YEAR; and LENT.
SEPTUAGINT. See BIBLE VEBSIONs, A, L, 1.
SEPULCHER, HOLY. See HOLY SEPULCHER.
	SEQUENCE: A hymn or chant sung on certain
days in the mass after the gradual and before the
Gospel. The term was originally a musical one,
applied to the series of tones sung after (hence its
name) the last syllable of the Hallelujah belonging
		to the versicle between the epistle and
	origin and the Gospel, and it probably translated
	Develop‑ the Greek akolouthia, the word by
	meat. which Byzantine writers on music
		denoted the heirmos ("melody"). For
the Hallelujah see LrruRGICS, III. The melodies of
the sequences, the oldest extant choir‑books of
which date from the tenth century, gave rise to one
of the most important discoveries both for religious
and for secular song and poetry. Notker (q.v.), a
monk of St. Gall, was inspired to reduce these
melodies to a system by a West‑Frankish antipho
nary, brought from Jumtes (near Rouen) when the
Normans devastated that monastery (apparently
in 862). In this antiphonary some verses were
modulated in accordance with the sequences, and
they possessed sufficient charm for him to imitate
them, and he succeeded in producing regular Se
quences with double versicles of equal length, though
the simple sequences without the response are the
older form. In all this acquaintance with Greek
hymnody was also undoubtedly a factor. Greek hymns had been translated into Latin during the reign of Charlemagne, and traces of such work have been preserved at St. Gall. But although Notker was unquestionably the discoverer of the sequence, the extent of his activity is entirely unknown. In France the composition of sequences proceeded along the lines laid down at St. Gall. Side by side with the old ways that admitted of no alteration, other hallelujah melodies and musical motifs gave rise to new sequence melodies. Rhythm became a conscious aim, and the words were adapted to the melody, syllable for syllable. The sequences of Limoges differed from those of St. Gall by the final assonance of the versicles in ‑a (under the influence of the word hallelujah); rhythm within the verse made steady progress; and finally the old verses of most unequal length developed into rhythmical and riming lines, from which, in the twelfth century, Adam of St. Victor made a selection, which he combined in strophes and thus helped to become predominant over the rest. In the St. Gall sequences the syllabic system is, in general, strictly followed, and elision is rare, while the lines are of unequal length; in Adam of St. Victor all this is changed, and melody and text are entirely independent. The spirit in which sequences were composed is indicated by Gottschalk of Limpurg, who declared that he drew his words from Jerome (the Bible) and his melody from Gregory (the Sacramentary).
Though in liturgical books the sequences are usually given without their authors' names, a number of such composers are known: besides Notker and Adam, Ekkehart I. and II., Fulbert (author of the "Sonent regi nato"), Waltramm, Berno, Hermannus Contractus, Henricus Monachus (author of the
"Ave prieclara maris atella"), Wipo
Names of (author of the " Victimse paschali ");
Composers Gottschalk of Limpurg, Innocent III.
	and	(author of the" Veni Sancte Spiritus"),
Sequences. and Thomas Aquinas (author of the
"Laude Sion salvatorem"). Later the sequence lost many of its characteristic features, especially under the influence of the hymn, from which it always differed, however, in that its melody was continuous, even though its strophes might be metrically or rhythmically equal. The text frequently contained a refrain, due to the fact that the same cadence was repeated at the close of the versicIes. In the older manuscripts the melodies are denoted by "neumes," which passed through various stages of development until they were superseded by the system of staff notation. The older sequence melodies also have distinct names, many of which are of uncertain meaning. Here belong the beginning of the hallelujah Psalm verse generally sung on a particular feast, as the "Dies sanctificatus"for Christmas; names of musical instruments, Organs, Fidicula, Symphonia, Tuba; loan‑words or translations from the Greek, Ormca, Hypodiaconissa, Romans, Hieronyma; and probably allusions to older melodies, Puelta turbata, Planctzta sterilis, Berta roetula, Vaga, etc.
The composition of sequences reached its climax with Adam of St. Victor (q.v.). He, like Notker, probably adopted to some extent popular melodies

Sequence Sergiun
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
of the period; but after Adam new sequences were with few exceptions, mere imitations of earlier forms
and melodies. Many of these melodies Culmina‑ were such favorites that new texts tion. were given them; and to this category
belong Notker's melodies Mater, Oceidentana, and Justus ut palms major and minor, Wipo's Easter hymn, Gottschalk's Laus tibi, Christe, qui es, the sequence of the Virgin (Ave prceclara), the Easter sequence (Mane prima. sabbati), and some of Adam's, while the Lwtabundus ezultet, by an unknown author, proved the most popular of all. In the oldest period the texts and, in part, the melodies of sequences were restricted in territory, so that a distinction may be drawn between German (St. Gall), Upper Italian (Verona, Nonantula), French (Limoges), and English (Winchester) sequences; but when the riming sequence was developed, some were used largely throughout the Roman Church, as the Natus ante amcula for Christmas, the Sancti Spiritus tulsit for Whitsuntide, the Clare sanctorum for feasts of the apostles, and the Sancti baptistce for John the Baptist. On the other hand, despite the approval of Nicolas I. and Innocent III., Rome generally, as well as many dioceses and orders, declined officially to welcome the sequence. The Cistercians and Carthusians rejected it altogether, and the Cluniac monks reluctantly permitted it only on four feasts. In France and Germany, on the other hand, sequences were always popular, many sequentiaries containing more than a hundred texts. The melodies were mostly transmitted orally, the Neumenal collections being intended only for the choirmasters. The singing of the sequence was restricted to the clergy and choir, the congregation being forbidden to take part. The introduction and the concluding passage were usually sung by the entire choir, while the double strophes were sung antiphonally, with musical accompaniment.
Soon after the rise of sequence composition, vernacular sequences were written in France (the Eulalia sequence). In Germany translations appeared more tardily, the favorite here being the Ave prwclara maris stella, as in Sebastian Brant's Ave
durchluchte stern des meres. The seDecline. quence form influenced medieval Latin
poetry, encouraging it to abandon the old forms and to create many new strophes, this influence ultimately extending to the vernacular. With the increase in the calendar of saints the number of sequences became enormous, some 5,000 texts with between 500 and 600 melodies. Many of these were poetically valueless, and after several synods had sought to reform conditions, the Council of Trent finally succeeded. The missal of Paul V. (1570) contains only four: Vietimte paschali, Veni Sands Spiritus, Lauda, Sion, salvatorem, and Dies irm, to which was later added the Stabat mater, generally ascribed to Jacopone da Todi, or to Innocent III. (qq.v.). The Reformers were hostile to the sequence, and in the Lutheran Church, after long efforts, it was replaced by a congregational hymn. In France sequences of late date were stubbornly maintained, only to disappear ultimately when the unity of the Roman Catholic liturgy became an accomplished fact. The custom of singing the
Latabundua at the Easter dinner given by the pope seems to have given rise to parodies of the sequence, such as the Vinum bonum et suave, or the Victimce novali cinke sea, while Johann Nass composed in derision of Luther the Invicti Martini laudes intonant Christiani. [In many Anglican churches the sequence is represented by a hymn sung by the choir between the epistle and Gospel (C. Walker, Ritual "Reason Why," 2d ed. T. I. Ball, pp. 166‑167, Milwaukee, 19081. (J. WERNER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Collections, examples, or translations of se‑
quences are to be sought in: H. A. Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus, vol. ii., Halle, 1843; F. J. Mone, Lateiniache Hymnen des Mittelalters, 3 vols., Freiburg, 1853‑55; R. C. Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry, London, 1864; C. E. P. Waekernagel, Das deutsche Kirchenlied, vol. ii., 5 vols., Leipsic, 1864‑77; G. Morel, Lateiniache Hymnen des Mittelalters 2 vols., Einsiedeln, 1867 (a rich collection); J. M. Neale, Mediwval Hymns and Sequences, 3d ed., London, 1867; Seven Great Hymns, New York, 1867; W. Christ and M. Paranikas, Anthologia Graca carminum Chrristianorum, Leipsic, 1871; D. T. Morgan, Hymns of the Latin Church London, 1871; C. B. Pearson, Sequences from the Sarum Missal, ib. 1871; J. Kehrein, Lateinische Sequenzen des Mittelalters, Mainz, 1873 (most complete collection); F. A. March, Latin Hymns, New York, 1874; H. M. MaeGill, Songs of Christian Creed and Life, London, 1876; C. Blume and G. M. Dreves, Analecta Hymnica, vols. viii.‑x., xxxvii., xxxix., xl., xlii., xliv., Leipsic, 1886 eqq.; S. W. Duffield, Latin Hymn‑Writers and their Hymns, New York 1889; W. H. J. Weals, Analecta liturpica, Bruges, 1889 sqq. (supplements Kehrein, above); G. M. Dreves, Prosarxum Lemovicense, Leipsio, 1890; U. Chevalier, Bxblioth8que liturgique, vols vii., ix., Paris, 1900‑01; W. A. Merrill, Latin Hymns, Boston, 1904; C. E. W. Brainerd, Great Hymns of the Middle Apes, New York, 1909; C. Blume and H. Bannister, Liturgische Prosen crater Epochs Gus den Sequenzenschulen des Abendlandes, insbe8ondere die dem Notkerus Balberus'xugeschrsebenen, nebst Skizze fiber den Ursprung der Sequenz, Leipsie, 1911.
Consult: F. Wolf, Udber die Lais, Sequenzen and Leiche, Frankfort, 1841; F. Clement, Hist. generals de la muaiq•re reliqieuse, Paris, 1860; K. Bartsch, Die lateinischen Sequenzen des Mittelalters, Rostock, 1868; Verzeiehniss der Handschrsften der Stiftsbibliothek von St. Gallen, pp. 509530, Halle, 1875 (indexes the sequences); J Pothier, Les Melodies qregoriennes, Tournay, 1881; D. S. Wrangham, The Liturgical Poetry of Adam of St. Victor, 3 vols., London, 1881; A. Reiners, Die Tropen‑, Prown‑, und erBfationsgearinge des feierlichen Hochamtes des Mittelaltera, Luxemburg, 1884; L. Gautier, Hist. de la poesre liturgique, Paris, 1886; idem, La Po6sie relipiewe dans lea cloftrers des ix.‑xi. sfecles, ib. 1887; M. Manitius, Geschichte der christlich‑lateinischen Poesie bis zur Mitts des 8. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1891; O. Fleischer, Neumen‑Studien, Leipsie, 1893 sqq.; W. H. Frere, The Winchester Tropes, London, 1894; A. Dechevrens, Du rhythms done Z'hymnographie latine, 1895; N. Gihr, Die Sequenzen des ri»nischen Messbuches, Freiburg, 1895• C. Blume and G. M. Dreves, Hymnologische Beitrage, Leipsie, 1897 sqq.; P. Wagner, Ursprung and Entuickelung der liturgischen Gesangsformen, Freiburg in Switzerland, 1901; idem, Normenkunde, ib. 1905; J. Werner, Notkers Sequenzen, Aarau, 1901; J. Thibaut, Origins byzantine de to notation neumatique de 1'fglise latine, Paris, 1907; S. M. Jackson, The Source of Jerusalem the Golden, Chicago, 1910; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 1041‑53, 1700‑01 (lists first lines, and gives the use).
SERAPH. See ANGEL, I., § 4.
SERAPION, se‑ra'pi‑en or se‑r6'pi‑en: The name of sixteen (or seventeen) persons more or less known to early Christian history, of whom the following may be noted.
1. Bishop of Antioch probably 190 or 191 to 211 or 212, successor of Maximinus and predecessor of Asclepiades. He was the author of a writing to a certain Domninus who had fallen away to Judaism;

361	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g8Q
9Q=9E06
erg
of another to Pontius and Caricus regarding Montanism; of a treatise warning the church at Rhossus against a Gospel of Peter see (PETER THE APOSTLE, III.); and of other writings to various persons (Eusebius, Hist. ecd., V., xix., VI., xii.; Jerome, De vir. ill., xli. ; Socrates, Hist. eccl., III., vii.).
2‑4. Three men of the name were known in the Alexandrian church of the third century. The first wus a martyr under Decius, celebrated Nov. 14. The second of the name in the same persecution sacrificed, but repented and received the sacrament on his death‑bed. The third is named by Philip of Side among the leaders in the Alexandrian catechetical school, but his identity can not be more closely determined.
5. Bishop of Thmuis in Lower Egypt, a friend of St. Anthony and also of Athanasius, who directed to him four letters concerned with a form of the Macedonian heresy. The year of his death is unknown. At the Synod of Seleucia, 359, Ptolemmus took part as bishop of Thmuis. The treatise against Manicheanism belonging to him, intruded in part into the work of Titus of Bostra, has been edited by Brinkmann (in SBA, 1894, pp. 479‑491). Mai edited two letters to Bishop Eudoxius and to a monk (reproduced in MPG, xl. 923‑942). Pitra has edited some fragments (in Analecta sacra, ii. pp. xl., 27‑28, iv. 214, 443‑144); while some prayers in MS. 149 of the monastery on Mt. Athos are attributed to him (nos. 1, 15), and others (16, 17) are probably his (Wobbermin in T U, xvii. 3b, 1898). An addition to this, an appendix to the same collection in the form of letters "On the Father and the Son," may safely be attributed to him.
6. A monk of the Scetic desert, leader of the anthropomorphite monks (see ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES).
7. Serapion Sindonetes, so called from the linen or cotton clothing which he wore. He is one of the heroes of the Historia Lausiaca, who experienced many adventures in his journeys to Greece and Rome. Nan sees in him the hero of the story of Thais. Leontius of Naples reports in the life of Johannes Eleemon that this Serapion sold his garments and his copy of the Gospels in order to be able to give alms.
8. Bishop of Heraclea. Chrysostom of Conatantinople ordained to the diaconate a person named Serapion and assigned him the duties of archdeacon. He supported the bishop in his disciplinary measures, and by his severity widened the breach between bishop and clergy. While Chrysostom was at Ephesus, he entrusted to Serapion the administration of the diocese; at this time Severian of Gabala was at the capital intriguing against Chrysostom, and Serapion had him expelled. After his return from his first exile, Chrysostom had his supporter made bishop of Heraclea in Thrace. In the subsequent misfortunes of Chrysostom Serapion shared, was deprived of his bishopric and deported to Egypt.
(G. KRCGER.)
BIHLIoaRAYBY: All of the men named are discussed in DCB,
iv. 812‑815. Consult further, on 1: Tillemont, MSmaires,
iii. 188, § 9; Krager, History, passim; Harnaek, Litteratur,
ii. 1, pp. 211 sqq.; Bardenhewer, Patrologie, p. 112, Eng.
transl., St. Louis, 1908; and V. de Buck in the ed. of the
Acta Sanctorum published Paris, 1883, Oct., xiii. 248‑252
On 5: Bardenhewer, ut sup., pp. 234‑235 (where bibliographical matter is furnished confirmatory of that given in the text. On 7: note Nan, in Hiat. de Thais', Annnies du Music Guimd, sxa (1903), 51.

SERGIUS, ser'ji‑us: . The name of four popes.
	Sergius I.: Pope 687‑701. Of Syrian ancestry,
he himself was born at Palermo, and, coming to
Rome in the pontificate of Adeodatus (q.v.), was
ordained to the priesthood in 682 or 683. On the
death of Conon in 687, he became the candidate of
the municipal authorities, the militia, and a large
part of the clergy of Rome, with a view to ending
the rivalry of the archdeacon Paschalis and the
archpriest Theodore, each of whom had seized a
portion of the Lateran without being able to dis
lodge his antagonist. When Sergius entered the
Lateran, Theodore at once renounced his claims,
but Paschalis, though compelled to do likewise,
summoned his patron, John, exarch of Ravenna, to
Rome. When the latter arrived, he recognized the
validity of the election of Sergius, though extorting
from him the hundred pounds of gold which Pas
chalis had promised in return for the exarch's as
sistance. Enthroned on Dec. 15, 687, Sergius sought
not only to defend the authority of the Curia in the
East, but to strengthen relations with the Anglo
Saxon church in the West, and to secure connection
with the Anglo‑Saxon missions to the continent.
Both in Britain and with Pippin (see WILLIBRORD,
SAINT) he was completely successful. He baptized
Ca:dwalla, king of Wessex, at Rome in 689, and a
few years later reinstated the deposed Wilfrid of
York, but the statement of the Liber pontificalis, that
he consecrated Brihtwald, eighth archbishop of
Canterbury, probably confuses the sending of the
pallium with the consecration, which, according to
Bede (Hilt. eccl., v. 8), was performed by the French
Metropolitan Goduin, or Godwin. The pope's at
titude toward the East was determined by his de
cided rejection of the decisions of the Trullan Synod
of 692 (see TRULLAN SYNODS), and on his emphatic
refusal to subscribe to them, Justinian II. sent the
Protospathary Zacharias to bring the pontiff to
Rome. But Italy rallied to the pope's defense, and
Zacharias escaped death only by throwing himself
upon the protection of Sergius, who thus emerged
victorious, even while deepening the gulf already
existing between the Eastern and the Western
Church. The death of Sergius took place Sept. 8,
701, and he is commemorated on that day in the
Roman "Martyrology."	(A. HAUCK.)
BrBLI06RAPHY: L13er pontificalis, ed. L. Ducheane, i. 244, Paris, 1886, ed. T. ilfommsen, in MGH, Gest. Font. Rom., i (1898), 210 aqq.; R. Baxmann, Die Politik der Pdpate, i. 188, Elberfeld, 1868; bf. Heimbucher, Die Papatxaahlen unter den Karolinyern, pp. 15 aqq., Augsburg, 1889; Hefele, Concdliengeschichte, iii. 345 eqq., Eng. transl., v. 239 aqq. Fr. ttansl., iii. 1, pp. 578‑591; Bower, Popes, i. 492‑496; Plating, Popes, i. 188‑172; DCB, iv. 818620: ASS, Sept., iii. 425‑445; Ceillier, Auleura aacrla, xii. 984.
Sergius IT.: Pope 844‑74. By birth he was a Roman noble, and was educated at the papal court, finally being made archpriest by Gregory IV. On the death of this pontiff, in Jan., 844, a deacon named John was put forward as a candidate for the papal throne by the populace, only to succumb

g=	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	388
to the nominee of the nobles, Sergius, whose intervention.alone saved his rival from death. His enthronement without the consent of the Emperor Lothair was, however, regarded by the latter as an infringement of imperial prerogatives, and in the summer of 844 an army, under the command of Lothair's son, Louis, invaded Roman territory; but the pope received the prince with all honor, though not avoiding a stormy interview with the bishops and princes in Louis's train. It is clear, nevertheless, that the pope retained his position and successfully debarred the hostile army from Rome; but, on the other hand, the Romans were obliged to take the oath of allegiance to the emperor, while Sergius crowned Louis king of the Lombards and appointed Drogo of Meth papal vicar north of the Alps. At the same time, Sergius maintained an unfavorable attitude toward Ebo of Reims (see EBo) and Bartholomew of Narbonne, who had been suspended because of their sympathy with Lothair, though later, at the instance of the emperor, he sided with Ebo against Hinemar of Reims (q.v.). During this pontificate the city of Rome was sacked, and the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul were plundered by the Saracens is Aug., 846, the pope dying shortly afterward, Jan. 27, 847.
(A. HAVcs.)
BxRLzOGRAPBY: Inter pontfflcalia, ed. L Dueheme ii. 88 eqq., Paris, 1894' Jaffb, Repesta, pp. 327‑328; R. Baxmann, Die Potiti% der Pupate, i. 349, Elberfeld, 1888; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, ii. 198, Berlin, 1888; M. Heimbueher, Die Papatmahien unter den Karolingern, pp. 149 sqq. Augsburg, 1889; GStz, in Z%G, xv (1890), 342 aqq.; J. Langen, Geachichte der rtimischen Ruche, ii. 822, Bonn. 1885; F. Gregoroviue, Hint. of the City of Rome, ii. 180‑183, 190, iii. 83‑85, 91, London, 1894‑95; Bower, Popes, ii. 215‑218; Platina, Popes, i, 218‑220; Mil‑an, Latin Christianity, iii. 18; Hauck, HD. u. 512‑513; and especially Mann, Popes, ii. 232‑257; Ceillier, Auteurz aacrh, xii. 408.
Sergius III.: Pope 904‑911. On the death of Theodore II., in 897, he was, although only in deacon's orders, the candidate of a faction of the populace for the papal throne, but, being forced to yield to John IX. (q.v.), he took refuge with the Margrave Adalbert in Tuscany, where he remained until the deposition of Christophorus (q.v.) in 904, when he returned to Rome, being enthroned probably Jan. 29 of the same year. He rebuilt the Lateran, which had been destroyed by an earthquake, and condemned the validity of all ordinations by Formosua (q.v.). His death occurred in May, 911.
(A. HAucg.)
BIBmoaRAPBT. Libor pont(ffcaiis, ed. L. Ducheene, if. 238, Paris, 1892; Jaffls, Rqgesta, p. 445; J. M. Watterich, Romanorum pontifiwum . . roitcr, i. 32. 37, 85, 880 aqq.. Leipsic, 1882; Mann, Popes iv. 119‑142; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der $tadt Rom, ii. 227, Berlin, 1888; R. Baxmann, Die Politik der PBpte, ii. 78, Elberfeld,1889; J. Laagen, Geachichte der rsmischen $irche, iii. 313, Bonn, 1892 F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, iii. 217, 220, 231‑248, London, 1895• Hefele, ConcaienesAickte, iv. 574; Bower, Popes. ii. 308‑307; Plating, Popes, i. 243‑244• Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 155‑158; Cal7_ lier, Auteurs eacrbs, xii. 741‑743.
Sergius IV.: Pope 1009‑1012. He was a Roman by birth, and after having been bishop of Albano, was raised to the papal throne in July, 1009. The sole traces of his brief pontificate, which was ended
by his death in June, 1012, are a number of privileges to monasteries. He is especially noteworthy as the first pope to adopt a new name on election, his original name having been Peter. (A. HAUCS.)
BxRrtoaasPav: Lsber ponttRcalia, ed. L. Duoheene, H. 287, Paris, 1892; Jaff€. Repeats, p. 504; J. M. Watterich, Romanxum pontificum , vitas, i. 89‑89, 700. Leipaic, 1882; A. von Reumont, (3eachichte den $tadt Rom, ii. 227, Berlin, 1888; J. Langen, Geschichte der rinnischen Rirohe, iii. 403; Mann. Popes v. 142‑154: Gregomvius. Hint. of the City of Rome, iv. I1‑13, London, 1898; Bower, Popes, ii. 334‑335; Plating, Popes, i. 288‑287; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 222; Ceilliar, Auteurs aner6a, aiii. 84, 189190.
SERGIIJS AHD BACCHUS: Two Syrian martyrs of the early fourth century. According to the Acts and Passio (see bibliography) Sergius and Bacchus were two officers in the service of Emperor Maximinus Daja of Syria (30"r313), and were so trusted by him that they were accorded his complete confidence and high rank at the palace. But they were denounced to the emperor by jealous enemies as Christians. He then ordered them to betake themselves to the temple of Jupiter, and upon their refusal had them dressed in women's garments and led through the streets of the city, and afterward sent them to Antiochus, prefect of Barbalissus (Beth Balash). After vain attempts to detach them from their faith, Bacchus was beaten to death with thongs, while Sergius wan compelled to put on sandals through the soles of which nails had been driven, and was led to Resaph in Commagene and there beheaded. The fame of the martyrs spread very early, and a church in Easters Syria is said to have been dedicated in their honor as soon as 354 (P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington, Voyage archkologique en Grbce et en Aaie Minettre, vol. iii., no. 2124, Paris, 1847), while in 512 another was dedicated to them and to Leontius in 512. To one of the churches dedicated to Sergius Justinian's consort Theodore presented a jeweled cross, afterward carried away by the Persians and restored to Gregory of Antioch by Chosroea of Persia in 593. The repute of the martyrs spread into the West. At Rome there was an oratorium on the north side of the Vatican basilica (Rbmische Qttartalachrift, 1896, p. 243), tend still another memorial to both martyrs in Rome is attested by the Liter pontiftculia (ed. Ducheane, i. 512, Paris, 1886). In France and elsewhere their names were honored, as by a cloister at Angers and a
church at Chartres (E. Le Blant, Inscriptions
ehrEtiertnes de la Gaule, i. 305, Paris, 1856). In Christian art they are represented in armor with palm branches. Their day in both the Eastern and the Western churches is Oct. 7.
BrRnrooasPav. Sources are the anonymous Acts and the account by Simeon Metaphrastee, with commentary in ASA Oct., iii. 833‑8d3, partly also in MPL, cxv. 1005 eqq.; cf. the Acts martyrum d sanctorum of P. Bedjsa, iii. 283 eqq., Paris, 1892• the Greek Pasaio in Analata Boliandiana xiv (1895), 373 eqq.; and the " Hymn " of Walafrid $trabo in MGH, Poet. Lat. anri Car., ii (1884),
418‑419. Consult further. J. Wolf, Die heaipen Mar. tyrer Serpiw and Bacchus Rirolaenpatronen zu ICreuseber, Gottingen, 1823; ICL, xi. 192‑193; DCB, iv. 81817.
SERGIUS CONFESSOR: Mentioned by Photiua as the author of a history of the political and ecclesiastical events during the first eight years of the

383	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8erglus
Serpent
Emperor Michael II. Balbus (820829), with a glance at the "shameful" deeds of the Emperor Ctinstantine Copronymus (751‑774). The history was marked by simplicity, clearness, and beauty of exposition. Unfortunately the work is utterly lost. The title of confessor indicates that the bearer was a champion of images in the controversy over the subject (see IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, II.), and, as applied by Photius to this man, tends to identify the latter with the confessor of that name celebrated May 13 in the Greek Church, who was exiled under Leo III. (813‑820) and seems to have died during the reign of Theophilus (829‑842). (G. KItUGEIi.)
BiBLioaaAP87: Nikodemus Hagiorites, Synaxariatts tan d& deka meson tos aniautou, iii. 37, Zanthe, 1888; HL, ii.
193; Basil, Menolopium, MPG, cxvii. 454; Ceillier, Askwa aacrbs, ni. 428.
	SERGIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE: Patriarch of
that city 610‑638. He is noteworthy as the author of
a very celebrated Greek hymn, known as the Aka
thistos from the fact that it was sung standing (given
in MPG, xcii. 1335‑1348; and in Pitra, Analecta
sacra, i. 250‑262, Paris, 1876). He seems to have
paid considerable attention to the development of
the liturgy. For further information concerning him
see MONOTHELITEa.	(G. KR$GEB.)
Bia1,i0aaAPHY: Krumbaeher. GeachieUe, pp. 871‑872; DCB, iv. 817‑618.
SERMON. See Hommzmca.
SERPENT IN WORSHIP, MYTHOLOGY, AND SYMBOLISM.
Greece (¢ 1). Babylonia and Egypt (§ 2). Ancestor Cults and the Mysteries IV. In Symbolism.
(§ 3). Rome and Babylonia (¢ 4). Syria and Egypt (¢ 5).
India (¢ 8). Other Countries (¢ 7). III. In Mythology.
I. In the Bible.
	Name and Conceptions (¢ 1).
	Mythology (§ 2).
	The Brazen Serpent; " Nehushtan,"
Origin sad Significance (§ 4). The Probable Solution (§ b). II. In Worship.
	L In the Bibla: In the Old and New Testaments
ten (or eleven) words or expressions are found
which in the English versions are rendered by
" serpent " or some equivalent (note that $ipyoz,
		Tsa. xxxiv. 15, is by some rendered
	:. Names " serpent " rather than " owl," refer
	and Con‑ once being made to the Arabic Offaz,
	captions. kaffaza as favoring this meaning),
		though in but few ewes can identifica
tion of the species be made. The number of terms
employed is not coextensive with the number of
species of serpents found in Palestine and the neigh
boring regions, of which thirty‑three are known.
Of these several are poisonous, including the Egyp
tian cobra, the horned viper, and the sand viper.
In the Bible many of the notions concerning the
reptile appear which are common to most early
peoples, including some of those pertaining to
mythology. Its traits are described and its names
or epithets are applied, in prose and poetry, to tribes,
classes, individuals, and personifications. Thus
it is a aubtile beast, more cunning than any other
(Gen. iii. 1); Dan (the tribe) is a (treacherous and
dangerous) serpent in the way, a (biting) adder in
the path (Gen. xlix. 17); the wicked secrete and in
fuse a poison like that o£ the serpent and are not
subject to charms which prevent their doing harm
(Ps. lviii. 4); so scribes and Pharisees (Matt. xxiii.
33), Pharisees and Sadduceea (Matt. iii. 7), and
Pharisees alone (Matt. xii. 34) are called serpents and
offspring of vipers; wickedness, even though
crushed, engenders a serpent as does a serpent's
egg (Isa. lix. 5); and the effects of wine are like a
serpent's bite or the sting of an adder; the disciples
of Jesus Christ are to be so immune from harm that
they may take up or tread upon serpents without
injury to themselves (Mark xvi. 18; Luke x. 19;
of. Acts xxviii. 3); the serpent's habit of lurking in
walls is referred to, so that he who would trespass
General (§ 1).
Egyptian, Mithraic. Sad Indian Art (§ 2).
In Other Lands (§ 3). V. In Folk‑lore.
(Eccles. x. 8) or carelessly leans on the wall (Amos v. 19) is bitten; the serpent's method of locomotion is one of mystery and wonder (Prov. xxx. 19) ; it is one of the creatures of Hebrew mythology, Leviathan being the swift or gliding or crooked serpent (Job agvi. 13; Tsa. xxvii. 1); and in Revelation Satan, the devil, is a serpent (iii. 9, xx. 2), and as a dragon or serpent he figures in apocalyptic events (xii. 1415). In Gen. iii. (J; embodying primitive conceptions) the serpent is a sentient creature endowed with speech, contradicting the utterance of Yahweh, and leading man to disobedience. It is conceived as once having had a different means of locomotion, its present method being a punishment for its part in the fall (verse 14; interesting in this relation are the conceptions of the winged serpent‑see below IV., J 2‑and the four‑footed reptile, as well as of the dragon, which combines both features). The hostility that has become instinctive between the race of man and that of the serpent is also traced to this cause, and it is noteworthy that in accordance with the assumed former parity in intercourse there appears in verse 1 no shrinking of the woman from the serpent as it approaches to accomplish its purpose. Similarly in verse 14 there is expressed a quite common primitive idea that dust is the serpent's food. The exegesis which sees Satan in this living thing is read into the passage in the light of a much later and more highly developed demonology (cf. Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2), for the conception of the serpent here is that of an animal only.
What little the purified Hebrew mythology has to say of the serpent is doubtless to be explained on the basis of common Semitic notions regarding the animal. The mythological references in the Old Testament are 'few: Job iii. 8 (R. V. and A. V. margin) and xxvi. 13, by most commentators referred to the dragon which enfolds the sun in its coils (a common oriental explanation of the sun's

Serpent	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	384
eclipse); and Isa. xxvii. 1, where the reference is almost certainly to the animal depicted in Baby‑
lonian cosmological myths. It is to be z. Mythol‑ noted that the term " Leviathan "
ogy.	stands for several conceptions: in
Job xli.; Ps. lxxiv. 14; and Ezek. xxix. 3 the context points to the crocodile; Ps. civ. 26 refers evidently to some inhabitant of the sea (the whale, G. E. Post, in DB, iii. 102); and the mythical dragon or perhaps the serpent of chaos and of the deep waters, as above (see DRAGON).
Of serpent‑worship almost nothing appears in the Old Testament. Reference to the one clear case is given in II. Kings xviii. 4, where in addition to the stereotyped formula by the Deuteronomic editor of
the book, customary as the summing 3. The up of a king's reign, there is added the
Brazen somewhat cryptic remark: "and brake
Serpent; in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses
"Nehush‑had made; for unto those days the
tan."	children of Israel did burn incense to
it; and he called it Nehushtan." The marginal readings in the English versions attempt an interpretation of " Nehushtan,"while the R. V. margin shows that the subject of the verb "called " is in doubt‑whether that subject is Hezekiah, or whether it is impersonal, "one called " (i.e., " it was called "). It is recognized that the verb may be pointed as a plural written defectively, "they called " (so the Septuagint [codex L] kai ekalesan), and may continue in thought the plural of the preceding clause. And this rendering in turn submits to three interpretations which affect the sense of the passage: Nehuahtan might have been the ordinary name applied in honor while it existed by the worshipers (see below); or a name applied to it by worshipers after it was broken and in contempt for it; or by the authorities to wean away respect for it and to prevent sedition or discontent. Besides this, the name " Nehushtan " is also difficult, both as to meaning and as to derivation. It has been taken by many commentators into connection with the nehosheth, "brazen," of the first part of the verse, and this is indicated by the marginal readings in A. V. In this case either of two interpretations would satisfy the meaning: the term might be one of contempt: " a mere bit of brass "‑or it might as well be a title of honor: " the work of brass par excellence," the " noted image made of brass." Another derivation has been proposed which lies quite near at hand, viz., from nahnsh, "serpent." The difficulty then is to account for the termination tan for which a South Arabian origin is to be sought, and the entire word is then to be explained as a loan word from the Arabic.
The text does not state when the cult of the object began, although the object itself is asserted to be identical with that the origin and purpose of which are stated in Num. xxi. 4‑9. That such a
worship could have begun under the 4. Origin eye of Moses is out of the question, and Signifi‑ assuming for a moment the identity
cance.	of Nehushtan with the image made by
Moses. The continuance of the cult till the time of Hezekiah is the one fact clearly expressed. The method of dealing with the nar‑
rative in the critical school is that which takes account of the attempts customary in religious history to accredit with a high antiquity practises either already in use or those which it is desired to install. It is then held as a corollary that the account in Numbers is etiological. That is to say, it is held that the attribution of a Mosaic origin to the brazen serpent was to accredit the cult by those who followed or introduced it, and that this in turn gave rise to the (late) narrative in Numbers. Thus Cheyne (e.g., in EB, iii. 333$) holds that Nehushtan was one of the objects introduced into the Temple from the East (Babylonia). This hypothesis, while not impossible, is not susceptible of verification. His question regarding the primitive character ascribed to the object is pertinent, however, especially in view of the fact that the worship could not have arisen in the time of Moses. A serpent deity Z,iru appears to have had a place in the temple of Marduk, where its function was that of a watcher or guardian against foes (Schrader, KAT,, pp, 503505), so that a basis exists for Cheyne's hypothesis. But another explanation exists nearer at hand in direct derivation from the Canaanites, even though ultimate reference to Babylonian usage be asserted. No longer regarded as tenable is the explanation of William Robertson Smith (Journal of Philology, ix. 99), who, assuming the Temple as the locus of the cult, considers the object a totem image belonging to the clan of David. To support this names in the Davidic family are adduced which are related .to rcahash, " serpent,"‑Nahshon (Ruth iv. 40), and Abigail daughter of Nahash (II Sam. xvii. 25), as well as the fact that Adonijah sacrificed at " the stone of the serpent " (" of Zoheleth," I Kings i. 9). And no more likely is another hypothesis (Stade's) that it may represent the mythological serpent or dragon in heaven or perhaps an ancestor cult. Much the more likely is the suggestion that the worship was taken up from Cana,anitic sources (K. Marti, Gesckichte der israelitischen Religion, p. 101, Strasburg, 1903). Whether the cult had any more significance than as a " remainder " taken over from the Canaanites or even brought into Canaan by the Hebrews is unknown. The connection with Numbers suggests a relationship with the healing powers ascribed to the serpent, but this is pure hypothesis.
From the fact that in II Kings xviii. 4 it is said that Hezekiah cut down " the Asherah " (in the singular, cf. R. V.; the A. V. plural " groves " is wrong), although it is known that the Asheroth were numerous (see ASHERAH), it is
g. The plausibly argued by commentators that Probable the reference is to the Asherah in the
	Solution.	Temple at Jerusalem, and that conse
		quently the Nehushtan was there.
But this reasoning is not conclusive, for probably
the " high places ' which were " removed " were
not all in the Temple (see HIGH PLACEB). The ref
erence of the object to the time of Moses may mean
no more than that it was very old, and the narra
tive in Num. xxi. would serve as the basis for such
a report provided it or its elements were in existence
at the time. The followers of the cult would doubt
less attempt to justify it by some such claim (cf.

365	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	serpent
the remark of Jeroboam I. when he set up the golden calves, I Kings xii. 28). There is reason to believe that the worship of the snake was not confined to Jerusalem. Altogether aside from the great part played by the serpent in the mythology of the surrounding peoples and the certainty that this influenced the Hebrews, there is direct evidence in a small bronze serpent which was found at Gezer. The question of the relationship between Num. xxi. 4 aqq., to II Kings xviii. 4 is by some regarded as close, the former being considered as built upon the latter. This is quite in accordance with the mythopceic genius, and Numbers is, on the critical hypothesis, the later. Such a passage as Deut. viii. 15 and the fact of the comparative abundance of serpents in the Arabian desert would assist, especially in the case of the attribution of the origin of the brazen serpent to Mosaic times. In the passage in Numbers it is on the surface of the narrative that merely looking on the image brought healing. There is no suggestion that the brazen serpent is a divine figure, nor, on the other hand, is there a hint that it called for the exercise of faith in a peculiar degree; the healing was accomplished for those who looked on the image because it was the means appointed by Yahweh for that end. It became a mere sign to serve that purpose (cf. the symbolism in John iii. 14).
II. In Worship: From the standpoint of animistic primitive religion there is little cause for wonder in the diffused cult of the serpent, whether that cult rise to the height of actual wor‑
:. The ship or be but the lower degree of ven‑
	Basis.	eration, totemic regard and immunity
		from destruction, or mere symbolism.
The reptile's peculiar form and often its remarkable
beauty and striking marking, its mysterious and
sometimes exceedingly rapid mode of progression,
its staring gaze and power to charm (as exercised
on birds and the smaller animals), its ability ap
parently to renew its youth and certainly its beauty
by the shedding of its skin, the insidious character
of its attack and the deadly character of its bite
as exhibited in some species‑all these and other
characteristics have combined to make it one of the
most admired and most dreaded of animals, and to
give it a double repute for wisdom and power to
heal, as well as for unrelenting hostility and de
monic hatred for the race of men (cf. Gen. iii. 15).
So that it is not remarkable that in religious sym
bolism the serpent should figure so largely, that
nations celebrated for wisdom should make it an
accompaniment of their gods, heroes, and kings,
and that in mythology and folk‑lore its r81e should
be so extensive. And the spell of the serpent is
not yet loosed, so that in few departments of com
parative religion is there greater need of more care
ful scrutiny of statements of fact and especially of
inferences current in the books on the subject. It
is usual to assume that every effigy or representa
tion of a serpent, as also the use of it in rites, is
proof of serpent‑worship in that locus or connec
tion. Thus it is commonly held that the use of the
snake in the snake‑dances of the North ,American
Indians involves worship. Yet it is probable that
the true explanation in this instance is the supposed
connection of the serpent in folk‑lore with rain and thus with agricultural fertility, so that the snakedance belongs in the realm of sympathetic magic ritual to induce rain and consequently bountiful harvests (see below on the connection of serpents with springs). Similarly the sculptures, etc., of the cobra with three, five, or seven heads, which is so often figured shadowing with its inflated hood this or that deity in India, no more warrant conclusion as to serpent‑worship in that relation than does the fact that deities are,represented as seated on a lotus prove worship of the lotus. Its function there is merely that of an attendant upon the deity, an enhancement of whose powers is implied by the attendance of the deadly beast. In this connection its presence is in line with the efforts of a crude religious art, which, under the form of four‑ or sixhanded beings with distorted shape and outrd accompaniments, seeks to express the attribution to the gods of power and wisdom vastly superior to those qualities as seen in human beings.
It must not be concluded from the foregoing, however, that serpent‑worship is or ever has been a rare phenomenon. It is both a priori probable that animistic peoples would worship an animal so uncanny as the serpent, and demonstrable that such worship was actual and continued beyond the animistic stage. But it is important to remember in this connection that when the stage of anthropomorphic religion was reached, there would be a natural tendency to cover up the traces of animal‑worship as being less noble, and so those traces would easily become lost. Such a course would especially be followed in the literary religions. This does not involve the absolute extinction of the cult, however, for the worship often continued as a rural cult, or, perhaps, sub rosa, after the more aristocratic worship of the anthropomorphized deity had taken its place. Much of the evidence to be cited from Greece in all probability comes from this conservative stratum of the population.
Some of the most cogent proofs of serpent‑worship in the ancient world come from the Greek area, especially in connection with (1) the submerged pre‑Homeric religion, and (2) the later
2. In the " folk‑religion " and the renascence
Greek	of the mysteries (see TRIBAL AND
	World.	CULTIC MYsTERm6) in the century
		preceding and following the Christian
era. The evidence is largely monumental, and is
established under circumstances which make it
evident that, e.g., Zeus superseded a deified snake,
installing himself instead as the object of worship,
and adopting its rites and sacrifices. Thus a huge
bearded snake is figured on a Hymettus marble
which was taken to Berlin in 1879, and is inscribed
" to Zeus Meilichios " (" Meilichioa," here used
euphemistically, meaning" kind "). A votive tablet
is known, also figuring a bearded snake. Another
from Eteonos in Baeotia shows a serpent emerging
from a cave while a worshiper and his daughter stand
in front, the former in the act of worship. The sup
planting by Zeus Meilichios of the snake is clearly
exhibited by a figure that is human in form, the
snake being reduced to normal size (in the former
cases it is gigantic) and located beneath the throne,

8erysat	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	see
while the sacrifice is the pig (offered to the chthonic deities, not to those of the heavens, as was Zeus),, and the seated deity is identified with Zeus Meilichios, the deity of the snake tablet just described (Jane Ellen Harrison, Prolegomena, pp. 17‑28, Cambridge, 1908). On another tablet the huge snake, this time not bearded, is figured with worshipers, and this, too, is inscribed " to Zeus Meilichios." It will be recalled that A;aculapius (Asklepios) is usually represented'as carrying a staff on which a snake is twined. A votive tablet found in the Asklepieion and now in the Athens museum shows the god standing in front of a huge serpent, while worshipers, apparently a single family, bring a lamb as sacrifice. Here the anthropomorphic transition is already made, but the snake still remains. In other votive offerings the snake is present, but greatly reduced in size. In sanctuaries in other cities evidently belonging to a god of healing, probably &wulapius, representations of snakes are commonly the votive offerings. According to Pausanias (II., xi. 8), serpents of Xsculapius were fed at Sicyon, and the same author (III., xgiii. 7) reports that at Epidaurus the statue of A:sculapius holds its hand over a serpent and (II., xxviii. 1) a yellow serpent is sacred to him, while the legend of Sicyon (II., a. 3) is to the effect that he came to that city in the form of a serpent. Epidaurus Limera was built, according to the tradition (Pausanias, III., xxiii. 7), where a serpent brought from Epidaurus disappeared in the earth (which the oracle had foretold as the omen by which to found the city), and altars to the god of healing are there, while the same story is told of the founding of Sosipolis (VI., xx. 5). The connection of the snake with lEsculapius is indirectly confirmed by the narratives of cures on the steles found at Epidaurus. In several cases the beneficiaries of the healing shrine dreamed of snakes (Mary Hamilton, Incubation, p. 22, no. 17, p. 26, no. 38, p. 27, no. 40, London, 1906), and snakes were often sent from Epidaurus to be the agents of healing elsewhere (ib. pp. 30‑31), as is shown by the satirical Pdoutos of Aristophanes (ib., p. 35). The cases of Zeus and 1Esculapius make it probable that in other instances, at least in Greek environment (and the general law suggests the same among other peoples), where the serpent accompanies the representation of the deity, worship of the animal lies in the background.
Other examples in the Grecian world worthy of notice are that at Hierapolis the serpent was a god and was employed in the mysteries of Leto and Kom. This animal figured in the Bacchic orgies,
also in the Mithraic (see bel'ow). Sera. Ancestor pents were sacred to Trophonius (PauCults and sanias, IX., xxxix. 3). It will be re‑
the Mys‑ called that the serpents which slew
	teries.	Laocoon retired to the temple of Pal
		las, while at Athens a huge snake was
supposed to have its den on the Acropolis in the
temple of Pallas, guardian of the city. The relation
of the snakes to the dead and the very probable as
sociation with ancestor‑worship are established by
a series of representations referred to in Harrison's
Prolegomena (ut sup., pp. 326‑331, 349‑354). The
dead hero is in one case shown inhabiting his tomb,
while on an altar to the hero Aristeandroa snake's were carved. This may have to be related to ancestor‑worship also. There will occur to the reader here the instance of Aneas sacrificing to his father's manes (,ffneid, v. 84), when a snake appeared and the worshipers were uncertain whether this were the " genius of the place " or an " attendant " (famulus) of Anchises. The advanced thought of the time transmuted the primitive reincarnation of the dead in a snake (see on folk‑lore, below) into this more advanced form. The Ophites (q.v.) kept a tame snake which they induced to encircle the bread of the sacrament and worshiped as the king of heaven (Epiphanius, Haer., xgxvii.; Tertullian, Haer., ii., ANF, iii. 650).
At Rome the instances of well‑attested serpentworship are few, and this accords with the less fanciful, more restrained, and sharper legal turn of mind of the Romans. The cult seems to
4., Rome have been established there in 462
and Baby‑ A. u. c. (291 B.c.), if one may follow Ionia. the indications in Ovid, Metamorphoses, xv. 5. At Lanuvium (16 m. a. of Rome) there was a temple of Juno and a great cave, in which was a huge snake to which worship was offered. The animal was used as an oracle also, maidens being taken there to prove their virginity, which was regarded as established if the snake received the offerings presented. Similarly, testimony which makes for serpent‑worship in Babylonia is present. On Babylonian seals, serpent gods are figured, the lower parts consisting of serpent coils, with worshipers in front. Sometimes the, serpentdeity is represented introducing the devotee to the god to whom worship is to be offered. The name of this deity is given as Ningishzida (cf. W. H. Ward, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, chap. xviii., Washington, 1910). In the Marduk. temple E‑sagil at Babylon an image of a horned serpent was kept (Schrader, KAT, p. 504; cf. the references there, e.g., to the Ninib hymn II Rawlinson, 19, no. 2); for the Babylonian snake‑deity 7tiru cf, Schrader, ut sup., pp. 504‑505, this god being known as " Lord of life." Such a title is ambiguous; it is applied in India to the cobra because of its deadly power; it might also mean the giver or, source of life with reference to the frequent connection of the snake with water and fertility. Diodorus Siculus (ii. 70) affirms that in the temple of Bel (Marduk) at Babylon there was an image of " the goddess Rhea, . . . at her knees two lions, and near her very large serpents of silver, . . also an image of Juno, holding in her hand the head of a serpent." This probably indicates the remains of adoration of the animal.
For Phenicia and Syria Macrobius (Saturnaliorum conviviorum libre VIL, i. 9) affirms that the Tyrians worshiped Janus under the figure of a serpent with its tail in its mouth, and there is good reason to believe that they employed
5. Syria also a serpent encircling a disc (see
and Egypt. under symbolism, below). It seems probable that the serpent was sacred to the Phenician deity Esmun, who was in all probability a god of healing since he is identified with Xsculapius (Baudissiu, ZDMG, lix., 1905, pp. 459

387	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Bermat
sqq.). Elagabalus is said as priest at Emesa to have imported and worshiped serpents from Egypt of the Agathodemon variety (Strabo, GeographikE, xvi. 756). While no country is richer than Egypt in snake symbolism, explicit evidence of worship is somewhat scarce. Apophis was the serpent of the underworld, and Set or Typhon is identified with him; Kneph is also represented as a hawk‑headed serpent; Isis and Nephthys were both identified with the urseus goddess Uatchet, and a center of the uraeus worship in predynastic times was the town in the Delta known as Per‑Uatchet. In the cases of Apophis and Set, if there was actual worship it was probably of the type known as avertive, which derives its stimulus from fear. Serpents were kept, apparently as objects of devotion, at Thebes (Herodotus, ii. 74), and the cerastes has often been found embalmed there. The asp was sacred to a goddess Ranno, was a companion of Kneph, and the representative of Agathadmmon (which name may have had a euphemistic origin). &lian (De animalibus, xvi. 39) tells of a large snake kept at the Asculapium at Alexandria, and of one kept and fed at the temple at Metele in the Delta (Vans historia, xi. 17). Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum, vol. ii., plate 46) figures a marble, possibly from Egypt, found at Rome on which there is the portrayal of a worshiper before an idol the head of which consists of a triple serpent head. The deceased human might by the use of magic formulas become the serpent Bata, which proclaimed " I died daily and am born again each day " (E. A. W. Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, ii. 377, 2 vols., London, 1904).
In India the worship of the serpent is a present and indubitable fact, especially in the rural districts. That this is an inheritance from the past is as little open to question. The evidence for
	6. India.	past adoration is to be found not alone
		in the ever present representation of
the animal in religious symbolism, which may often
be accounted for on other grounds, but also diffu
sively in the references in the literature, as in the
Mahabharata, in which nag (serpent) stories abound
and involve the existence of the cult. In the Punjab
the animal is a tutelary household divinity to which
sacrifice is offered, and protection is assured by be
lief in penalties which will be incurred by killing the
animal, such as subsequent barrenness of the wife
(with which may be compared the Teutonic belief
that the consequence is the death of a child). On
the upper Ganges the Agarwalas are (mown to others
by the name of snake‑worshipers, and their chief
deity is Astika Muni, a nephew of the mythological
serpent Vasula. In Malabar most house enclosures
have the animal's effigy on stone, the live snakes are
fed, while " snake groves " are maintained for the
performance of rites. In most villages of the Deccan
the nag is one of the village deities, and elsewhere in
the peninsula sacrifices of hair are offered in behalf
of children. Similarly, in Kashmir effigies of the
creature abound before which offerings are placed.
The worship exists largely in Sivaite connections,
and the so‑called naga tribes are continuing testi
mony to the existence of the cult.
In other parts of the world the evidence of this worship can be substantiated, though only illustra‑
tive examples will here be cited. In Africa the advance of civilization is destroying the cult, but it‑ is known that in Dahomey, for instance,
7. Other the earth serpent was once a great deity
	Countries.	served by virgin priestesses, and on the
		slave coast the cult of the snake was
all but dominant (J. B. Schlegel, Schliissel zur Eme
Sprache, p. xiv., Stuttgart, 1857). In Japan, out
side of the regard for the mythical dragon, the sti::
current animism includes the serpent as an object
of prayer, and the gods of the water are often served
under that form (W. G. Aston, Shinto, pp. 63‑64,
London, 1905). The Polynesian Ramahavaly is a
deity of healing, and his messengers are snakes (W.
Ellis, Polynesian. Researches, 3d ed., London, 1854),
possibly a case parallel to that of Esculapius in
Greece. In Sweden in the sixteenth century, snakes
were household deities held immune from harm
(Olaus Magnus, xxi. 47‑48, Copenhagen, 1650), and
in Prussia the same regard long survived (C. Hart
knoeh, Alt and Neues Preussen, i. 143, 162, Frank
fort, 1684). In America, Mexico and Peru are rich
est in evidences of this cult, the Aztec Tezcatlipoca
being the male and his consort Cohuacohuatl the
female serpent. Quetzelcoatl was the feathered
serpent, lawgiver and civilizer (J. G. Muller, Ge
schichte der americanischen Urreligionen, pp: 62,
585, Basel 1855; and the works of Prescott), while
temples, the portals of which were built to resemble
serpents' heads, were known and impress the fact
of serpent‑worship. In North America Hopi altars
are decorated with figures of snakes, and the Kicka
poo Indians reverence. the mythical rain serpent
above other deities. The so‑called dracontia (tem
ples of earth or mounds built in serpentine form) are
known in this region. The cases claimed in England
and France (Carnac in Brittany, Abury in Wiltshire
and Stanton Drew in Somersetshire, England; cf.
J. B. Deane, Worship of the Serpent, chap. viii.,
London, 1833) are by Fergusson (see bibliography)
declared to be imaginary. But in Scotland the sa
cred character of the snakes pictured on stones is
established (John Stuart, Sculptured Stones in Scot
land, ii., p. lxxiv., Aberdeen, 1856), and there seems
to be a dracontium in Argyllshire several hundred
feet long.
111. In Mythology: Greece presents perhaps the richest, at any rate the best known, aggregation of myths in which the serpent figures. The Titans in their battles with Zeus are represented
	i. Greece.	as either wholly or partly serpentine,
		while Boreas has tails of snakes instead
of feet (Pausanias, V., xix. 1). Typhon, a monster
partly snake‑like in figure, was struck by the light
ning of Zeus and buried beneath Mt. Etna (Pindar,
Python). According to another story (Strabo, xvi.
756) the channel of the Orontes in Syria was caused
by the writhings of the monster in his agony. The
serpentine horrors of the Gorgons, Furies, and Cer
berus come naturally to mind; and in early times
the Xgis of Athena was a cloak with scales and a
fringe of serpents. This deity, when she won Athens
from Poseidon, made the serpent Erechthonius
guardian of the olive‑tree which she planted (Pau
sanias, I., xxiv. 7). So serpents or dragons guarded
the golden fleece and the golden apple in the garden

Serpent	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	368
of the Hesperides (ib. VI., xix. 8). Thetis transformed herself into a snake to escape from Peleus (ib. V., xviii. 5), and the existence of the winged snake is a belief of Greece as well as of Egypt and Arabia. The serpent Pytho guarded the oracle at Delphi and was killed by Apollo, who assumed the oracle (Hyginus, Fabula, cxl.; here original snakeworship is indicated). Hercules strangled two serpents sent against him by Hera, fought the Lernaean Hydra, and was the progenitor by the serpent Echidna of the snake‑worshiping Scythians (Herodotus, iv. 9). Cadmus fought and killed a dragon and sowed its teeth, and he and his wife were transformed into serpents. Cecrops, first king of Attica, and Erechtheus of Athens (Iliad, ii. 547) were half serpents, and it is worth noting that Homer (Iliad, xi. 38) gives to Agamemnon the insignium of a three‑headed snake.
Several cycles of myths in Babylonia contain allusions to this animal, always hostile to gods and men. In the Gilgamesh epic the hero loses through a hostile serpent the herb which was to renew the youth of the aged; the Etana myth
s. Baby‑ has to do with one of these animals
Ionia and which plucked the wings of the eagle Egypt. that was to carry Etana to heaven; in
' the fragment of the Labbu myth a water serpent is one of the plotters against man; and the animal is brought into relation with the creation myth and chaos, the monster Tiamat appearing in some of the representations to be not the griffin‑like beast but a serpent (W. H. Ward, in Bibliotheca Sacra, xxxviii., 1891, 209‑253), while Tiamat gave birth to serpents and dragons, terrible and irresistible until Marduk arose as the champion of the gods. Babylonians had the conception of a huge snake which engirdled the world, as well as of another which lay in the depths of the sea and is reflected in Hebrew cosmogony. The origin of the Orontes in Syria has already received mention. In Egypt mere reference is needed to Apophis, the great serpent of the underworld, enemy of Horus, Ra, and Osiris, as well as of the dead, and the personification of evil. Set was the snake which endured forever and punished wicked souls in hell (Budge, ut sup., i. 23‑24, ii. 376‑377). The text of Unas (fifth dynasty) gives sets of magical formulas by which to overcome the brood of serpents of the underworld (Budge, ut sup., i. 23). A huge snake thirty cubits long was believed to live in the " mountain of the sunrise." The myth of the winged serpent was widely current in Egypt and Arabia (cf. the conception of the feathered serpent of Mexico and Peru). So through the myths of other peoples runs the trail of the serpent. In India the sky snake Vritra or Ahi keeps away the rain that would break the drought, and is slain by the arrows of Indra; Rudra is the destroyer of serpents; Devi assumed this form to carry Vishnu through the deluge. The Scandinavian myth of the Midgard serpent which girdled the earth with its tail in its mouth comes readily to the memory (Prose Edda, 410 sqq.). For the Druid myth of the egg secreted by a writhing mass of snakes see DRUIDS. Among Mexicans the first woman's husband was a great male snake (see above under " Worship").
IV. In Symbolism: In religious art this animal has an important place throughout the world. With its tail in its mouth, sometimes combining the disc, probably uniting two ways of repre‑
I. General. senting eternity or endless time, it appears among the most unrelated nations‑in Egypt, Persia, India, China, and Mexico, This disc is sometimes interpreted as the solar disc, sometimes as the world‑egg, and is often figured, either winged or plain, with the serpent (or two serpents) issuing from it, passing through it or around it, or facing it. The employment of an effigy or representation of the animal to designate a deity or sovereign as sacred is common in both Egypt and India, and Persius (Satire, i. 113) notes that the sign of two serpents indicates a sanctuary. This symbolism is carried out even in the New World, as illustrated by the altars of the Guiana Indians, of the Moquis (among whom the snake signifies lightning, and they incise or paint it on the wands and kilts worn in the snake‑dance), of the Natchez, and even of the Indians who inhabited Mexico and Peru at the time of the conquest (Prescott, Works, passim).
No country employed the emblem more consistently and abundantly than Egypt, where it appears in the head‑dress or crown or about the person elsewhere of gods and monarchs, ape. Egyptian, parently only to emphasize deity and
Mithraic, kingship. Gods crowned with the disc
and Indian and uraeus are Amen‑Ra, Ra‑Heru‑
	Art.	Khuti, Nut, and Tefnut; the urs:us
		appears in the crown or head‑dress of
Bast, Sebeknit, Haru‑Ur, Ptah‑Seker, Sebek‑Ra,
Isis, Horus, Ptah, Menthu, and Ba‑Neb‑Tatau, while
Renmut is urmus‑headed. Especially abundant is
the use of the serpent in the " Book of that which
is in the Underworld " (cf. Budge, ut sup., i. 204
262), and the eleventh hour is well worth studying
for the elaborateness of serpent symbolism and
forms. Here the solar disc and serpent from the
prow guide Ra's boat, twelve gods carry the serpent
Me4en to the East, preceded by two cobras carrying
crowns, while the fourfooted serpent (cf. Gen. iii.
14; note also the dragon of China and Japan) with
wings is a prominent feature; in the sixth hour
a serpent with one snake head and four human
heads is seen, and the seven‑headed snake is also
known (Budge, ut sup., i. 267, who gives on ii.
64 one of the finest reproductions of the winged
serpent). Mithraic art employs this animal exten
sively, especially with its figure of Kronos. Thus
this symbol is represented at Modena in the folds of
a serpent (Revue arcUologique, 1902, i. 1); another
found at Rome in the sixteenth century is entwined
with a serpent, the head of which passes over the
head of the statue and enters its mouth. The Mith
raic bas‑relief of Apulum, Dacia, shows on the bot
tom border the serpent which surrounds the world
(F. Cumont, Textes et monuments, p. 309, 2 vols.,
Brussels, 1896‑99). A Mithraic cameo shows on the
reverse two serpents twined about wands, a third
forming the wood of a bow, and a fourth forming
the string, and on the obverse two snakes extended.
A Mithraic leontocephalous Kronos has about him a
number of serpents, and in another found at Flor‑

869	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	$erDent
religion is furnished than in the body of common notions which gather about the serpent. This branch points the way to an understanding of many of the features already exhibited in the foregoing discussion of worship, mythology, and symbolism. The qualities ascribed to this animal by the common understanding may be grouped in five classes, vii., wisdom (including powers of healing), guardianship and protection, paternity or transmigration, the command over fertility, and hostility. These several ideas may be contemporaneously current in the same region; that is, it may be conceived that the serpent is both the protector and the enemy of man at the same time and place. Yet it must not be forgotten that often one or the other ideas either of benefaction or of maleficence may be dominant. As an illustration of the wisdom of the serpent (cf. Gen. iii.; it there is not only the most cunning of animals, it knows the qualities of the fruit of the tree) it serves in part to note that it was associated with Athene, Apollo, and Hermes, in Egypt with Kneph, in India with Siva (patron of the learned Brahmans), with Buddha, who is said to have communicated his complete system only to the Nagas, a supposed snake‑like tribe, and with Vishnu, while in Tibet one of the sacred books was popularly supposed to have been derived from the Nagas. In its capacity as a healer in Greece it was associated with Xaculapius, in Egypt with Isis, Harpocrates, and Serapis, with Rudra in India, and with Ramahavaly in Polynesia. Ainus pray to it for a woman in labor, and for help against ague. It is often regarded as knowing and applying the properties of healing herbs. Pliny (xxv. 14) tells that Tylon was fatally bitten by a serpent, that his sister Moir6 induced a giant to kill the animal, but that its mate brought a plant with which it touched the mouth of the dead snake and so revived it, and that Moire learned the lesson and restored her brother to life by the same means; similarly Appollodorus (Bibliotheke, III., iii. 1) asserts that Polyidus in the same way gave life back to Glaucus; other examples are noted in Pausanias, iii. 65 sqq. In India the same belief obtains, also that in its nests it preserves a stone which is a remedy for its own bite. In Calabar one means of ordeal is the fang of a snake introduced beneath the eyelid (T. J. Hutchinson, Impressions of West Africa, London, 1858). The part of the snake as guardian of the tree of life in widely variant cycles has already been noted‑‑of this the garden of the Hesperides is but one case; in India it is regarded also as the guardian of hidden treasure, and Kipling makes use of this in his Jungle Book. It is supposed to secrete in its own head a valuable jewel, and even has one which it worships. The belief in it as protector of the household existed not only in Egypt (cf. E. W. Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, i. 289, London, 1836), but in India, Korea, China, and Japan, while to kill one is unlucky. The idea of the connection of the serpent with fertility is world‑nzde. Sometimes, as in India, its action is adverse, and it restrains the showers till killed or forced by a god to release them. It is accredited with power over wind and rain, and in Chile was held to have caused the deluge. Yet in the Deccan offerings and prayers
ence the head of the enfolding serpent rests on the head of the Kronoa. The plaques of the bull‑slaying Mithra show snakes in various positions (cf. F. Cumont, Mysteries of Mithra, pp. 21, 22, 23, 39, 55, 105, 106, 108, 110, 117, 124, 139, 151, 176, 222, Chicago, 1903). Cumont interprets the serpent in the Kronos figures as typifying the tortuous course of the sun in the ecliptic; but as Kronoa typifies time, it is better to take the presence of the serpent as merely intensive and suggesting unending time. In India the spectacled cobra is naturally most frequently represented, especially as an attendant upon deities. In this relation the animal is usually pictured with three, five, seven, or nine heads, the hood being inflated, and generally shielding the head of the deity. The god may, however, simply repose on the coils of the animal, or may be enfolded within them; or the serpent may form the adornment as necklace, armlet, or girdle, or may be held in the hand. Not merely are Brahman and Hindu gods represented ac protected by the snake, but also the Jina (see JAINISM) and the Buddha (see BUDDHISM). In some of the great temples almost every architectural possibility is seized for decoration with this figure, and this holds true not only for India, but for Burma, Java, and Ceylon, also for China and Japan, if the dragon be taken into account, while in similar situations in Mexico and Peru the same is found.
The connection of the serpent with the tree of life, alWy suggested by its presence in the garden of the'‑Hesperides and with the golden fleece, is illustrated in Babylonia, and the connection
3. In Other of this cycle with the serpent in Gen. Lands. iii. has been too often exploited to need more than mention here. In this region it also appeared among the decorations of the approaches to temples and palaces (H. Gunkel, Schopfung and Chaos, p. 154, Gottingen, 1895), while it is striking that the caduceus (a staff wound with two snakes) is carried by Ishtar (cf. W. H. Ward, American Antiquarian, xx., 1898, p. 215), and this same serpent‑staff appears on a vase of Gudea (H. Gressmann, Altorientalisehe Texte and Bilder, ii. 92, Tabingen, 1909). There come readily to mind the caduceus of Hermes in Greece, and the staff of lEsculapius twined with a single serpent. At Gournia in Crete the modern excavations have brought to light a goddess' image with serpents coiled about her; one at Cnossos is in the embrace of three, while a fourth projects its head above her tiara, and at Palaikastro a goddess holds a threefold serpent in her arms. It is but natural that the animal should appear on the coins of many cities. Thus a Tyrian coin carries a tree between two pillars or maZzeboth, and a snake twines about the tree; another coin bears the caduceus and also an altar, from the front corners of which snakes emerge; still another represents the Tyrian Hercules contending with the serpent; a coin of Berytus has a nude man (or god) between two snakes which form a single coil; and numerous coins bear designs which are but variants of these. Among cities which employed this animal on their coins, Pella and Adramyttium are representative.
V. In Folk‑lore: No better illustration of the right of folk‑lore as a handmaiden to the study of X.‑24

8ervveet s	THE NEW SCHAFF‑IIERZOG	370
for rain are made to the nag in spring and autumn; Semites generally bring it into relation with springs. It is at times the protector of persons of sanctity or eminence, as when Scipio Africanus and Nero were believed to have been watched over by a snake, or when two are reported to have observed the first purification of Confucius, or when one shielded the Buddha from the sun's rays. On the other hand, it may be regarded as malevolent, as when the Hurons see in it the cause of disease, Australian tribes regard it as bringing death into the world, and the Puma Indians as the source of kidney and stomach troubles in children. So St. Patrick drives it from Ireland, Rudra is its destroyer in India, Buddha in infancy strangles one, as does Krishna, while Hercules kills two. In the Troad there was a tribe sprung from a serpent (Strabo, xiii. 1, 14), Xlian (De animalibus, xii. 39) tells of a race in Phrygia (Ophiogenae) who were sprung from a woman and a serpent; Alexander was credited with serpent paternity (Plutarch, " Life of Alexander," ii.), and the Natchez, Linni Lenape, Huron, and Menominee Indians claim ancestry from it as one of their totems, as do some African tribes. The reverse relation is held as true, and after death a man's soul may inhabit the body of a snake (for cases among the Africans consult E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii. 8, 239‑242, 310, 347, London, 1903)‑the case of Xneas has already been noted. It was constantly associated with tombs, and thence doubtless with the underworld, with which in part may be connected its repute for wisdom. In the Japanese Nihongi a hero is made to reappear in serpent form to take vengeance upon his murderers.
GEo. W. GiLmORE.

BIHmoaRAPBY: On the serpent in the Bible consult: J. Buxtorf, Ezercitationee ad hddor;am, pp. 458‑492, Basil, 1859; G. Menken, Schriften, vi. 349‑411, Bremen, 1858; P. Scholz, Gtitzendiend and Zauberwesen bei den allen Hebrdern, pp. 101‑104, Regensburg, 1877; W. R. Smith, Journal of Philology, ix (1880), 99‑100; W. Sharpe, Humanity and the Serpent of Genesis, Boston, 1886; J. P. Val d Eremss, The Serpent of Eden, London, 1888; W. H. Ward, American Antiquarian, xx (1898), 162‑165; J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, ii. 428‑427, London, 1900; V. Zapletal, Der Totemismus and die Religion rarael, pp. 88‑89, Freiburg and Switzerland, 1901; DB, iii. 510‑511; EB, iii. 3387‑88; JE, ix. 212‑213; R. G. Murison, in American Journal of Semitic Language and Literature, xxi. 115‑130; and the commentaries on the passages adduced in the text.
On the worship, etc., outside of Biblical mention con‑
sult: J. B. Deane, The Worship of the Serpent Traced
throughout the World, London, 1833 (most later books
cite Deane, but his work is to be used with the greatest
caution); H. R. Sehoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois: An•
tiquitim and general Hist. of Western New York, 1848;
W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico, New
York, 1843 idem, Hid. of the Conquest of Peru, ib. 1847
(both of these works are standard, and exist in almost
numberless cheap reprints); E. G. Squier, The Serpent
Symbol and the Worship of the Reciprocal Principles of
Nature in North America, New York 1851 (of little value);
J. C. M. Boudin, irtudes anthropolopiques, Paris, 1864;
J. Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship, London, 1869
(one of the best); W. R. Cooper, The Serpent Myths o
Ancient Egypt, London, 1873; C. Schoebel, Le Myths de
la femme et du serpent, Paris, 1876; H. Clarke and C. S.
Wake, Serpent and Siva Worship in America, Africa, Asia,
London, 1877 (to be used with caution); H. Jennings:
The Rosicrucians, with a Chapter on Serpent‑Worshippers,
new ad.. London, 1879; W. H. Ward, in Bibliotheca Sacra,
xxxviii (1881), 209‑253; J. G. Bourke. The Snake Dance
of the Moquis of Arizona, New York, 1884; A. Revilie,
Native Religions of Mexico and Peru, London, 1884; C. W. King, The Gnostics and their Remains, ib. 1887; C. S. Wake, Serpent Worship and Other Essays, London, 1887; idem, Serpent Worship and Totemism, ib. 1888; Ophiolatreia: an Account of . . . Serpent Worship, privately printed. 1889 (connects serpent‑worship and phallicism); C. F. Oldham, in Royal Asiatic Society's Journal, 1891, pp. 361‑392, 1901, pp. 461‑473 (on worship in India); F. T. Elworthy, The Evil Eye, London, 1895; J. W. Fawkes, Comparison of Sia and Tusayan Snake Ceremonials, Washington, 1895; J. B. Ambrosetti, El Simbolo de la Srrpiente en la alfareria funeraria de la region calchaqui, Buenos Aires, 1896 D. G. Brinton, Myths of the New World, Philadelphia, 1896; J. W. Fawkes in Reports of the Bureau of American Ethnology, xvi (1897), 287 312, mix (1900), 957‑1011 • Pausanias, ad. Frazer, 8 vols., London and New York 1898; A. Wilder, Serpent as a Symbol, in Metaphysical Magazine, xv (1901),1‑20; E. Crawley, Mystic Rose, pp. 192 sqq., New York, 1902; H. R. Voth, The Oraibi Summer Snake Ceremony, Chicago, 1903; S. Reinach in Gazette des beaus‑arts, III., xxaii (1904), 13‑23 (on finds in Crete); L. Frobenius Des Zeitalter des Sonnengottes, vol. i., Berlin, 1904; H. E. Sampson, The Message of the Sun, and the Cult of the Cross and Serpent, London, 1904; C. F. Oldham, The Sun and the Serpent: a Contribution to the History of Serpent Worship, London, 1905; E. Am€linesu, Du r6ledesserpentsdana Is croyances relipieumsdel1pypte, in RHR, li (1905), 335‑360, Iii (1905), 1‑32; R. M. Burrows, The Discoveries in Crete, pp. 137‑138 et passim New York, 1907; J. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 2d ed., London and New York, 1908 (important); J. Meier, in Anthropos, iii (1908),1005‑1029 (New Pomerania); S. Reinach, Orpheus, passim, New York, 1909; C. Spiess, Die Joholn‑Gottheit and ihr Schlanpenkult, Brunswick, 1910; G. A. J. Hazen, in Bijdrngen tot de taal‑lan den volkenkunde van Nederlandseh‑Indie, =mix. 175‑204; A. Kemp‑Welch, The Woman‑headed Serpent in Art, in 18th Century and After, Iii. 983‑991; L. Stjgda in Globus, Ixxv. 180‑163; and, in general, works oa tMWs in various countries, as well as those on the different religions of the world.
SERVATIUS, sir‑v6'shi‑us, SAINT: Gallic bishop of the fourth century. He is mentioned as one of those present at the Synod of Sardica in 347, and is apparently identical with one of the envoys from Magnentius to Constantius in 350, as well as with the Servatio, bishop of Tongres, who bravely defended Athanasian orthodoxy at the Synod of Rimini in 359. It is, on the other hand, doubtful whether he attended a provincial synod said to have been held at Cologne in 346. According to Gregory of Tours (Historia Francorum, ii. 5; cf. De gloria confessorum, hod.), a Servatius or Arvatius (the latter the better reading) was bishop of Tongres about the time of the Hun invasions under Attila. Learning of the approach of the barbarians, he made pilgrimages to Rome to avert, if possible, by prayers at the tomb of St. Peter the destruction which threatened Tongres, only to receive the divine command to return to his doomed city. He obeyed, and removed to Maestricht, where he died in 450, a year before Tongres was sacked by the Huns. It would seem, however, that the Hun invasion has here been confused with some earlier barbarian inroad.
A very ancient tradition of the Church at MaeStricht gives May 13, 384, as the date of the death of Servatius of Tongres, and his grave soon became a favorite place of pilgrimage, so that in 562 his remains were removed to a church erected in his honor. In 726, after the victory of Charles Martel over the Saracens on St. Servatius' day, the bones of the saint found their final resting‑place, though relics found their way to various places, as Duisburg, Worms, and especially Quedlinburg. In medieval

371	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Serpent
Servetus
art St. Servatius is represented as overshadowed by
an eagle soaring above him, or as lying in a grave
with three wooden shoes, the traditional instruments
of his martyrdom. 	(O. Z6cgLExt.)
BIBLjoaRAP87: An early Vita is given in the volume of Kurth noted below, and with other material in Analecta Bollandiana, i (1882), 85‑111; similar early material is edited in MGM, Script., vii (1848), 172 sqq. and aii (1858) ; ASB, May, iii. 215 sqq. (with commentary from pp. 209 sqq.); and B. Kruseh's ed. of Pasaionea vitaqve aevi Merovingici in MGH, Script. rer. Merov., iii (1896), 83 (on which cf. G. Kurth in Analecta Bollandiana, 1897, pp. 164‑172). Consult further: G. Kurth, Dew biographies inMites de St. Servaie, Lidge, 1881; idem, NouroelleB recherches Bur S. ServaiB, ib. 1884; P. F. %. de Ram, Notice our S. Servais, premier l!vkue de Tongrea, 2d ed., Brussels, 1847; Corton, in De Katholiek, 1884; J. Braneken. St. ServatiuB‑Legends, Maestricht, 1884; A. Prost, Saint ServaiB, Paris, 1891; F. Gdrres, in ZWT, 1898, pp. 7883; F. Wilhelm, Sanct Servatius odor wie das erde Reis in deutwher Zunpe peimpft wurde, Munich, 1910• Tillemont, MAvwireB, viii. 839 sqq.; Rettberg. HD, i. 204 ‑qq.; Friedrich, %D, i. 300 eqq.; Hauck, HD, i. 33‑$4, 51‑52; DCB, iv. 823.

SERVETUS, ser‑vf'tus, 111CHAEL
(MIGUEL SERVETO).

Early Life and Wanderings (¢ 1). Physician and Classical Scholar (5 2). Theological System (§ 3). Tried by the Inquisition (§ 4). Before the Court at Geneva (1 5). The Execution and Opinions Regarding it (§ 8).
	Michael Servetus, famous as an antitrinitarian
and an opponent of Calvin, was b., probably at
Tudela (52 m. n.w. of Saragossa), Spain, Sept. 29,
1511, and was executed at Geneva Oct. 27, 1553.
Expected to become a jurist, he first studied at
Saragossa, and in 1525 was made amanuensis to the
royal chaplain, Juan de Quintana, whom he accom
panied to Toulouse in 1528. Here he continued his
legal studies, arid also became interested in the
Bible, holding private readings with some of his fel
		low students and likewise plunging
	r. Early into the writings of Melanchthon and
	Life and Paul of Burgos. In Feb., 1530, he at
Wanderings.tended the coronation of Charles V. at
		Bologna with Quintana, and then ac
companied his patron, who had meanwhile become
confessor to the king, to Germany. While there is
no real basis for the story that he met Luther per
sonally, it is not impossible that he went with But
zer to Basel in the autumn of 1530, although the
only demonstrable fact is that he met G;colampadius
in October of the same year. By this time the anti
trinitarianism of Servetus had been fully evolved,
and finally arousing the opposition even of the
kindly G;colampadius, he went to Strasburg, where
he was received by Capito and Butzer. When, in
1531, he printed at Hagenau his De Trinitatis errori
bus libri sePtem, G;colampadius sought to have the
writings of Servetus officially suppressed, while
Zwingli issued an earnest warning against the tenets
of the Spanish teacher. In his Dialogorum de
Trinitate libri duo, with its appendix, De iusticaa
regni Christi et de caritate capitula quatuor (Hagenau,
1532) he now sought to obviate the unfavorable
impression of his previous work by making certain
formal concessions, though maintaining that neither
the ancient Church nor the Reformers understood
the Bible, and declaring himself unable either to agree or to disagree entirely with either party.
Disappointed in his far‑reaching. schemes, Servetus left Germany, and, dropping his theological pursuits for the nonce, devoted himself to the study of medicine at Paris, taking the name of Villanovanus from his father's native city of Villanueva in Aragon. In 1534 he left Paris and lived for some years at
Lyons, where he gained partial sups. Physician port by proof‑reading, and then puband lished a new edition of Ptolemy (Lyons,
Classical 1535); but in 1537 he returned to
Scholar. Paris and gained distinction as a
physician, writing his Syruporum universa ratio, ad Galeni cemuram dilVenter expolita. Cut post integram de concoctions discerptionem prmscripta est vera purgandi methodus, cum expositions aphordsmi: concocts medicari (Paris, 1537). His views on the juridical value of astrology, however, as expressed in his Apologetics disceptatio de astrologia (Paris, 1538), drew upon him such grave charges from the University of Paris that he was forced to leave the capital for Charlieu, where he practised medicine for the short time that he was permitted to remain. He then lived peacefully at Vienne for a number of years, and during this period issued an entirely revamped edition of Sanctes Pagninus' Latin translation of the Bible (see BIBLE VERSIONS, A, II., 3) . During these years, moreover, Servetus had been gradually formulating a work to prove that primitive Christianity had been corrupted by the early ecumenical councils. He then began correspondence with Calvin, apparently to gain the requisite approval for the publication of his conclusions; but the impudent tone assumed by Servetus finally angered the Genevan, who, on Feb. 13, 1546, wrote Farel: "If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight" Servetus now entered upon negotiations with other Genevan preachers and with Viret, fully recognizing the personal peril in which he stood; and in 1553 he secretly printed at Vienne his Christianismi restitutio (reprint Nuremberg, 1791; Germ. transl., 3 vols., Wiesbaden, 1892‑96), a book repeating with increased emphasis his old attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity, which he declared had arisen with the corruption of the Church.
The positive tenets of Servetus' Restitutio are equally difficult to deduce and to summarize. While rejecting the Trinity in essence, he maintained a Trinity of revelation in his theory of the twofold revelation of God, in the first of which the Word
was present as a divine primal light, 3. Theo‑ and in the second the Spirit as a divine logical primal power. After the creation the
System. Word was prefigured in Adam, the
theophanies, etc., until it became incarnate in Christ; and through the exalted Christ, now Jehovah himself, the Spirit, formerly existent only as the world‑soul, the power of life, the natural apperception of the divine, and the Law, realizes its fulness as the principle of regeneration and immortality inherent in man. Such was the weight laid by Servetus on these problems that his system had room for faith only as the recognition of the divinity of Christ. Consciousness of sin was almost

Servetus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	372
6ervia
entirely lacking, and he even denied that one could
sin, strictly speaking, before one had reached the age
of twenty. Isis stress on intellectuality naturally
had no place for infant baptism, and for this very
reason he stressed the importance of adult baptism
as the conferring of the Spirit, the Lord's Supper as
the food of the Spirit, and good works, especially as
ceticism, as the exercise of the Spirit. Eschato
logically he maintained that the Christian is com
pletely freed from the dross of earthly life by a
purifying fire.
As the physician‑in‑ordinary of the archbishop of
Vienne, Servetus naturally endeavored to keep his
authorship of the Restitutio secret, but Calvin
recognized the source as soon as he became aware
of the book, and at once assailed it as a most danger
ous attempt to discredit and destroy nascent French
			Protestantism. It would seem that
	4. Tried by Calvin's first information was gained
	the Inquisi‑ from a letter of a Protestant refugee
		tion.	named Guillaume Trie, then residing at
			Geneva, to a Roman Catholic kinsman,
Antoine Arneys, at Lyons, mocking at the ancient
Church for harboring a heretic like Servetus. Ar
neys, many allege at the indirect instance of Calvin,
denounced Servetus to the Inquisiton. At the first
trial Servetus denied all knowledge of the Restitutio,
whereupon, at the instance of the Inquisitor Ory,
Arneys wrote Trie asking for a complete copy of the
work. This was no longer accessible, but instead
Trie submitted as documents twenty‑four letters of
Servetus to Calvin, the Genevan theologian mean
while seeking to avoid any suggestion that he might
be a party to a trial before the Holy Office, deeply
regretting that his plan of suppressing Servetus
necessitated his formal cooperation, and later ex
pressly denying that he had any part whatever in the
proceedings. On Apr. 4, 1533, Servetus was arrested
at Vienne and examined on the two days following,
when he denied that he was Servetus, claimed to
have adopted the name of that scholar that he might
measure himself with Calvin in dialectics, and of
fered to make complete retractation. On Apr. 7
he was permitted to escape, either to guard the
archbishop and other noted friends of Servetus
against further embarrassment, or to save the In
quisition from being made a catspaw for Calvin.
The trial, however, continued, and on June 17
Servetus was condemned to the stake, his books and
his effigy being burned in his stead.
	Meanwhile Servetus, being unsuccessful in reach
ing the Spanish line, sought to go to Italy by way of
Switzerland, his route taking him through Geneva.
Learning that his enemy was in the city, Calvin had
			him arrested on Sunday, Aug. 13, and
5. Before had his secretary, Nicolas de la Fon
	the Court taine, take the legally requisite duty of
	at Geneva. plaintiff, the charge being the circula
			tion of dangerous heresies, for which
the defendant, a fugitive from justice, had already
been imprisoned. Calvin drew up for De la Fontaine
thirty‑eight counts against Servetus, the special
charges being antitrinitarianism and anabaptism.
On Aug. 15 Servetus was brought to trial. As
to the Trinity, he admitted that he used the
term "Person" in a different sense from his con‑
temporaries; he declared himself ready to retract his views on infant baptism; but he maintained that Calvin was guilty of grave errors of doctrine. Calvin now found himself obliged to come forward as the plaintiff, and on Aug. 17 the two opponents came for the first time face to face. In the beginning Servetus proved himself more than a match for Calvin, but so strong were his pantheistic expressions that the Council, feeling that the outcome would prove a tragedy, determined to get further information from Vienne. During the days of waiting which ensued, Calvin wrote Farel (Aug. 20) that he hoped Servetus would be sentenced to capital punishment, though not by a painful death; while Servetus (Aug. 22) vainly protested to the Council against being treated as a criminal, contrary to the tenets of the Apostles and the early Church. On Aug. 24 the prosecutor‑general, Claude Rigot, presented a list of thirty charges which, ignoring the differences between Servetus and Calvin, and laying little stress on the Trinitarian problems, attacked primarily the basal ideas of the Restitulio that all Christianity which had previously existed was corrupt, that the Reformation was unChristian, and that all who differed from Servetus were damned, likewise casting suspicion on the private life of the accused. In reply the latter maintained that his intention was good, that he had the highest veneration for the Scriptures, and that he must consider his tenets to be true until they were proved to be false. On Aug. 31 an answer was received from Vienne with a request for the surrender of the fugitive; but Servetus, when offered his choice, preferred to stand trial at Geneva, especially as Calvin was already involved in his struggle with the Libertines. Exhausted by hearing a theological debate between the two principals on Sept. 1, the council determined that the remainder of the controversy should be carried on in writing, and on the following day Calvin declared that the Geneva preachers were ready to prove thirty‑eight passages from Servetus to be either heretical, or blasphemous, or contrary to the Word of God and the teaching of the Church. Evidently learning of Calvin's dispute with Philibert Berthelier (see CALVIN, JOHN, § 13), Servetus changed his tone to one of more boldness. The council hesitated to condemn him, and on Sept. 19 determined to send the minutes of the proceedings to Bern, Basel, Zurich, and Schaffhausen, and to ask the advice of both the theologians and the councils of these four cities. At this juncture Servetus formally charged Calvin with deliberate suppression of Christian truth and the like, and demanded that the Geneva theologian be banished and his property confiscated in behalf of the plaintiff, requests which were naturally refused.
On Oct. 19 answers were received. from the four Swiss cities unanimously condemning the doctrines of Servetus and urging the obviation of a peril which threatened the entire Reformed Church, though without direct allusion to the death penalty. The Geneva council now proceeded to final action, and on Oct. 26 Servetus was condemned, not to a merciful death, as Calvin and the other Genevan ministers had wished, but to the stake. The antitrinitarian implored pity from Calvin, who replied

873	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8 rvet'"
that he had never been actuated by vindictiveness, and urged him to seek the divine forgiveness and
mercy. On the following day the sen6. The tence was carried out, since Farel, whom Execution Calvin summoned to accompany the and Opin‑ condemned, was unable to induce Ser‑
ions Re‑ vetus to retract. The execution of garding it. Michael Servetus involved Calvin in
obloquy in his own and in succeeding generations, an obloquy partly merited and partly undeserved. Almost immediately after the event, in Feb., 1554, Calvin published his Defensio orthodoxce fulei de sacra hinitate, which was followed by Beza's De haretieis a civili magistrate puniendis, issued in September of the same year; while. the dissatisfaction with the execution was voiced by the writings of Sebastianus Castellio (q.v.). On the 350th anniversary of the burning of Servetus an "expiatory monument" was erected near the scene of his execution. [A monument to Servetus was erected at Annemasse (4 m. from Geneva), on the French border. It represents Servetus in prison and has on it an extract from one of his prison letters. Professor Odhner of the Swedenborgian Seminary at Bryn Athyn, Pa., has discovered that Servetus in a remarkable manner anticipated the teachings of Swedenborg.]
(EUGEN LACHENMANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are Calvin's Opera, ad. Baum et al., viii. 453‑872, xiv. 58 sqq., and xxvi.; T. Beta, Calvini Vita, Geneva, 1554; the " Acts " of the trial at Vienne, ed. D'Artigny, Paris, 1749; and the " Acts " of the trial at Geneva, ed. J. H. A. Rilliet, Geneva, 1844. Besides the literature on Calvin, much of which discusses at length the relations of Servetus and Calvin and the execution of Servetus, consult: F. Tracheal, Michael Serud and seine Vorpdnger, Heidelberg, 1839; W. K. Tweedie, Servetus and Calvin, London, 1848; F. C. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinipkeit and Mersschwerdunp Gottes, iii. 54‑103, Tiibingen, 1843; 1. A. Darner, Lehre von der Person Christi, ii. 649‑880, Berlin, 1853; E. Saisset, Mhlanpes d'histoire, pp. 117‑227, Paris, 1859; K. Brunnemann, Michael Servet, Berlin, 1865; A. Chauvet, i0tude our le systlme thkolopiquue de Servet, Strasburg, 1887; H. G. N. Tollin, Luther and Servd, Berlin, 1875; idem, Melanchton and Servd, ib. 1876; idem, Charakterbild Michael Servets, ib. 1878; idem, Dae Lehrsystem Michael Servets, 3 vols., Giitersloh, 1876‑78• idem, Michael Servet and Martin Butter, Berlin, 1880; G. C. B: Ptinjer, De M. Serudi doctrtna, Jens, 1878; M. M. Pelayo, Hist. de las Heterodoxua Espanjolea, ii. 249‑313, Madrid, 1877; A. Roget, Hiat. du peuple de Genave, vol. iv., Geneva, 1877; R. Willis, Servetue and Calvin, London, 1877 (the classic work); A. von der Linde, Michael Servd, een Brandoffer der GereJormeerde Inquisitie, Groningen, 1891 (hostile to Calvin); F. Buisaon, S. Castellion, set vie et son ssuvre, 2 vols., Paris, 1892• J. E. Choisy, La Theocratic a Gendve au temps de Calvin, Geneva, 1901; idem, in Revue chrtdienne, 1903; L. Monod, in Revue chrilienne, 1903; A. Dide, Michel Servet et Calvin, Paris, 1908; W. Osler, Michael Servdus, London and New York, 1909; C. T. Odhner, Michael Servetus; his Life and Teachings, Philadelphia, 1910; Schaff, Christian Church, vol. vii., chap. xvi (where a discriminating list of literature, with notes, is supplied); and in general the works on the church history of the period.

SERVIA: A kingdom (after 1879) situated in the Balkan peninsula, in southeastern Europe, between Austria‑Hungary on the north and Turkey on the south; area (estimated) 18,757 square miles; population (1905) 2,683,025, belonging mainly to the eastern Orthodox Church. This, according to art. 3 of the constitution of 1901, has the same dogmas as the Eastern Ecumenical Church, but is
independent and autocephalous. The Eastern Orthodox confession is the religion of the State, which the king and his children must profess Q 7). By the terms of art. 33, proselyting is forbidden as an offense to the state religion; yet, according to the same paragraph, complete tolerance is practised, since it is stated that freedom of conscience shall be unrestricted. All recognized religious societies are legally protected, so far as their religious exercises do not violate public order and morality. According to § 98, all foreign religious societies may conduct themselves according to their own tenets, with the stipulation only that no manner of correspondence may be carried on between the church authorities of such religious societies and those abroad, without permission of the minister of worship. In like manner, no act of such foreign church authorities may be published in the kingdom without the same consent. It is thus not difficult for the officiating minister of worship to construe his power against communications between the pope and the Servian Roman Catholic clergy.
The independence .and autonomy of the State Church grew up by degrees. The first foundation was granted by the sultan in Constantinople; when, in 1786, he created a vladika, or superior bishop, in Belgrade and abolished the former patriarchate of the Servian population in Turkey, previously located at Ipek in northern Albania. The vladika being a Phanariot, however, was amenable to the patriarch of the capital, and through him also to the sultan. Yet it was a form of church rule with its seat at Belgrade, and as such it might have asserted itself longer, had not the bribery and oppression of the Phanariot party proved too irritating; for the Greek metropolitans pursuing.. their own interests placed themselves actually in opposition to the efforts of the Servians for independence from Turkish despotism. In consequence, after many acts of violence by the Servian Prince Milosh, there resulted in 1852 the recognition of an independent metropolitan by the patriarchate; the latter only requiring the approval of the metropolitan by the patriarch, who was also to be regularly remembered in the prayers of the Church, and the recognition of the episcopal oversight of the patriarch by the annual contribution to him of 1,200 dinars ($234). But with the establishment of the Servian kingdom, all this was annulled.
The metropolitan and bishop of Belgrade now rules the State Church independently, which has a well‑defined representative constitution; for the degrees of its order are in its representative bodies. The highest is the archihierarchical synod conducted and represented by the metropolitan. To this belong the other two bishops; namely, of Nish and Schitscha (a cloister near the Ibar, though the bishop resides at Techatschak), also the two archimandrites (abbots), and the archpriests, one for each of the twenty‑one eparchies (civil districts). It elects the metropolitan, subject to royal approval, and the archimandrites (priors of the cloisters), and is the bishops' court of justice. The intermediate ecclesiastical court is the appellate consistory, whose members are proposed by the metropolitan from the total body of clergy to the minister of worship,

9ervia	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	874
Seth
and require royal approval.	The measures and
resolutions passed in the eparchies are subject to
the acceptance of their synodical convention, which
also takes cognizance of appeals. The eparchical
consistories are composed of five popes (or Greek
parish priests) and monks, under the bishop's direc
tion. Their function is to promote religion among
the people, to care for the church property, to settle
matrimonial disputes, and to exercise discipline
over the clergy. The clergy comprises the regular
monastic clericals, from among whom the bishops
are taken, and the married priests, or popes. Many
of the latter, however, are qualified merely to assist
at mass and to dispense a few sacraments. The
bishops appoint all the priests independent of the
State, which does not contribute for their support,
but only a certain part for the bishops and the arch
priests. The fifty‑two to fifty‑four cloisters have
sufficiently afuent revenues to discharge the pas
toral duties even without state assistance. The
training of the clergy requires four years in the
gymnasium and four years in the seminary. For
the people education was made obligatory in 1882,
and there are thirty‑eight intermediate schools.
The Roman Catholic Church numbers about 24,000,
mostly inhabiting the banks of the Save and the
Danube, with more than 6,000 in Belgrade. They
are under the Croatian bishop of Djakovar, who
also bears the title of bishop of Belgrade and Be
mendria. The Evangelical congregation is incon
spicuous and small in numbers; and has placed
itself under the superior church council of Berlin.
		WILHELM GOTz.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. Coquelle, Le Royaume de Serbie, Paris,
	1894; W. Miller, The Balkans, London and New York,
	1896; N. Ruiicig, Das kirehlich‑relipidse Leben bei den
	Serben, Gottingen, 1896; H. Vivian, Servia, the Poor Man's
	Parodies, London, 1897; E. Lazard and J. Hogge. La
	Serbi d'aujourd'hui, Brussels, 1901; M. E. Durham,
	Through the Lands of the Serb. London, 1904; F. Banitz,
	Daa %dnigreich Serbien and das Serbenroolk. 2 vols., Leip
	sic, 1904‑09; Prince and Princess IAszarovich‑Hrebelian
	ovich, The Servian People; their past Glory and their Des
	tiny, 2 vola., New York, 1910.
	SERVIAR ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN AMER
ICA: These churches are administering to the
spiritual needs of the Servian immigrants from
Dalmatia, Austria proper, Servia, Montenegro,
Bosnia, and Herzegovina, who ecclesiastically are
under the jurisdiction of the primate of the Servian
Church in Austria, the metropolitan of the Ortho
dox Church of Dalmatia, the Holy Synod of Servia,
and the metropolitan of Montenegro. The earliest
immigration to the United States was that of the
seafaring Dalmatians, whom the gold fever of 1849
brought to California, and the early "Austrian"
colonies in New Orleans, Mobile, and San Francisco
were doubtless theirs. Servians at present are to be
found throughout the United States and Alaska.
The first Servian church was built in Jackson, Cal.,
1894, by the Archimandrite Sebastian Dabovitch,
who later, in 1905, established his headquarters in
Chicago as the administrator of the Servian Ortho
dox Church in North America, under the jurisdic
tion of the Russian archbishop of New York City.
There are, according to moderate calculations, about
80,000 Servians in the United States, their clergy
consisting of one archimandrite and nine priests,
and they have churches at Chicago and South Chicago, Ill.; MacKeesport, Wilmering, South Pittsburg, and Steelton, Pa.; Jackson and Los Angeles, Cal.; Kansas City, Kansas; St. Louis, Mo.; also in Douglas, Alaska; Butte, Mont.; Barberton, Ohio; and Bisbee, Ariz., in care of visiting priests, and those at Pueblo, Cal., and Buffalo, N. Y., in charge of Russian priests.
	The Supreme Council of the Servian Orthodox
Society with a membership of 6,500 has its head
quarters in Pittsburg, and there exists also the Ser
vian Federation "Slogs," the aim of which is to
consolidate the various Servian organizations in
this country.	A. A. ST.uuocLl.

SERVICE, JOHN: Church of Scotland; b. at Campsie (10 m. n. of Glasgow) Feb. 26, 1833; d. at Glasgow Mar. 15, 1884. He studied at the University of Glasgow irregularly from 1858 to 1862; was engaged in editorial work, 1857‑‑62; became minister at Hamilton 1862; but resigned after ten months, on account of ill‑health, and retired to Melbourne, Australia, 1864‑66; was minister at Hobart Town, Tasmania, 1866‑70; returned home, 1870, and was minister of the parish of Inch, Wigtownahire, 18721879; and of Hyndland Church, Glasgow, 1879‑84. He wrote a novel which appeared in Good Words under the title Novantia, and was published as Lady Hetty (3 vols., London, 1875); Salvation Here and Hereafter (1877), which caused a sensation in Scotland on account of its Broad‑church views; Sermons (1884); and Prayers for Public Worship (1885).
BIsLTOa$AP87: A biographical notice is prefixed to the
volume of Sermons, 1884; DNB, li. 259.

SERVITES (Servi beats; Mario Virginia): A Roman Catholic order devoted to the glorification and service of the Virgin through prayer and asceticism. On the feast of the ascension of the Virgin (Aug. 15), 1233, seven leading citizens of Florence, who had previously belonged to a society for her praise, were filled with a desire to devote themselves entirely to her service. The names of the seven were Bonfiglio Monaldi, Bonagiunta Manetti, Manetto dell' Antella, Amideo Amadei, Ricuere Lippi Uguccioni, Gerardo Sostegni, and Allessio Falconieri. With Monaldi as their head, they lived first at the Campo Marzo near Florence, and then (about 1236) on Monte Senario. Their habit then consisted of an ash‑gray cloak and a haircloth shirt. In 1239 the cardinal legate Gottfried of Castiglione gave them a milder Augustinian rule and the name of Brothers of the Passion of Jesus. Their habit was now changed to a white mantle, black hood and scapular, and leathern girdle. The order was confirmed by Alexander IV. in 1255, and was extended to France (where the habit was a white mantle and white clothing), and to Holland and Germany (1267‑85). Innocent V. (1276) forbade them to receive novices but Honorius IV. (1285,87) gave them many privileges, to which Martin V. (1424) added those of the mendicant orders. Later they spread to Poland and Hungary, and in 1567 were in importance the fifth mendicant order. In 1411 Antonio of Sienna founded the Observantine Servites, who became extinct in 1568. In 1593 Bernardino de Ricciolini founded the congregation of Hermit Servites, which spread

875	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Service
Seth
in Italy and in Germany. The Servite monks possess houses in Italy (Rome, San Marcello, Bologna, Florence, Naples, and Palermo), in Austria (nine monasteries in the Tyrol province and eight in the Austro‑Hungarian), England .(especially London), and the United States (two in Chicago and one in Milwaukee).
	Servite nuns, or "° Black Sisters," were founded by
Benizi, and were especially numerous in Italy and
southern Germany; while tertiary Servite nuns
were established by Juliana Falconieri (d. 1341) at
Florence, were confirmed by Martin V. in 1420,
and were spread throughout Germany by the Arch
duchess Anna Juliana Catharine (d. 1622). Paul V.
made these German Tertiaries a separate congrega
tion. 	(0. Z6CBLERt.)
BiBLCoGaernr: The most important sources are in course of preparation under the care of P. M. Soulier and A. Morini, Monuments ordinis Servorum S. Maria, Brussels, 1897 eqq. Consult further: M. Poccianti, Chroniwn verum folios sacri ordinis Servorum beats Maria!, Florence, 1616; A. Giani, Annales sacri ordinis Servorum beater Maria, Florence, 1618, extended by A. M. Garbi and P. Bonfrizzeri, 3 parts, Paris, 1719‑25; P. Florentini, Dialopus de origine ordinis Servorum, in I. Lami, Delicia eruditorum, vol. i., Florence, 1736; P. Tonini, 11 Santuario delta santissima Annunziata di Firenze, Florence, 1876; Mist. de l'ordre des Servites de Marie, . . It30‑1310, par un amt des Servites, 2 vols., Paris, 1886; P. M. Soulier, Vie de S. Philippe Benizi, propagateur de rordre deer Sees vites, ib. 1886; idem, Life of St. Juliana Falconieri, Foundress of the . . . Religious of the Third Order of Servites, London, 1898; B. M. Sp6rr, Lebeasbilder aus dem Servitenorden, 4 vols., Innsbruck, 1891‑95; Heimbucher, Orden
and %onprepationen, ii. 218‑231; %L, xi. 204‑212.
SESSION: The lowest court in the Presbyterian Church, composed of the pastor and elders. See PRESBYTERIANS, X., 1, § 2 (6).
SESSUMS, DAMS: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Louisiana; b. at Houston, Tex., July 7, 1858. He was educated at the University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn. (M.A., 1878), and at the theological department of the same institution. He was ordered deacon and priested in 1882, and, after a few months as curate of Grace Church, Galveston, Tex., in 1883, was successively curate and rector of Calvary, Memphis, Tenn. (1883,87); rector of Christ Church, New Orleans (1887‑91) ; and was consecrated bishop coadjutor of Louisiana (1891); within the year, on the death of Bishop J. N. Galleher, he succeeded to the full administration of the diocese.
SETH, SETHITES.
1. Relation of the List to Non‑Ismelitic Tradition.
II. Relationship of the Sethite Series to the Cainite Seri. III. The General Idea of the Sethite Line. IV. Significance of the Individual Sethite Names.
V. Postcsnonical Ideas of Seth and the Sethitm. VI. Relation of Sethitea to the " Sons of God."
By Sethites.are meant the ten patriarchs named in Gen. v., namely: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah.
L Relation of the List to Non‑Israelitic Tradition: An Indo‑Germanic origin has been mistakenly supposed, Noah being equated with ‑nysos in Dionyaos on account of Noah's relation to the vineyard (P. K. Buttmann, Mythologus, i. 173, Berlin, 1828); also with the Sanacrit ndvaka (ndvika, "seaman"; J. Grill, Erzvdter der Menschheit, pp. 41 aqq., Leipsic, 1875) ; also with the Egyptian Menes, Greek Minos,
on the basis of a supposed form Manoah (S. Lefmann, Proceedings of the International Congress of Orientalists, p. 3, 1903). These are untenable hypotheses. F. Delitzsch (Babel and Bibel, p. 32, Leipsic, 1902) relates the list with the ten antediluvian Babylonian kings. But a comparison of the names in each series (the Babylonian as given by Eusebius, Chronico‑n, ed. A. Sch6ne, i. 7 sqq., Berlin, 1866, from Berosus) shows practically no etymological or graphic resemblance. But it is claimed that by transformation and abbreviation and by translation the earlier could give rise to the later. F. Hommel (PSBA, 1892‑93, pp. 243 aqq.; Expository Times, 1899‑1900, p. 343, 1902‑03, pp. 103 sqq.) reasons that Almw, ‑ Babylonian Aruru, wife of Ea, creator of man, is to be equated with Adam ‑"mankind"; the third in the Babylonian series, Amelon, Babylonian amelu, "mankind," ‑ Enos, "mankind," and soon. The comparison, however, gives no real results; e.g., in the first case creator and created are paralleled. But it is pointed out that in each list there is a series of ten antediluvians, the last of whom is the hero of the flood; that in both lists the individuals are credited with exceedingly long lives; and that some relations may be traced by transformation or otherwise between the individual names‑as when Ammenon (the fourth, corresponding to Cainan) is made to mean "master workman." It may be granted that in three or four cases the Hebrew might arise by translation, as in the case of Amelon and Enos; yet even this does not prove priority for the Babylonian; rather one should affirm that the Babylonian tradition supports the view that the names of the ten kings show a Babylonizing of neutral material. The method in which the regnal years of the Babylonian kings are reckoned (the cycle of 3,600 years) speaks for this supposition; the number ten is itself against a pure Babylonian origin. Among Hebrews ten figures frequently (cf. the tenfold occurrence of "and God said" in Gen. i. 3‑29; see for further illustrations NUMBERS, SACRED). On the contrary, among Babylonians the decimal system had no fundamental position, sixty (five times twelve) being the basis of their cosmic system. F. Lenormant (Lea Originea de l'histoire, i. 217 aqq., Paris, 1880) would secure an Egyptian origin for Seth through the mediation of Hittites and Hyksos. E. Meyer (Set‑Typhon, Leipsic, 1875) claims that the god Set had a primitive and pure Egyptian origin, his name meaning "the dark destructive night," that equalizing him with Baal as a sun‑deitycame about through Canaanitic influence (cf. Wiedemann, in DB, extra vol., 195), that the Hyksos identified Set with their Baal, and consequently the Hittite Baal took the name Set. Hommel incorrectly assumes a relationship of Seth with the Egyptian Set (Die altorientalischen Denkmaler, pp. 53, 56, Berlin, 1903), stating that "according to the restored oldest text of Gen. v. Seth corresponds to Adapa; the Egyptians have obscured this, making Set the brother and opponent of Osiris." Nor can the Sethite tradition be traced to Canaanitic‑Phenician origins. Rather should one claim that the Cainite genealogy (Gen. iv. 17‑24) so corresponds to the narrative of the Phenician cosmogony as given by Eusebiua that it must be

Se a	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	$76
credited with a Palestinian‑Phenician basis. But
there is the statement of Philo Byblius (in Eusebius,
Praparatio evangelica, I., x. 5 sqq.) that Ad6n
(Time) had the care of trees, while the descendants
of Aibn, viz., Phos, Pur, and Phlox (Light, Fire,
and Flame), discovered fire and its uses, and their
descendants were Casius, Lebanon, and Antilebanon,
while their mother had commerce with those whom
she met. Resemblance between this statement and
Gen. iv. 17‑24 is only in the general idea of giving
the beginnings of inventions; reference is closest to
the Greek myth of the discovery of fire, and the
report of the shamelessness of woman reminds
rather of Babylonian temple prostitution than of
Gen. vi. 1‑4, where the part of the women is
innocent. The use by Philo Byblius of the name
Jan, does not prove Hebrew origin, as J	ge
supposes (.gtudes our lea religions snit
pp. 411‑112, Paris, 1905), since that name is very old. Positive indications of Canaanitic‑Phenician origin of the patriarchs' names lacks specific foundation.
11. Relationship of the Sethite Series to the Cainite Series: In J only the Cainite series is complete (Gen. iv. 17‑24), the Sethite is fragmentary (Gen. iv. 2526); the complete Sethite series comes from P. It is noteworthy that the names of Cainites are the same or similar to the Sethites'. Buttmann's remark (Mythologus, i. 171)that the same list appears twice with small variations in order and form has been often echoed (e.g., EB, iv. 4411); on the other hand, the independence of the lists is maintained (Driver, on Genesis, p. 80, London, 1905), and Zimmern (in Schrader, KAT, p. 542) affirms both to be very old. Probably Israelitic tradition had report of two lines of Adamic descendants.
III. The General Idea of the Sethite Line: While Ewald long held that the conception of the patriarchs among the ancestors of the Israelites was practically that of demigods (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 383, Gtittingen,1865), R. Brown (cf. Beweis des Glaubena, 1893, pp. 353‑354) attributed to the patriarchs an astronomical significance in relation to the zodiac; Hommel (Expository Times, 1902‑03, p. 105) remarks that the Chaldeans related the last seven [Babylonian] patriarchs to the seven planets, and the Babylonians distributed them among the ten months of the world year; and Zimmern (Schrader, KAT, p. 541) thinks that the Biblical ten patriarchs were originally heroes of the months of the first world year. But no trace is left [in the Bible] of this deification of the Sethites. For the statement that Seth is a divine name F. Ulmer (Die semitischen Eigennamen, p. 26, 1901) gives no proof. If the mythological view‑point fails, ethnography is not more shadowed forth in the list. Lenormant (ut sup., i. 208 sqq.) would have the oldest races divided by these lists into the nomadic and the settled, or the yellow and the white. But the Old Testament makes the distinction rest upon religious‑moral grounds. Over against the impious Cainites were the relatively better Sethites. In J are preserved in the Sethite genealogy the relatively good descendants of Adam by whom mankind is carried through the flood. J did not intend to say that the worship of Yahweh began wit)‑ Sethites (Gen. iv. 26b). If there were grounds for thinking that J had intended
to bring the Camite genealogy into proportionate connection with that of Seth, his intention failed in that he inserted the birth of Enos. In Gen. iv. 25‑26 J laid his basis in the Sethite line, from which was to come he who, because of his relative rightness of relations with God, should lead mankind through the judgment to a better period of history. It was from the religious‑moral view‑point in the earliest Israelitic tradition that antediluvian man was divided into two lines, and so interpreters have generally understood it. If, as seems to be proved, the Hebrew narrative of primitive times is relatively independent, the question arises as to the meaning of the duality of series of patriarchs. Then the following considerations arise. (1) The religious‑ethical superiority attributed to the Sethites is only relative. (2) From Sethites, not from Cainites, was derived the ancestor of postdiluvian mankind; the "comfort" (Gen. v. 29) expected from Noah was based in part upon immunity from a cursing of the earth on account of sin as in the case of Adam (Gen. viii. 21‑22), it can not rest wholly upon the planting of the vineyard (as Budde thinks, Urgeschichte, pp. 306309). The curse of Yahweh was not to be averted by human action. (3) While the Masoretic text brings only one Sethite down to the flood, the Samaritan brings three; but the former appears to be the original conception. (4) The Sethite genealogy of J can not be considered entirely independent of the Cainite. The double line in Hebrew tradition arose not in the fact that Adam had two sons (Budde, us sup., p. 184) but because the early tradition distinguished between two lines ethically distinct. On this ethical distinction was based, probably, the long period of life awarded to the antediluvians.
	IV. The Significance of the Individual Sethite
Names: It seems that Seth, so far as he emerged
in Hebrew tradition, was the substitute for Abel,
who had perished in an outbreak of sinful power.
But it remains questionable whether P (as Dillmann,
in his commentary, on Gen. v. 3, and Budde, Urge
achichte, p.163, think) intended to make Seth Adam's
first son. The narrator's silence regarding the re
lation of Seth to preceding children of Adam does
not involve that he presupposed in his readers igno
rance of that relation; according to analogy in the
rest of the chapter, Seth is thought of as the first of
Adam's children. Yet it can not be said with as
surance that the narrator presupposed his readers'
knowledge of Cain and Abel, nor does the fact that
the name Enos means "mankind" involve for Seth
restriction to the meaning "sprout." It can not be
decided whether Cainan means "creature" or
"worker in metals." Mahalaleel is "praise of God."
Jared is regarded by Friedrich Delitzsch as mean
ing "offspring" _ WO lag das Paradie§, p. 149,
Leipsic, 1881); but it may mean "servant" or "de
scent" [i.e., to a place]. Enoch means "consecra
tion" and then "the consecrated one." Methuselah
means "man of the javelin," and Lamech "warrior"
or "conqueror." Noah means "rest." Whether
these patriarchal names along with the assured or
probable significance included each a special con
ception depends upon the answer to the question
whether the Hebrews attached to each the idea of a
step in human development. Such a series of mean‑

		eth
377	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Boston
ings has been sought by F. BBttcher, ExegetisclN kritische Aehrenlese zum alten Testament (Leipsie, 1849); but the series breaks down upon examination. Budde supposes that the latter half of the series embodies such a conception; here again, however, the facts do not afford support‑thus, the succession Jared‑Enoch marks no progression either in significance of name or of activity. Moreover, Hebrew antiquity did not connect the beginning of reverence of Yahweh with Mahalaleel ("praise of God"), but with Enos. The Bible puts real significance into the existence and name of Noah, through whose mediation a condition of "rest" was attained in removing the feeling of distance of humanity from God as well as the fear of divine punishment, bringing about a new harmony; in his planting of the vineyard is not to be seen the rescue of the earth from the curse pronounced upon it.
V. Postcanonical Ideas of Seth and the Sethites: Jewish writers attributed to individual Sethites important places in religious and general development. Seth was rapt away to heaven for forty days and learned of the angels the basal precepts of the moral law; he also initiated the art of writing, named the five planets, discovered the division of time into months, weeks, and years (note the order), and knew of the appearance of the " star in the east." Knowing of the condng double destruction of the earth by fire and water, his descendants preserved the knowledge gained through their ancestor by two pillars of clay and of stone, the latter of which "exists till this day in the land of Siris" (Nile) (Josephus, Ant., I., ii. 3. Josephus seems here to reflect Manetho as preserved by Syncellus). Jews, Samaritans, and Gnostic Christians professed to possess writingsof Seth, as did Mohammedans (cf. Fabrieius, Codex pseudepigraphus, i. 141‑147, ii. 49‑55, Hamburg, 1722‑23; and E. Kautzsch, Apokryphen and Pseudepigraphen, ii. 538, Ttibingen, 1900). Later men knew the name of his wife, Asura (Jubilees, iv. 11), Horaia according to the Sethites (Epiphanius, Hwr., xxxix. 5), from which probably came Norea (Irenaeus, Hxr., i. 34). Enos wrote about religion and how to pray (Fabricius, ut sup., i.157‑158; Kautzsch, ut sup., i. 467, ii. 46, 73, 258). Alexander wrote about the grave of Cainan, who married his sister Mualelet, but before the flood wandered away from his family (Fabricius, ut sup., i. 159‑160). "Jared" was rendered so as to show that in his time the "watchers" [i.e., angel guardians of the nations] ' ` came down " to earth to train men in uprightness (Jubilees, iv. 15; cf. however Enoch, vi. 5‑6) ; or his name conveyed the information that his sons began to transgress the commands he gave and to mingle with the impure Cainites (Book of Adam). Methuselah, who married his father's sister Edna (Kautzsch, ut sup., ii. 536), founded a court of justice and a school where the law of nature was taught. For Enoch and Noah see the articles. Many other details are narrated in pseudepigraphic books.
VL Relation of Sethites to the " Sons of God," Gen. vi. z‑4: By "sons of God" can not be meant Sethites. The word ha'adham (E. V., "men") in Gen. vi. 1 has the article and must mean the whole race; the same must then be true of the word in
verse 2 (this in spite of Struck's argument in his
commentary on Genesis, pp. 26‑27, Munich, 1905,
where he reasons from Judges xix. 30 that a word
may be used in its general sense and then in its
narrower; he also argues against the general sense
in verse 1). Moreover, "sons of God" is a common
designation for angels. It is in the highest degree
probable that to the mingling of supermundane
and mundane beings would be attributed the origin
of giants (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1 § 7).
As the Sethites are not the "sons of God," so they
are also not the "children of Sheth" (Num. xxiv.
17).	(E. K6NIG.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Of first importance are the commentaries on Genesis (noted under HExATaocu), in particular those of H. Gunkel, Gottingen, 1901; S. R. Driver, London, 1904; J. BShmer, Stuttgart, 1905; H. L. Strack, Munich, 1905; and J. Skinner, Edinburgh and New York, 1910. The subject is often treated in works on the history, of Israel‑special attention may be called to those of H. Guthe, Tiibingen, 1904, and S. Oettli, Stuttgart, 1905. Other works are: P. Buttmann, Mythologus, u. 1‑27, Berlin, 1829; H. Loken, Die Traditianen des Menschengeschlechts, pp. 140‑188, Munster, 1869; K. Budde, Die btblische Urgeschichte, Giessen, 1883; A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, London, 1891; idem, The 'Higher Criticism' and the Monuments, ib. 1894; idem, Patriarchal Palestine, ib. 1895; H. E. Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, ib. 1892 (of high value); F. Hammel, in PSBA, xv (1893), 243‑246; idem, Die altisraelitisehe Ueberlieferung in inschrifllicher Bdeuchtung, pp. 308309, Munich, 1897, Eng. transl., Ancient Hebrew Traditions as Illustrated by the Monuments, London, 1897; H. Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis, Chicago 1901; E Worcester, The Book of Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge, London, 1901; H. Zimmern, Biblische and babylonische Urgeschichte, Leipsie, 1901, Eng. tranel., The Babylonian and the Hebrew Genesis,. London, 1901; H. Greenwood, The Book of Genesis Treated as an Authentic Record, 2 vols., ib. 1903‑04; R. Kittel, Die babylonische and die biblische Urgeschichte, Leipsie, 1903, Eng. trand., Babylonian Excavations and Early Bible History, London, 1903; J. Nickel, Genesis and Keilachriftforschung, pp. 164 sqq., Freiburg, 1903; T. G. Pinches, The 0. T. in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, London, 1903; A. Jeremias, Das A. T. im Lichte des alten Oriente, Leipsie, 1904; J. Meinhold, Die biblische Urgeschichte, Bonn, 1904; J. Bbhmer, Das erate Buch Moss, Stuttgart, 1905; A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis, Edinburgh, 1907; Schrader, KAT, pp. 539 aqq., and COT; Berthesu, in Jahrbfcher for deutsche Theologie, viii. 657 aqq.; Kloetermann, in NKZ, v. 208 sqq.; DB, iv. 470; EB, iv. 4410‑17; JE, xi. 207.
SETHIANSS. See‑OPHITES.
SETON, si'tun, ELIZABETH ANN: Roman Catholic, founder of the Sisters of Charity; b. at New York Aug. 28, 1774; d. at Emmittsburg, Md., Jan. 4, 1821. She was the daughter of Richard Bayley, a physician, and married William Seton. After his death, 1803, she entered the Roman Catholic Church, Mar. 14, 1805. In order to support herself and children, she taught school at Baltimore, 1806‑08; but, after taking the veil with her sisters‑in‑law, Harriet and Cecilia Seton, on a gift of $8,000 she founded near Emmittsburg in 1809 a congregation of women for the care of children and orphans, which was placed under the rules and constitution (modified) of Vincent de Paul (q.v.) in 1811, thus becoming a religious order, and designated as the Sisters of Charity in the United States. In 1812 the order had increased to twenty members, with Mother Seton as superior‑general, and at her death it numbered fifty. In 1814 the order took charge

Seven Dolor
Seven Sleepers of Rphesus
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
of an orphan‑asylum in Philadelphia, and in 1817 of one in New York, and in the same year was incorporated by the legislature of Maryland. At the time of her death more than twenty communities had charge of free schools, orphanages, boardingschools, and hospitals in a number of states.
BIHLIOGBAPHY: Her Memoir, Letters, and Journal were edited by her grandson, W. 8eton, New York, 1869. Consult further: Memoirs of Mrs. Seton, Written by herself, Elizabethtown, N. J., 1817; C. I. White, Life of Mrs. Seton, 7th ed., New York, 1858; Mme. de Barberey, Vie de Madams Elizabeth Beton, 2 vols., Paris, 1872; Heimbueher, Orden and %onprqpationen, iii. 536.537; %L, mi. 214‑215.
SEVEN DOLORS OF THE VIRGIN MARY, FEAST OF THE. See MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST, III.
SEVEN, THE SACRED NUMBER. Among Ancient Non‑Hebraic Peoples (§ 1). In the Old Testament (¢ 2). In the New Testament (¢ 3). In Christian Theology and Uturgics (¢ 4).
The number seven was regarded as sacred by most ancient Oriental peoples and by the Greeks and Romans. Among the Chinese the empire was divided into seven provinces; the emperor made offerings on seven altars to seven chief classes of spirits, was placed in his coffin on the seventh day after death, and was buried in the seventh month.
In India the Rig Veda knows of seven
x. Among Adityas, seven rishis as the progenitors Ancient . of the seven great Brahmanical castes, Non‑Hebraic seven divisions of the earth, seven
	Peoples.	rivers of Hindustan, and seven celestial
		mountains. The Iranians had seven
Amshaspands and certain festivals of seven days
each, while the seven gates of Mithra were important
in Mithraism. In early Teutonic belief periods of
seven days and of seven years were known and the
early Celts had numerous sacred Heptads. The
number seven occurs constantly in the mythology of
the Greeks, while among the Romans the hills of the
city of Rome formed a heptad. Still more impor
tant was the sanctity of the number seven among
the Assyrians and the Babylonians. At a very early
period the latter people had a hebdomadal division
of the month, they regarded the number of the
planets as seven. The designation of the seven
days of the week based on this planetary system
was apparently unknown to the early Babylonians;
nor was the view that the seventh, fourteenth,
twenty‑first, and twenty‑eighth days of each month
were dies nefasti so wide‑spread in effect on Babylo
nian theory and practise as the kindred Sabbath
among the Jews. That the sanctity of the number
reaches back to the oldest development of religion
and culture along the banks of the Euphrates is
shown by the seven gates of Hades in the Ishtar
legend, the seven Igigi, the frequent representation
of groups of seven deities, seven altars, and the like.
In both the Old and the New Testament the number seven is important. Labor on the seventh day is forbidden (Ex. xx. 8‑11; Deut. v. 12‑15; and see SABBATH); and the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles were seven‑day festivals. The consecration of priests lasted seven days; the seventh month was marked by the celebration of the
878
Feast of Tabernacles, of the day of atonement, and Rosh ha‑Shanah; the sabbatical year was celebrated every seven years, and the year of
a. In the jubilee every seven times seven years.
Old Testa‑ The court of the tabernacle had eight
	ment.	times seven pillars, the candlestick had
		seven branches, and the sacred ell was
seven handbreadths. The number was important
in taking oaths, as the verb nishba`, "to swear" (cf.
shebha`, "seven"), shows, and was also a factor in
matters pertaining to satisfaction and punishment
(cf. Gen. iv. 24; Ex. vii. 25; Lev. xxvi. 18 aqq.;
Deut. xxviii. 7 sqq.; Prov. 6. 31). It aNo occurred
in various ceremonies of purification (Lev. xiv. 51;
see DEFILEMENT AND PURIFICATION, CEREMONIAL).
In concluding covenants and in expiatory sacizfices
this number figured: as in sprinkling the sacrificial
blood seven times in sin offerings (Lev. iv. 6, 17, xvi.
14 sqq.), and in sevenfold sacrifices. Seven entered
into proverbial expressions of daily life (e.g., Isa.
iv. 1, Id. 15, xxx. 26; Jer. xv. 9; Micah v. 5; Prov. vi.
16, ix. 1, xxvi. 16, 25; Psalms xii. 6; Job. v. 19).
Heptads are not uncommon in the history of the
Jewish people, as the seven sons of Japheth (Gen.
x. 2), Saul (II Sam. xmi. 9), Jehoshaphat (II Chron.
xxi. 2), Job (Job i. 2), and the mother of the Mac
cabees (II Mace. vii.). Jacob served seven years
for each of the daughters of Laban (Gen. xxix.) and
bowed seven times to Esau (Gen. xxxiii. 4). Phar
aoh's dream foreboded seven years of plenty and
seven years of famine (Gen. xli.); David was of
fered his choice between seven years of famine, three
months of exile and peril, or three days of pestilence
(II Sam. xxiv.13); and Solomon took seven years to
build the temple. For multiples of seven it may
be noted that the household of Jacob numbered
seventy (Gen. xlvi. 27), there were seventy elders
(Num. xi. 24), and seventy sons of Jerubbaal
(Judges viii. 30), and allusions are frequent to
periods of seventy years (Ps. xc. 10; Isa. xxiii. 15;
Jer. xxv. 11, etc.); while the phrase "seventy and
sevenfold" occurs in the Song of Lamech (Gen. iv.
24).
In the Gospels and Acts groups of seven persons are mentioned. Christ manifested himself after his resurrection to seven of his disciples (John xxi. 2); seven brothers and their wife figure in
3. In the the quibble of the Sadducees (Mark xii.
New 20 sqq.); there were seven appointed Testament. to office in the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 5) and seven sons of Sceva (Acts mix. 14); a multiple of the number is found in the seventy disciples of Jesus in Luke x. 1. Reference is made to periods of seven days in Matt. xvii. 1‑2; Acts xx. 6, xxi. 4, 27, xxviii. 14; and seven occurs in proverbial phrases in Matt. xii. 45 (Luke xi. 26), xviii. 21 sqq. (note also the augmentative "seventy times seven"), and Luke viii. 2 (seven devils cast out of Mary Magdalene). Latent hep. tads, like those of the sevenfold designation of the spirit of God in Isa. xi. 2, the seven penitential Psalms, and the seven petitions in Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the Temple (I Kings viii. 29‑53), occur with relative frequency in the New Testament. To this category belong the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer according to Matthew

379	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Seven Dolors
		Seven Sleepers of Ephesus
(vi. 9‑13), the seven parables (Matt. xiii.), and the seven woes (Matt. xxiii). The apostolic epistles contain the following noteworthy heptads: seven afflictions and seven gifts (Rom. viii. 35, xii. 6‑8); seven qualities of heavenly wisdom (James iii. 17); and seven virtues proceeding from faith (II Pet. i. 5‑8). The Apocalypse is especially rich in heptads, not only latent (e.g., v. 12, vi. 15, vii. 12, xix. 18, xxi. 8), but explicit, as seven churches (ii. iii.), seven seals (v. 1 Sqq.), seven trumpets (viii. 2 sqq.), seven thunders (x. 3‑4), seven angels (xv. i aqq.), and seven vials of wrath (xvi. 1 sqq.); the apocalyptic beast has seven heads and seven diadems (xii. 3, xiii. 1, xvii. 7 sqq.); there are seven spirits before the throne of God (i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6).
The Church Fathers dealt largely with the number seven, basing their theories largely on JudeoChristian and Neo‑Platonic writers. Many of them regarded seven simply as the symbol of 4. In Chris‑perfection and of cosmic completion
tian Theol‑ (Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory ology and the Great,,and Chrysostom). Others
	Liturgics.	sought more esoteric meaning and
		exegesis, as Cyprian (De exhortw
bone martyrii, xi.), who regarded seven as com
posed of three, to symbolize the creative Trinity,
plus four, to typify the four elements of creation;
or Gregory the Great (Moralia, xxx. 16), who, in
Philonic fashion, made the microcosm man a hep
tad consisting of three spiritual and four corporeal
qualities. To the heptads thus evolved the Middle
Ages added, drawing especially from the latent
heptads of the Old and New Testaments, and from
the explicit heptads of the Apocalypse. The heptad
of the seven mortal sins was definitely formulated
by Gregory the Great and Isidore of Seville. Anal
ogies were formed after the eleventh century in the
seven cardinal virtues (first definitely fixed by Hugo
of St. Victor and Peter the Lombard), the seven
gifts of the Spirit (on the basis of Isa. xi. 2), the seven
beatitudes (instead of the eight of Matt. v. 3 sqq.),
the seven words on the cross, the seven sacraments,
the seven joys and the seven dolors of the Virgin,
the seven works of bodily mercy (based on Matt. xxv.
31 sqq.), and the seven works of spiritual mercy.
Liturgies also developed heptads, especially as the
ritual of the Old Testament furnished an abundance
of precedents and motives. At an early date the
seven canonical hours were introduced on the basis
of Psalms cxix. 164, combined with Psalms Iv. 17
and Dan. vi. 10; and the sevenfold orders of the
clergy are ancient. Here, too, belong the seven
salutations of the people by the priest at the mass,
the reckoning of the Sundays in Lent as seven, the
seven deacons at pontifical mass, and the like. A
number of groups of seven saints in the calendar are
medieval in origin, but some go back to an early
date, as the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus (q.v.), and
probably the twice seven "Helpers in Need" (q.v.).
Speculative philosophy long continued to operate with the number seven, especially in the realm of natural philosophy, borrowing much from the Talmud and the Cabala (qq.v.) as late as the seventeenth century. Here belong the names of Agrippa of Nettesheim, Paracelsus, V. Weigel, Jakob B6hme, and von Helmont, as in the seven "elemental spirits r'
of Paracelsus: elementary body, Archeus or Mumia siderial man or Evestrum, animal spirit, intelligent soul, spirit‑ocean, and man of the New Olympus. Similar juggling with heptads is not uncommon in modern theosophical treatises with their frequent dependence on the concepts of the Cabala.
(O. ZSCK1.ERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPBr: On the ethnic use of the number note: R. von Ihering, Evolution of the Aryan, p. 113, London, 1897; F. von Andrian, in Mitteilungen der anthropologiachen Gesellechaft in Wien, acxi (1901), pp. 225‑274; W. H. Roscher, in Philolopus, 1901, pp. 260‑273 (on the number among the Greeks); idem, in the Abhandlungen of the Saxon Academy, xxi. no. 4, and xxiv. For the Biblical usage consult in general the commentaries on the passages, as the works on Biblical theology; also: K. C. W. F. BAhr, Symbolik des mosaiachen Cultua, i. 119‑208, Heidelberg, 1837; C. Auber, Hist. et thiorie du symbolism religieux, i. 97‑155, Paris, 1870; J. A. Martigny, Dictionnaire des antiguith chrbtiennea, pp. 503‑504, Paris, 1877; R. Samuel, Seven, the Sacred Number, London, 1887 (not reliable); H. Gunkel, Zum religionspeschichtlichen Verstdndniss des N. T.'s, Gbttingen, 1903; T. K. Cheyne, Bible Problems and the New Material for their Solution, pp. 57 sqq., London, 1904; E. Scharer, in ZNTW, 1905, pp. 1‑8; DB, iii. 562‑563, 565; EB, iii. 3436‑37; JE, ix. 349; Vigouroux, Dictfonnaire, fasc. xxviii., cols. 1677‑97. On the number in post‑Christian times consult: G. M. Durseh, Der aymbolische Charakter des christlichen Religion, ii. 536, Schaffhausen, 1859; R. Cruel, Geschichte der deutachen Predigt im Mittelalter, pp. 522 sqq., Detmold, 1879; C. Kiesewetter, Geschichte der neueren Oocultismus, ii. 16 eqq., 59 eqq., Leipsic, 1891; J. Sauer, Symbolik des %irchengebdudes, pp. 61‑78, Freiburg, 1902; 0. Zbekler, Die Tugendlehre des Christentums, pp. 99 sqq., 243 sqq., Gftersloh, 1904; and the literature under NuerBass, SACRED.
SEVEN SLEEPERS OF EPHESUS, ef'e‑sus
According to Gregory of Tours (De gloria martyrum, xciv.), whose account is based upon an old Syrian version of the legend, seven Christian youths at Ephesus, during the persecution under Decius (250), took refuge in a cave just outside the city. At the emperor's command the heathen sealed up the cave. Instead, however, of perishing the youths fell into a sleep, from which they awakened nearly two hundred years later, when some of the stones happened to be removed from the entrance. In the presence of Theodosius II. and Bishop Maximus they reaffirmed their Christian faith and then expired, to sleep till the end of the world.
In its details the legend varies considerably. The supposed duration of the sleep ranges from 175 to 197 years, while the date of the miracle is given as Aug. 4, or Oct. 22, by the Greeks, and June 27, cr July 27, by the Latins. Also the names of the sleep. ers differ in the Greek, Latin, and Ethiopic versions, and some accounts make the number of sleepers eight. According to occidental tradition their names were, Maximianus, Malchus, Martinianus, Dionysius, Johannes, Serapion, and Constantinus. Recent attempts to trace the legend to its source have not led to any consensus of opinion. It has been regarded (1) as purely Christian in its origin (Baronius, G5lypers, Stadler); (2) as developed from a pre‑Christian and heathen nucleus, modified by the death of certain Christians in a cave during the Decian persecution (Koch, Bernoulli); (3) as a modification of the Hellenic myth of Endymion, united with an original Syrian legend (ClermontGanneau) ; (4) as pre‑Christian, but purely Jewish,
in its origin (Cassel).	(O. Z&K1.ERt.)

Seventh‑Day Adventists	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	880
Severna
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Passio septem Dormientium, ad. B.
	Kruseh, is in MGH, Script. Per. Merov., i (1885), 848
	853; and, with a preface, in Analeda Bollandiana, sii.
	371‑387, Paris, 1893; in Migne, MPL, lxxi. 1105‑18;
	also, with comment by Cuypers and the Acts, in ASS,
	July, vi. 375‑397. Consult: C. Baronius, Martyrologium
	Romanum, Cologne, 1810; A. Reinbrecht, Die Legends
	von den sieben Schldfern, GSttingen, 1880; J. Koch, Die
	Siebensch15Jerlegende, Leipsic, 1883; I. Guidi, Testi oraen
	tali copra i Seth Dormienti di EJeso, Rome, 1885; P. Caseel,
	Harmageddon, Berlin, 1890; J. Clermont‑Ganneau, in
	Comptes rendus de 1'academie des Sciences, 4th ser., xxvi.
	504‑576, Paris, 1899 (of. Analecta Bollandiana, low, pp.
	350‑357); C. A. Bernouilli, Die Heilipen der Merovinger,
	pp. 180‑109, Ttibingen, 1900; Gibbon, Decline and Fall,
	iii. 412‑413; DCB, ii. 136; KL, xi. 278‑279; Catholic
	Encyclopedia, v. 496‑197.
	SEVENTH‑DAY ADVENTISTS. See ADVENTISTS,
2.
	SEVENTH‑DAY BAPTISTS. See BAPTISTS, 11.,
4, b.
	SEVENTH‑DAY BAPTISTS, GERMAN. See
COMMUNISM, 11., 5.
	SEVERIABS. See OPHITES.
	SEVERIANUS, se‑of"ri‑6'nus: Bishop of Gabala
in Syria; d. after 408. He is of importance for the
history of ecclesiastical politics at Constantinople in
the time of Chrysostom. Socrates (Hilt. eccl., VI.,
xi.; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2d series, ii. 145‑147) re
lates that he was led by the success of Antiochus of
Ptolemais in preaching at the capital to do the same,
and also achieved success, though he was not per
fect in Greek; he also won the friendship of
Chrysostom. But he employed himself during the
absence of Chrysostom in intriguing against him;
Serapion, the supporter of the bishop, reported the
activity of Severianus, and Chrysostom had him
expelled from the city. The Empress Eudoxia,
however, had him recalled, and Severianus continued
his intrigues, and in further developments appears
to little advantage. Palladiua blames him for the
removal of Chrysostom from G~lcusus to Pityus.
Gennadius (De vir.ill., xxi.) calls him a man learned
in the Scriptures and an excellent orator, and read a
commentary of his on Galatians and a Libellus
gratissimus de baptismate et epiphanies sollemnitate,
possibly to be identified with a Logos eis to theo
phania (MPG, 1‑ev. 15‑26). Of the former there
seems to be extant only what is contained in cita
tions in catenm and like works. Of his homilies
there remain fifteen in Armenian translation (ed.
J. B. Aucher, 1827), two of these also are contained
in Greek in the works of Chrysostoln (MPG, lvi. 553
564), and one among the homilies of Basil the
Great (MPG, xxxi.). Another homily " °Dn peace"
(ed. A. Papadopulos‑Kerameus, in Analecta, i. 15
26, St. Petersburg, 1891), two fragments of a homily
in Sahidie (ed. J. Leipoldt, in Aegyptische Urkunden
der k6niglichen Museen zu Berlin, Koptische Urkun
den, i. 6, pp. 425‑428, Berlin, 1904), a small frag
ment of a writing against Novatian (in Gelasius,
De duabus naturis), and various sermons in Coptic
translation (cf. W. E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic
MSS. ire the British Museum, London, 1905) are ex
tant. Ascribed to him also are homilies on the brazen
serpent, on "The Seals of the Books," and one
against the Jews (among Chrysostom's works in
MPG, lvi. 499‑516, lxiu. 531‑544, lxi. 793‑802).
The fragment in MPG, lxv. 27‑28, De pythonibus et
maleficiis, ascribed by Mai to Severianus, is the work
of Peter Chrysologus (see CHRYSOLOOUB; cf. F.
Liveriani, Spicilegium Liberianum, i. 192‑193,
Florence, 1863). 	(G. KM)GER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the sources in Socrates, ut sup., and Sosomen, Hist. eccl., VIII., x., Eng. transl., in NPNF, 2 ser., ii. 405, consult: Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Graca, x. 507‑510, Hamburg, 1807; 0. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, p. 308, Eng. transi., St. Louis, 1908; idem, in KL, xi. 215 sqq.; DCB, iv. 625‑626 (exceptionally good); Ceillier, Auteurs eacr6s, vii. 4‑5, 121, 205‑209, 343, x. 8.
	SEVERINUUS, se"ve‑A'nua: Pope 638‑640. On
the death of Honorius I. (Oct. 12, 638), a mutiny
broke out in Rome, and though the Roman Seve
rinus was chosen to succeed him, the army, filled
with greed for the new pope's alleged wealth and
aided by the populace, surrounded the Lateran.
Three days later the leader of the mutineers, the
chartularius Mauritius, helped seal the treasures
of the Church, while at his instigation the exarch of
Ravenna, Isaac, banished the leading clergy and
seized the treasury. Under these conditions Seve
rinus could not be enthroned, especially as the im
perial confirmation, then necessary, was lacking.
It was not until May 28, 640, that the pope was en
throned, and on Aug. 2 of the same year he died.
He is important only as having defended the doc
trine of two energies and two wills in Christ, thus
reversing the monothelite ekthesis and the course of
his predecessor. 	(A. Ii AUCx.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontificalis, ad. Mommsen in MGM, Gest. Pont. Rom., i (1898), 175‑176; JaffE, Regesta, p. 227; R. Baxmann, Die Politik der PSpste, i. 170, Elberfeld, 1808; J. Langan, Geschichte der rdmisehen Kirche, i. 516, Bonn, 1881; Bower, Popes, i. 436‑437; Platina, Popes, i. 149‑150; 3lilman, Latin Christianity, ii. 71; DCB, iv. 628.
SEVERINUS, SAINT: One of the chief agents in the conversion of Noricum (the modern Carinthia) to Christianity; b. in Italy, probably early in the fifth century; d. in Noricum Jan. 8, 482. Of his early life nothing is known except that he resided for a time among the monks of the East. Shortly after the death of Attila in 453, he went to northern Noricum, where he lived a life of rigid asceticism, while later pupils gathered around him, so that he was able to found monasteries at ‑ Favianm and Passau. His influence was directed primarily toward religious and ethical elevation, and not only did he en oy the support of the clergy, but the.people regarded him as a prophet; and at the same time, orthodox though he was, he was highly esteemed by the Arians and by the Germans generally.
The biography of Severinus by Eugippius (ed. H. Sauppe, MGH, Auct. ant., i. part 2, 1877; P. Knoell, CSEL, viii. 2, Vienna, 1886) gives the first details of the religious conditions in Noricum since the entry of Christianity into the land soon after the close of the third century, except for the allusions of Athanasius to Norican bishops. In the biography the conversion of the land to Christianity is represented as complete, though pagan sacrifices were still occasionally offered in secret. There were dioceses at least of Lauriacum (Lorch) and Tiburnia (on the site of the modern Lurnfeld), and possibly of Celeia (GSlli) and Virunum (in Zollfeld, near

Sal	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Seventh	Adventists
		Severna'
Klagenfurt); while churches existed not only at Lauriacum, but at Salzburg, Astura (near Klosterneuburg), Comagena (near Tulln), Cuculhe (Kuchel), Quintana (Plattling or Kanzing), Boiodurum (Boitro), and Passau. The clergy were numerous, and the bishops were chosen by the people. Monasteries, on the other hand, do not seem to have existed before the coming of Severinus.
	While Christianity was thus flourishing, political
conditions were in an evil way. The power of the
Huns was indeed broken, but the German tribes
were steadily pressing the Romans back‑the Ale
manni from the west, the Thuringians and Rugians
from the north, and the Goths from the east, the
latter as formidable to the other Germanic tribes
as to the Romans. Under such conditions Severinus
labored, without the prestige of ecclesiastical or
official position, solely through the power of his per
sonality. Foreseeing that the Romans could not con
tinue to hold the country, he begged that his body
might rest in Italian soil. Accordingly, when
Odoacer, in 488, drove the Roman power from Nori
cum, the body of the saint was interred first at Monte
Feltri, near Naples, whence it was removed, four
years later, to the monastery of Lucullanum, near
the same city, which had been established for the
exiled monks. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal source, the Vita by Eugip
	pius, ut sup., is also to be found, with commentary, in
	ASB, Jan., i. 483‑499. For MSS. and other editions cf.
	Potthast, Weproeiser, pp. 1572‑73. The Tranalatio is in
	MGM. Script. rer. Langob., i (1878), 452 159, and ASB,
	Jan., i. 1098‑1103. Consult further: J. Freiherr von
	HORnayr, Wiens Geachichte and seine Denkwiardipkeiten,
	i. 58‑78, Vienna, 1823; J. L. Reitmayr, Der heilige Sev
	erin der Einaiedter, Regensburg, 1829; J. G. Waitsmann,
	Lebenepeschichte des heiligen Severin, Augsburg, 1834;
	J. F. von Patruban, Lichter and Schatten, pp. 1‑15,
	Vienna, 1852; R. Pallmann, Geschichte der Volkerrwander
	uny, ii. 393113, Weimar, 1884; J. Leitner, Leben and
	Wirkm des heilipen Severin, Passau, 1888; J. Jung,
	RSIner and Romanen in den Donaulandern, Innsbruck,
	1877 idem, Die romaniaehen Landachaften des romisrhen
	Re"#, ib. 1881; G. Kaufmann, Deutsche Geschichte, ii.
	23‑27, Leipsic, 1881; A. D. Sembem, Wien der Wohn
	sitz and Sterbeort des heilipen Severin, Vienna, 1882; A.
	Ebert, AZIgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelaltera,
	i. 452‑454, Leipsie, 1889; C. A. Bernoulli, Die Hefen
	der Merovinper, pp. 47 sqq., TQbingen, 1900; Watten
	bach, DGQ, i (1904), 50 sqq.; A. Baudrillart, Saint
	Severin, ap6tre du Norique (.#68‑.¢8,8), Paris, 1908; Tille
	mont, Mmoires, avi. 188‑181; Friedrich, KD, i. 358
	383; Hauck, %D, i. 381 sqq.; Rettberg, %D, i. 226‑245;
	DCB, iv. 827‑828.
SEVERUS, sS‑vi'rus: Bishop of Antioch; b. in Sozopolis of Pisidia; d. at Xois, on the Sebennitic arm of the Nile, Egypt, Feb. 8, 538. His grandfather had been bishop in Sozopolis, and took part in the Council of Ephesus (431) which condemned Nestorius. He was sent by his mother, after his father's death, to Alexandria for his education, where he came into connection with a pietistic circle, the Philoponoi, where he met his biographer Zacharias. After a period of diligent study he settled at Berytus Beirut), possibly in the autumn of 486, whither Zacharias followed him a year later to find him weaned away from the study of grammar and rhetoric and practise of law to the study of religion and theology, in which he requested the guidance of the newcomer. He was led to a study of the Church Fathers, particularly of Chrysostom and Cyril, and
their influence and that of Evagrius‑was strongly felt, while he acquired rapidly a reputation for learning. As a first specimen of_ his rhetorical studies applied to Christianity he issued a panegyric of the Apostle Paul. Evagrius urged him to be baptized, from which he at first shrank; moreover, Zacharias refused to baptize him there, as he himself would not commune with the clerics of Berytus, being a Monophysite. Severus, however, went to Tripolis, where he was received into the Church, and then returned to Berytus.
This began a new period in his life. His asceticism was extreme, and he passed not only the evenings but part of the nights at prayer in the church. While Severus had declared that he would not be made to become a monk, it needed only a spur to bring this about, which was found in the death of Peter the Iberian. Evagrius urged him to put himself under the guidance of Peter's successor, and himself set the example. After visiting Tripolis, Emesa, and Jerusalem to pray over the subject, he entered the convent of St. Peter. There, however, the asceticism was not sufficiently pronounced for him, and he took up the hermit's life in the desert of Eleutheropolis, where his ascetic practises drew the attention of the abbot (Mamas?) of the monastery of Romanus, who offered him a home there. This he declined, and gave himself to solitude in a cell at Majuma, whither he attracted others, for whom he built a monastery with individual cells, using the remainder of his patrimony. He was made a priest by Epiphanius of Magydum, just then abiding in Palestine. This was the time of the appearance among the Palestinian monks of Nephelius, who had changed from being a heated opponent of the Chalcedonian creed to become its partizan, and was denouncing the monks of Majuma and Gaza, who, as followers of Peter the Iberian, opposed the findings of the synod. These were driven out, Severus became their advocate, and with a large number (200 or 396, according to different authorities) went to Constantinople, where he won his spurs as an ecclesiastical politician. He had part in the events which led to the fall of the Patriarch Macedonius, and his attitude was that of one who seemed to favor in turn this party and now that. He was even mentioned for the patriarchate; but failing in that, he became a friend of Timotheus, who was chosen. But he yielded to the desire to renew his life in the desert, and returned thither, and the monks at Majuma took up undisturbed their old manner of life. While at Constantinople he wrote a Philadethes directed against the "Nestorians," i.e., the Chalcedonians. For the imperial chancellor Zacharias Rhetor he answered a series of dogmatic questions in his Apokri8eis ;pros Eupraxion koubikoularion.
The success of Severus at Constantinople had put new thoughts into his mind; he was the hero of the monks, whose influence upon public affairs was becoming ever greater. Flavian, patriarch of Antioch, was driven out and Severus was designated his successor, Nov. 6, 512, and on Nov. 25 he delivered his first sermon. His inaugural he sent to the other patriarchs; John III. of Alexandria and Timotheus of Constantinople recognized him, Elias of Jerusalem ignored the document. In his own diocese opposi‑

g°	'1E NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	882
tion arose. JVlian of Bostra and Epiphanius of Tyre set themselves against him and urged that his see be taken away, and the Isaurian and other bishops refused recognition. His chief writing of this period was the three books Kata loannou grammatikou tou Kaisareias. Correspondence with the grammarian Sergius on the doctrine of the two natures is extant in the Syriac. Whether the "Apology for the Philalethes," the writing against the Kodikildai of an Alexander, and the books "On the Two Natures" belong to this period is uncertain. In the correspondence Severus shows himself a prelate of parts, strong, just, circumspect, clever, plain, and not unlovable. As patriarch he remained true to ascetic ideals. He was faithful in his episcopal visitations, and was always ready to preach; while his sermons are described as being appreciated like rain on thirsty ground.
The ascent to the throne of Justin in 518 changed the situation in the ecclesiastical sphere. He drove out all the bishops, monks, and nuns in the diocese of Antioch who were tainted with monophysitism. Severus fled to Alexandria, where he is said to have arrived Sept. 29, 518. Timothy IV. received the refugees kindly, and for the time Severus was in retirement. Still in this period falls the dogmatic controversy with Julian of Halicarnassus (q.v.); and he corresponded with his supporters in Syria. The reign of Justinian and the influence of Theodora seemed to offer opportunities of success for his opposition to Chalcedonism, and in 535 he started toward Constantinople, but the overthrow of Anthimus destroyed his prospects. He was with other Monophysites excommunicated at the synod of 536, while the edict of Aug. 6 forbade him the capital. He returned to Egypt, and took up his lonely residence in the desert south of Alexandria. His death gave rise to legends concerning the events which attended it, and to his body was accredited the power of healing all infirmities; still the hatred of his opponents followed him and aspersed his memory a hundred years later. (G. KRt.GER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Many of the works of Severue remain inedited in MSS. in the great libraries (cf. e.g., W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, general index, pp. 1322 sqq., London, 1872). A list of writings attributed to him is found in B. de Montfaucon, Bsbliotheca Coisliniana, pp. 53‑57, Paris, 1715, cf. Fabrieius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Grdca, x. 61423, Hamburg, 1807. Fragments have been printed in Mai, Nova collectio, vii., 8 sqq., 71‑73, ix. 725‑759, in the same author's Clasaici auctor", x. 408 173, and in his Spicilegium Romanum, x. 202‑205, 212‑220; in MPG, lxxxvi. 1, cola. 1841‑49; in R. L. Bensly, Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac, pp. xxvii‑xxix. 75‑102 Cambridge, 1895; and in MPG, xlvi. 627‑852 (there attributed to Gregory of Nyssa; cf. M. A. Kugener, in Revue de l'orient chritien, iii. 1898, pp. 435‑451). Letters of his are published in the Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severue, ed. and tranel., E. W. Brooks, 2 vols., London, 1902‑04. And extracts from a baptismal liturgy are given by A. Reach, Aprapha, in TU, v. 4 (1889), 361‑372.
For the life all prior editions of the two sources are rendered obsolete through the ed. by M. A. Kugener of the " Lives " by Zacharias the Scholastic and Johannes bar Aphthoma, both in Patrolopia orientalis, ed. R. Graffin and F. Nau, vol. ii., parts 1 and 3, Paris, 1903‑05. J. Eustratios has a monograph on Severus, written in Greek, Leipsic, 1894 the commentary on the " Church History " of Zacharias Rhetor, edited in Germ. trawl. by K. Ahrens and G. Krager, Leipsic, 1899, corrections to
which are furnished in Revue orientate chrRienne v (1900), 201 eqq., 461 eqq.; M. Peisker, Severua von Antiochen, Halle, 1903; B. Evette, Hist. of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, in Graffin's Patrolopia orientalis. ut sup., i. parts 2 and 4, Paris, 1904‑05; DCB, iv. 637641 (valuable); KL, xi. 222‑223; Ceillier, Auteurs aaer6a, xi. 106‑109 et passim; and literature on MONOPHTSITMB. On his theology consult: J. C. L. Gieseler, Commentatio qua Monophyeitarum . . opinion" illuetrantur, 2 parts, GSttingen, 1835‑38; 1. A. Dormer, Lehre von der Person Chrietd, ii. 164 sqq. Berlin, 1853, Eng trawl, Hist. of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person o) Christ, 5 vols., Edinburgh, 1861‑63; F. Loofs, in TU, iii. 1‑2 (1888); Hamack, Dogma, vol. iv. passim.
SEVERUS, SEPTIMIUS. See SEPrlmlus SEvERus.
SEVERUS, SULPICIUS: Ecclesiastical historian; b. in Aquitania about 360; d. there after the year 420. He received an excellent education, devoted himself to the law, and won fame as an advocate. His good fortune seemed sealed when he married the rich daughter of a consular family; but he lost his wife early, and turned away from the world to the ascetic life, following the example of his friend Paulinus of Nola (q.v.), and inspired by Martin of Tours (q.v.), with whom he lived till the latter's death, regarding him as his spiritual father and a God‑sent prophet and apostle. Gennadius (De vwr. ill., xix.; Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 389‑390) says that Severus became a priest, but no record exists of his employment in priestly duties. The same authority says also that Severus was led away by the Pelagians, recognized his error, and imposed upon himself the penalty of silence till death.
As scholar and author Severus took high rank in his generation. He is a noble representative of the formal culture which existed in South France in the fourth and fifth centuries, for he had been a diligent student of classical writers. Hence his "Chronicle " has the flavor of such authors as Sallust and Tacitus, Velleius and Curtius, while the "Dialogues," though specifically Christian, smack of Cicero. Infelicities are few, barbarisms and novelties do not appear; and withal the Frankish genius shines out in stylistic refinements and elegant turns of expression. As a critic he surpassed his time; especially worthy of notice is this trait in his investigation of the story of Judith. Of the "lesser works" mentioned by Gennadius there are extant only the letters to various persons (his sister, Paulinus, and others). Of some of these doubt has been expressed, but they may well be genuine, since one can not expect the same qualities of style in such writings as in works that are formally literary and designed for an educated public. Besides these, Severus has left three concededly genuine works, in which his aim was to commend to the educated world, especially to Aquitania, historical Christianity and the Christian ascetic life. His "Chronicles"is a working‑up of Biblical material into a historical book for reading; his "Life" of Martin of Tours is a brilliant and edifying memoir of that saint. The third is his "Dialogues." The first has come down in only one manuscript of the eleventh century; of the second there are many manuscripts, the oldest of which, of the seventh century, is a copy of a sixth‑century exemplar (dated 519). The "Chronicles" fails in interest, partly because it is a deliberate making over, and its popularity was

$83	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Sev
limited perhaps by the diffusion of the Bible itself. But the " Life " was a book of edification and interest of the first rank for its times, not because of the atmosphere of classicism which enfolds it, rather because through that atmosphere the type of Christianity shines out which the next millennium recognized as its own.
The "Chronicles," in two books, given out not before the year 403, begins with creation and holds to the usual reckoning of 6,000 years, yet not without critical remark. Its purpose is to communicate comprehensively and briefly the history in both Testaments, and the preface justifies the continuation till the then present time.. It was an attempt to clothe the Bible in what was then modern dress. It has been called a felicitous attempt to weld together Biblical and classical studies and it displays a sober and critical sense, a rejection of typology and allegory, a free and earnest judgment of the relations of the times treated in connection with both Church and State, and at the same time discusses luminously Hebrew jurisprudence which is made intelligible in the language of Roman law. In that part which deals with post‑Biblical history the work is of special value for its light upon Priscillianism (ii. 46‑51; of. "Dialogues," iii. 11‑13), being a source of the first rank; the impartiality here displayed assures the author honorable remembrance. Of value is the work also for the history of Arianism, and it throws light also upon oriental history, especially where other authorities are lacking. Thus in the history of the fall of Jerusalem the source used by Severus was the lost account by Tacitus, with which the socount by Josephus is at variance (cf. Scharer, Geschichte, i. 631‑632 note, Eng. tranal. I., ii. 244 aqq. note).
Entirely different in character from the "Chronicles" are the "Life of St. Martin" and the "Dialogues," with which may be placed three genuine letters which are concerned with Martin. The "Life" was written before Martin's death, but not issued till after that occurred; the two (not three) "Dialogues" belong to 405 or later. The "Life" is cast in complete accord with the contemporaneous belief in the miraculous, though passages of historical character are not entirely lacking. The critical faculty of the author is laid aside, and the work is another witness of the defenselessness of Roman culture against the barbarism which a pious faith and the fantasies of asceticism were bringing in. The wits of Aquitania and the frivolous priests were attracted not by the reconciliation of Christianity with culture, but with the stories of the saints which were to become in the dark ages the only reflectors of light. Yet the biography by Severus differed widely from those by his contemporaries in the absence of the erotic. For the conditions in Gaul in the second half of the fourth century the work is of very great value. The opposition between the monks and the secular clergy is so graphically portrayed that, with the exception of the Letters of Jerome, no other source exists which gives so clearly the difficulties and enmities which attended the naturalization of monasticism in the West. These two related works reveal monasticism as undertaking the Christianizing of the peasants. Severus shows
the secular clergy as equally earnest in their opposition to Priscillianiam and to monasticism. This especially comes out in the "Dialogues," which, calling the clergy Pharisees, attempts to hold up the mirror to their offensiveness. Yet the main purpose is to glorify Martin and to win Gallic Christianity for asceticism. Martin is compared with the Egyptian monks and shown not only to equal but to surpass them in saintliness and miraculous power. The comparison with these monks gives occasion for notable bits of information: regarding Christianity in the Cyrenaica (i. 3‑4); concerning Origen (i. 6‑7) and Jerome (i. 8, 21); about the different conditions of monasticism in the East and in Gaul; concerning the Gallic clergy (i. 21), and other like matters. It seems that some one had charged Severus with lying in his life of Martin, and so new details concerning him are related, in which the miraculous still abounds. In the second dialogue are the parts which deal with the Priscillianiata, and the last chapter shows Martin as the greatest Christian ascetic, whose deeds were to be recorded and heralded both in the East and in the West.
(A. HARWACB.) .
B:sraoaasraf: The critical edition of the Opera is by C. Harm in CSEL, Vienna, 1866. The best earlier edition was by H. de Prato, 2 vols., Verona, 1741‑54. The editio prinoepe of the " Chronicle " was by Flacius, Basel, 1556, but the Vita Martini and the " Dialogues" appeared in print as early as 1500. The Opera are also in MPL, xx. 95‑248. The one indispensable discussion is by J. Bernays, Ueber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus, Berlin, 1861. Consult further: Hint. liwraire de la Prance, ii. 104 eqq., 742‑743; Tillemont, MEmoiree, vol. ii.; W. S. Gilly, Vipilantim and his Times, pp. 35‑63, London, 1844; M. Herbert, (Euvree de Sulpice SEvdre, Paris, 1847 (Fr. tranal. with notes); C. Helm, in' the Sitzunpaberichte of the Bavarian Academy, 1865, ii. 3764; J. H. Heinkena, Martin von Tours, pp. 258‑274, Breslau. 1866; J. J. Ampbre, Mist. Iittiraire de la prance avant Charlemagne, i. 196 sqq., Paris, 1867; W. Gundlach, in NA, xi (1886), 291‑309; A. Ebert, Allpemeine Gewhichte der Literatur des Mittelalters, i. 327‑336, Leipsic, 1889; M. Manitius, in NA, xiv (1889), 165‑170, xv (1890), 184‑186; W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der r6mischen Literatur, pp. 1136‑39, Leipsic, 1890; Bardenhewer, Patroiopie, pp. 396‑397, Eng. transl., St. Louie, 1908; Ceillier, Auteurs aacris, viii. 110‑126; DCB, iv. 634‑835; %L, xi. 225‑227.

SEWALL, siii'al, FRANK: Swedenborgian; b. at Bath, Me., Sept. 24, 1837. He was educated at Bowdoin College (A.B., 1858; A.M., 1862) and the universities of Tiibingen, Berlin, and the Sorbonne. He was pastor of a church of his denomination at Glendale, O. (1863‑69); president of Urbana University, Urbana, O. (a Swedenborgian institution), and also pastor of the Swedenborgian church in the same town (1869‑‑86). He was then pastor of the church of his denomination in Glasgow, Scotland (1886‑89); and since 1889 has been pastor of the New Church, Washington, D. C. He has likewise been general pastor of the Maryland Association of the New Jerusalem since 1893. In theology he describes himself as "a devout believer in the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg as containing the heavenly doctrines of the New Church signified by the New Jerusalem in the Revelation; . . . also a believer in the philosophical and scientific works of Swedenborg as containing the germs and the guiding rational principles of all the

Sewall
Shamanism
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
884
true science of the future." Among his writings, those of theological interest are the following: The Christian Hymnal (Philadelphia, 1867); The NewChurchman's Prayer‑Book and Hymnal (1867); The Pillow of Stones: Divine Allegories in their Spiritual Meaning (1876); The Hem of his Garments: Spiritual Studies in the New Testament (1876); The New Metaphysics: or, The Law of End, Cause, and Effect (London, 1888); The Ethics of Service: or, the Moral Law of Use (New York, 1888); Dante and Swedenborg, with other Essays in the New Renaissance (London, 1893) ; Swedenborg and Modern Idealism: A Retrospect of PhilosophyfromKanttothepresentTime(1902); The Pulpit and Modern Thought (Boston, 1906); Reason in Belief. or, Faith for the Age of Science (London, 1906); and Swedenborg and the Sapientia Angelica (1910). He has translated Swedenborg's De Anima under the title The Soul or Rational Psychology (New York, 1886) and edited, with introduction and notes, Kant's Dreams of a Spirit Seer (London, 1899).
SEWALL, JOHN SMITH: Congregationalist; b. at New Castle, Me., Mar. 20, 1830. He was educated at Bowdoin College (A.B., 1850), and, after being commander's clerk in the United States Navy in China and Japan in 1850‑54, entered Bangor Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1858. He was pastor at Wenham, Mass. (1859‑67); chaplain of the Eighth Massachusetts Volunteers in 1864; professor of rhetoric and oratory in Bowdoin College (1867‑75); and professor of sacred rhetoric in Bangor Theological Seminary from 1875 until his retirement as professor emeritus in 1903. He has written The Logbook of the Captain's Clerk (Bangor, j 1905).
SEWEL, WILLEM (WILLIAM SEWELL):
Dutch Friend; b. at Amsterdam of English parentage, 1650; d. about 1725. He served his time as a weaver, but acquired Greek, Latin, English, French, and High Dutch. He is known as the author of Histori van de Opkomste, Aanwas, en Voortgang der Christenen, bekend by den naam van Quakers (Amsterdam, 1717; Eng. transl., by himself, The History of the Rise, Increase, and Progress of the Christian People Called Quakers, London, 1722; Philadelphia, 1855). One of his objects was to correct the "misrepresentations" in Gerard Croese's Historia Quakeriana (3 books, Amsterdam, 1695‑1704).
SE%AGESIMA. See CHURCH YEAR; and LENT.
SE%T: The service for the "sixth hour" in the Breviary (q.v.), recited normally at noon, to which the invariable hymn refers. Its structure is the same as that of Terce and None (qq.v.). In monastic houses it precedes the community mass on ordinary days and simple feasts, and follows it on Sundays and higher feasts.
SEYERLEN, sai'er‑len, KARL RUDOLF: German Protestant; b. at Stuttgart Nov. 18, 1831; d. at Jena Mar. 28, 1906. He was educated at the University of Tiibingen (Ph.D., 1854); was curate at Giengen, near Geisslingen (1854‑55); studied for a year in Paris; was then a teacher of religion at the gymnasium of Ulm (1857‑59); lecturer at Tiibingen (1859‑61); deacon at Crailsheim (1862‑69); dea‑
con (1869‑72), and archdeacon (1872‑75) at Tiibingen. After 1875 he was professor of homiletics and catechetics at Jena. He was associate editor of the Zeitschrift fur praktische Theologie (1879‑91) and wrote Entstehung urul erste Schieksale der Christengemeinde in Rom (Tiibingen, 1874); Friedrich Rohmers Leben and urisserxschaftlicher Entwicklungsgang nach dem Entwurfe Blurxtschlis (2 vo1s., Munich, 1892); and Beziehungen zwischen abendlkadischem and morgenl&adischem Wissen mit Riicksicht auf Salomon ibn Gebirol (Leipsic, 1900). He also edited J. K. Bluntschli's Denkwiirdigkeiten aus meinem Leben (3 vols., Nordlingen, 1884) and F. Rohmer's Wissenschaft vom Mensehen (2 vols., 1885).
SEYMOUR, si'mor, GEORGE FRANKLIN: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Springfield, Ill.; b. in New York City Jan. 5, 1829; d. at Springfield, Ill., Dec. 8, 1906. He was graduated from Columbia College (A.B., 1850) and the General Theological Seminary (1854). He was ordered deacon in 1854 and was priested in 1855. From that year until 1861 he was rector of Holy Innocents, Annandale, N. Y. (1855‑61), where he founded St. Stephen's College, of which he was the first warden. He was then rector at St. Mary's, Manhattanville, New York City (18612), Christ Church, Hudson, N. Y. (1862‑63), and St. John's, Brooklyn (1863‑67). In 1865 he was appointed professor of ecclesiastical history in the General Theological Seminary, of which he was chosen dean in 1875 and there he remained until 1879. In 1878 he was consecrated bishop of Springfield. Theologically he described himself as "an American Catholic bishop in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ." He was a deputy from the American Church to the Old Catholic Congress at Vienna in 1897. He wrote Some Considerations why the Name of the Protestant Episcopal Church should be changed (Milwaukee, 1888); What is modern Romanism? (1885); Amusements in their Relation to Religion (Lima, Ind., 1890);
An Open Letter to Bishop Doane in Reference to the
Consecration of Bishop Brooks (Milwaukee, 1892); The Transfiguration: The Place of the Feast of the Transfiguration (in collaboration with J. H. Egar; New York, 1893) ; Marriage and Divorce (Milwaukee, 1893); The Church Idea of the Family (Springfield, Ill., 1899); and The Sacrament of Baptism, Related Ordinances, and the Creed (New York, 1903).
BIHLiOfiRAin87: W. S. Perry, The Episcopate do America,
p. 257. New York, 1895.
SHAFTESBURY, shafts'buR‑i, ANTHONY ASHLEY COOPER, THIRD EARL OF. See DEISM, L, § 8.

SHAFTESBURY, ANTHONY ASHLEY COOPER, SEVENTH EARL OF: English philanthropist; b. in London Apr. 28, 1801; d. at Folkestone (60 m. s.e. of London) Oct. 1, 1885. He was educated at Harrow and at Christ Church, Oxford (M.A., 1832; D.C.L., 1841); entered parliament in 1831 and sat as a commoner 1830‑31, 1833f16, and 1847‑51, in that year taking his seat in the house of lords by succession to his father. His rank, connections, and abilities entitled him to a high place in government, but in the interest of his philanthropic enterprises he preferred to remain unhampered by the requirements

385	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Se wsll
Shamaniem
of office and of strict adherence to party politics. His first humanitarian activity was directed to the alleviation of the situation of lunatics, the result of which was not only parliamentary regulation of the care of a class badly treated but the directing of the attention of medical men to sounder methods. He also secured legislation limiting the hours during which employees in mills and factories should be kept at work, and agitation covering over ten years was necessary to obtain the relief which finally came. Conditions in collieries and mines also attracted his attention, the awful conditions under which women and even tender children worked for eighteen hours being by him brought to the notice of parliament with the result that legislation eliminated the worst of the evils. The apprentices of the chimney sweeps labored under quite similar harsh conditions, and their situation was alleviated. The "ragged schools" were also benefited by his championship, and he was chairman of the Ragged School Union for thirtynine years. Under the stimulus of his exposure of lodging‑house and other evils, conditions in these institutions and in the tenement houses were made much better. Besides the interests already mentioned, he was active in the counsels of the British and Foreign Bible Society, of which he was long president, in the London City Mission, in the Church Missionary Society, and in the Young Men's Christian Association. He was a faithful attendant of the Church of England, but his sympathies were with evangelicalism wherever found.
BIBIdoaRAPHY: E. Hodder, Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, 3 vols., London, 1888; G. H. Pike, Shaftesbury, His Life and Work, ib. 1894; The Good Earl: Career of the Seventh Lord Shaftesbury, ib. 1888; DNB, xii. 133‑137.
SHAHAN, THOMAS JOSEPH: Roman Catholic; b. at Manchester, N. H., Sept. 11, 1857. He was educated at Montreal College, Montreal (1872‑78), the American College, Rome (1878,82; D.D., College of the Propaganda, Rome, 1882), the University of Berlin (1889‑91), the New Sorbonne and the Institut Catholique, Paris (1891). Ordained to the priesthood in 1882, he was chancellor and secretary of the diocese of Hartford, Conn. (1883‑88), and since 1891 has been professor of church history and patristics at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C., also president since 1909. He likewise lectured on the history of education in the Catholic University Institute of Pedagogy, New York City, in 1902‑03, and since 1895 has been editor of the Catholic University Bulletin. Besides being one of the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, he has written The Blessed Virgin in the Catacombs (Baltimore, 1892); Giovanni Battista de Rossi (New York, 1900); The Beginnings of Christianity (1903); The Middle Ages (1903); and The House of God, and other Addresses and Studies (1905).
SHAKERS. See COMMUNISM, II., 10.
SHALLUM, shal'Ium: Fifteenth king of Israel, successor of Zachariah whom he slew, thus ending the dynasty of Jehu. He reigned only a month, probably in the year 740 B.c. (though the old chronology placed him in 771), when be was himself slain by Menahem (q.v.), who seized the throne (II Kings xv. 10‑15). A reference to this unsettled period is X.‑25
seen by several commentators in Zech. xi. 8 (cf. J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, i. 357, New York, 1894).
SHALMANESER. See ASSYRIA, VI., 3, §§ 3, 7, 10.

SHAMANISM, shd'man‑izm: The name for a complex of practises and beliefs connected in some parts of the world with an animistic stage of culture. "Shaman" is of Hindu‑Persian origin, and denotes "idolater." The term is much in need of redefinition, being used loosely and applied vaguely to usages which are properly placed under other heads. Shamanism is often defined as the "religion" of certain tribes, mainly Mongolian or Finno‑Tataric, in northern Asia. The area thus indicated must be extended to America, where the medicine‑man of the Indians has in great part the same functions and beliefs and follows the same practises as the shaman of Asia. Shamanism is not a religion; the term, used properly, represents certain religious concomitants and practises, just as do the terms "magic" and "taboo" (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, § 5, c). The shaman is a functionary who is in part displaced by the priest and the doctor in more advanced stages of culture. Other of his functions than those included under the priestly and the medicinal fall into desuetude with advancing culture. In part, also, the functions of the shaman are exercised by the fetish doctor under fetishism. While the shaman may be described as priest and doctor in embryo, the chief characteristic of shamanism is discerned in distinguishing between shaman and priest. The priest beseeches favor of gods (or spirits), the shaman believes himself able to command spirits, and is not seldom spirit embodied. The connection with animism is shown in the idea of disease entertained by shamans, this being regarded as the work of spirits who must be mastered.
The functions of the shaman are summed up in the securing of good for those who retain his services and the averting of evil from them. This includes the direction of ceremonial, arrangement of dances and feasts, healing of the sick, guarding from sorcery, securing rainfall, and divining. In these various performances ecstasy is often employed by the shaman, and is induced either by narcotics or by self‑hypnotism. The means by which these various functions are performed are held to be mysterious, known only to the user, or if known to another yet dangerous for him to employ. In the healing of the sick there are often combined an empirical herbarium and the supposed control of spirits. Deception of the patient and identity of means employed characterize the operations of shamans in the old world and the new, where they frequently diagnose illness as caused by foreign substances introduced into the body by spirits or sorcerers, and these substances they pretend to remove by manipulation and suction, having previously " palmed " or otherwise concealed them about their own persons. ‑ Knowledge they pretend to gain by sending forth the "dream spirit" (one of four spirits possessed by them) on a search for the cause of ill or means of good. The compulsion of spirits is accomplished by the "word of power"‑incantations consisting of unintelligible formulas and often of mere gibberish,

Shammai	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	386
9hebna
in which, however, the shaman has full confidence.
As with the fetish priests, some shamans are special
ists, confining their activities to particular domains,
as the healing of cattle. A belief in sympathetic
magic (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, § 5)
is a normal accompaniment of shamanism.
	The shaman may come to his powers either by
prenatal endowment derived from an ancestor, by
gift from a favoring spirit, especially one seen in
the puberty watch, or from training by an experi
enced practitioner. Upon the shaman his profes
sion entails a crude morality, since the control of
the spirits is not easy and imposes rules of conduct
which the shaman must observe. These frequently
include a sort of asceticism, anticipating that prin
ciple in the religious development of a later stage of
culture.	GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the western continent a thesaurus of
	materials is found in the Reports of the Bureau of Amer
	ican Ethnology, an annual published by the Smithsonian
	Institution, Washington, D. C. Consult further: G.
	RoskoH, Dos Relipionaweaen der rohesten Naturoolker,
	Leipsic, 1880; W. Radloff, Das Schamanentum and sein
	%ultus, ib. 1885; Priklonskii, Dos Schamanentum der
	Jakuten, Vienna, 1888; T. Achelis, Moderns Vdlkerkunde,
	Stuttgart, 1896; Anthropological Institute of Great
	Britain and Ireland, Journal, xxxi (1901); J. Stadling,
	Through Siberia, London, 1901; C. Lumholtz, Unknown
	Mexico, New York, 1902; J. Sheepshanke, My Life in
	Mongolia and Siberia, London, 1903.
	SHAMMAI, aham'm6	or sham's‑ai: Jewish
rabbi of the first century B.c., contemporary and
opponent of Hillel (q.v.). He appears to have been
a Palestinian, a man of somewhat violent temper
who yet realized his shortcoming, but also of great
modesty. His religious views were strict even
to severity. He founded a school antithetical to
that of Hillei, and the proverb arose, "Hillel looses
what Shammai binds."
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Graetz, Geachichte der Judder, iii. 213
	214, 256, Leipsic, 1888 Z. Frankel, Hodopetica in Misch
	nam, pp. 39‑40, ib. 1859; JE, xi. 230.
	SHANAAHAN, EDMUND	THOMAS: Roman
Catholic; b. in Boston, Mass., Nov. 22, 1868. He
was educated at Boston College (A.B., 1888), the
Roman Academy and Seminary and the College of
the Propaganda, Rome (S.T.D., 1893), and the
University of Louvain (1895). In 1894 he was
instructor in philosophy and theology in the Amer
ican College, Rome; associate professor of theology
in the Catholic University of America, Washington,
D. C. (1895‑98). Since the latter year he has been
Shakespeare‑Caldwell professor of theology in the
same institution, where he has also been dean of
the faculty of theology since 1901. He was a lec
turer before the American University Extension
Society, Philadelphia, in 1897, and lecturer in philos
ophy at the University of Pennsylvania in 1898‑99.
	SHARP, GRANVILLE:	English philanthropist;
b. at Durham Nov. 10, 1735 (old style); d. at Ful
ham, London, July 6, 1813. Disapproving of the
government action relating to the American colonies
he resigned his position in the ordnance office, July,
31, 1776, and devoted himself to study. Before
this he became famous for his course in befriending
and successfully defending the negro slave James
Somersett from his master, which finally led to the
momentous decision "that as soon as any slave sets
his foot upon English territory, he becomes free." He thenceforth devoted himself to the overthrow of slavery and the slave‑trade. He conceived the idea of a colony for the liberated slaves, 1783, which afterward materialized in the settlement of Sierra Leone. During the last years of his life he took a prominent part in the founding of the British and Foreign Bible Society and was identified with a number of promotive societies. He was a good linguist and a pious man. He wrote, A Representation of the Injustice of Private Property in the Persons of 3len (London, 1769), followed by an Appendix (1772); A Declaration of the People's Natural Right to a Share in the Legislature (1774), in behalf of the American Colonies; and his chief later work, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament (Durham, 1798).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. Hoare, Memoirs of Granville Sharp, London, 1820; J. Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the 18th Century, 9 vols., ib. 1812‑15; J. Stephen, Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, 2 vols., 4th ed., London, 1860; DNB, li. 401‑404.
SHARP, JAMES: Archbishop of St. Andrews; b. in the castle of Banff (40 m. n.n.w. of Aberdeen) May, 1618; assassinated on Magus Muir, near St. Andrews (31 m. n.e. of Edinburgh), May 3, 1679. He was educated at Aberdeen (M.A., 1637) ; in 16‑10 was professor of philosophy in St. Leonard's College, St. Andrews; presented to the Church of Crail, 1618; was made a prisoner by Cromwell's forces and confined in the Tower, 1651‑52; was chosen to plead the Presbyterian cause before the Protector, 1657; and when George Monk marched upon London, 1660, he was sent over to Charles II. at Breda, to secure the royal confirmation of "the government of the Church of Scotland, as it is settled by law., without violation," as well as of the act of the resolutioners. The former, of course, was understood in the Presbyterian sense. Sharp, being of the party of resolutioners and selected for his mediating position between Charles and the Presbyterians, was charged with duplicity and with finally betraying the latter for his own interests. At any rate, in 1661, the Scottish parliament annulled all the parliaments held since 1633, with all their proceedings, and thus totally abolished all the laws made in favor of the Presbyterian Church. The "Church of Scotland" thus became the old Episcopal Church; and Sharp, in Dec. 12, 1661, was in London consecrated archbishop of St. Andrews. With the zeal of a convert he persecuted his former allies. Invested with the title and style of primate of Scotland, he re‑erected the court of high commission in 1664, which severely punished, some even with death, those who in any way interfered with the prelatical designs, and executed nine persons after the king had required the persecutions to cease. His perfidy and cruelty led to his assassination by a band of Covenanters who encountered the prelate's carriage while lying in wait for his chief agent, Carmichael.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Life of James Sharp, Archbishop of St.
Andrews . . . first printed in 1678, to which is added, an
Account of his Death, by an Eye‑Witness. Edinburgh,
1719; The Life of Mr. James Sharp . . . to his Instal‑
ment in the Archbishoprick of St. Andrews, ib. 1719; A
True Account of the Life of . . . James Sharp, London,
1723; T. Stephen, Life and Times of Archbishop Sharp,
ib. 1839; R. Keith, Historical Catalogue of the Scottish

887
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Bishops, new ed., Edinburgh, 1824; W. M. Hetherington, Hist. of the Church of Scotland, prim, New York, 1881; W. Beveridge, Makers of the Scottish Church, passim, 1908; DNB, li. 404‑407.
SHARP, JOHN: Church of England archbishop of York; b. at Bradford (8 m. w. of Leeds), Yorkshire, Feb. 16, 1644‑45; d. at Bath Feb. 2, 1714. His father was a puritan, his mother an ardent member of the Church of England, and from both he derived corresponding elements of character. He received his education at Christ's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1663; M.A., 1667); was made deacon and priest, 1667, and soon after became tutor in the family of Sir Heneage Finch at Kensington House, in 1673 being made archdeacon of Berkshire on Finch's nomination; in 1675 he became prebendary of Norwich and incumbent of St. Bartholomew's Exchange, London, and in 1679 lecturer at St. Lawrence, Jewry, in 1675 exchanging the incumbency for the rectorship of St. Giles's‑in‑the‑Fields; in addition, in 1681 he was made dean of Norwich; named in 1686 chaplain in ordinary to King James II., he was provoked by attempts of Roman Catholies to convert his parishioners, preached two sermons which were construed as reflecting upon the king, and his chaplaincy was not allowed until 1687 ; further evidence of his independent spirit was shown by his refusal to read the declaration of indulgence of 1688, and by his prayers for King James before the prince of Orange in 1689; he became dean of Canterbury in 1689; declined to receive any of the sees of the Nonjurors (q.v.), but in 1691 became archbishop of York. In this position he showed himself an able and diligent administrator; he investigated the history and rights of the see, leaving the work in manuscript; he was active in repairing the minster after the fire of 1711, dealt with his clergy kindly but firmly, insisted upon sound and instructive preaching, and aimed to eliminate polemics against dissenters. Under Queen Anne he became still more influential, acted as her almoner, and was her counselor, showing great wisdom in this unofficial position. He was interested in the continental dispute between Lutherans and Calvinists, in this cause corresponding with Daniel Ernst Jablonski (q.v.), and the correspondence appeared in French translation and in the appendix to the Life (see below). Archbishop Sharp left the impression of being one of the great men of the Church of England, independent in 'opinion, straightforward in action, kindly in disposition, liberal in education and tastes, with numismatics as his diversion, leaving a collection of coins and a manuscript on the coinage of England as evidences, He left in print a large number of occasional sermons, as well as Fifteen Sermons Preached on Several Occasions (London, 1700; several editions). His Works appeared in 7 vols. (1754) and in 5 vols. (Oxford, 1829).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Life was written by his son Thomas, but was not printed till 1825, when it was edited by T. Newcome, and is founded upon the diary of the archbishop. Consult further: C. J. Abbey, The English Church and its Bishops, 1700‑1800, i. 103‑105, London, 1887; J. H. Overton, The Church in En,
gland, vol. ii., passim, ib. 1897; W. H. Hutton, The English Church (1686‑1714), ib. 1903; A. Plummer, English Church History, from the Death of Charles 1. to the Death of William ill., Edinburgh, 1907; DNB, li. 4088‑411.
SHARPE, SAMUEL: Egyptologist and Biblical translator; b. at London Mar. 8, 1799; d. there July 28, 1881. He was a banker, 1814‑61; and, upon retirement from business, devoted himself, without university training, to Biblical study, 1861‑81. In 1821 he turned from the Established to the Unitarian Church. He early became interested in Egyptology, and published Egyptian Inscriptions (1st and 2d series, London, 1836‑56); History of Egypt from the Earliest Times till A.D. 640 (1846; 6th ed., 2 vols., 1876). To Biblical literature he contributed The New Testament, a translation from J. J. Griesbach's text, with notes (1840; 5th ed., 1862); The Hebrew Scriptures, a revision of the authorized version of the Old Testament (3 vols., 1865); The Holy Bible (1881), a revision of the authorized English translation; and History of the Hebrew Nation, and Literature (1869).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. W. Clayden, Samuel Sharpe, Egyptologist and Translator of the Bible, London, 1883; DNB, li. 425‑427.
SHAW, JOHN BALCOM: Presbyterian; b. at Bellport, N. Y., May 12, 1860. He received his education at Lafayette College (B.A., 1885; M.A., 1888) and Union Theological Seminary, New York City (graduated 1888); was ordained to the ministry 1888, and was pastor of the West End Presbyterian Church, New York City, 1888‑1904; and has been in charge of the Second Presbyterian Church in Chicago since 1904. He has also been president of the Presbyterian Council of the Brotherhood of Andrew and Philip since 1895, besides serving on the boards of various educational institutions. He has written The Difficult Life (Chicago, 1904); Life that follows Life (1907); and Vision and Service (1907; sermons).

SHAW, WILLIAM ISAAC: Wesleyan Methodist; b. at Kingston, Canada, Apr. 6,1841; was graduated from Victoria University, Cobourg, Canada (A.B., 1861; LL.B., 1864), at McGill University, Montreal (M.A., 1880); engaged in the ministry of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Canada, 1864‑77; and in 1877 became professor of exegesis and church history in the Wesleyan Theological College, Montreal, of which he is principal. He is the author of Discussion on Retribution (Toronto, 1884); Digest of the Doctrinal Standards of the Methodist Church (1895).
SHEBA. See ARABIA, III.; and TABLE Oh THE NATIONS, § 6.

SHEBNAA (SHEBNAH): A high official in the palace of Hezekiah, mentioned in Isa. xxii. 15‑25, xxxvi. 3, 11, 22, xxxvii. 2; II Kings xviii. 18, 26, 37, xix. 2, and made the object of Isaiah's severe prophetic menace in the passage first mentioned. These eleven verses all refer to Shebna, as nearly all commentators agree; but though the text is free from corruption and the language is relatively clear, the passage is not without obscurity. While Isa. xxii. 20 sqq. refers to Eliakim, in verse 25 the prophet probably returns to Shebna. The place to be given Eliakim as Shebna's successor was plainly one of high rank, and Shebna himself was "over the house" (verse 15; cf. Gen. xli. 40; I Kings xviii. 3 sqq.), thus being, as it were, a major‑domo. He is marked

Shebna	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	388
l3hekinah
as an upstart by the triple "here" in verse 16, as
well as by the omission of his father's name; and in
the account of the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib
in 701 B.C. (Isa. xxxvi. 3,11, 22, xxxvii. 2; II Kings
xviii.18, 26, 37, xix. 2) he appears in the subordinate
position of an official scribe or mere minister, while
Eliakim occupies the rank of the highest state of
ficial. There is no reason for surprise that the very
Shebna whom the prophet had threatened with
dismissal and death in exile (Isa. xxii. 17‑19) should
accompany his superior, Eliakim, to treat with the
Assyrian envoys at Hezekiah's command, and should
even request the intercession of Isaiah (Isa. xxxvii.
2; II Kings xix. 2); and as it is improbable that
there were two high officials during the reign of
Hezekiah both of whom bore the name of Shebna,
this same man is doubtless to be understood
throughout. While it is evident from such passages
as Jer. xviii. 7 aqq. that Isaiah's menacing words,
which did not in the least constitute a formal proph
ecy, did not require a literal fulfilment, there is no
doubt that they were essentially realized in Shebna's
degradation and his replacement by Eliakim.
	Since, in Isa. xxii. 20‑21, Eliakim is described as a
servant of the Lord, and as destined to be "a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of
Judah," it would appear, by implication, that
Shebna was lacking in the fear of God and guilty of
gross oppression, thus abusing his official position;
and even were this the fault of his favorites, the evil
influence of his band of parasites would necessarily
end on his downfall. An erroneous exegesis assumes
that Isaiah accuses Eliakim of nepotism and
threatens his overthrow at the very moment of his
rise to power; but, rightly understood, the phrase
"in that day," in verses 20, 25, implies the simul
taneous nature of Eliakim's elevation and Shebna's
fall. In describing the prestige which Shebna was
to confer upon his family, Isaiah compares him to
a "nail in a sure place" (verses 23‑24), likening the
subordinate members of his house to various earthen
vessels, which would be shattered if the nail should
break. It has been maintained by B. L. Duhm (Das
Buch Jesaia iibersetzt tutd erkldrt, G6ttingen, 1892,
ad loc.) that only Isa. xxii. 15‑18 are genuine, the
remainder of the passage in question being added
later, 19‑23 by a friend of Eliakim, and 24‑25 by one
of his enemies; but the truth is that the whole pas
sage is a genuine prophecy of Isaiah, who branded
the powerful functionary at the head of the reigning
house as its disgrace (verse 18), probably on the
occasion of viewing the magnificent tomb which
Shebna had built for himself.
		A. KAMPHAUsEN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The full discussion of the subject is by A.
	Kamphausen in Zeitschrift fur Pastoral Theologie, xxiv.
	557‑573, 631‑640, Eng. transl. in AJT, 1901, pp. 43‑74;
	E. KSnig, in NXZ, 1902, pp. 621‑631.
	SHEDD, JOHN HASKELL: Missionary to
Persia; b. at Mt. Gilead, Ohio, July 9, 1833; d. at
Urumia, Persia, Apr. 12, 1895. He was the son of
the Rev. Henry Shedd, one of the pioneer home mis
sionaries in Ohio; was graduated from Marietta
College (1856) and from Andover Theological Semi
nary (1859), was ordained Aug. 3, 1859, and sailed
the same month on his way to Persia. as a mis‑
sionary of the American Board in the Nestorian Mission. He served as a missionary from 1859 to 1870 under the American Board and from 1878 to 1895 under the Presbyterian Board, to which in 1870 the work for the Nestorians was transferred. From 1872 to 1878 he was a professor in Biddle University, Charlotte, N. C. Urumia, Persia, where he died, was his home during the whole of his missionary work.
Dr. Shedd's missionary work deserves special record along four lines. On his arrival on the field as a young missionary of unusual energy and ability he was restive at the limitation of the work to the Nestorians and he sought hard to have it extended to the Armenian and Moslem population of the field. Only the sudden break‑down of another missionary prevented his opening a new station at Van, Turkey. These efforts, though not successful at the time, were among the influences that prepared for the later wide extension of the work, which has made the mission to the Nestorians a mission to Persia and given it a wider scope than yet belongs to any other of the missions to the oriental churches. Although his own work was confined mainly to the‑ Nestorians, he always planned and worked with the larger field in view. A second line was the effort to evangelize the mountain Nestorian tribes. No more difficult missionary field exists than the mountain region bounded by lines connecting Urumia, Van, Jezireh, and Mosul. Dr. Shedd was a worthy successor of Dr. Asahel Grant and the Rev. S. A. Rhea in this work. Between 1860 and 1870 he made no less than eighteen journeys through this wild and dangerous region, preaching, organizing, and planning. It would be unjust to say that these efforts resulted in failure, but the success was small. Another line of work in which Dr. Shedd's memory and influence will be lasting was the training of native workers. He always conceived of this as the primary purpose of missionary educational work, and largely for this reason he gave himself with energy from 1878 till his death to the work of Urumia College. The love and respect of his pupils for him were great and abiding. But the chief service he rendered the cause of missions was in the organization of the native Syrian Evangelical Church. In his plans and principles in this work he was ahead of his time. When a young missionary he criticized severely the policy of the mission in not placing responsibility on the natives. While averse to any violent break with the old Nestorian Church and never giving up hope of its revival, he thoroughly believed in an organized Evangelical body; and the organization of the Evangelical church provides for its complete ecclesiastical autonomy with an adapted Presbyterian government. It also provides for organized cooperation of the native church and the foreign missionaries in the work of all settled preachers and all village schools. This is carried on by executive boards of the native church, which control the work concurrently with the mission.
W . A. SHEDD.

SHEDD, WILLIAM GREENOUGH THAYER:
Presbyterian; b. at Acton, Mass., June 21, 1820; d. at New York Nov. 17, 1894. He was graduated from the University of Vermont, 1839; and from

389	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Sh
Theological Seminary, 1843; became Congregational pastor at Brandon, Vt., 1844; professor of English literature, University of Vermont, 1845; of sacred rhetoric in Auburn (Presbyterian) Theological Seminary, 1852; of church history in Andover (Congregational) Theological Seminary, 1853; associate pastor of the Brick (Presbyterian) Church, New York City, 1862; professor of Biblical literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1863‑74; and of systematic theology, 1874‑90, where he was known for the rigid logic and close compactness of his system, embodied in his Dogmatic Theology (vols. i.‑ii., Worcester, 1889; vol. iii., New York, 1894). He translated from the German of Francis Theremin, Eloquence a Virtue (New York, 1850), and H. E. F. Guericke's Manual of Church History (2 vols., Andover, 1860‑70); and wrote A History of Christian Doctrine (2 vols., New York, 1865) ; Homiletics and Pastoral Theology (1867); Sermons to the Natural Man (1871); Theological Essays (1877); Commentary on Romans (1879); Sermons to the Spiritual Man (1884); The Doctrine of Endless Punishment (1886); and Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (New York, 1893).
BIBwoGP.APHY: J. De Witt, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vi (1895), 295‑322.
SHEEHAN, PATRICK AUGUSTINE: Irish Roman Catholic; b. at Mallow (17 m. n.n.w. of Cork), County Cork, Mar. 17, 1852. He was educated at St. Colman's College, Fermoy, and at Maynooth College, and after being ordained in 1875 and being for two years attached to the mission in Exeter, was successively curate in Mallow (1877‑81, 1889‑95) and Queenstown (1881‑89). Since 1895 he has been parish priest of Doneraile, and also canon of Cloyne since 1903. He is the author of Under the Cedars and the Stars (London, 1903) and its companion volume, Parerga (1908); Marice Corona, Chapters on the Mother of God and her Saints (2d ed., Dublin, 1902); and Early Essays and Addresses (London, 1906) ; also of several novels dealing with religious themes, among them The Triumph of Failure (London, 1899), My new Curate (1900), and Luke Delmege (1902).
SHEEP. See PASTORAL LIFE, HEBREW.
SHEEPSHANKS, JOHN: Church of England retired bishop; b. in London Feb. 23, 1834. He was educated at Christ's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1856, in the 2d class of the theological tripos), and was ordered deacon 1857 and ordained priest in the following year. He was curate of Leeds (1857‑59) ; rector of New Westminster, B. C., and chaplain to the bishop of Columbia (1859‑67); vicar of Bilton, Yorkshire (1868‑73); vicar of St. Margaret Anfield, Walton‑on‑the Hill, Liverpool (1873‑93). In 1893 he was consecrated bishop of Norwich. He resigned his see in 1909. While in British Columbia, he did much missionary work among the Indians, particularly at Cariboo, and is also noteworthy as being the only English clergyman who has ever preached in the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. He has traveled extensively in Siberia and Tibet, and at Urga saw the adoration of the Llama of Mongolia. He has writted Confirmation and Unction of the .Sick (London, 1889); Eucharist and Confession (1902);
My Life in Mongolia and Siberia (1903); and The Pastor in his Parish (1908).
BmmooHAPHY: D. W. Duthie, A Bishop in the Rough, London, 1909 (relates his experiences in British Columbia).
SHEBINAH, she‑kai'nn (Talmudic Hebr., "abiding [of the divine presence]"): A post‑Biblical term to express the relation of Yahweh to the world, and especially to Israel. The concept, based on the Old Testament, arose among the Palestinian and Babylonian Jews, who stressed the immanent activity of God, as opposed to the Alexandrine doctrine of a supramundane and extramundane deity. In the Targums the expressions "shekinah of Yahweh," "glory of Yahweh," and "word of Yahweh" are synonymous, and "shekinah," "glory," and "word" come to be designations of Yahweh himself. The shekinah itself is generally regarded as "resting" or " dwelling," so that the Targum of Onkelos interprets "God shall dwell in the tents of Shem" (Gen. ix. 27) as " God shall make his shekinah to dwell in the tents of Shem" (cf. the Targum on Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45; Num. v. 3, xi. 20, xiv. 14, xvi. 3, xxxv. 34; Deut. i. 42, xxxii. 10; Ps. xvi. 8, xliv. 10, lxxiv. 2; Hag. i. 8); but it is also said "to depart" (as in the Targum on Ex. xxxiii. 3, 5; Job xxxiv. 29; Ps. xxii. 25, xxvii. 91, xxxix. 47), "to pass by" (Ex. xxxiv. 6), "to walk" (Deut. xxiii. 14), and "to be" or "not to be" (Ex. xvii. 7; Num. xiv. 42; Deut. iv. 39). In all these passages "shekinah" stands for "Yahweh," but in other places it represents "name" (Deut. xii. 5, 11, 21), "face" (Num. vi. 25; Deut. xxxi. 17‑18), and "hand" (Ex. xvii. 16). It is clear, moreover, that Onkelos did not regard the shekinah as an independent entity between Yahweh and Israel but as a name for Yahweh himself (cf. his Targum on Ex. xxxiii. 14‑16, xxxiv. 9).
Talmudic and Midrashic literature gives far more material on the activity of the shekinah than does the Targum, though in all the concept of the ahekinah is the same. From the day of the erection of the tabernacle, the shekinah dwelt within, this concept of its descending and abiding doubtless being derived from the Babylonian idea of a divinity enthroned in the adytum, thus taking up its abode there for adoration, but returning, if angered, to the sky, a trait also assigned to the shekinah. After the conquest of Canaan the shekinah moved wherever the tabernacle went, finally abiding in the temple built by David and Solomon, in which it rested at the east end. At the exile it went, according to some, with the deported Jews, but according to others, returned to heaven; at all events, like the ark of the covenant, the Urim and Thummim, etc., it was not in the second temple. Nevertheless, its immanent activity in the world did not cease, so that such scholars as Ishmael hen Elisha (first century) and Hoshaiah Rabbah (early third century) could say that "the shekinah is in every place."
While the interrelation of the shekinah and mankind is represented in manifold ways, it may be said, in general, that the impious make the shekinah withdraw from earth, but the pious secure its return. Prayer, piety, worship, study of the law, perfect administration of justice, practise of virtue, and blameless joyousness bring the shekinah near, but it flees from sorrow, idleness, laughter, frivolity,

Shekinah	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	390
Sherlock
jesting, pride, and things of no account. On the
other hand, it abides with the sick and with those
happily wedded. The shekinah, which is symbolized
by the lighting of the perpetual lamp, is regarded
as possessed of wings, so that "Moses was, from his
birth, under the wings of the shekinah." This would
apparently imply a figure somewhat like that of
the cherubim and genii, and a face and radiance are
also ascribed to the shekinah.
	Later Midrashic literature makes the shekinah an
independent entity standing between God and the
world, so that the shekinah can even be said to "go
to the presence of God," a view frequently ex
pressed in Cabalistic literature, as well as by Mai
monides and his school. The view of Maimonides,
however, that the shekinah, like the "glory" and
the "word," was a fiery created being which com
municates the divine activity to the world, was
combated by Nahmanides. Among the pseudo
Messiahs of the Jews, Shabbethai Zebi declared him
self to be the incarnate shekinah. In the New
Testament the shekinah is not mentioned, although
Christ may be identified with it in Matt. xviii. 20.
		(AUGUST WtYNSCHE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. F. Gfr6rer, Oeschichte des Urchriden
	thums, i. 272‑352, Stuttgart, 1838; J. Langen, Juden
	thum in Paldstina zur Zeit Christi, pp. 201 aqq., Freiburg,
	1888; S. Maybaum, Anthropomorphien and Anthropopa
	thien, Breslau, 1870; C. C. W. F. Bahr, SUmbolik des
	mosaischen Cuttue, i. 471 sqq., Heidelberg, 1874; F.
	Weber, Jitdische Theologie, Leipsic, 1897; G. Dahnan,
	Die Worte Jesu, vol. i., Leipsie, 1898; W. Bousset, Re
	ligion des Judenthume im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, pp.
	309 sqq., 340, Berlin, 1903; A. B. Davidson, Old 7'eesta
	ment Prophecy, pp. 148, 220, Edinburgh, 1903; DD. iv.
	487‑489; JE, xi. 258‑280.
	SHELDON, CHARLES MONROE: Congrega
tionalist; b. at W ellsville, N. Y., Feb. 26, 1857. He
was graduated from Brown University (A.B., 1883)
and Andover Theological Seminary (1886). He was
pastor of the Congregational Church at Waterbury,
Vt. (1886‑89); and since 1889 has been pastor of
the Central Congregational Church, Topeka, Kan.
He states that practically his whole theological
position centers about the attempt to put into
practise the creed of Christ. He has written Richard
Bruce: or, The Life that now is (Boston, 1892);
Robert Hardy's Seven Days (1893); The Twentieth
Door (1893); The Crucifixion of Philip Strong
(Chicago, 1894); John King's Question Class (1894);
His Brother's Keeper: or Christian Stewardship (Bos
ton, 1895); In His Steps (Chicago, 1896); Malcolm
Kirk (1897); Lend a Hand (1899); The Redemption
of Freetown (1898); The Miracle at Markham (1898);
One of the Two (1898); For Christ and the Church
(1899); Edward Blake (1899); Born to Serve (1900);
The Reformer (1902); The Heart of the World (1905);
and Paul Douglas, Journalist (1909).
	SHELDON, GILBERT: Church of England arch
bishop of Canterbury; b. at Ashbourn (13 m. n.w. of
Derby) July 19, 1598; d. at Lambeth Nov. 9, 1677;
He studied at Trinity College, Oxford (B.A., 1617;
M.A., 1620; fellow of All Souls', 1622; B.D., 1628
D.D., 1634) ; was ordained in 1622, almost immedi
ately becoming domestic chaplain to Thomas, Lord
Coventry; was made prebendary of Gloucester,
1632; vicar of Hackney, 1633; rector of Oddington,
Oxford, and of Ickford, Buckingham, 1636; rector of Newington, Oxford, 1639, having been meanwhile warden of All Souls' College since 1626, of which he was in 1634 and 1640 pro‑vicechancellor. He was a strong anti‑Puritan, and was ejected from his wardenship by the Parliamentary visitors in 169.8, being imprisoned for resisting the attempt to take his lodgings, but recovered the office in 1659. During the exile of Charles lI., Sheldon was constant in his efforts in favor of Charles, and on the Restoration was naturally in high favor. In 1660 he was made bishop of London, and the Savoy Conference (q.v.) was held at his lodging; in 1663 he became archbishop of Canterbury. Although he was elected chancellor of Oxford University in 1667, he was not installed, and resigned 1669. He built and endowed the Sheldonian theater at Oxford. His career as bishop was one of great fidelity to duty. Most marked were his benefactions, both to the poor and in behalf of public interests, as in the case of his subscription to the rebuilding of St. Paul's after the fire of London. His total benefactions were said to have exceeded £72,000‑an enormous sum for those times. He was devoted to the antiquities of the university, and in particular was a patron of the historian of Oxford, Anthony A6 Wood. The only published work left by him is a sermon before the king June 20, 1660, though a considerable body of manuscripts is extant.
Br8LI00SAPRY: A. a Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, vol. iv., London, 1820; M. Burrows, Worthies of All Souls', London, 1874; G. C. Brodrick, Memorials of Merton College, Oxford, 1885; W. H. Hutton, The English Church (18.26‑1714), pp. 197‑198 et passim, London, 1903; A. Plummer, English Church History (1848‑‑170.2). pp. 64, 70‑71, Edinburgh, 1907; DNB, Iii. 24‑26.
SHELDON, HENRY CLAY: Methodist Episcopalian; b. at Martinsburg, N. Y., Mar. 12, 1845. He was graduated from Yale (A.B., 1867), and the Theological .School of Boston University (1871). After studying at Leipsic in 1874‑75, he was professor of historical theology in Boston University until 1895, when he was transferred to his present position of professor of systematic theology. In theology he inclines toward evangelical Arminianism, as opposed both to strict Calvinism and to liberalism. He has written History of Christian Doctrine (2 vols., New York, 1886); History of the Christian Church (5 vols., 1894) ; System of Christian Doctrine (1903); Unbelief in the Nineteenth Century (1907); Sacerdotalism in the Nineteenth Century (1909); and New Testament Theology (1911).
SHEM, SHEMITES. See TABLE OF THE NATIONS.
SHEMAIAH, sbe‑m6'ya or shem"a‑ni'd: A name of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament. The most important men who bore it were:
1. A prophet of the time of Rehoboam (I Kings xii. 21‑24), who forbade that king to enter upon a war with the ten tribes who had established the northern kingdom. The passage belongs to a late stratum of the Books of Kings, and the parallel (II Chron. xi.‑xii.) adds midrasbic material concerning Shemaiah in which the prophet regards the attack of Shishak as a consequence of the sins of Judah. To this prophet is attributed a history of the reign of Rehoboam (I1 Chron. xii. 15), ‑upon

891	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	SBuNnah
herloak
which presumably the Chronicler drew. The statement is not improbable, and the author of the Books of Kings notes the existence of such books as materials from which he drew; the possibility of the existence and activity of such a person in the time of Rehoboam is granted, and much of the material dealing with the end of the period of the Judges and with the beginning of the kingdom goes back to this time.
2. An opponent of Jeremiah living among the exiles, who sent a letter to Zephaniah the priest at Jerusalem blaming Jeremiah for advising the exiles to prepare for a considerable stay in Babylonia (Jer. xxix. 24 sqq.). Jeremiah declared Shemaiah to be a lying prophet and predicted his punishment and the destruction of his house.
8. An opponent of Nehemiah (Neh. vi. 10 aqq.), also a prophet and an associate of Sanballat (q.v.). He attempted to lead Nehemiah into a cowardly course so as to discredit him with the people.
(R. KITTEL.)
SHEOL. See HADES.
SHEPARD, THOMAS: Puritan; b. at Towcester (59 m. n.w. of London), Northampton, Eng., Nov. 5, 1604; d. at Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 25, 1649. He graduated at Emmanuel College, Oxford (B.A.,1623; M.A., 1627); was lecturer at Earl's Coln, 1627‑30; was silenced for non‑conformity by Laud, Dec. 16, 1630; became lecturer at Towcester; was employed as chaplain and tutor in the family of Sir Richard Darly, Buttercrambe, Yorkshire, for a year; was pastor at Heddon, Northumberland, another year, but was again silenced, 1633; and sailed for America, Dec., 1634, but was compelled by a storm to put back. He had to hide himself lest he should be taken, but finally, July, 1635, got away, and landed at Boston, on Oct. 3, and became minister at Cambridge, Feb., 1636, till his death. He took an active part in founding Harvard College and secured its location at Cambridge, and was prominent in the synod at Cambridge which ended the Antinomian controversy. In learning, piety, spiritual insight, and practical force he takes a first rank among Puritan divines; especially exemplified in his treatise, The Parable of the Ten Virgins Opened and Applied (1659; reprinted Aberdeen, 1838 and 1853, with biographical preface by J. Foote). In all he is said to have written 382 books and pamphlets, among which were New Englands Lamentation for Old Englanuls Present Errours and Divisions (1645); Certain Select Cases Resolved (1648); The Clear Sunshine of the Gospel Breaking Forth upon the Indians in New England (1646; reprinted, New York, 1865) ; and Theses Sabbaticte (1649). A collective edition of his works, with memoir by J. A. Albro (originally published Boston, 1847, reproduced in Lives of the Chief Fathers of New England, vol. iv., Boston, 1870), was published (3 vols., Boston, 1853). His Autobiography was published in Alexander Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of Massachusetts Bay (Boston, 1846).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the Autobiography and the memoir by Albro, ut sup.. consult: A. Whyte, Thomas Shepard;
Pilgrim Father and Founder of Harvard. His Spiritual
Experience and Experimental Preaching, Edinburgh, 1909;
Cotton Mather, Magnalia, i. 380 sqq.. Hartford, 1855:
W. B. Sprague. Annals of the American Pulpit, i. b9‑88. New York, 1859; W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, ib. 1893; idem, Ten New England Leaders. ib. 1901; A. E. Dunning, Congregationalists in America, ib. 1894; DNB, lii. 50‑51.
SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. See HERMAS.
SHEPHERDS. See PASTORAL LIFE, HEBREW, III.
SHERATON, JAMES PATERSON: Canadian Anglican; b. at St. John, N. B., Nov. 29, 1841; d. in Toronto Jan. 24, 1906. He was educated at the University of New Brunswick (A.B., 1862), and received his theological training at the University of King's College, Windsor, N. S., and privately with the bishop of Fredericton. He was ordered deacon in 1864 and ordained priest in the following year. After being a missionary at Weldford, Shediac, and Petersville, N. B., successively (1865‑73), he was rector of St. James', Pictou, N. S. (1874‑77). From 1877 till his death he was principal and professor of Biblical and systematic theology in Wycliffe College, Toronto, and after 1889 honorary canon of St. Alban's Cathedral, Toronto.
SHERLOCK, RICHARD: Church of England; b. at Oxton, a township on the peninsula of Wirral (s.w. of Liverpool), Cheshire, Nov. 11, 1612; d. at Winwick (17 m. e. of Liverpool), Lancashire, June 20, 1689. He was educated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, and Trinity College, Dublin (M.A., 1633). Until 1641 he was minister of small parishes in Ireland; and proceeded to Oxford where he was chaplain of the garrison and of New College, 1644‑48. He was expelled thence, 1648, and ejected from the curacy of Cassington, 1652, owing to his stanch Anglican loyalism; became private chaplain, 16521662; and, with the Restoration, rector of Winwick, 1662‑89. In controversy with the Friends he pubished The Quakers Wilde Questions Objected against the Ministers of the Gospel and many Sacred (lifts and Offices of Religion, with Brief Answers thereto. Together with a Discourse of the Holy Spirit, his Impressions and Workings on the Souls of Men (London, 1854). His main work was Mercurius Christianus; the Practical Christian, a Treatise Explaining the Duty of Self‑Examination (1673 and often; the 6th ed., including a biography by his nephew, Thomas Wilson, 1713; 7th ed., 2 vols., Oxford, 1841‑44).
BmLIoaRAPHY: Consult, besides the life by Wilson, ut sup.: T. D. Whitaker, History of Richmondehire, 2 vols., London, 1823; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, 2 vols., ib. 1897; DNB, Iii. 92‑93.
SHERLOCK, THOMAS: Church of England, son of William Sberlock; b. at London in 1678; d. there July 18, 1761. He was educated at Cambridge (B.A.,1697; M.A., 1701); was master of the Temple, 1704‑53; became prebendary of St. Paul's, 1713; was master of St. Catherine's Hall, 1714‑19; became dean of Chichester, 1715; canon of Norwich, 1719; bishop of Bangor, 1727; of Salisbury, 1734; and of London, 1748. The Use and Intent of Prophecy (London, 1725) was a compendium of six sermons against the Deists; his most famous work was The Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus (1729, and often). Besides this may be noted

Sherlock	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	399
his Discourses Preached at Temple Church (4 vols., 1754‑97; 6th ed., 5 vols., 1772‑75).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Nieolls, A Sermon Preached . on the Death of Dr. T. Sherlock, London, 1762; D. S. Wayland, A Biographical Sketch of Bishop Sherlock, Derby, 1823; L. Stephen, Hist. of English Thought in the 18th Century, passim, 2 vols., New York, 1881 (very full and worth consulting); J. H. Overton, The Church in England, 2 vols., London, 1897; J. H. Overton and F. Relton, The English Church (171/,‑1800), ib. 1906; DNB, Iii. 93‑95.
SHERLOCK, WILLIAM: Church of England; b. at Southwark, London, about 1641; d. at Hampstead, London, June 19, 1707. He was educated at Peterhouse, Cambridge (B.A., 1660; M.A., 1663); became rector of St. George's, Botolph Lane, London, 1669, where he gained fame as a preacher and attracted attention by his opposition to the Puritans and their theology. In 1681 he became prebendary at St. Paul's; was lecturer at St. Dunstan's‑in‑theWest; became master of the Temple in 1685; dean of St. Paul's, 1691; and rector of Therfield, Hertfordshire, 1698. Contending under James II. for the doctrine of the divine right and passive obedience, Case of Resistance (London, 1684), he at first refused the oath at the Revolution, but desisted from non‑juring, 1690. His most popular work was A Practical Discourse concerning Death (1689; 28th ed., 1767). With A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever‑blessed Trinity (1690), he plunged into the Socinian controversy of the time. His position, that in the three persons of the Trinity there was what may be called "a mutual selfconsciousness, a consciousness common to the three," and that therefore the three are essentially and numerically one, brought upon him the irony and invective of Robert South (q.v.), and the charge of tritheism from the Socinians. Among his numerous other publications, practical and controversial, the most frequently republished are, A Discourse concerning a Future Judgment (1692), and A Discourse concerning the Divine Providence (1694). The British Museum Catalogue devotes over eight pages to his works and the editions of them, and to the replies, satires, and controversial pamphlets they evoked.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, i. 214‑215, London, 1850; J. Hunt, Religious Thought in England, 3 vols., ib. 1870‑73; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, 2 vols., ib. 1897; W. H. Hutton, The Bnglieh Church (16.86‑1714,), ib. 1903; J. H. Overton and F. Relton, The English Church (1714‑1800), ib. 1906; DNB, Iii. 95‑97.
SHERWOOD, JAMES MANNING: Presbyterian; b. at Fishkill, N. Y., Sept. 29, 1814; d. at Brooklyn, N. Y., Oct. 22, 1890. He was educated mainly by private tutors; was pastor at New Windsor, N. Y., 1835‑44; Mendon, N. Y., 1840‑45; Bloomfield, N. J., 1852‑58; editor of National Preacher, 1846‑49; Biblical Repository, 1847‑51; Eclectic Magazine, 1864‑71; founder and editor of Hours at Home, 1865‑69; editor Presbyterian Review, 1863‑71; Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, 18721878; Homiletic Review, from Sept., 1883; also of the Missionary Review. He was extensively engaged as a reader of manuscripts for publishing houses, and critically noticed for the press several thousand volumes, chiefly in the reviews of the country. He was the author of Plea for the Old
Foundations (New York, 1856); The Lamb in the Midst of the Throne (1883); editor of Memoirs, and two volumes of Sermons of Ichabod Spencer (1855); David Brainerd's Memoirs, with notes and estimation of his life and character (1884).

SHIELDS, CHARLES WOODRUFF: Educator and author; b. at New Albany, Ind., Apr. 4, 1825; d. at Newport, R. I., Apr. 26, 1904. He was graduated from the College of New Jersey, 1844; and from Princeton Theological Seminary, 1847; became pastor at Hempstead, Long Island, 1849; of Second Church, Philadelphia, 1850; professor of harmony of science and revealed religion in the College of New Jersey, 1866; and, in addition, professor of modern history, 1871, which professorship he soon resigned. His appointment to the professorship of the harmony of science and religion, the first of its kind, was occasioned by the publication of PhiZosophia Ultima (see below), in which he expounded an academic scheme of irenical studies for the reconciliation of religion and science. In his lectures and writings he stood for the restoration of theology, as a science of religion, to its true philosophical position in a university system of culture, as distinguished from the clerical or sectarian system of education, and the placing of philosophy as an umpire between science and religion as embracing without invading their distinct provinces. This view was set forth in Religion and Science in their Relation to Philosophy (New York, 1875). The final philosophy, or science of sciences to come, is to be reached inductively from the collective intelligence of men working through successive generations, Philosophia Ultima (Philadelphia, 1861; rev. and enlarged ed., Vol. i., Historical and Critical Introduction on the Final Philosophy as Issuing from the Harmony of Science and Religion; Vol. ii., History of the Sciences and the Logic of the Sciences; Vol. iii., Scientific Problems of Religion and the Christian Evidences of the Physical and Psychical Sciences, New York, 1905). As a Presbyterian he was an earnest advocate of the restoration of the Presbyterian prayer‑book of 1661 for optional use by ministers and congregations, and published The Book of Common Prayer as Amended by the Presbyterian Divines (Philadelphia, 1864), with an appendix entitled Liturgia Expurgate (1864). His irenicism also contemplated a church unity on a liturgical basis, looking toward an ultimate organic reunion of Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and Episcopalianism in what he termed the American Protestant Catholic Church. His writings on this theme created intense interest: Essays on Christian Unity (1885) ; The Historic Episcopate (New York, 1894); The United Church of the United States (1895); and Church Unity (1896). In 1898 he took orders in the Protestant Episcopal Church.
SHINAR. See BABYLONIA, I.

SHINTO. See JAPAN, II., 1.
SHIPLEY, ORBY: Roman Catholic; b. at Twyford House (9 m. n.e. of Southampton) July 1, 1832. He received his education at Jesus College, Cambridge (B.A., 1854; M.A., 1857); entered the ministry of the Church of England, in

398	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Sherlock
		6hnehan
which he remained until 1878, when he was received
into the Roman Catholic Church. He has been a
prolific literary worker, being especially interested in
devotional literature and in religious poetry. Thus
he has edited Luis of Granada's Counsels on Holiness
of Life (London, 1862); J. B. E. Avrillon's Euehar
istie Meditations for a Month (1862) and Avrillon on
the Holy Spirit (1866); D. Bourdaloue's Spiritual
Exercises (1868); A. de Guevara's Mysteries of
Mount Calvary (1868); A. Stafford's Life of the
Blessed Virgin (1869); Ignatius of Loyola's Spiri
tual Exercises (1870); and T. Carre's Sweet Thoughts
of Jesus and Mary (1889). Of liturgical works he
has edited, among others, Eucharistic Litanies, from
Ancient Sources (1860), The Daily Sacrifice (1861),
and The Divine Liturgy (1863), combining these in
one (1868); The Liturgies of 164.9 and 1662 (1868);
and The Ritual of the Altar (1870). In religious poet
ry he has edited Lyra Eucharistica (1863); Lyra
Messianica (1864); Lyra Mystica (1865); Annus
Sanctus (1884); and Carmina Mariana (2 vols.,
1893‑1902). In the way of collections of essays he
has put forth The Church and the World (3 vols.,
1866‑68); Tracts for the Day (1867); A Glossary of
Ecclesiastical Terms (1872); Ecclesiastical Reform
(1873); Studies in Modern Problems (1874); and
Truthfulness and Ritualism (1879‑$0). Independ
ently he has published Six Short Sermons on Sin
(1867); Four Cardinal Virtues (1871); Secular
Judgments in Spiritual Matters (1871); A Theory
about Sin in Relation to Some Facts of Daily Life
(1875); and Principles of the Faith (1879).
	SHIPP, ALBERT MICAJAH: Methodist Epis
copal (South); b. in Stokes County, N. C., Jan. 15,
1819; d. at his home in Marlboro County, S. C., near
Cheraw, June 27, 1887. He was graduated from
the University of North Carolina, 1840; entered the
ministry, 1841; became president of Greenborough
Female College, N. C., 1847; professor of history and
French in the University of North Carolina, 1849;
president of W offord College, Spartanburg Court
House, S. C., 1859; professor of exegetical and
Biblical theology in Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
Tenn., 1874; and dean of the theological faculty, and
vice‑chancellor of the university, 1882. He origi
nated the policy of Biblical chairs for teaching the
Bible to the whole body of students in all Methodist
institutions of learning, and was one of the first
advocates of Biblical institutes for the education
of preachers for the Methodist Episcopal Church
(South). He wrote The History of Methodism in
South Carolina (Nashville, 1882).
	SHISHAg. See EGYPT, I. 3, § 3; JEROBOAM;
and REHOBOAM.
	SHORE, THOMAS TEIGNMOUTH: Church of
England; b. at Dublin Dec. 28, 1841. He was
educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1861),
and was ordered deacon in 1865 and ordained priest
in 1866. He was curate of St. Jude's, Chelsea (1865
1867), St. Paul's, Kensington (1867‑69), and St.
Peter's, Vere Street, London (1869‑70), and in
cumbent of St. Mildred's, Lee (1870‑73), and of
Berkeley Chapel, Mayfair, London (1873‑90).
Since 1901 he has been canon of Worcester Cathedral.
He was honorary chaplain to the Queen in 1878‑81
and chaplain in ordinary in 1881‑1901, and since 1901 he has been chaplain in ordinary to the king. He was religious instructor to the three daughters of King Edward VII. In theology he is a Broad churchman of the type of Maurice (whose curate he was at St. Peter's) and Kingsley. He has written Some Difculties of Belief (London, 1877); The Life of the World to Come (1878); St. George for England (1882); Worcester Cathedral (1899); and Auricular Confession and the Church of England (1899), besides preparing the volume on I Corinthians for Bishop Ellicott's Commentary (1883) and on Prayer for the series of Helps to Belief (1886), of which he is the editor.
SHORTHAND AND CHURCH HISTORY. See STENOGRAPHY.
SHOWBREAD. See TEMPLE.
SHUCKFORD, SAMUEL: Church of England; b. at Norwich about 1694; d. at London July 14, 1754. He was educated at Caius College, Cambridge (B.A., 1716; M.A., 1720); was curate of Shelton, Norfolk, 1722‑46; prebendary of Canterbury, from 1738; and rector of Allhallows, Lombard Street, London. He was the author of the famous work, The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected from the Creation of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire at the Death of Sardanapalus, and to the Declension of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel under the Reigns of Ahaz and Pekah (2 vols., 1727; rev. ed. by J. T. Wheeler, 2 vols., London, 1858). This was intended to supplement Humphrey Prideaux's Connection, but was finished only to the death of Joshua.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, Iii. 168, where references are given
to scattered notices.
SHUEY, shu'i, WILLIAM JOHN: United Brethren in Christ; b. at Miamisburg, O., Feb. 9, 1827. He was educated at the academy, Springfield, O.; was pastor at Lewisburg, O., 1849‑51, Cincinnati, 1851‑59; Dayton, O., 1860‑62; presiding elder, 1862‑64; and a member of the publishing house at Dayton, O., 1864‑97, retiring in the last‑named year. In 1855 he was engaged in the planting of a mission near Freetown, Sierra Leone, on the West Coast of Africa.
SHUSHAN: The Biblical name for the place now known as Sus or Shush in southwest Persia, anciently the capital of Elam, east of Babylonia. The Septuagint form of the name is Sousa, agreeing with the ordinary name Susa, Elamitic Shushun, Assyr. Shushan. The Greeks called the country of which it is the capital Susiana, and in the time of Herodotus (Rawlinson's Herodotus, i. 679, New York, 1875) it was called Kissia. Descendants, apparently of the inhabitants of Shushan, who had been transported to Samaria by the Assyrian king, are spoken of as Susanchites (Ezra iv. 19). The city is said to have been situated either on the river Ulseus (Dan. viii. 2; cf. Pliny vi. 27) or the Choaspes or Kherka (Herodotus, v. 49). Disputes about the location with reference to these rivers would probably be solved were the canal system: of the early period well known. The Choaspes forked twenty miles above Susa, but connecting canals probably

Shushan
Sibel	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	394
ran so as to make reconcilable the variant accounts of its location. The ruins which mark the site are located in 490 48' east longitude and 320 10' north latitude.
Mention of the city possibly appears as early as c. 2400 B.c. under the name Sas, 3isa, or Susun (probably meaning " the old " city, which suggests that it was already a place of considerable antiquity). In 2275 (if the report of Asshurbanipal be accepted) its king Kudur‑nanhundi invaded Babylon and carried away from Erech a statue of the goddess Nana (Ishtar; see BABYLONIA, VI., 1, 1 1). In the period of their era of conquests the Assyrians repeatedly invaded Elam, and about 640 Asshurbanipal captured the city, recovered the image which (as he says) was carried away 1,635 years earlier, removed an immense treasure, and transplanted some of the people to Samaria. Under the Persian rule it became the winter residence, perhaps the chief capital, of the Achmmenides (cf. Xenophon, Cyropadia, VIII., vi. 22; Herodotus, iii. 30, 65, 70). The plot of the book of Esther is laid there in this period, and the story implies the presence of large numbers of Jews. Alexander took the city in 330, and is said to have found gold and silver amounting in value to sixty million dollars, together with great treasures in art, including the Praxitelean bronze statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton, liberators of Athens. Under the SeleucidEe (q.v.) the city lost importance, which it regained to some extent during the later reigns of the Arsacidae down to 226 A.D. Then it declined, and was taken by the Mohammedans in 640. It practically disappeared from history after this and was heard of only at intervals.
The era of exploration was opened by W. K. Loftus in 1852, when trenches were dug, trilingual inscriptions of Artaxerxes Mnemon found at the base of certain columns bearing the names of three kings named Artaxerxes, and of Darius, as well as the divine names Ahuramazda, Anaitis, and Mithra. Marcel Dieulafoy in 1885 was enabled to reopen excavations there through the aid of a French physician at the Persian court and under the protection of the French government. This series of exploration resulted in the uncovering of part of the palace and other structures, and in settling the topographical details of the city. Other results were the recovery of features of art and architecture of great beauty and uniqueness, including the pillars with capitals of bulls' heads, three great porticoes and the hall of columns, the frieze of lions, and that of archers now in the Louvre. The still later exploration under J. de Morgan resulted (1901‑02) in the discovery of the now famous Code of Hammurabi (see HAMMURABI AND HIS CODE).
BIBLTOGRAPHY: w. K. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana, pp. 343 sqq., London and New .York, 1857; F. Delitzsch, Wo lag das ParadiesP Leipsic. 1881; Mme. Jane Dieulafoy, La Perae, la Chald€e, et is Suaiane, Paris, 1887; M. Dieulafoy, L'Art antique de la Perse. Paris, 1889; idem, L'Acropole de la Suse, ib. 1890; J. F. MeCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, i. 125‑128, ii. 371‑372. 385, New York, 1898; J. de Morgan, D,Iepation en Perse, vol. ii., Paris, 1901; B. T. Evetts, New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land, chap. ix., New York, n. d.; and Rawlinson's Herodotua (consult the Index).
SIAM AND LAOS: The kingdom of Siam includes an irregular stretch of territory in southeastern Asia, bounded by British Burma on the west, the French colonies of Cambodia, Anam, and Tonking on the northeast, and extending through more than half of the Malay peninsula to the south. The area is estimated at about 195,000 square miles, and the general physical features of the country include a rough upland in the north and two river valleys between high mountain ranges extending toward the south. The rainfall is abundant, and in their lower portions the rivers traverse immense alluvial plains which are to a considerable degree overflowed during a portion of the year, resulting in great fertility of the soil. The streams are only measurably navigable inasmuch as they are frequently broken by rapids. The climate is tropical, though less torrid than that of South India, and the year is divided into two seasons of about equal length, the rainy season extending from May to October, and the dry season covering the rest of the year.
The population is estimated at about 4,686,846, and belongs chiefly to the Shan race, about 1,000,000 being Chinese, Burmese, and others. The Shan population again is divided between the Siamese, occupying the southern portion of the kingdom, and the Laos, who are found in the north or hill country. The Siamese are the more polished and agreeable in manners, the Laos the more uncultured, but more sturdy and virile. The government is an absolute monarchy, although under the late king, Chulalongkorn, it became noted for its liberality and sympathy with aggressive modern improvements. Like other Asiatic countries, Siam has suffered from the aggression of European powers. The western coast was surrendered to the Burmese and subsequently to England. The French colonies on the east encroached gradually upon the territory of the Mekong river until it became a question whether the kingdom would continue intact. At present the entire kingdom is practically divided up between England and France, in so‑called spheres of influence, England holding the general control of the northern Malay peninsula of the territory bordering on Burma, while France claims a corresponding influence along the whole valley of the Mekong.
There are few‑ cities of importance, Bankok, the capital, being practically the only one widely known. The dominant religion, especially in the southern section, is Buddhism, and it is claimed to be the purest form of that faith except perhaps that in Ceylon. In no other country is it so completely identified with the life of the people. There is scarcely a family but is represented by at least one member in the priesthood, and not only its ceremonies but the social life and pleasures are under the control or auspices of the temples, while monasteries and pagodas with their vast number of priests are in evidence on every hand. In a measurable degree throughout Siam proper, and especially in the hill country to the north, demon worship is prevalent, a form of the Shamanism which is found throughout Asia and Africa. While brutal, especially in its terrifying power and in its relation to disease, it is not as fatal to vigor of life and thought as the Buddhism of the southern portion, and a more easily overcome

395
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
by Christian influences, particularly as they approach it through the medium of medical aid.
	The first missionary effort in Siam was in 1828,
when Dr. Karl Friedrich August Gutzlaff (d.1851) of
the Netherlands Missionary Society visited Bankok
with the special purpose of seeking an entrance to
China. Through his representations, David Abeel of
the American Board came to that city in 1830, but
the first effective work was done by Dr. Daniel
Beach Bradley, Rev. Jesse Caswell of the American
Board, and Rev. William Dean of the American
Baptist Missionary Union.	Dean's work, chiefly
among the Chinese, Dr. Bradley's medical work, and
	paaticularly t4 e influence of Mr. Caswell, who was
	appointed by the king as tutor of his son, the late
	king of Siam, laid the foundation of the successful
	labors of succeeding years when the Presbyterian
	Board in 1848 entered the country and the American
	Board withdrew, preferring to put its strength into
	other fields. The early work was not productive of
	specific results, and it was not until 1859 that the
	first convert was baptized. Three years later a new
	station was opened to the south at Petchaburee,
	and shortly after a tour of exploration into the Laos
	states resulted in the establishment, in 1867, of
	mission work at Chieng Mai on the river MePing,
	about 500 miles north of Bankok. From the be
	ginning this work gave promise of great success, and
	numerous stations have been established. Medical.
	work was begun in 1875, and three years later a
	boarding‑school for girls was opened, and one for
	boys in 1888. As the work among the distinctively
	Siamese Laos tribes has progressed, there has come
	to be a feeling that through them the Shan tribes to
	the east and north might probably be reached.
	Under French law no missionary effort can be car
	ried on in the province of Tonking, but the members
	of the Laos churches, as they cross the border for
	business, are constantly coming into relations with
	the people and are carrying the Gospel in much
	the same way as the Christians did in the first cen
	tury. Of late years the work in Siam proper has
	taken a new start and has met with greater success.
	A considerable amount of shore work is done by
	means of a vessel that touches at the different ports
	on the extended coast line, and from these points
	into the interior the influences are rapidly spreading.
One peculiarity of the mission work in this kingdom is that it is entirely under the care of one organization, the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. There is thus not only a unity which is lacking in other fields, but a freedom from intervention and disintegrating influences. The statistics of the work for the year 1908‑09 are as follows: Siam: Stations, 7; missionaries, 37 (10 ordained, 6 medical, 1 lay, 14 married women, 6 single women); native helpers, 41 (1 ordained preacher); churches, 9; communicants, 580; schools, 8; pupils, 660; in Sundayschools, 805; contributions, $24,225. Laos: stations, 5; missionaries, 47 (I6 ordained, 7 medical, 20 married women, 4 single women); native helpers, 92 (5 ordained preachers); churches, 18; communicants, 3,494 ; schools, 27; pupils, 781; in Sundayschools, 2,843; contributions (incomplete), $11,369. Total: stations, 12; missionaries, 84; native helpers,
Shushan Bibel
133; churches, 27; communicants, 4,074; schools,
35; pupils, 1,441; in Sunday‑schools, 3,648; con
tributions, $35,594.	EnwIN M. BLIss.
Modern exploration shows that the Shan race has spread in China in the province of Yunnan northward as far as 25a north latitude, westward as far as the Selwin River, and as far eastward as the province of Kwantung. So that over an area of 400,000 square miles the predominant element of the population is Laos. This involves the fact that on a most conservative estimate five millions of Laos are living in southern China, and raises the total of the race to about twelve millions using the Laos language. This fact is of importance for the diffusion of Christian literature in that tongue.
BIBmooRAPHY: E. Young, The Kingdom of the Yellow Robe: Sketches of the domestic and religious Rites of the Siamese, London, 1898; P. A. Thompson, Lotus Land; Account of the Country and the People of Southern Siam, ib. 1908; C. Gutzlaff, Ausfahrlicher Bericht von winem dreiiahripen Aufenthalt in Siam, Elberfeld, 1838; J. B. Pallegoix, Description du royaume Thai ou Siam, 2 vols., Paris, 1854,; Sir John Bowring, Kingdom and People of Siam, 2 vols., London, 1857; Mrs. F. R. Feudge, Eastern Side; or, missionary Life in Siam, Philadelphia, 1871; B. Taylor, Siam, New York, 1881; Siam and Laos as Seen by our American Missionaries, Philadelphia, 1884; A. R. Colquhoun,Among the Shane, London, 1885; Miss M. L. Cort, Siam, New York, 1886; H. W. Smith, Five Years in Siam, 1891‑98, 2 vole., ib. 1898; J. G. D. Campbell, Siam in the 80th Century, London, 1902; Lillian J. Curtis, Laos of North Siam, Philadelphia, 1903; A. Wright and O. T. Breakspear, Twentieth Century Impressions of Siam. Its History, People, Commerce, Industries and Resources, London, 1909; J. H. Freeman, An Oriental Land of the Free; or Life and Mission Work among the Laos of Siam, Burma, China, and Indo China, Philadelphia, 1910; P. A. Thompson, Siam; an Account of the Country and the Pea pie, Boston, 1911.
SIBBES, sibz (SIBBS, SIBS), RICHARD: Puritan; b. at Tostock (33 m. e. of Cambridge), Suffolk, 1577; d. at Gray's Inn, London, July 5, 1635. He was successively student and fellow of St. John's College, and lecturer of Trinity Church, Cambridge (B.A., 1599; M.A., 1602; B.D., 1610); preacher of Gray's Inn, London, 1617‑26; master of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, from 1626; and perpetual curate of Holy Trinity, Cambridge, from 1633. His bestknown works are, The Bruised Reede and Smoaking Flax (London, 1630), to which Richard Baxter owed his conversion; The Soul's ConLdict (1635); The Returning Backslider (1639); and A Learned Commentary upon. the First Chapter of the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ed. Thomas Manton (1655). His literary activity was, however, much more extensive than this, thirty‑three titles of books and sermons being known. His Complete Works were published with memoir by A. B. Grosart (6 vole., 1862‑63).
BiBrroaRAPHY: Besides the principal memoir by Grosart, the reader may consult the Life by E. Middleton, in 9th ed. of The Bruised Reeds, London, 1808; that in a new ed. of Sibbes's Divine Meditations, Newport, 1799 (ed. G. Burder); and one by S. Clarke in The Soules Conflict, Glasgow, 1768. Also: T. Fuller, Hist. of the Worthies of England, ed. J. Fuller, 4 parts, London, 1662; Samuel Clark, Lives of Thirty‑two English Divines, 3d ed., ib. 1670; B. Brooke, Lives of the Puritans, ii. 416 sqq., ib. 1813: DNB, Iii. 182‑184.
SIBEL, sai'bel, gASPAR: Dutch Reformed; b. at Unterbarmen (a part of Barmen, 26 m. n. of

Sibyl
Sibyl	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	896
Cologne) June 9, 1590; d. at Deventer, Holland, Jan. 1, 1658. He was educated at Herborn, Siegen, and Leyden, and, after preaching to various congregations, was called, in 1609, to be minister of the churches of Randerath and Geilenkirchen in the principality of Jiilich, the oversight of the church at Linnich soon being added to his duties. Sibel met with extraordinary success at Randerath, where he labored exposed to considerable personal peril from the attempts of Roman Catholics to regain their position. He was a delegate to the Reformed convention at Diiren (Aug. 17, 1610) to organize the first general synod of the lower Rhine (see REFORMED [DUTCH] CHURCH); and later was deputized to attend the other synods. He accepted in 1611 a call to Jillich, where, in addition to his regular duties, he had to minister to the Protestants in the surrounding district, while during an outbreak of the plague he proved himself a true pastor in the face of death. In 1617, on his return from a journey to Holland, he accepted a call to Deventer, especially as he realized that the strife then raging in J(ilichCleve‑Berg was but the prelude to the long civil war which was to devastate Germany. At Deventer he found himself in his element, and his influence quickly spread beyond the limits of the city. He took part in the preparations for the Synod of Dort, to which he was a deputy; and at his instance the estates of Overyssel approved the canons of Dort and rejected the five Arminian articles. Still more important was his activity as a member of the committee for the new Dutch translation of the Bible proposed by the Synod of Dort. As one of the revisers, he was chosen vice‑secretary of the board of revision, which sat for eleven months in Leyden, and for three years he essentially furthered the work. He was active also in providing capable teachers for the school in Deventer, but at the same time maintained close relations with his native country, inducing the states general to threaten reprisals against any interference with Protestant services in Jiilich‑Berg, and otherwise aiding his coreligionists.
In 1647 a stroke of apoplexy forced Sibel to retire from active life. As a preacher he enjoyed high reputation, being known as the Chrysostom of his locality, and his sermons up to 1644 were collected under the title of Caspari Sibelii opera theologica (5 parts, Amsterdam, 1644). In homiletics, while he paid due regard to form and arrangement, he was especially concerned with the subject matter. He was also much given to exposition of a passage in a sermon series. Among his other works, special mention may be made of his BTeditationes catechetico; (4 parts, Amsterdam, 1646‑50) and of his autobiographical Historica narratio de curriculo totius vitro et peregrinationis mere, of which two manuscript volumes are preserved in the Deventer library (the part before 1609 ed. L. Scheibe, in Festschrift zur Feier des dreihundertjdhrigen Bestehens der . . . lateinischen Sehule zu Elberfeld, Elberfeld, 1893). (EDUARD SIMONS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the autobiographical Hiatorica narratio, ut sup., consult ADB, vol. xxxiv.: ZeUschrift des Berg. Geschichtsvereins, vol. xxviii (by W. Harless. on Elberfelder Kirchen) and also vol. iv (by Bouterwek, on Dye 'Reformation in Wupperthal).
SIBYL, SIBYLLINE BOOKS.

The Greek Sibyls (§ 1). Lists of Sibyls (§ 2). Jewish‑Christian Sibylline Writings Q 3). Book iii. (§ 4). Use of Older Material (§ 5). Introduction to Book iii. (§ 8). Books i.‑ii. (§ 7). Books iv., v., viii. (§ 8). Books vi., vii., xi.‑xiv. (§ 9). Other Collections (§ 10).
Among the productions of late Jewish and early Christian literature the Sibylline Oracles have special interest because of their manifold relations with the Roman‑Greek system of oracles. The sibyls of Greek and Roman antiquity were prophetesses
who, now here, now there, uttered their :. The denunciatory predictions, of which Greek what remains, however, is but the Sibyls. dying echoes of the former activity.
There were possibly in Greece in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. Cassandra‑like figures uttering from city to city their dread prophecies to the terror of men; the home of this art seems to have been Asia Minor, the earliest reports implying Erythrea and Samos as the centers. Later reports know of a Delphian sibyl, a sister of Apollo named Artemis. In Rome the sibyl came only at the end of the regal period from the Greek colonies of southern Italy. The oriental sibyls become known first after Alexander, mainly in Asia Minor, where East and West met and women's part in religion was prominent. But all knowledge of these characters is dim and vague; they appear as prophetesses, not as personalities, and gave their name to a large pseudonymous literature in the apocalyptic period of Jewish development.
The earliest writer to give the names of a series of sibyls is Heraclides Ponticus (cited by Clement of Alexandria, Strom., I., xxi., A NF, ii. 325), who speaks
of a Phrygian‑Delphian sibyl Artemis
s. Lists and a Heraclean called Herophile.
of Sibyls. Later the list of sibyls grows, and they
are known at Delphi, Erythrea, Sardis, and Cumae, while Clement of Alexandria (ut sup.) speaks of an Egyptian and a Roman sibyl; Suidas knows of nine; Varro notes ten: a Persian, a Libyan, a Delphian, a Cimmerian (in Italy), the Erythrean, the Samian, the Cumman (Amalthea), the Hellespontian, the Phrygian, and the Tiburtine named Albunea. To this Varronian catalogue there are a number of witnesses, e.g., Lactantius (Institutes, I., vi., ANF, vii. 15‑16; worth consulting) and Isidore of Seville (in his Originum . . . libri, VIII., viii.), as well as a series of later authorities. Some of the lists contain variations, however, notably that by an anonymous writer who composed an introduction to the collection of the Jewish‑Christian Sibylline Books (i.‑viii.) and that in a series of excerpts of the fifth century known as the "Tubingen Theosophy." The report of Pausanias regarding the sibyls (X., xii.) has especial interest, representing an attempt to reduce the number of these prophetesses to four, viz., the Libyan, Herophile (to whom be refers all reports regarding the Greek sibyls), the Cumman whom be names Demo, and the Hebrew‑Babylonian‑Egyptian whom he names

897	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Sibel
		8iby1
Sabbe. But of all those mentioned in these lists,
most of whom are hardly anything more than
literary fictions, the oldest and best attested is the
Erythrean, for whose existence Varro cites the testi
mony of the chronographer Apollodorus. The
grotto of the sibyl mentioned by Pausanias was re
discovered in 1891, in which an inscription dealing
with the sibyl tells of her wonderful birth, of her
delivery of oracles immediately thereafter, and of
her age as already 900 years. Eusebius in his
Chronicle places her appearance in the ninth Olym
piad; an old tradition is known which places her
origin in the eighth pre‑Christian century. Next to
her the sibyl of Samos is best attested, according to
Varro, by Eratosthenes, who found mention of her
in the Samian annals, while Eusebius places her in
the first year of the seventeenth olympiad (711 B.C.).
According to early testimony the Cumaean sibyl was,
so to speak, a branch of the Erythrean; and this
is supported by the name given in the Varro‑Lac
tantius list (ut sup.). Belief in the Cumwan sibyl at
Rome goes back to the end of the kingly period,
when her oracles had importance for the State.
After the destruction of the collection of oracles by
the burning of the temple of Jupiter in 83 B.C., a
new collection was sought, particularly from Ery
threa. The author of the Pseudo‑Justinian Cohor
tatio (chap. xxxvii.) has left an interesting descrip
tion of the grotto of the Cumaean sibyl, who was
identified with the river and oracle deity Carmenta.
Another sibyl had her sanctuary near the Tiber
on the Anio, and under her proper name of Albunea
was called the Tiburtine Sibyl. Concerning the
Babylonian Sibyl Pausanias reports (Y., xii.) that
there was a "Hebrew" sibyl named Sabbe, daughter
of Berosus and Erymanthe. The Cohortatio (x.)
identifies her with the Cumaean prophetess. Moses
of Chorene (q.v.; in Historice Armeniacce, i. 5) speaks
of a more highly credited Berosian Sibyl; the Ver
ronian catalogue mentions a Persian prophetess of
whom Nicanor, Alexander's biographer, speaks;
later reports seem to regard these as the same, and
the original source of Varro probably rightly
brought together the three‑Babylonian, Persian,
and the Hebrew, the last the daughter of Noah
and the process of shortening the list went on in the
anonymous introduction to the Sibylline Books
already named and in the "Tubingen Theosophy."
The age of the foundation of these reports is not sure,
but they may go back to Alexander Polyhistor
(early in the first century B.C.). The so‑called
Babylonian sibyl in these notices is no other than
the assumed Hebrew sibyl; but this does not ac
count for her name, Sambethe or Sabbe, nor for the
report that she was the daughter of Berosus, nor
for her designation as Babylonian. An inscription
(in CIG, 3509) seems to refer to an oracle‑sanctuary
of the Chaldean Sambethe. If a Chaldean (Baby
lonian) Sambethe‑sanctuary is proved, the tradition
of such a sibyl seems to have history behind it;
such a prophetess would naturally be Hellenistic
and would write in Greek, and would not unnaturally
be connected with Berosus the historian.
	This was the ground in which grew the crop of
Jewish sibylline poetry. In Egypt began the great
Jewish diaspora mission; there the Jews appro‑
priated Greek culture, philosophy, and the forms of Greek literature, and sought through them to recommend Jewish culture to the Greeks. Jewish
chronographers attempted to show a 3. Jewish‑ greater antiquity for their race; Jews
Christian first sought and then fabricated testi‑
Sibylline mony of Greeks to prove the latter in‑
Writings. debted to Moses for the best of their
wisdom, and used the sibylline literature as a means, putting in the sibyl's mouth utterances regarding the Jewish people, the Jewish deity, the conversion of the gentiles, and the coming golden age. And the Christians imitated them, but with less success. The Church Fathers accepted these writings at their face value (so Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, and Augustine). With the downfall of heathendom, these were less used, but were still employed till late in the Middle Ages. The most of this literature was collected by diligent hands and has survived, and into it a sort of unity has been worked. Two or three groups of collections stand out, presenting types of text. One group (designated as b) consists of books i.‑viii. 485; a second (f) has viii. and i.‑vii.; a third (St) has vi., vii. 1, viii. 218‑428 numbered ix., iv. numbered x., and then xi.‑xiv., the whole a continuation of the existing collection of eight books. The date of these collections is probably between the beginning of the fourth and the middle of the fifth century. Of printed editions the older ones may be mentioned‑Xystus Betuleius (1545), S. Castalio (1555), Opsopoeus (1599), Gallaeus (1689), Gallandi (Bibliotheca veterum patrum, vol. i., Venice, 1788), and Friedlieb (Leipsic, 1852). Of abiding value is the great edition of C. Alexandre (Oracula sibyllina, 2 vols., Paris, 1841‑56); A. Rzach's Oracula sibyllina (Vienna, 1891) uses the manuscripts for a modern reconstruction of the text; but much better is J. Geffcken's edition (Leipsic, 1902).
Of all these writings the oldest, most important, and richest in contents is iii. 97‑829, falling into three divisions, 97‑294, 295‑188, 489‑795 (796‑829 being merely concluding remarks). The first deals with the building of the tower of Babel, the wars of the sons of Saturn and the Titans, a brief review of world
history, prediction of the Solomonic 4. Book iii. realm till the emergence of the Romans,
and the seventh king of Egypt, and a noteworthy description of Israel from Moses till the return from exile. The second part is a series of oracles on the nations: Babylon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, the West, a number of cities, Macedonia, Asia, Phrygia, Ilium (and a polemic against Homer); then a cento of mingled predictions. The third contains a preaching of repentance to the Greeks humiliated by the Romans, the story of the coming fortunes of the Jews, judgment to come on the outer world, the Messianic kingdom and the vain war against it, preaching of repentance again, and a picture of the future blessedness. Three times the seventh kingdom (king) of Egypt appears (192‑193, 314‑318, 608‑615), construed as referring to Ptolemy VII. Physcon, and doubt is expressed whether this is to be dated 170‑164 or 14.5‑117; many date the book c. 140 B.C. But account must be taken of the

Sibyl	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	898
possibility of the inclusion of earlier pieces, the correct apprehension of which makes possible another dating, dependent upon a different interpretation of certain intruded parts. But at any rate, this part must have arisen in the Maccabean period, for the condition described is that of the independent Jewish state while the preaching is directed against the Romans who have subjected Hellenism. Yet a late part of the Maccabean time is indicated, since 470 sqq. points to Sulla and his Asian campaign, and 350 sqq. deals with the war against Mithridates c. 88 B.c., quoting an oracle on the affair. Since the author uses these documents, he must have written after 88 B.c., probably in the time of Queen Alexandra. He worked, as did the apocalyptical writers, only in part with his own material, for the most part taking over existing matter. Probably his own composition is to be found in iii. 211‑294, which describes the Jewish people, of which 271‑272 especially fits the Jewish diaspora of Alexandra's period. This part is, however, closely related to the passage 520‑795, which accordingly also may be regarded as the Jewish writer's own. Whether the sermon to the Greeks belongs here is doubtful, as it fits equally well with the times of Sulla and of the Mithridatic war, the one indication of a later date being its advanced eschatology. Probably to the same author are to be ascribed lines 162‑166, 194210, 295‑336, 489‑519‑all of them introductions to longer sections, ‑ and with some probability the entire conclusion; also in general 156‑166, 196‑294, 489‑795 except 608‑615.
	There are	also older pieces from the time of
Ptolemy VII. worked into the composition of the
whole‑so 167‑195, 314‑318, 608‑615. This writer
has also taken into his work a series of heathen
oracles, a process which he deemed suitable to im
press the non‑Jewish world. There is express testi
		mony from heathen sources (Varro,
g. Use of Bocchus, and Pausanias) to a tradition
Older that the Erythrean (Delphian) sibyl Material. foretold the fall of Ilium and charged Homer with lies and plagiarism of her verses (cf. iii. 414‑432 of the present collection); the preceding oracle concerning Phrygia makes the impression of being derived from a heathen source, as does 381‑387, there being testimony that the Persian (Chaldean) sibyl spoke concerning Alexander; similarly the oracle against Rome (350 sqq.) is not in the style of the present writer, but is heathen and of great political interest; so the early sibylline characteristics shine out of lines 337‑349, 433‑438. In these passages oracles of various heathen sources seem to have been collected and arranged in artistic fashion. Such a borrowing appears in the early part of this book‑105‑154 is unmistakably gentile; in Lactantius (Institutes, I., xiv. 2) there is a parallel to the Euhemeristic turn of thought in the conflict between the Kronides and Titans. But this passage is in close connection with that concerning the tower of Babel, and the speaker as sibyl identifies herself with the older sibyl (iii. 809 sqq.); it would be expected almost that this speaker would use earlier prophecies; and Alexander Polyhistor (Eusebius, Chronicon, I., xxiii.), Josephus (Ant., I., iv. 3), and Abydenus (Eusebius, Chronicon, I., xrociii_xxxiv.) cite an
oracle in heathen form on this subject. The original sibyl may have derived the story from Hebrew tradition or from folklore. This book then seems to come from the time of Queen Alexandra, and uses older fragments of Jewish origin, and of heathen origin from the Erythrean and other Greek oracles. The lines 211‑294 and 520‑795 are valuable for the religious situation at the end of the, Maccabean period.
In iii. 1‑95 two hands are apparent, 46‑62 and 63‑92 showing distinct differences. The first belongs in the period of the first triumvirate, according to the usual dating; but in 46‑50 a Christian seems to speak. With 46‑fit may possible be placed 1‑45,
a Christian editing of c. 70 A.D. The 6. Intro‑ passage 63‑92 is more difficult to date,
duction to but may belong to c. 25 B.c., since Se‑
Book iii. baste is to be the source of Antichrist.
But it might refer to Simon Magus, and so be as late as the second half of the first century. The mention of the widow has been especially puzzling, since it can no longer be taken to mean Cleopatra. The first and second books must be taken into account in fixing the date; they were the first to assume a unity and then to form two books; this appears in the manuscripts of ‑[~, which call books i. and ii. "the first logos," of which book iii. was " the second." Books i.‑ii. are outlined in i. 1‑323, and were to set forth the fortune of the world in ten families, of which only seven appear, the last three being removed in the working over. This part, generally recognized as of Jewish origin, was separated into two parts by an editor of expressly Christian character. But the dates of these separate editings are not easy to determine; estimates vary from the beginning of the Christian era till the third Christian century, the later dating being based upon the doubtful datum of the existence of the masculine ciesura. Other indications adduced are equally elusive. The ruin predicted in the third book at the beginning agrees with the origin of the basal writing of books i.‑ii. Book i. handles the theme which in all probability was treated in the part broken off when iii. was added‑viz., creation and the flood; in i. there are echoes of the Babylonian version of the flood (lines 230‑260), showing that the report of the flood from book i. was once at least in book iii., and, like iii. 96454, depended upon the Babylonian Sambethe. The manuscripts indicate 1,034 lines for book iii., of which only 829 (895) are extant, an indication which shows the extent of the piece broken off from the beginning of book iii.
It is probable that iii. 46‑62 and 63‑92 were introduced subsequent to the compilation of the rest of the book; if then 46‑92 belongs to the period c. 70 A.D., the destruction of the beginning of book iii. and the rise of the basis of books i.‑ii. are prior to
that date. The section ii. 167‑176 is a 7. Books part of the Christian redaction, in
	L ‑ii.	which the theme is the return of the
		twelve tribes from the East to take
vengeance upon the "Assyrian prince." This theme
is a favorite in the late Jewish apocalyptic writings,
as in IV Esdras, the Syriac Baruch, and other
writings dating from the end of the first Christian
century into the third century. In this third‑century

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
apologetic the prediction of the Antichrist Beliar is prominent. The "Assyrian prince" who persecuted the Jews can scarcely be any other than Odenatus, king of Palmyra, against whom the predictions of book xiii. are directed, who also in the Apocalypse of Elias appears as the chief Antichrist opposed to Judaism. This places the redaction of books i.‑ii. in the second half of the third century. But iii. 6392 is related to ii. 167 sqq., and the editor of book ii. and writer of iii. 63 sqq. must have been the same person or have belonged to the same environment; the widow of iii. 77‑‑78 must be Zenobia of Palmyra, who reigned after Odenatus. To this same environment belongs book viii., which is a conglomerate of pieces of varied character. Lines 1‑216 are early, before the death of Marcus Aurelius, the last part much edited, however; 217‑250 is an acrostic (on the Greek lesous Chreistos theou kuios soter stauros), and is followed by a Christological section 251‑323, and this by a medley, the whole st le of which recalls the editor of books i‑ ii., whole series of lines being repeated from the one in the other, especially as dealing with the destruction of the world by fire, the purification by the same means, etc. If the editors of these parts are not the same, their methods and the time in which they worked were close together. Possibly this editor wrote viii. 169‑177. The editor of books i.‑ii., the author of iii. 63‑92, and the compiler of book viii. in its present form are (is) to be placed in the time of Odenatus and Zenobia or immediately after Zenobia's death.
A second group of connected pieces is composed of books iv., v., and the oldest part of book viii., and in situation this group builds around book iv., which is Jewish. The fact that temple and sacrificial offerings are past (lines 27‑28) is explained by the
fact that after the fall of the Temple 8. Books the Jews soon lost the idea of sacrifice. iv., v., viii. In consequence of the fall of Jerusalem,
		the writer hates Rome and Italy, and
must have written soon after 79 A.D., and looks for
the return of Nero for revenge on Rome, thus giving
the earliest testimony for the Nero saga. In 49‑114
the compiler has used an older and probably Greek
oracle‑97‑98 is attested by Strabo. The ten
families (ut sup.) reappear here, and this section
may be pre‑Christian. Toward the end the burning
of the world reappears, with the resurrection of
the dead. Book v. is difficult, though critics agree
that the basis is Jewish, while there is question as
to its origin from one hand. The section 1‑51, a
tedious and uninteresting enumeration of the
Roman emperors till Hadrian , by its character
demands a different authorship from the rest. Three
sections, 137‑178, 214‑285, 361‑446, seem to be
closely related to each other, and present three
themes‑the returning Nero, threats against Rome,
and the New Jerusalem. A fourth section is found
in 93‑110, the subject of which is also Nero and his
return. These all seem to have arisen out of prac
t	the same situation, and the author's anger
against Rome is roused by his experience in the
destruction of the Temple, while he looks f
Jerusalem
Sibyl
who was influenced also by the heathen oracles which he has embodied; he lived within a generation after the fall of Jerusalem. Out of a similar situation (or the same) arose Rev. xvii.‑xviii., xxi. In the rest of book v. are sayings which betray the Egyptian type. Especially characteristic is the section 4.84‑510, which undoubtedly points to the Jewish temple in Leontopolis (see LEONTOPOLIB); the conception in this part, that a great temple is in the future to be built in Egypt, is intelligible when it is remembered that the Leontopolis temple stood until 'r3 A.D. An Egyptian Jew expected its reconstruction, and its destruction in the last period before the great judgment. Whether the remaining pieces, to be characterized broadly as Egyptian, are by the author of the Nero pieces is not to be decided categorically; he may have been the first to incorporate them in a work, and he may have imitated the older portions. The book looks like the work of one redactor, begun in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, with interpolations by a Christian. In this same connection belongs viii.l‑216, dealing with the returning Nero, the author of which was a Christian who wrote near the end of Marcus Aurelius' reign and took into his work a number of older sayings, though the form has in some cases been considerably changed.
Books vd. and vii. belong together. Both are by Christian authors, bat their type is apocryphal or heretical. Book vi. is anti‑Jewish, is written in praise of the Son of God, is adoptionistic, and stresses the baptism of Jesus. Its date is doubtful, but it may have been known to the editor of books i.‑ii. The author of book vii. was
g. Books probably born a Jew, wrote in imitavi., vii., xi.‑ tion of earlier sibylline writers, and
	ziv.	where he is independent is quite in
		teresting (e.g., 64‑95, 118‑162). His
Christology is heretical in color, but he adheres to
the logos type of Christology; he may have been a
Jewish‑Christian Gnostic, and possibly wrote c. 150
A.D. Books xi.‑xiv. have a certain unity. Book xi.
is the oldest, Jewish in origin, and has been regarded
as edited in the third Christian century, though that
seems too late as his work would have little meaning
for that time. He pictures the age of Cleopatra and
the end of the Egy ptian kingdom, but his prophecies
are worthless; more likely he belongs to Augustan
times. Book xii., picturing in quiet narrative the
Roman emperors from Augustus to Alexander
Severus, can not have emanated from a Christian,
but must be by a Jew, loyal to the empire, not
orthodox, but cosmopolitan, living after Alexander
Severus. As an oriental regarding the empire, he is often interesting in his vy~ws. But lines 28‑34 must have been adapted by '!'Christian who dealt with the birth of Christ. Book xiii., starting in where xii. leaves off, is exceedingly interesting. It carries on the story from Alexander Severus to Gallienus. Possibly recognizable forms are Gordian L, and IIL,

Philip the Arabian and his son, Gallius, X m;hus

llJmilianus, Aurelian, and Gallienus. Odenatus is the savior who is born of the sun, and is the lion who
or a New slays the Persian shepherd and the Roman usurpers.
with its new Temple. The varying char‑ It has been suspected that the interpolator of book
aster bf the picture of Nero now human now ghostly, xii. is the editor of xiii.; in that case he worked over may come from the changing moods of the author, ; x'‑xii. with his own collection. In this time

origi‑

Sidonins	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	400
Dated the Hebrew and probably the basis of the Coptic Elijah apocalypse, while it was also the period of the editor of books i., ii., and viii. of Commodian's Carmen apologeticum, and the apocalyptic sayings of Lactantius (ut sup.). The Christian sibyllist makes a hero of Odenatus, the Jewish Apocaly ptist makes him an antimessiah. Book xiv. is by an ignorant man who essays to give a sketch of Roman imperial history but is hopelessly confused; possibly he wrote in the awful times which swept over Egypt [sic] after the time of the death of Odenatus and Zenobia, and he was hardly a Jew. His work is a polemic against evil, rapacious, and godless kings. The "holy nation" of line 360 refers not to the Jews but to Christians.
Theophilus of Antioch (Ad AuWycum, ii. 36; Eng. tranal. in ANF, ii. 109) gives two citations from a beginning of the sibylline books which exalt the true God and chide idolatry. The general view is that Theophilus has quoted‑from the early intro‑
		duction to book iii., but Geffcken (ut
	ro. Other sup.) sees in the fragments an elabora
Collections. tion of the present introduction to iii.,
		and would derive them from an an
thology from verses devoted to an apologetic pur
pose, supporting this by the facts that in the follow
ing chapter Theophilus is dependent upon such a
work and that Clement of Alexandria cites some
verses of this fragment (Strom., V., xiv.), derived
from an anthology (Elter, De gnomologiorum
Grwcorum historia atque origine, Bonn, 1894‑95;
university program). There are facts against this
conclusion, however, such as the one that "ctan
tius must have regarded these verses as belonging to
the proem of book iii. And, in spite of Geffcken's
claim that they are of Christian origin, there is
nothing which goes against a Jewish derivation,
though not from the author of book iii. Under the
name of the Tiburtine sibyl is a confused mass of
sayings from the Middle Ages which has been again
and again subjected to the process of editing. The
development of this body of material has been
worked out well by E. Sackur (Sibyldinische Text and
Forschungen, Halle, 1898), the source of the Tibur
tine sibyl being traced to a nucleus dating soon
after the death of Constantius I. (361 A.D.). But
a further history is suggested by R. Basset (]As
Apocryphes 4thiopiens, vol. x., La Sagesse de Sibylle,
Paris, 1899), who makes it evident that the material
which he publishes and the Tiburtine sibyl go back
to a common source, dealing with nine ages of the
world. The Arabic‑Ethiopian sibyl is known also in
a	redaction of the period of Harun al‑Rashid.
The basal document may~ back to the end of the
third century, the perioc‑ vchen metrical sibylline
oracles passed over into prose. Even in the Middle
Ages the sibyl remained a popular figure, cf. the
opening lines of the poem Dies ira, dies illa, aolvet
sceelum in favilln, teste David cum Sibylda. On
Byzantine and medieval sibylline literature cf.
F. Kampers, Die deutsche Kaaseridee in. Prophetie
and Sage, Munich, 1896. 	(IV. BOUSSET.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY. The principal texts are noted in ¢ 3 above. Add. P: Heitz s ed., after a MS. of St. Gall, Strasburg, 1903, with Einleitung by W. L. Schreiber; and the Eng. transl. in blank verse by M. S. Terry, New York, 1890.
For questions of introduction and exegesis consult:
Bleek, in Theolapiache Zeitachrift, i (1819), 120‑246, ii
(1820), 172‑239; G. Besangon, De 1'emploi que lea p&m
de CBglise ont fait des oracles sibyllins, Paris, 1851; A. Hil
genfeld, Die jildische Apokaiyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entuicklung, pp. 51‑90, Jena, 1857; H. Ewald, Abhand
lung fiber Entatehung . . . der eibydlinischen Biicher, G5t
tinBen, 1858; J. Langen, Das Judenthum in Palastina
zur Zeit Christi, pp. 169‑174, Freiburg, 1866; B. Badt,
De oraculis Sibyllinis, Breslau, 1869; idem, Ursprung, ln
halt, and Teat des vierten Buches der atbbyMnischen Orake4
ib. 1878; H. Deehent, Ueber das crate, zweite and elfte
Buch der sibyllinischen Weissagungen, Frankfort, 1873;
M. Vernes, Hist. des idles messianiques, pp. 43 sqq., Paris,
1874; J. Drummond, Jewish Messiah, pp. 14 aqq., Lon
don, 1877; A. C. Bang, Volusph and die sibyllinischen
Orakel, Vienna 1880; A. Boucle,‑Leclerc, Hist. de la di
vination daps rantiquitk, ii. 199‑214, Paris, 1880; V. H.
Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, Edin
burgh, 1886; T. Zahn, in TKW, 1886, pp. 32‑45, 7787;
K. Buxesch, Klaros, Leipsie, 1889; H. Diels, Ssbyllini
seAe Blotter, Berlin, 1890; S. A. Hirsch, in JQR(ii (1890),
406‑429; W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, 276 eqq., Edin
burgh, 1891; J. E. H. Thompson, Books which Influenced
our Lord and his Apostles, pp. 167‑169, ib. 1891; E. Fehr,
Studio in oracula Sibyllina, Upsala, 1893; M. Friedlander,
in REJ, xxix (1894), 183‑196; idem, Geschichte der ju
dischen Apologetik, pp. 31‑54, Zurich, 1903; W. Bousset,
Der Antichrist, pp. 593 et passim, GSttingen, 1895;
idem, in ZNTW, 1902, pp. 23 sqq.; E. Rohde, Psyche,
pp. 62‑69, 2d ed., Freiburg, 1898; E. Kautzsch, Die
Apokryphen and Pseudepigraphen, ii. 177 sqq., TObingen,
1900 (Germ. tranel. with introduction and notes); O.
ZSekler, Die Apokryphen des A. Ts., pp. 477 184, Mu
nich, 1901; J. Geffeken, Komposition and Enstehunga
zeit des Oracula Sibyllina, Leipsic, 1902; idem, in TU,
viii. 1 (1903); E. Oldenburger, De oraculorum Sibyllino
rum elocutione, Rostock, 1903 E. Hennecke, Handbuch
der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, pp. 339‑350, Tiibing
en, 1904; M. Monteiro, " AB David and the Sibyls say,"
a Sketch of the Stbyle and the Sibylline Oracles, London,
1905; A. Rzaeh, Analekta zur Kritik and Exegese der
atby1linischen Orakd, Vienna, 1907; J. Schleiper, Die
Ermh1ung der Sibylle. Eine Apocryphische, nach den
karachunischen, arabischen and dthiopischen Handachriften
zu London, ib. 1908; Schdrer, Geschichte, iii. 421‑450,
Eng. tranel., II., iii. 271‑291 (excellent list of literature
at end of German text); Harnack, Litteratur, i. 861‑‑863;
ii. 581‑589; DB, i. 743, iii. 227, extra vol., pp. 66‑68;
EB, i. 245‑250; JE, xi. 319‑323.
SICARII, si‑Wri‑ai or si‑ca'ri‑i (Lot. "Assassins"): The term applied to Jewish zealots before and during the Jewish war, whose aim was to drive the Romans from the country. The name comes from sica, "a small dagger," which they concealed under their cloaks, using it during assemblies or pilgrimages to kill their enemies, including Jews who were friendly to the Romans (Josephus, Ant., XX., viii. 10; War, IL, xiii. 3). The most prominent of their victims was the high priest Jonathan, said to have been slain at the instigation of r,elix the governor of Judea.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Scharer, Gesehichte, i. 574 eqq., 584, Eng. tranal., 178 sqq., 189.
SICXENBERGER, sik'en‑berH"‑er, JOSEPH: German Roman Catholic; b. at Kempten (81 m. s.w. of Munich) Mar. 19, 1872. He was educated at the University of Munich (D.D., 1900) and also studied in Italy, Vienna, and Paris. In 1902 he became privat‑docent at Munich, where he was appointed associate professor of patrology and Christian archeology in the following year. In 1905 he was called to W(irzburg as full professor of the same subject, and since 1906 has been professor of NewTestament exegesis and theology at Breslau. He has written Titus von Bostra, Studien zu dessen

401	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	sibyl
81donins
Lukashomilien (Leipsie, 1901); Die Lukaskatene lea Niketas von Herakleia (1902); and has edited Fragmente and Homilien des Cyrill von Alexandrien zum Lukasevangelium, in T U, 1909; besides being NewTestament editor of the Biblische Zeitschrift.

SICKINGEN, FRANZ VON: Knight of the
German Empire, and protector of the Reformers; b. in the castle of Ebernburg, near Kreuznach (21 m. s.w. of Mainz), May 1, 1481; d. in the castle of Landstuhl, near Zweibriicken (60 m. s.w. of Heidelberg), May 7, 1523. He was a picturesque representative of the "robber knights" who recognized no superior but their monarch, and enjoyed no occupation so much as that of private warfare. These knights had serious grievances in the early part of the sixteenth century. Growth of commerce and wealth in the cities had been accompanied by agricultural depression, and the knights found their estates becoming valueless and their incomes reduced to almost nothing. They were free to renounce the station and prestige of the order of knighthood and as common civilians and soldiers to enter the service of the emperor; the alternative was wholesale brigandage. Sickingen chose the alternative. Desirous of serving the emperor as with independent authority, this order was opposed to any approximation to orderly government, and considered the territorial princes its sworn enemies. The reforms of the national government, which through the Reichskammergericht (supreme court of the empire) forbade private warfare and installed Roman law in the place of the old feudal customs, endangered this calling, and in 1522 the general discontent broke out, under the leadership of Sickingen, into open repudiation of the actions and authority of the Reichskammergericht.
In Sickingen the revolters recognized an experienced and energetic leader. He had in 1516 made a raid upon the city of Worms, and for five years, in the face of a decree of banishment issued against him, had harassed and ravaged the country around the city; he had been in the service of Francis I. of France in 1516, and in 1,517 had entered that of the German Empire; he had carried on operations against the imperial city of Metz, and against Landgrave Philip of Hesse; and with Ulrich von Hutten (q.v.) he had thrown himself into the cause of Charles V. of Spain. He had proffered aid to Reucblin in his controversy, and with Hutten had frankly declared his approval of Luther, to whom he pledged his assistance. Butzer (q.v.) lived in his castle, the Ebernburg, where (Ecolampadius (q.v.) served as chaplain from Apr. to Nov., 1522, and Johann Schwebel (q.v.) was another Reformer who found refuge with him.
Hutten and Sickingen regarded as urgent and necessary a restriction upon and partitioning of church property (see SECULARIZATION), and they counted on the help of part of the aristocracy, who eyed with growing disfavor the increase of wealth and the display of it in the cloisters and abbeys. Sickingen, favored by Luther, and directly incited against the unregenerate priests, declared hostilities against the pope and the lords of the church. The attack, combning secular and religious interests, was diX.‑26
rected against the ecclesiastical princes and restricted to them; for it was their worldly possessions that aroused the Lutheran divines, their jurisdiction that offended the cities, and their territorial powers that opposed knightly liberties. Sickingen, with his attempt to overthrow the constitution of the empire, as a champion of the poorer people, a Gospel pioneer, and a leader of the "Fraternal League" organized at Landau Aug. 13, 1522, for the protection of the nobility, opened the first war of religion to be declared on German soil. Doubtless thoughts of personal advancement served to inspire him in this cause, for he was moved by an inordinate ambition that embraced the electorate of Treves.
	On Aug. 27, 1522, Sickingen issued a declaration
of war against Richard von Greiffenklau zu Voll
raths, archbishop of Treves, who, as one of Luther's
most powerful enemies and an enemy of the Gospel,
received the first fury of the attack. After receiving
consecration in the principality of Schaumburg,
Sickingen appeared before Treves Sept. 8. When
ordered by the imperial council to withdraw, he
replied that he was as much a servant of the emperor
as the council, and that he was moving against the
archbishop in the conviction that the emperor would
sanction the punishment of this priest. He intended
to better the action of the council by establishing a
regular system of law, and to win for himself a peace
ful life as ruler of Treves. But the archbishop re
pulsed his assaults with such success that on Sept. 14
the siege was raised. On Oct. 10 he and his associ
ates were laid under the ban of the empire for viola
ting the peace of the country. With absolute indif
ference he broke into the Palatinate and plundered
the town of Kaiserlautern. He had friends in the
imperial council and in the Palatinate, and troops
were levied for him in the Sundgau, Alsace, Breisgau,
and Bavaria. But the princes of Treves, Hesse, and
the Palatinate had in September of 1522 pledged
themselves to destroy the "robber knights," and on
Apr. 29, 1523, they besieged his stronghold of Land
stahl. He still looked for strong reenforcements
from Germany and France, and for a simultaneous
uprising in the dominions of the three princes, but
he was fatally disappointed. His friends were re
strained by the superior power of the princes and
the Swabian League; he was mortally Rounded on
the third day of the siege, and on May 6 the garrison
capitulated. 	D. PERCY GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Ulmann, Franz yon Sickingen, Leipeic, 1872; F. P. aremer Franz yon Sickingen's Fehde gegen Trier, Stmsburg, 1885; P. M. Rade, Hutten and $ickinoen, Barmen, 1887; J. Janssen, Hilt. of the German people, iii. 276‑308, St. Louie, 1900; J. KSstlin, Martin Luther, Berlin, 1903; Cambridge Modern History, ii. 41, 43, 154 eqq., New York, 1904.
SIDON. See PHENICIA, PHENICIANS, L, § 5.

SIDONIIUS, si‑do'ni‑us, APOLLINARIS, CAIUS SOLLIUS MODESTUS: Gallic Roman poet, bishop of Clermont, and saint; b. at Lyons Nov. 5 of some year between 430 and 433; buried at Clermont Aug. 21, 479 (482 or 484). He came of a noble family, his grandfather having held high office and being the first Christian in the family; his father also was " prefect in the pretorium of the Gauls." He received his education in the yet flourishing schools of grammar

8ieffe ie	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
402
and rhetoric of his native region, devoting his attention to the acquisition of facility and perfection in writing prose and poetry in Latin.
Early	He had in view fame as a writer and in
	Life.	the service of the State, and among his
		instructors were Claudianus Mamer
tus (q.v.) and other noted teachers. His marriage
with Papianilla, daughter of Avitus, one of the
prominent men of Auvergne, made him at home in
what was to be a sort of fatherland to him; his wife
brought to him possessions and a happy family life
which fitted him for the r81e of a poet of home life
and home blessings. But his ambition, fostered by
the combination of wealth and culture, rendered
him not content to lead the life of an obscure
countryman. The raising of Avitus to imperial dig
nity influenced the muse of Sidonius in the direction
of the panegyric. Sidonius accompanied his father
in‑law to Rome and issued there his poem of praise
(in which the Christian note is altogether absent),
which was regarded as so remarkable that it secured
for the author a place, marked by a bronze statue,
among the celebrated authors thus honored in the
Trajan basilica. But the reign of Avitus was short,
Ricimer bringing about his overthrow after seven
teen months. After the fall of Lyons, Sidonius
turned his poetry to the praise of the victor in a
composition which has historic value for its por
trayal of the Franks (lines 238‑254). The period of
retirement which succeeded left traces in the epis
tles of Sidonius, and these are valuable in that they
give pictures of the culture of the time (Epist., ii.
2) as well as of historic events. During the reign of
Theodoric IL, Sidonius seems to have lived in
retirement; and under Anthemius (467‑472) he
went to Rome at the command of the emperor in
order to represent the people of Auvergne. There
he came into close contact with the two most prom
inent senators, and followed their counsel to dedi
cate to the new emperor a rew panegyric. This is
the latest of his dated carmina, which resulted in an
appointment as prefect of senate and city; it is of
historical value for its description of the Huns, its
mention of Geiserich, and the description of the sit
uation of the East Goths about 467. An epistle of
Sidonius of about 470 (v. 13) has historical worth
also because of its dealing with the Governor Sero
natus; and near this in point of time is the remark
able letter (ii. 1) which narrates the choice presented
him of becoming a bishop or losing his Roman
rights‑as a matter of fact the nobility saved their
rights through the hierarchy.
Soon after, Sidonius became bishop of Clermont, which belonged to the archdiocese of Bourges. As bishop Sidonius gave up the writing of
Sidonius secular poetry, but in the exercise of as Bishop. his office he was drawn into the political arena. His brother‑in‑law Ecdicius was the refuge of the Roman party, while Clermont, the last firm stronghold of the Romans in Aquitania, threatened to fall before the Goths. Sidonius appealed for help near and far, and among the appeals is a letter (vii. 6) against kurich. The ecclesiastical situation was lamentable; nine sees were vacant, and even the memory of ecclesiastical discipline had ceased. With the strife of Burgundians and
Goths the land seemed about to be torn apart; all efforts were to be directed to the end that Eurich permit bishops to be consecrated in order that the people of Gaul might be held in the faith. The cause for the sad condition was attributed by Sidonius to the heads of the diocese of Arles, and Bishop Graecus heard bitter reproaches. Still the condition was not so bad as it seemed to Sidonius; Clermont was not destroyed, and the Gothic court was not so hostile to culture. In Toulouse the most influential man after the king was Leo of Narbonne, the teacher of oratory to Marcus Aurelius. Into this period falls the most celebrated of all the letters of Sidonius (viii. 9); it contains a poem, doubtless intended for the king's ear, describing the worldpower of the ruler of the Visigoths, and this may well be called Sidonius' fourth panegyric. Sidonius, who had left his see, was aHs after some time to return and exercise his office.
As a writer Mommsen (Reden, p.139, Berlin, 1905) estimated Sidonius as far above any other of his times; yet, in spite of the sententious, satirical, and graceful passages which are found, his poetry has
less esthetic value than that of AusoHis nius. Still, his significance from a literWritings. ary‑historical standpoint is high. In
matter of form, he bridges the transition to the medieval poetry by frequency in employment of rime, alliteration, and like artistic devices; his poetry shows also what was the fashion in his time; he serves to illustrate, as well, what forms the classical myths took during the downfall of the old order of things in Gaul. For church history the letters are more valuable than the carmina. Sidonius was not original, but he could well set forth the situation of things in language that was fitting and expressive. The nine books of letters are edited in groups. The first, written for the most part about 469 in Rome, begins with a dedication to Constantius, a cleric of Lyons, to whom a life of Bishop Germanus of Auxerre (q.v.) is ascribed. The letters of book ii. appear to have been issued about the middle of 472, though they are probably of earlier date, since they do not reflect the clerical situation, and the thought is not Christian. These two books (twenty‑five letters) were the first edited. The next group, books iii.‑vii. (seventy letters), reveals a different situation. It begins with the statement that the writer has unworthily been chosen bishop of Clermont. A section of this group (vi. 1‑vii. 11) contains letters directed. to bishops. Later, at the wish of friends, Sidonius gathered the remains of his correspondence for an eighth book, and not long after added a ninth "after the pattern of Pliny." Chronology is not observed in the arrangement, although a certain general sequence is preserved. The letters, 147 in number, have great historical value for the reason that they exhibit as does no other document the style of the Latin school of rhetoric just before its downfall; from this point of
view each separate letter is worthful, even though its substance is of little value. Among the persons addressed are the African Domnulus, two Spanish rhetoricians, a Frank who was named " Count Arbogastes of the Treveri," who received also a letter :rom Bishop Auspicius of Toul (himself a cor‑

403	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Sidonius
		Sieffert
respondent of Sidonius), and Firminus of Arles, the
friend of Caesarius (q.v.). About a third of the let
ters are addressed to ecclesiastics, thirty‑six of them
to bishops, and the sees of thirty‑one of these are
known. Perpetuus of Tours, a city which was still
Roman, was a correspondent of Sidonius; there are
letters to the bishops of Sens, Auxerre, Orldans, and
to Lupus of Treves. Though passing by the bishop
of Arles, Sidonius was in frequent correspondence
with the suffragans of that see, the bishops of
Orange, Vaison, and Marseilles; as a native of
Lyons, he had a patriotic interest in it. There are
letters to the suffragans at Autun and Langres, to
the metropolitan of Aix and his suffragan at Riez,
to Reims, Toul, and Geneva. His letters set the
style for the circle of rhetoricians and the school of
which he was a part, as is seen by the letters and
writings of Ruricius, and of Alcimus Avitus and
Ennodius (qq.v.); in a later period the interest in
him arose anew, such men as Flodoard, Sigbert of
Gembloux, Vincent of Beauvais, Peter the Vener
able, Peter of Poitiers, and John of Salisbury
(qq.v.) reading and admiring him. He was not
without influence upon Petrarch.
	So far as the poems of Sidonius go, they might
all have been written by one not a Christian; on
the other hand, heathen mythology is for him but
a means of adornment, monotheistic thoughts ap
			pear in noble form, and he set more
	His Sig‑	store by prayer than by the aid of the
	nificance. physician. However, the Christian
			writings do not seem to be of sufficient
ly high value to him, possibly because of his en
forced service to the external organization of the
Church. He had a sort of contempt for the lower
classes who " spoke bad Latin," though he always
displayed a kindliness of disposition toward them.
As a preacher and saver of souls his repute was not
high. His knowledge of the Scriptures, and his dog
matics were alike weak; he spoke, for instance, of
the Holy Ghost becoming flesh in Christ. He had
little knowledge of and as little interest in the dog
matic controversies of his times. He was urged to
apply his pen to the writing of history, but wisely
estimated his powers and declined. His service to
the better part of the nobility of Gaul is summed up
in his advice to the effect that since the Roman
state was breaking up, it were better for them to
save their nobility in the hierarchy and to carry over
their Roman heritage to church offices. And yet he
himself failed in large measure to achieve the end
he thus set before them, not realizing the oppor
tunity to fill the rhetoric of the schools with a
Christian spirit.	(F. ARNoLD.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Late editions of the works of Sidonius are:
	that of J. F. Grbgoire and F. Z. Collombet, 3 vols., Paris,
	1836; in MPL, lviii. 443‑748, with the notes of Sirmondi;
	E. Barret, Paris, 1879, with valuable introduction and
	dissertations, though typographical errors are numerous;
	ed. C. Luetjohann in MGH, Auct. ant., viii (1887), 1
	264; ed. P. Mohr, Leipsic, 1895; cf. E. Geisler, Loci sim
	iles auctorum Sidonio anteriorum, Berlin, 1887. There is
	a Fr. transl. by E. Barret, Paris, 1888.
		Sources for a life are Gennadius, De vir. ill., xcii.; Greg
	ory of Tours, Hist. Francorum, ii. 21 sqq. Consult: P.
	Allard. Saint Sidoine Apollinaire, Paris, 1909; M. Fertig,
	Sidonius and seine Zeit, 3 vols., Wiirzburg and Passau,
	1845‑48 (with valuable essays, and includes some trans
	lations); G. Kaufmann, Die Werke des . . . Sidonius als
sin Quells fur die Geschichte seiner Zeit, GBttingen, 1864; idem, in Neues schweizerisehes Museum, pp. 1‑28, Basel, 1865; idem, in GGA, 1868, pp. 1001‑1021; idem, in Histotisches Taschenbuch, 1869, pp. 30‑40; L. A. Chaix, S. Sidoine Apollinaire et son sickle, 2 vols., Clermont, 1866 (the fullest and most detailed account); F. Ozanan, Hist. of Civilization in the 6th Century, London, 1868; F. Dahn, Hanige der Germanen, v. 82‑101, Wdrzburg, 1870; P. Mohr, In Apollinaris Sidonii epistulas et carmina observationes critic, Sondershausen, 1877; idem, Zu Sidonius carmina, Laubach, 1881; M. Budinger, Apollinaris Si. donius als Politiker, Vienna, 1881; T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book iii., vol. ii., 4 vols., Oxford, 1880‑85; L. Sandret, in Revue des questions historiques, xxxii (1882), 210‑224; A. Esmein, Sur quelques lettres de Sidoine Apollinaire, Paris, 1885; T. Mommsen, De vita Sidonii, in MGH, Auct. ant., vifI (1887), pp. xliv.‑liii.; idem, in SBA, 1885, pp. 215=223; L. Duval‑Arnould, 9tudes d'hist. du droit romain . . . d'apr~s Us lettres . . de Sidoine Apollinaire, Paris, 1888; M. Miiller, De Apollinaris Sidonii latinitate, Halle, 1888; A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters, i. 419 148, Leipsie, 1889; W. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, iii. 817‑819, London, 1890; W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der romischen Litteralur, pp. 1194‑1200, Leipsie, 1890; M. Manitius, Geschichte der christliehen lateinischen Poeaie, pp. 218‑225, Stuttgart, 1891; E. Bracmann, Sidoniana et Boethiana, Utrecht, 1904; Wattenbach, DGQ, i (1894), 97‑98; R. Holland, Studio Sidoniana, Leipsic, 1905; Tillemont, M~moires, xvi. 195‑284; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xxxvi (important); Hauck, XD, i. 79 sqq., 83 sqq.; DCB, iv. 649‑661 (detailed and thorough, but follows Chaix, ut sup.); ASB, Aug., iv. 597‑624.
SIDONIUS, MICHAEL: Bishop of Merseburg. See HELDING, MICHAEL.
SIEFFERT, si'fert, FRIEDRICH ANTON EMIL: German Reformed; b. at Konigsberg, Prussia, Dec. 24, 1843. He was educated at the universities of KBnigsberg, Halle, and Berlin (lie. theol., Konigsberg, 1867), and, after being privat‑docent at the university of his native city (1867‑71), was inspector of the theological seminary at Bonn (1871‑73); associate professor at the university of the same city (1873‑78); professor of Reformed theology at Erlangen (1878‑89); and since 1889 professor of systematic theology and New‑Testament exegesis in the Protestant theological faculty of the University of Bonn. He has written Nonnulla ad apocrypha libri Henoehi originem pertinentia (Kbnigsberg, 1867); Ueber den socialen Gegensatz im Neuen Testament (Erlangen, 1888); Die neuesten theologischen Forschungen iiher Busse and Glaube (Berlin, 1896); Das Reeht im Neuen Testament (GSttingen, 1900); Ojfenbarung and heilige Schri(t (Langensalza, 1905); Die Heidenbekehrung im Allen Testament und im Judentum (1908); and Johann Catvi,ns religiose Entwicklung and siUliche Grundrichtung (Leipsic, 1909) ; besides preparing the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth editions of H. A. W. Meyer's commentary on Galatians (Gottingen, 1880‑99).

SIEFFERT, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG: German theologian and Biblical scholar; b. at Elbing (32 m. s.w. of KSnigsberg) Feb. 1, 1803; d. at Bonn Dec . 2, 1877. He prepared for the university at the Gymnasium of Elbing; entered in 1821 the University of Konigsberg, where he studied under Herbart, and also under August Hahn, with whom he collaborated in issuing Chrestomathia syriaca (Leipsic, 1825), taking there his doctorate. He then went to Berlin for the study of theology, particularly under Nean‑

slerrert
Sigebert
der. In the summer of 1825 he interrupted his sojourn at Berlin for a journey to Vienna to examine a manuscript in the Vienna library containing the commentary of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, on the Minor Prophets. He returned to Berlin, where he was graduated licentiate in theology in 1826; and then went to K6nigsberg, where he became privat‑docent at the university in 1827, having published in that year Theodorus Mopsuestiensis Veteris Testamenti sobrie interpretandi vindex, the fruit of his research in Vienna; he was appointed extraordinary professor in 1828. Soon afterward appeared his treatise Ueber den Ursprung des ersten kanonisehen Evangeliums (1832), a work of high importance, showing that the first Gospel is a Greek recasting of the original composition by Matthew the apostle in Aramaic. It evoked a number of works in the domain of Gospel criticism, mostly approving his position. In due season, however, Sieffert took a pronounced stand against radical criticism, as in his De librorum sacrorum auctoritate canonica (1836), the publication of which attended his promotion to a regular professorship, in 1834. Meanwhile, he had also prosecuted his studies respecting Theodore of Mopsuestia (q.v.), and prepared a larger work on his life and writings. In the year 1837, there suddenly developed a disease of the eyes, which ultimately led to nearly total blindness. This moved him to the thought of combining his academic activity with some practical avocation, less taxing to the eyes. Accordingly, in 1839, he accepted a court preacher's office for the German Reformed congregation of the castle church; in 1841 he took office as assessor, in 1842 as councilor, in the consistory of the province of Prussia. Thenceforth, indeed, and for many years, he administered these three offices, in all evincing the same conscientiousness. But the increasing malady finally obliged him to relinquish one after the other of his official positions. Later, in the evening of his life, he ventured one more composition, dictating and publishing Die apologetische Fundamentirung der christlichen Glaubenswissenschaft (Giltersloh, 1871), in which he insisted on the central fact of the entire and personal phenomenon of Christ. In 1873, when released from all his official charges, he removed to Bonn, where he died.
F. SIEFFERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY F. Sieffert, F. L. SieferE, Eine Skixze seines Lebens, Kenigsberg, 1880.
SIEGFRIED, sig'frid, KARL ADOLF: German Lutheran; b. at Magdeburg Jan. 22, 1830; d. at Jena Jan. 9, 1903. He was educated at the universities of Halle (1849‑51, 1851‑52; Ph.D., 1859) and Bonn (1851), and taught in the Gymnasium zum Kloster Unserer lichen Frauen in Magdeburg (18561858), where he was likewise a member of the seminary for theological candidates, as well as in the gymnasium at Guben (1858‑60) and the Domgymnasium of his native city (1860‑65). From 1865 to 1875 he was professor and second pastor at the royal school at Pforta, and in the latter year published at Jena his Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Allen Testaments, which, valuable to the theologian, the philosopher, and the classical student alike, led to his call to Jena as professor of Old.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
404
‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Testament theology, a position which he filled from 1875 until his death. He overtaxed his strength, however, and from 1878 to 1880 was necessarily relieved of his duties, while in 1901 the final failure of his health compelled him to cease lecturing. The first large work which Siegfried issued after his appointment at Jena was the Lehrbuch der neuhebriiischen Sprachz and Literatwr (in collaboration with H. L.' Strack; Carlsruhe, 1884), and he then collaborated with B. Stade in preparing a Hebraisches Worterbuch zum Alter Testament (Leipaie, 1893). His remaining publications of major importance were devoted to the Old Testament: the critical text of Job for SBOT (Baltimore 1893); the translation of Ezekiel for E. Kautzsch's new German translation of the Bible (Freiburg, 1894); and of the Wisdom of Solomon for the same scholar's Apokryphen and Pseudepigraphzn des Alter Testaments (1900); and commentaries on Ecclesiastes,
the Song of Solomon, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther for W. G. H. Nowaek's Handkommentar zum Alter Testament (GSttingen, 1898‑1901). He likewise collaborated with H. Gelzer in editing Eusebii canonvm epitome ex Dionysii Telmaharensis chronico petita (Leipsic, 1884), and also issued a translation from the Syriac, entitled Buch der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit, by his deceased friend C. Kayser (Strasburg, 1893). Besides all this, Siegfried wrote a large number of magazine articles on the Old Testament, Hebrew grammar and lexicography, exegesis, Philo and Hellenism, and Judaism and Jewish literature, as well as on more miscellaneous topics, in addition to many articles in various works of reference. He was, moreover, a peculiarly able reviewer, and for nineteen years (1871‑89) recorded the literature on the Old Testament and problems of Oriental philology appertaining to it for the Theologischer Jahresberichl. While in no sense a partizan, he was practically an adherent of the historico‑critical school of Reuss, Graf, Kayser, and Wellhausen. He was appointed an ecclesiastical councilor in 1885 and privy ecclesiastical councilor in 1892.
(B. BXxTSCIIt.)
BIBLIOaxePHY: B. Bantach, in ZWT, alvi (1903), 580‑589.
SIENA, SYNOD OF (1423‑24): On June 22, 1423, the Synod of Pavia (q.v.) resolved upon removal to Siena, where on July 21 of the same year it was opened under the same presiding officers as at Pavia. The decrees of the second session, published Nov. 8, 1423, repeated the condeixination of Wyclif, Huss (qq.v.), and Peter of Luna, and discussed union with the Greeks and the extinction of heresies. After that the question of the reformation of the Church was opened, and the French proposed that, in accordance with the Council of Constance, cardinals should be chosen from all parts of Christendom and that they should number eighteen, or twenty‑four at the most nomination to be national, while the pope was to have only the right of confirmation. 'these propositions met with violent opposition from the papal legates. Divisions arose, and it was seen that nothing could be accomplished there, so the whole reform was left to a new synod, and Basel was decided upon as the seat of the next synod. On Mar. 7, 1124, the papal legates left

405	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	siefYert
		si8ehert
Siena, and the council was dissolved against the
protests of the French participants.
		(PAUL TBCHACKERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The beat source is John of Ragusa, Initium
	d prosecutio Basiliensis Concilii, in Monumenta conciliorum
	generalium awculi XV., i. 12 sqq., Vienna, 1857. Con
	sult further: Manai, Concilia, vol. xxviii.; Hefele, Con
	ciliengeschichte, vii. 392‑409; the chronicle of Francesco
	di Tommassso, in Muratori, Scriptores, vol. xx.; Pastor.
	Popes, i. 238‑239; Creighton, Papacy, ii. 145‑150; Mil
	man, Latin Christianity, vii. 535; KL, a. 290 sqq•; and
	the literature under MARTIN V.
	SIEVEKING, AMALIE WILHELMINE: Ger
man Protestant philanthropist and founder of the
Hamburg Weiblicher Verein filr Armen‑ und Krank
enpflege; b. at Hamburg July 25, 1794; d. there
Apr. 1, 1859. Orphaned at the age of fifteen, she
lived with Fruulein Dimpfel, the daughter‑in‑law of
the poet Wopstock, and there, in instructing the
nieces of her patroness, she began a career as a
teacher which continued, with only brief interrup
tions, until her death. Here, too, her rationalistic
and skeptical attitude toward Christianity began to
be modified, until later, after the death of a brother,
and under the influence of the works of Thomas h
Kempis and A. H. Francke, she attained to a deep
and abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer. After
a brief residence with a widowed aunt in Neumt3h
len, Amalie Sieveking was requested, in 1811, by a
widowed relative of her mother's, Frau Brunne
mann, to assist her in taking care of a sick son, and
though the latter soon died, the home thus gained
was kept until the death of Fran Brunnemann in
1839. Meanwhile she always had a class of young
girls, and likewise taught in a free private school for
poor girls. During this time her efforts to clear up
for herself certain passages of the Bible seem to have
led her to compose her Betrachtungen fiber einzelne
Stellen der heiligen Schri ft, which, in the hope that it
might help others in that period of the revival of
religious life, she published anonymously at Ham
burg in 1823. About this same time, moreover, she
formed the plan of establishing a Lutheran order of
deaconesses (q.v.), but since she did not feel herself
divinely called to do this in person, the realization
of the concept was left for Theodor Fliedner (q.v.).
Nevertheless, she discussed the entire matter with
C. F. A. Hartmann (librarian and professor of his
tory at Hamburg) and with J. Gossner (q.v.), the
latter confirming her in her attitude of prudent hesi
tation. In 1827 she published at Hamburg (again
anonymously) her Beschaftigungen mit der heiligen
Schrift, and her circle of noteworthy acquaintances
increased, while her girls' classes still continued
with great success.
	When, in 1831, cholera broke out in Hamburg,
Amalie Sieveking deemed that the time had come
to carry out her plan, and since none answered her
cal) to unite with her in Christian care of the sick,
she volunteered her own services, which were ac
cepted when the first woman to fall a victim to the
plague was brought to the hospital erected for such
cases. Regarded at first as a mere enthusiast, her
judgment and devotion soon won such recognition
that she was appointed inspectress of all the nurses.
Even after the completion of her work at the hos
pital, she realized that conditions were not yet
favorable for her order of deaconesses, but in its stead she gradually formed the somewhat similar idea of founding a " Women's Society for the Care of the Poor and Sick." This she established early in 1832, the movement spreading from Hamburg to many other German cities. At the initial conference (May 23) she delivered an address (reprinted in Bericht caber die Leistungen des weiblichen Vereins fiir Armen‑ and Krankenpftege, x. 56‑68), in which she emphasized the necessity of devoted Christian faith and love in the care of the sick and indigent. The sick should be visited personally, and the poor should be given work, if possible, rather than money, while every effort should be made in behalf of religious training and life. All the details of the undertaking, which was mainly dependent on voluntary subscription, were most carefully regulated, these including not only the visiting of the poor and sick, but also the distribution of food, assignment of work in Various trades, care of the raw materials, sale of the finished products, and the administration of the poorhouses and the childrens' hospital later founded by the society. While the members of the society, who rapidly increased in number, were naturally exposed to occasional gross deception by their wards, and though they were frequently charged with fostering hypocrisy, yet, on the whole, the movement must be characterized as most admirably adapted to its purpose, and as affording spiritual and physical aid in countless cases where a single individual would not have been able to render assistance. Toward the end of her life, besides having edited the annual Bericht fiber die Leistungen des weiblichen Vereins fur Armen‑ and Krankenpflege (26 vols., Hamburg, 1833‑58), she wrote Unterhaltungen fiber einzelne Abachnitte der heiligen Schrift (Leipsic, 1855), while a compilation from her writings was translated into English anonymously under the title The Principles of Charitable Work‑Love, Truth, and Order‑a8 set forth in the Writings of A. W. Sieveking (London, 1863).
(CARL BERTHEAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Denkwfrdigkeiten Gus dem Leben von Amalie Sieoeking, Hamburg, 1860, Eng. tranal., ed. C. Winkworth, Life of A. W. Sieoekinp, London, 1863; J. H. HSek, Bilder Gus der GeschiMU der hamburpischen Kirche wit der Reformation, Pp. 353 sqq., Hamburg, 1900; ADB, xxuv. 217 eqq.

SIGEBERT OF GEMBLOU%: A versatile and productive writer of the early Middle Ages, especially noteworthy as historian; b. probably in the neighborhood of Gembloux (10 m. n.w. of Namur, Belgium) about 1035; d. at Gembloux Nov. 5, 1112. He was educated in the abbey of Gembloux, became a monk there, and spent his mature life as teacher, first in the school of the abbey of St. Vincent at Metz, then (from c. 1070) at Gembloux. As teacher he was highly esteemed, and in general he is to be commended as a good example of the capable and learned Benedictine monk of the older time, filled with genuine piety but disinclined to all ascetic excesses, an earnest seeker after truth, a highly lovable and attractive personality. His best‑known book is a world chronicle, Decennalis liber, continuing Jerome's translation of Eusebius' chronicle,
covering the period 381‑1111. Sigebert was nearly

slge~bert $ihler
seventy when he began the work and he wrote it with reference to the similar chronicle of Marianus Scotus. Like the latter he makes the year of the incarnation the basis of his chronological system. The book can hardly be called history, being a bare list of events, among which naturally in the later time notices of the German empire and Sigebert's Belgian home predominate. The accounts of the years from 1105 to 1111 are the most extended and were probably expanded after the first completion of the chronicle. An introduction, explaining the purpose, use, and system of the book, is lost with the exception of some lines. Sigebert's chronicle was often revised and continued and became the source of very many later historical works. The best [almost ideal] edition is by L. C. Bethmann in MGH, Script., vi (1844), 300‑374, but the treatment of the sources here is wholly inadequate. After the chronicle Sigebert wrote a book on writers and their works supplementing the De vir. ill. of Jerome and Gennadius (ed. J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca ecclesi^ astica, pp. 93‑116, Hamburg, 1718), which is his second important work for the present time. Sigebert took the side of the secular rulers in the contest with the popes which filled the greater part of his life. To a letter addressed by Gregory VII. to Bishop Hermann of Metz in 1081, seeking to prove that popes have the right to excommunicate kings, he wrote an answer which is apparently lost, although Bethmann (cf. MGH, Lib. de lite, i. 454‑460, 1890) and A. Cauchie (La Querelle des investitures dans les dioceses de Likge et de Cambrai, i. pp. 66‑99, Louvain, 1890) claim to have discovered it. A defense of masses said by married priests, however, is extant, written against Gregory VII. (ed. E. Sackur, MGH, Lib. de lite, ii. 436‑148, 1892); and also a very able and sharp reply for the diocese of Li6ge to Paschal II., who in 1103 urged Count Robert II. of Flanders to punish the clergy and people of Li6ge for their ;adherence to the Emperor Henry IV. and to make war on the emperor (ed. E. Sackur, MGH, Lib. de lite, ii. 449‑164, 1892). Sigebert's other writings were lives or eulogies of personages connected in tradition or history with Metz and Gembloux. Some are in verse, of which one especially, a long Passio sanctorum Thebeorum, written when Sigebert was forty‑four years of age, attests real poetic gifts. Many of his writings are reprinted from earlier editions in MPL, clx.; cf. also lxxxvii. 303‑314, and E. Diimmler in Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, pp. 1‑125, 1893.
(0. HOLDER‑EGGER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For an extensive bibliography of editions consult Potthast, Wepweiaer, pp. 1016‑18, and cf. Wattenbach, DGQ, ii (1894), 155‑162. Almost the only sources for the life and writings of Sigebert are a chapter of the Geata abbatum Gemblacensium by Godescale and the last chapter of Sigebert's Scriptores ecclesiastic:, fn which he gives a list of his writing,, probably in substantially chronological order. Godescalc was a pupil of Sigebert and his work is a continuation of an earlier one by the latter. Consult further: S. Hirsch, De vita et acriptis Sigeberti monachi Gemblacensis, Berlin, 1841; the prolegomena of Bethmann in MGH, Script., vi (1844), 268‑299; H. E. Bonnen, Die Anfdnge des karolingixhea Ha uses, Berlin, 1866; L. Demaison, etude critique our Za vie de S. S~eberl . . par Siqebert de Gdmbruq fn Travaus de Zracade'mie nationals de Reims, Ixiv (1880); Huyg hens, Sur la valeur de 'a chroniqme historique de sigebert
TNF
HE	W SCHAFF‑HERZOG
406
de Mom, Ghent. 1889; A. Cauehie, La Querelle des inveetiturea dana . . . LiEDe et Cambrai, 2 parts, Louvain, 1890. SIGISMUND, sf'gis‑munt", JOHANN: Elector of Brandenburg 1608‑19; b. at Halls N ov. 8 (18), 1572; d. at Brandenburg Dec. 23, 1619. During the sixteenth century there were various changes in the religious situation at Brandenburg, depending upon the attitude of the ruling elector. Joachim I. (1499‑1535) was a strict Roman Catholic; under Joachim II. the Reformation of Luther entered the country. The period of Johann Georg (1571‑98) was the time of undisputed sway of strict Lutheranism, but his son Joachim Friedrich was inclined toward the Calvinistic doctrine. Johann Sigismund, the son of Joachim Friedrich, was educated as a strict Lutheran, according to the directions of his grandfather, by Simon Gedicke, at that time court preacher in Halls; but in 1588 his father sent him, together with his brother, Johann Georg, to the University of Strasburg, where both princes were favorably impressed by Calvinism. In 1605 he was in Heidelberg, where he became a close friend of Count Palatine Friedrich IV., and his wife, the daughter of William of Orange. His personal intercourse with Reformed princes and theologians led him to become a decided opponent of the Formula of Concord. For some time he tried to keep his change of convictions secret, but in 1613, on Ascension Day, a Reformed church service was held in the court chapel on the occasion of a visit of Landgrave Maurice, to the great vexation of the Lutheran clergy. On another occasion Martin Fiissel, superintendent of Zerbst, administered the Lord's Supper after the Reformed rite. Simon Gedicke, provost of the cathedral, protested against the infringement of the parochial rights of Brandenburg and published a treatise, Von den, Ceremonien bei dem heiligen Abendmahl (1613), against the Calvinists, especially against Salomo Finck, a court preacher newly called from Konigsberg, who showed himself a decided Calvinist. A committee of the estates requested Christoph Pelargus, general superintendent of the Mark and professor of theology in Frankforton‑the‑Oder, to proceed officially against the court preacher; his refusal made him also a suspect of Calvinism. Before the elector was now placed the alternative either to take measures against Finek and Pelargus or to make his statement of adherence to the Reformed faith. He chose the latter, and on Dec. 18, 1613, announced to the clergy that .he did not claim control over the consciences of his subjects, and similarly no one might dictate in the matter to him. He forbade untimely outbreaks from the pulpit, and permitted communion in the Reformed. manner. He justified himself by appealing to the amended Augsburg Confession (Augustana variata) which, he said, was admitted in the Saxon kingdom. In an edict of Feb. 24, 1614, he again forbade invective from the pulpit and proclaimed as a basis of doctrine for all preachers "the doctrine of the divine Word according to the four chief symbols (including the Chalcedonian), the amended Augsburg Confession, and the Apology." On Feb. 21, 1614, there was designed a complete plan for subjecting the whole country to the Reformed faith. Strict Lutherans like Gedicke and Willich, archdeacon of St.

40"1	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Si1r9bert rt
Peter, were forced to flee, and the elector called Abraham Scultetus (q.v.) to carry out the new plan. At his advice there was published on May 10 a " Confession of the Reformed Churches of Germany," the preface of which tried to show that even after the Reformation there were still left many Romanistic errors in the new faith, and that it was necessary to reform the church of Brandenburg anew in order to equate it with other Evangelical churches. This confession was a reprint of one first published at Heidelberg in 1562. In the same year the elector issued his own confession of faith, Confessio Sagit:mundi. It is not a complete confession, but touches merely the points of controversy. The elector again acknowledges the chief symbols and the emended Augsburg Confession as the basis of doctrine while he condemns all other writings " conceived by men," meaning principally the Formula of Concord. He rejects the doctrine of ubiquity and the Lutheran doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum (q.v.); in baptism he rejects the ceremony of exorcism; in the Lord's Supper bread and wine are visible symbols of invisible grace. The bread must be real unleavened bread, and the breaking of the bread must be preserved according to the example of Christ. He adopts the doctrine of election. The Confessio Sigismttndi. became authoritative among the Reformed in the eastern parts of Brandenburg‑Prussia. Although the elector declared his intention not to interfere with the faith of his people, he continued the " reformation " of his country, by constituting a church council which was to take care of the interests of the Reformed faith. On Oct. 3 a disputation between Reformed and Lutherans was to take place, but the latter were so timid in the assertion of their rights that the elector himself broke off the colloquy and obliged every one present to observe the edict of Feb. 24. The hope of the clergy rested now upon the interference of the estates. In 1615 the estates seriously complained that preachers of doubtful standing were forced upon them, demanded the appointment of Lutherans in the schools and at the university, refused to acknowledge Pelargus as general superintendent, and asked the elector for the renewal and confirmation of his former pledges for the protection of Lutheranism. After they had made their demands a fourth time, the elector round it advisable to yield and declared now that " everybody in his country who desired, might adhere to the doctrine of Luther and the unchanged Augsburg Confession, also to the Book of Concord." Nevertheless, the propaganda in behalf of the Reformed confession was continued. The church council continued its activity; the state university and college were supplied with Reformed teachers; Reformed preachers presided over Lutheran congregations, and Pelargus in his love of peace ordained also Reformed clergymen. But after 1616 the opposition against the renovations became so strong and general both among the clergy and laity, that in 1618 the church council had to be dissolved, and thus the " work of the Reformation " in the Mark of Brandenburg came to an end. The Lutheran Church was preserved, the elector standing almost alone with his change of confession. His wife together with her daughters adhered faithfully to the Lutheran creed.
His change of confession involved the elector in difficulties with the duchy of Prussia, of which he was feudal lord. The Prussian estates uttered the reproach that by adopting the Reformed confession Sigismund had violated the fundamental laws of the duchy. His theologians, Pelargus and J. Bergius, refused to accept an invitation to the Synod of Dort (1618), and its decisions acquired no authority in Brandenburg. The events in Brandenburg occasioned the issue of a great mass of polemical literature. Between 1613 and 1619 there appeared 231 treatises, among the contributors, on the Lutheran side, being Leonhard Hutter, Hoe von Hoenegg (qq.v.), and Friedrich Balduin; the treatises advocating the Reformed faith were mostly anonymous. (G. KAWERAU. )
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Keller, Die Gegenreformation in Westfalen and am Niederrhein, iii. 219 sqq., Leipsic, 1895; A. Chroust, in Forschungen zur brandenburgischen and preussischen Geschichte, ix (1897), 12 sqq.; J. C. Beemann, Oratio secularis in memoriam a . . Johanne Sigismundo . . . introdueta! reformats religionis, Frankfort, 1713; D. H. Hering, Historische Nachricht von dem ersten Anfang der evangelisch‑reformierten Kirche in Brandenburg and Preussen, Halle, 1778; idem, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der evangelisch‑reformierten Kirche in den preussisch‑brandenburgischen Landern, Breslau, 1784; W. MBller, in Deutsche Zeitschrift fur christliche Wissenschaft, 1858, pp. 189 sqq.; Wangemann, Johann Sigismund and Paul Gerhardt, Berlin, 1884; E. Clausnitzer, Die markischen Stande unter Johann Sigimund, Halle, 1895; F. Dittrich, in Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte der Altertumskunde Ermlands, xiu (1900), 72 sqq.; ADB, xiv. 169 sqq., cf. xxv. 328 sqq. For the Confessio Sigismundi consult: K. Maller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, pp. lvi. sqq., 835 sqq., Leipsic, 1903, cf. 0. Seger, Zur Confessio Sigismundi, Berlin, 1899.
SIHLER, sirler, EDWARD WILHELM ALEXANDER: Lutheran (Missouri Synod); b. at Bernstadt, Silesia (22 m. e. of Breslau), Nov. 12,1801; d. at Fort Wayne, Ind., Oct. 27, 1885. From the gymnasium at Schweidnitz he entered the army, was a lieutenant of the line in 1819, in 1823 a student of the military academy in Berlin (with Von Moltke and Von Roon), but in 1826 left the service and became a student under Schleiermacher in Berlin (Ph.D., Jena, 1829). In 1830 he became an instructor in the famous Blochmann's Institute in Dresden, in 1838 a private tutor on the Livonian island of Oesel, and in 1840 the same at Riga. About 1835 he was converted and in 1843 came to the United States to labor among the Germans, who were then so destitute of religious teachers. His first charge was in Pomeroy, O., his second and only other charge at Fort Wayne from 1845 till his death. He was one of the organizers of the movement started in his study in 1846 out of which came the powerful Missouri Synod (see LUTHERANS, III., 5, § 1). He was its first vicepresident and the first president of the middle district of his synod. He organized the Practical Seminary at Fort Wayne in 1845, and in it taught exegesis and dogmatics till 1861. He was a prominent preacher among the Germans of the Middle West and also an organizer of churches. He wrote in German several books, including an autobiography (down to 1843, St. Louis, Mo., 1879) and many articles.
SIHLER, ERNEST GOTTLIEB: Lutheran layman and classical scholar; b. at Fort Wayne,

Sikhs
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Ind., Jan. 2, 1853. He was educated at Concordia College, Fort Wayne (A.B., 1869), Concordia Lutheran Divinity School, St. Louis (from which he was graduated in 1872), the universities of Berlin and Leipsic (1872‑75), and Johns Hopkins (Ph.D., 1878). He was a classical instructor in New York City (1879‑91); professor of classics at Concordia College, Milwaukee (1891‑92); and since 1892 has been professor of Latin in New York University. In theology he " holds to the historical position of recorded Christianity, is a conservative in the full acceptance of Gospels and Epistles," and " believes that the spiritual failure of classical civilization is a profound argument for Christianity." He is the author of a number of editions of classics and of Testimonium Animm: or, Greek and Roman before Jesus Christ (New York, 1908), a series of essays and sketches dealing with the spiritual elements in classical civilization; and Annals of Ccesar; critical Biography, with a Survey of the Sources (1910).
SIKHS, siks, SIKHISM.
1. History of the Sikhs. Background and Sources (§ 1). Life of the Founder (§ 2). The Other Gurus (¢ 3). History from 1708 (§ 4). II. The Religion. The Granth (§ 1). Belief and Practise (5 2).
Sikh is the name accepted by a people in India found almost exclusively in the Punjab, who are bound together not by tribal affiliations but by a religious bond. The term, meaning " disciple," is the correlative of guru, "teacher," a common noun appropriated as the title of the founder of the religion and transmitted to the nine men who succeeded him as religious heads of the faith. The fact that " Sikh " came to have a semi‑national significance is not an essential of the system, but merely a consequence of the political conditions at the breaking up of the Mohammedan power in northwest India during the eighteenth century.
I. History of the Sikhs: While the religion was founded and developed by a series of ten teachers who were called Gurus, the beginnings of their faith are traced by themselves to a man named
Kabir, who, as so often in India, was r. Back‑ regarded as an incarnation of deity.
ground and His birth date is variously given as Sources. 1398 and about 1500. He is said to
have been miraculously conceived and born in or near Benares, to have grown up a religious reformer, and to have composed hymns which are received among the sacred writings of the Sikhs. His revolt was against all distinctions of caste and religion, against the Puranas and Shastras of Hinduism, and, necessarily, against the assumptions of the Brahmans, and no less against the bigotry fostered by the Koran. A number of sects, it is claimed, sprang from his teachings, the last of whom were the Sikhs. All these sects exemplify the tendency of Indian teaching to combine elevated ideals and noble reforms with gross superstition and foolish observances. The sources of knowledge of the Sikh religion and its founders and leaders are the following. The principal work and the sacred book
408
of the Sikhs is the Adi Granth or Granth Sahib (see below), a work in an obscure dialect of the Pan)abi called Gurmukhi, which includes compositions by the Gurus and also by Bhagats (Indian saints) who preceded the Gurus. Hymns are found also in Prakrit, Hindi, Marathi, Multani, and a number of local dialects. For the lives of the Gurus there is a series of works embodying accounts of their lives, teachings, and miracles, in various languages, principally Panjabi and Hindi, claiming to be by adherents of the faith who were in especially close relations with one or another of the Gurus. One manuscript of the earliest of these lives dealing with Guru Nanak bears the date of 1588, and was therefore written during the lifetime of a certain Bhai Budha, a venerable Sikh, who is admitted to have been a young contemporary and disciple of Nanak and to have lived to a great age, actually linking by his life the leadership of the first six Gurus. This would be of importance were it not for the fact that the life under discussion, and all later works of the kind, abound in the legendary, and have been besides extensively corrupted by the admixture of characteristic Hindu material which vitiates them for critical use. Two of the most extensive of these works, the Nanak Parkash, dealing with the life and teachings of Nanak, was written in 1823, and by the same author the Suraj Parkash, in 6 volumes, was written between that year and 1843. A great number of schismatic (for Sikhism had its schisms) and what may be called apocryphal works exist, all of which teem with the miraculous, while they are sparing of data which submit to verification.
The Gurus were ten in number, each of the nine last of whom became leader on the death (or retirement) of his predecessor. Their names and dates are as follows: Nanak (1469‑1538), Angad (1504‑52),
		Amar Das (1479‑1574), Ram Das
	x. Life	(1534‑81), Arjan (1563‑1606), Har
	of the	Gobind (1595‑1645), Har Rai (1630
Founder.	1661), Har Krishan (1656‑64), Teg Bar
		hadur (1622‑75), and Gobind Rai or
Gobind Singh (1666‑1708). The important names
here are Nanak, Ram Das, Arjan, Har Gobind, Teg
Bahadur, and Gobind Singh. The narrative, in
brief, of the life of Nanak will give the flavor of all
of these Indian lives. He was born in Apr.‑May,
1469, at or near Talwandi (a small town 30 m. s.w.
of Lahore), and died at Kartarpur (62 m. e. of La
hore) in 1538. His father was an accountant and
agriculturist, consequently Nanak came not of
priestly but of lay lineage. This fact is significant
both for the character of the religion and for the
tongue in which the literature is cast‑the vernacu
lar and not the Sanskrit. His home was away from
the centers of Mohammedan influence and fanati
cism, and this accounts for the impetus the religion
secured before encountering opposition. Accord
ing to reports, the astrologer who was called in at
his birth foretold his greatness‑some records affirm
the presence of the gods; at the age of five he be
gan to meditate on heavenly themes; when at the
ages of seven he went to school, the master wrote
for him the alphabet, and he immediately composed
an acrostic on the alphabet and speedily excelled

409	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Sikhs
his master in knowledge; this experience was repeated when he went to study Persian at the age of seven; while a youth engaged in herding cattle, as he meditated the cattle trespassed on a grainfield to the wrath of the owner, yet on examination it was found that not a single shoot had been trampled; once while he was sleeping under a tree, the shadow remained fixed and protected him from the sun, and at another time a cobra spread its hood and shaded him (Cf. SERPENT IN WORSHIP; etc., IV., § 2). Apart from such tales, what may be gathered of his life is that he early reached conclusions condemning the religious customs, both Hindu and Mohammedan, current about him, employed himself in composing verses in the vernacular embodying instruction on man's duty to God and man and expressive of revolt against the teachings and practises of the two dominant religions. He refused as a youth to put on the sacred thread and so declare himself a Hindu, confounding in argument the Brahman who was to perform the ceremony.
Nanak was married at fourteen, but could not be induced to take up an occupation, gaining the reputation of a madman. At length he took service under the governor of Sultanpur, spent the nights praising the Creator, and gave all but a pittance of his wages to fakirs. Having retired into the wilderness, he was gone three days, during which he thought he had a vision of the Supreme, drank nectar in the presence, and was pronounced the true Guru. On his return he uttered a cryptic sentence condemning Hindus and Mohammedans, then took up the life of a wanderer and religious teacher, and began to make disciples. Like Socrates, he found the themes for his teachings in the daily life about him, a question, a chance saying, or an experience giving him the text for a discourse in verse. Manifesting a supreme disregard for rank or dignity, he rebuked or taught with equal ardor, severity, or gentleness, as the case seemed to him to require, all who met him or listened to him, addressing as on terms of equality ascetics, fakirs, thugs, Brahmans, nobles, princes, and kings, all of whom are said to have acknowledged the divine source of his teachings. He overcame the temptation of the devil who sought to buy him with the riches of the earth from the accomplishment of his teaching mission. He is said to have traversed Middle and South India and to have visited Mecca and Medina. During his life the organization of the Sikh church had begun by the founding of societies, and the Guru's hymns were committed to memory as sacred scriptures. At the end of his life he inaugurated the practise followed by the other Gurus (except the tenth) and appointed his successor, in this case Angad. Just before his death Mohammedans and Hindus contested for the honor of disposing of his remains, but in the morning the corpse had disappeared‑his supreme miracle. The methods of Nanak were often exceedingly apt and convincing. Thus to a man who had acquired great wealth and ostentatiously displayed it he gave a needle with the injunction to retain it carefully until it should be required of him in the next world. The man took it with the injunction to his wife,
who declared the Guru mad and told him to return it to the giver. The latter then asked, if so small a thing as a needle could not be taken into the next world, how so great wealth could accompany the rich. On being asked how to take it there he replied: " Give some of thy wealth in God's name, feed the poor, and thy wealth shall accompany thee" (Macauliffe, i. 130).
The name of the second Guru, Angad, embodies the theory respecting the person of the Guru. His name was Lahina, but this was changed to a word which included the word for " body,"
3. The the idea being that the Guru for the
Other	time being was the embodiment of the
	Gurus.	first Guru, and that indeed all the Gurus
		were not ten but one, the spirit of the
first descending to the second. A consequence of
this is that the compositions of the Gurus all carry
the pen name Nanak. Angad abandoned the wan
dering mode of life, settled at a place called Khadur,
whither the Sikhs came for instruction and to bring
their free‑will offerings. His leadership was marked
by the first Sikh schism, a part of the followers of
Nanak choosing Sri Chand, oldest son of Nanak, as
Guru, and this sect received the name of Udasis
(" solitaries "). The period of the third Guru, Amar
Das, was marked by a second attempt at schism,
since Datu, the son of Angad, tried to set himelf up
in opposition, but was not recognized by the Sikhs.
Amar Das inaugurated the custom for the Sikhs of
visiting the Guru three times a year for instruction
in religion. It was he who began the work of build
ing the sacred tank or pool. His period is marked
also by formal complaints to the Mohammedan
emperor against the faith, but Akbar dismissed these
and showed favor to the Guru. He formulated the
rules of the religion and created a sort of regulation
of life. By the fourth Guru, Ram Das, the work of
dissemination of the religion was undertaken by
the despatch of missionaries, part of whose work
was the collection of offerings for the completion of
the sacred tank. The importance of this structure
is great, since it gave the Sikhs a center and a home,
the environs of the pool being built up and becom
ing the sacred city Amritsar, now the goal of the
Sikh pilgrimage. The compositions of this Guru and
of his predecessor were quite numerous. The fifth
Guru, Arjan, youngest son of Ram Das, completed
the erection of the tank and also the building of a
temple in the middle of it, also beginning the erec
tion of the city of Kartarpur. His oldest brother
attempted to seize the leadership and created a sec
ond schism, giving rise to the Mina sect. This fact
emphasized a growing tendency to diversity of faith
and practise and the rise of rival scriptures. Ac
cordingly he conceived and carried through the col
lection of the body of scriptures called the Adi
(" first ") Granth (see below), which was completed
in 1604 (or within about fifty years of the death
of the first Guru) and deposited it in the newly built
temple. The importance of this for the Sikhs can
not be overestimated, guaranteeing as it did the
perpetuity of the sect. His period is marked by in
creased stress from the Mohammedans. Already
under the previous Guru there had been armed con
flict, which in Arjan's time became serious; there

Sikhs
Siloam Inscription
was now demand made that hymns in the Granth hostile to Mohammedanism be destroyed. Arjan was taken prisoner by the emperor and tortured to death ostensibly for refusal to become a Mohammedan, possibly, however, for giving aid to a revolting son of the emperor. Har Gobind, the sixth Guru, was the son of Arjan. Probably because of the increasing pressure of Moslem opposition, he instituted a standing army for the Sikhs, and militarism becomes more pronounced from this time on. Hostilities were frequent, the Guru was himself imprisoned, but the Sikhs were welded together by their trials. The next two Gurus were insignificant. The ninth, Teg Bahadur, youngest son of Har Gobind, took up again the practise of travel, but the military establishment was maintained. He is represented as going to the court at Delhi practically as a sacrifice for his people, where he was beheaded. The tenth Guru, Gobind Rai, afterward Gobind Singh, was the son of Teg Bahadur. He was engaged in conflict with the hill rajahs for almost his whole guruship, and fighting with Mohammedans was also practically constant. His significance for the religion is great. He abolished for the Sikh conformity to the Hindu customs of cutting the hair and shaving the head, instituted fivefold baptism with water stirred with a sword after which each Sikh took the name Singh (" lion "), forbade intermarriage of Sikhs with Mohammedans, confirmed tithes as the substitute for free‑will offerings, completed the Granth and made it better suited to the changed conditions, and finally refused to appoint a successor, directing Sikhs to obey the Granth as " the visible body of the Guru." This left religious direction in the hands of the official " reader of the Granth."
After the death of Gobind Singh in 1708, the history of the Sikhs is obscure till 1800. It is known that they were persecuted, and that a price of from
five to twenty‑five rupees was for a
4. History time offered by the Mohammedan
from r7o8. ruler of the Punjab for each Sikh head.
But as Mohammedan power declined in the region during the eighteenth century, there was organization of minor Sikh confederacies in the Punjab under elected leaders. Ranjit Singh (b. 1780, governor of Lahore 1800, d. 1839) conceived the plan of utilizing Sikh military fanaticism and religious zeal to create a kingdom with Lahore as the capital, and extended the realm to the Sutlej, then the border of British rule. During his life the relations between the British and the Sikhs was friendly. After his death the Sikhs crossed the frontier into British territory, and the dominion of the latter was gravely threatened. The Sikhs fought with their wonted bravery and were beaten back only after inflicting great losses and winning the respect of their foes. The second Sikh war in 1848 resulted in the same way, and the British then took over the administration of the Punjab. The Sikhs entered in numbers the British army in India, in which they still constitute a large and most loyal element. They proved their worth and loyalty first in the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Their numbers, as given by the census of 1901, are 2,195,339, all but 64,352 in the Punjab, and of these two‑thirds are in the United
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Provinces and Kashmir. Religiously they fall into two great divisions and many sects. The divisions are the Sahijdharis and the Singhs, the former rejecting the baptism of Gobind Singh. Besides the schismatic Udasis and Minas referred to above, there are the Handalis, named after a convert of Amar Das, but not arising till about 1640. Their descendants, a small community, have their headquarters at Jandiala in the Punjab, where they are known as Niranjanie. As a religious sect the Sikhs are being absorbed by the dominant Hinduism, have lost almost entirely the language of their sacred book, and are in many respects forgetting the distinguishing
practises which under their Gurus marked them as apart from the Hindus.
II. The Religion: The religious tenets of the Sikhs are exhibited in the Adi Granth (or Granth Sahib), consisting of the poetic utterances of the Gurus and of some Indian saints whose sayings the
Gurus approved. According to com‑
a. The men conceptions, the Gurus, were inGranth. carnations of deity, and, consequently,
the book is inspired. In its present arrangement the Granth serves the purpose of a bible and a liturgy. It is in six parts: (1) an introduction by Nanak; (2) extracts from two of the " rags " (see below) used in devotions at eventide; (3) a devotional chapter composed of extracts from one of the rags; (4) a chapter of extracts from three of the rags used as a prayer before retiring; (5) the Granth proper, of compositions in meter arranged under thirty‑one rags (musical measures to which the hymns were sung or chanted‑the result is much like a hymn‑book with the hymns arranged under the different meters, short, long, common, etc.); (6) a concluding portion by various authors, including Indian saints and fakirs. The extent is indicated by the fact that Trumpp's translation and notes (see bibliography) make a small quarto of 715 pages. The language of the Granth is obscure both as a dialect and because of the educational limitations of the Gurus. It was intended for the understanding of the common people, and was therefore in the vernacular; on ‑this account the Brahmans remonstrated with the Gurus for putting in the common speech what the former contended should not be imparted to the populace, such knowledge being too high for them. But the Gurus were aiming at the very evil of retaining the knowledge of religion within the command of a few, and desired therefore not only that their own people should have this knowledge in their own language (not the Sanskrit), but that other nations should learn of it, and so hoped for the translation of their works into many languages. Of its contents varying estimates exist; the literature of the East rarely appeals to the mind of the West, and it is hardly strange that a book which so abounds in figures, which reflects a life and ordinary conceptions so different from those of the western world, and which is more or less repetitious should not appeal to those who have not breathed the inspiration of the East. Sir Lefel Griffin (formerly secretary of the Punjab government) remarks truly that it is scarcely possible to turn a single page without being struck with the beauty and originality of the figures and with the

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Sikhs
Silos= Inscription
enlightened devotion of its language (in H. A. Giles and others, Great Religions of the World, New York, 1901). This book, like other sacred books, had its period of persecution at the hands of enemies of the religion. While the founder of the religion and writer of a considerable part of the Granth disclaimed special sanctity, he asserted his authority in matters of faith and practise.
Sikh theology is naturally based on established and current Hindu conceptions. Thus the reason for the existence of the Sikh religion is that which explains the avatars of Vishnu‑when
2. Belief the world needs it, God vouchsafes a and new revelation. The new worship is
	Practise.	based on the old Hindu idea of the
		efficacy of repeating devotionally the
name of God. God is one, but in the Hindu‑pan
theistic sense. He alone is real, all the world is un
real. He is formless, yet diffused throughout crea
tion. God and his worshiper are in some sense one;
yet the Hindu distinction between paramatman
(supreme soul) and jivatman (individual soul) is
maintained, the latter being an emanation of the
former. Attempts have been made to show the in
fluence of Christianity upon Sikh concepts and
teachings. Many of the ideas are very similar and
may possibly be of Christian origin; yet it must be
said that all can be paralleled from pre‑Christian
Hindu or Buddhistic sources. How similar these
ideas are to Christian teaching may be shown
by a few examples. Nanak resisted the tempta
tion of the devil who offered him the wealth
of the worid to abandon his mission (cf. Matt.
iv. 8‑10). He used to complain because when he
was silent the Brahmans called him an idiot, and
when he talked they said he chattered (cf. Matt.
xi. 18‑19). Among the figures he used was the dis
parity between the size of the seed of the Indian
fig‑tree and the tree itself (cf. Matt. xiii. 31‑32).
The incident of the needle related above (I., § 2)
reminds of Matt. xix. 21. Angad made the purity
and simplicity of children the quality of believers
which endeared them to the Creator. However,
the thoroughly Hindu foundation is unmistakable.
The doctrines of reincarnation and of karma are
held in their entirety; constantly in the teachings
of the Gurus inequality of fortune to desert is ex
plained as the result of deeds done in a former in
carnation. Belief in Nirvana is a tenet of the faith,
and the word is used in the twofold sense familiar
to students of Buddhism‑absorption into the Ab
solute with resultant loss of personality, and a sense
cognate with that of " paradise." The sacred num
ber is that of the Hindus‑five, and true Sikhs are
distinguished by reception of fivefold baptism and
by the wearing of five article‑long hair, comb,
sword, short drawers, and steel bracelet. The essen
tials of Sikh practise are abstention from Hindu
pilgrimages, from idolatry and from offerings to
idols, from wine and tobacco; women are not to be
secluded nor is infanticide to be practised; the de
nunciation of suttee (concremation of a widow) is
emphatic; observance of the caste system with its
load of defilements and purifications is prohibited;
and the duty of earning one's living is enforced.
Stress is laid upon the virtues of truth, honesty,
loyalty to the Guru and the religion, gratitude, char
ity to members of the faith, evenhanded justice,
filial duty, humility, patience, distrust of self, free
dom from superstition, and the recompensing of
good for evil. Most of the Granth is taken up with
metrical homilies upon these subjects and on the
duty of avoiding the corresponding vices. The Sikh
is to rise before day, to bathe, repeat part of the
scriptures, and meditate on the divine name. He
is to bear in mind that true sacrifice consists in be
ing charitable to those who repeat God's name and
practise humility. His ordinary acts are to become
acts of devotion, and he is to pray for the extension
of the religion. 	GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: As a source incomparably the best work is M. A. Maeauliffe, The Sikh Religion; its Gurus, sacred Writings and Authors, 6 vols., Oxford, 1908 (this translates the Granth, placing the separate compositions after the accounts of the Gurus to whom they are credited. In the lives of the Gurus the author has used the native sources, and the flavor of the originals is preserved; unfortunately, the matter is rather poorly arranged. The point of view is sympathetic to the religion). Next best is Adi Granth, transl. by E. Trumpp, London, 1877 (the transl. is inferior in its English‑the translator was a German ‑and is said to be inadequate from the point of view of fidelity to the original; its value is that it translates consecutively; the introduction is extensive and has value). For the history of the Sikhs consult: J. D. Cunningham, A Hist. of the Sikhs from the Origin of the Nation to the Battles of the Sutlej, London, 1849; L. Griffin, The Rajahs of the Punjab, ib. 1873; idem, Ranjit Singh, ib. 1892; E. Trumpp, Nanak der Stifter der Sikh Religion, Munich, 1876. On the religion consult: H. H. Wilson, Religious Sects of the Hindus, Calcutta, 1846; Sakhi Namah. Sakhee Book, or the Description of Gooroo Gobind Singh's Religion and Doctrines, transl. . . by Sirdar Attar Singh, Benares, 1873; A. Barth, Religions of India, pp. 242 sqq., London, 1881; E. Trumpp, Die Religion der Sikhs each der Quellen, Leipsie, 1881; F. Pincott, in Religious System of the World, London and New York, 1893; A. S. Geden, Studies in Eastern Religions, London, 1900 (excellent); P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Religionsgeschichte, ii. 155‑157, Tabingen, 1905. Some magazine literature is indicated in Richardson, Encyclopedia, p. 1013.

SILOAM INSCRIPTION: An inscription found in the conduit in Jerusalem leading from the Virgin's Fount (or Virgin's Spring or Fountain of Steps) to the Pool of Siloam (see JERUSALEM, II.). The inscription was incised in the right‑hand wall of the conduit as one enters from the pool, and about nineteen feet from the entrance. It occupied the lower part of an artificial niche so hewed as to form a rectangular cartouche, and the upper part of this niche was left vacant. The inscription was discovered in the summer of 1880 by two boys. Dr. Schick, a German architect then resident in Jerusalem, having heard of the find, examined it, and had the water lowered in order to make a copy of the inscription. His efforts were not very successful, owing in part to his lack of skill as an archeologist, and in part to the fact that there was a deposit of lime over the place, and further because of confusion made by chance marks or cracks in the rock. Dr. A. H. Sayce of Oxford made the next copy in Feb., 1881, which was more nearly correct. In April of the same year a correct copy was secured by Dr. Hermann Guthe, who removed the lime deposits by chemical means, made a cast from which squeezes were taken, and in this way removed all doubts as to the actual contents of the iLScription.

Siloam Inscription silvester
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
This inscription is in six lines, written in the early script very closely resembling that of the Moabite Stone (q.v.) and of the current Phenician inscriptions. The first line is mutilated at the end, and a small break intrudes in lines two to four. The language is idiomatic Hebrew, the text is unpointed, and the orthography is, in the technical sense, " defective " in that the letters Waw and Yod, used as vowels, are often omitted where in later Hebrew they are written to aid in the pronunciation. An attempt was made to steal the inscription, and in the process it was broken; the fragments are now in the museum at Constantinople. The casts, squeezes, and the original in full light combine to make possible a nearly complete translation of the oldest Israelitish inscription known of any considerable length. Its date is by most scholars put not later than the reign of Hezekiah (714‑686?), and it is placed in connection with II Kings xx. 20, where it is stated that Hezekiah " made a pool, and a conduit," and with II Chron. xxxii. 30, R. V., " Hezekiah stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and brought them straight down on the west side of the city of David." The following is the translation of Dr. S. R. Driver (Notes on the Hebrew Text of . . . Samuel, p. xvi., Oxford, 1890).
1. [Behold] the piercing through I And this was the manner of the piercing through. Whilst yet [the miners were lifting up]
2. the pick each towards his fellow, and whilst yet there were three cubits to be [cut through, there was heard] the voice of each call‑
3. ing to his fellow, :or there, was a fissure (?) in the rock on the right hand . . . And on the day of the
4. piercing through, the miners (lit. hewers) smote each so as to meet his fellow, pick against pick; and there flowed
5. the water from the source to the pool, 1200 cubits; and one hun‑
	6. dred cubits was the height of the rock over the
head of the miners. 	GEo. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Guthe, in ZDMG, 1882, pp. 72'.‑750
	(the original publication by this scholar), and in ZDPV,
	z‑;iii (1890), 203‑204, 286‑288; C. R. Conder, in PEF,
	Quarterly Statement, 1882, pp. 122 sqq.; P. Berger, in
	Journal des d&ats, Apr. 16, 1882; Records of the Past, new
	series, i. 168‑175, London, 1889; W. F. Birch, in PEF,
	Quarterly Statement, 1890, pp. 208‑210; S. R. Driver, ut
	sup., pp. xiv.‑xvi., xxxii., xxxv.; C. Clermont‑Ganneau,
	Les Tombeaux de David et des rois de Judo et le tunnel
	aquedoc de Siloe, Paris, 1897; E. J. Pileher, in PSBA,
	xix (1897), 165‑182, xx (1898), 213‑222, and PEF, Quar
	terly Statement, 1898, pp. 56‑60; M. Lidzbarski Hand
	buch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, Weimar, 1898; A.
	Socin, Die Siloah Inschrift, Freiburg, 1899; T. H. Weir,
Short Hisl. of the Text of the O. T., London, 1899; G. A. Cooke, Text‑Book of North‑Semitic Inscriptions, ib. 1903; DB, iv. 515‑516; JE, xi. 339‑341.
SILVERIUS, sit‑vt'ri‑us: Pope 536‑537. The pontificate of Silverius, who was the son of Pope Hormisdas, fell during the period of the struggle between the Goths and the eastern Empire and of the discussion as to the value of the Chalcedonian decrees. According to the Liber pontificalis, he owed his elevation to the favor, won by money, of Theodatus, the Gothic king, and there was no formal election, his enthronement taking place June 8, 536. The speedy success of Belisarius in Italy made diffi‑
cult the position of Silverius as the protkg6 of the
Gothic king. By agreement Belisarius occupied
Rome Dec. 9, 536; but the agreement was short
lived, for Silverius incurred the hostility of Empress
Theodora by siding with the deposed Patriarch An
thimus. The pope soon renewed his relations with
the Goths, and he was charged with purposing to
admit them to Rome; this seems not improbable, in
spite of the denial of his biographer, for from the
Goths Silverius had most to expect. In Mar., 537,
Belisarius deposed Silverius and banished him as
a monk to Patara in Lycia. His successor was
Vigilius, whose subserviency in dogmatic matters
secured the favor of Theodora. The case against
Silverius was reopened, and he was brought back
to Italy, only to be banished to the island of Ponza
in the Tyrrhenian Sea, where he died at a date
unknown. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontificalis, ed. Mommsen in MGH.
	Gast. Pont. Rom., i (1898), 144; Jaft, Repesta, i. 115;
	Proeopius, De bello Gothieo, i. 25, printed in Muratori,
	Seriptores, i. 1. pp. 247‑369; J. Langen, Geschichte der
	romischen Kirche, ii. 341 sqq., Bonn, 1885; F. Gregoro‑
vine, Hist. of the City of Rome, i. 369, 395‑398, London,
1894; Bower, Popes, i. 344‑347; Milman, Latin Chris
tianity, i. 461; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, u. 571, Fr.
tranal., ii. 2, p. 873.
SILVESTER: The name of two popes and two antipopes.
Silvester L: Pope 314‑335. The important events falling during the pontificate of this pope were the conversion of Constantine [and the alleged " donation " of that emperor] and the beginning of the Arian and the Donatistic controversies, though in neither of them had he direct participation. Eusebius (Vita Constantini, III., vii.) reports that he was represented at the Council of Nicaea and also at the Synod of Arles, the latter of which sent its canons to him. The period of his pontificate is given by the Catalogus Liberianus.
(A. HAUCK.)
B(BLrooRAPuY: Li3er pontihcalis, ed. Mommsen in MGM,
Gest. pont. Rom., i (1898), 47; JaffE, Regesta, i. 28‑29; R. A. Lip®ius, Chronologie der rtimischen Bischoofe, p. 259, Kiel, 1869; Bower, Popes, f. 45‑54; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 94‑95.
Silvester II. (Gerbert): Pope 999‑1003. Gerbert was possibly a native of Aurillac in Auvergne, and his birth‑year probably falls between 940 and 950; his education he received at the monastery of Aurillac, remaining in connection with the Abbot Gerald and his successor Raymond, and there manifesting his talent. Later he went to Spain and studied mathematics, astronomy, and music under Bishop Hatto of Vich in Catalonia, with whom in 970 he went to Rome, where his accomplishments led John XIII. to recommend him to Otto the Great. From Rome (c. 972) he went to Reims to receive instruction in dialectics from a celebrated archdeacon of that place, where he came into relations with Archbishop Adalbero, a man of great eminence in political as well as in ecclesiastical life. The archbishop stimulated Gerbert to teach as well as to learn; this he did, dealing with the " Introduction " of Porphyry, the " Categories " of Aristotle, rnd with writings of Cicero and Boethius. His pupils read the poets, and received training in the conduct of discussions. The course led up to the study of

413	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Siloam Inscription
		Silvester
arithmetic, music, astronomy, and geometry, and
the teacher became celebrated in France, Germany,
and Italy. Some time during this period he held
from Otto II. the abbey of Bobbio near Pavia, not
later than the beginning of 983. As such he had a
high position and took part in politics. Yet his
position as abbot was rendered unpleasant by the
possessions of the abbey, which made many his
enemies. At the death of Otto II., he left the abbey,
seeming to see decadence in Church and State, and
went to Reims, intending to take up again his be
loved studies. He again began to teach, having
assembled a rich library; but he desired ecclesias
tical activity, and became secretary of Adalbero
and so participator in political affairs. The arch
bishop was engaged heartily in the service of pro
tecting and safeguarding the interests of Otto III.,
in which he was ably assisted by Gerbert. Adalbero
was interested also in France; and in the elevation
of Hugh Capet to the throne, after the death of
Louis V., the influence of the archbishop and of
Gerbert was seen. After the death of Adalbero,
Gerbert naturally expected to be chosen to the see
of Reims, but was passed over in favor of Arnulf,
who soon became a partizan of the Lothringians,
which led to the accusation of treason being lodged
against Arnulf and his trial before a synod, where
the question was raised concerning the jurisdiction
of a synod over a bishop. Eventually Arnulf re
signed his see and Gerbert was elected in his place.
After this event, Gerbert because pronouncedly
anti‑papal, turning against the pope the saying
" man must obey God rather than man," and de
claring that if the pope sinned against a brother
and did not listen to the Church, he is to be regarded
as a heathen and a publican. Gerbert did not abide
by his principles, however. In 991 John XV. sent
as his representative to France and Germany Abbot
Leo of St. Boniface in Rome, that he might investi
gate the affairs of the see of Reims. At a synod
called by Leo, June 2, 995, only four German bish
ops were present, and the French bishops held aloof.
The apology delivered here by Gerbert marks the
beginning of his backward tendency, and attempted
to show that part of the trouble arose through
Rome's delay in answering. Gerbert was prohibited
from exercising the duties of his office until decision
was made. At a new synod of July 1, 995, Gerbert
was sure of French support and therefore was bolder;
but no decision was reached, and Gerbert thought
things favorable to himself and went to Rome to
carry out his plan of defense. Meanwhile John had
died and Gregory V. had taken his place, and was
engrossed with the idea of reform of the Church.
The prospect was therefore not altogether favorable
to Gerbert, and in France his support had grown
lukewarm. But Gerbert was in close relations with
Otto III., who admired his learning and valued his
services and was admired and praised by Gerbert
for his character and power.
	The favor of Otto was used with the pope in
Gerbert's interests, and the latter was made arch
bishop of Ravenna, 998, where he appeared as the
furtherer of Gregory's plans for reform, taking part
in synods concerned with that business. The death
of Gregory in Feb., 999, led to the elevation of Ger‑
bert to the papal chair as Silvester II., through the favor of Otto. Gerbert turned his back upon his past, recognized Arnulf as archbishop of Reims, assisted the emperor in carrying out his plans for reconstituting his kingdom, plans which were essentially anti‑German. Yet pope and emperor were not entirely at one, Rome was committed to neither, and the death of Otto, Jan. 23, 1002, broke the prospects of realization of Silvester's plans and his further hopes of greatness. The next year the latter also died.
Silvester's writings included the subjects of dialectics, mathematics, and theology. His De corpore et sanguine Domini inquires whether the Eucharist and the historical body of Christ are identical. Silvester's reputation was principally for great learning, which was so great that he was accounted a sorcerer. He was not creative, however. He was an idealist in politics, and this gave an air of insincerity to his attempts, while self‑seeking is not to be eliminated from the motives which ruled his action. As a consequence his pontificate is memorable for nothing of achievement in Church or State.
(A. HAUCK.)
BrHLIOOsAPBY: The Opera were edited by J. B. Masson,
Paris, 1611; by A. Duchesne, in Historiat Francorum scriptores, ii. 789‑844, 5 vols., Paris, 1636‑49, whence they went into MPL, exxxix. 201‑268; the (Euvres with life, by A. Olleris, Clermont, 1867; the " Letters," with introduction, by J. Havet, Paris, 1889 (best); earlier ed. in Bouquet, Recueil, vols. ix.‑x.; the Opera mathematiea by N. Bubnov, Berlin, 1899. Bibliographies are to be found in: U. Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyea dge, Paris, 1877; F. Cerroti, Bibliografia di Roma, Rome, 1893; and Potthast, Wegweiser, pp. 501502.
The primary source for a life are his " letters "‑note eds. above in Opera and (Euvres. Consult. Mann, Popes, v. 1‑120 (with a critical list of literature); C. F. Hock, Gerbert oder Papst Sylvester IL, Vienna, 1837 (best); M. M. B6dinger, Ueber Gerberts wiasenachaftliche and politische Stellung, Marburg, 1851; C. Prantl, Geschiehte der Logik im Abendlande, ii. 53‑57, Leipsie, 1856; F. Lausser, Ger bert, Etude historique sur le z. silcle, Aurillae, 1866 (uses fresh material); E. de Barth6lemy, Gerbert, Nude sur sa vie et ses ouvrages, Paris, 1868; C. Queant, Gerbert, ou Sglvestre II. R le sikle de fer, Paris, 1868; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, vol. ii., Berlin, 1868; R. Baxmann, Politik der Papste, vol. ii., Elberfeld, 1869; 111. Sepet, in Revue des questions historiques, vii (1869), 440‑523, viii (1870), 122‑169; H. Reuter, Geschichte der religiusen Aufkl&rung im Mittelalter, i. 78‑84, Berlin, 1875; K. Werner, Gerbert von Aurillac. Die Kirche and Wissenschaft seiner Zeit, Vienna, 1879; H. Weissenbora, Gerbert, Beitrap zur Kenntniss der :llathematik des Alittelalters, Berlin, 1888; K. Schulthess, Papst Sylvester ll. ass Lehrer and Staatarnann, Hamburg, 1891; idem, Die Sagen fiber Silvester IL, ib. 189:3; R. Allen, in English Historical Review, vii (1892), 625‑668 (a prize essay); T. K. Sehloekwerder, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Briefe Gerberts, Halle, 1893; F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, iii. 466 sqq., London, 1895; F. J. Pieavet, Gerbert, un gape philosophe, Paris, 1897; J. Lair, Etudes critiques, i. 94 sqq., Paris, 1899; C. P., Les Popes fransais, Tours, 1901; E. Duehesne, Le Domostroi du pope Silvestre, Paris, 1904; Histoire litt&aire de la France, vi. 559‑614; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrls, ii. 901‑911; Schaff, Christian Church, tv. 777‑782; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. iv.; Bower, Popes, iii. 331‑333; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 202 sqq.
Silvester M.: Antipope 1044‑46. See BMNF~ DICT IX.
Silvester IV.: Antipope 1102. See PASCHAL II.

Silvia A nitana
Simeon etaphrastes
SILVIA AQUITANA: The name under which is known a pilgrim of the fourth century to the Holy Land, who has left a record of her travels. The trend toward pilgrimages became almost a craze in the fourth century, against which, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa protested (MPG, xlvi. 1016‑24), though Jerome favored it (Epist., xlvi., Eng. transl., in NPNF, 2 ser., vi. 60‑65). A sort of guide‑book made on a journey c. 333 A.D. exists in the Itinerarium Burdigalense (" The Bordeaux rilgrim "), but it is not a journal of travel like that which exists in the Peregrinatio S. Silvicre, discovered in 1884 by G. F. Gamurrini at Arezzo in Tuscany and consisting of a letter describing her experiences written to the nuns of a cloister at her native place. The manuscript is not complete, lacks both beginning and end, and also a part from the middle of the narrative. Fortunately, the omissions are practically supplied by Peter the Deacon, who used the narrative, as did Bede. The date may be set between 379‑387, with 394 as the latest date possible; in that year the bones of the Apostle Thomas were translated to the chief church at Edessa, which the pilgrim distinguished from the Martyrium which she visited. Recently, however, Meister (see bibliography) has proposed 533‑540 as the date of the pilgrimage, and many have accepted his arguments. Gamurrini sought to identify the pilgrim with the traveler named by Palladius in the " Lausiac History," but Ft6rotin (see bibliography) has with greater probability suggested the Spanish nun Eucheria, and at any rate " St. Silvia of Aquitania " is " a purely mythical personage." That the pilgrim was a person of consequence appears from the attentions which were showered upon her by clerics, monks, and bishops, and even by the military, escorts being furnished at times. She traveled in comfort and with a considerable retinue.
Peter the Deacon states that she made Jerusalem her headquarters, visited Bethlehem, Hebron, and the other cities celebrated in patriarchal history; covered all Palestine in her travels‑Tabor, Carmel, Nazareth, Nain, Tiberias, Capemaum; then went to Egypt and back to Jerusalem, and then to Sinai and other sites in the Mosaic history, where the extant manuscript takes up the story. At Sinai she was shown the sacred sites, the thorn‑bush and the like, went to Paran and Clysma, Rameses in Goshen, Tanis, and then to Jerusalem by way of Pelusium; then visited Nebo and the grave of Job in the Hauran by Way of Aenon; next to Antioch, Hierapolis, Edessa, and Harran, her farthest point east. Her return led via Constantinople through Asia Minor, and in Seleucia she read the Acts of Thecla, while in Chalcedon she visited the grave of St. Euphemia.
The narrative is interesting, faithful, and sincere. Her notice of the worship of the Jerusalem community is important, being the only one covering that period; she attended such services as those of Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost, and describes baptism and the instruction leading to it. Far behind this in worth are such books as Eucherius' De situ Hierosolymitance urbis (a compilation from oral and written Sources), the Breviarius de Hierosolyma of the sixth century, Bede's De locis sanctis, and the work of Peter the Deacon (q.v.).
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
414
Of independent worth is Theodosius' De situ terrce sancta (middle of the sixth century); the reports. of the Gallic bishop Arculphus rest upon an Itinerarum of c. 580 and one of Adamnan. (G. KRi)GER.)
BIBLIO(;RAPEY: The editio princepa. by G. F. Gamurrini, the discoverer of the document, was issued at Rome. 1887, 2d ed., 1888, with the account of Peter the deacon and other matter, Italian transl., Milan, 1890. The best ed. is that of P. Geyer, in CSEL, xxxix., Vienna, 1898. Other texts are those of J. Pomialowaky, St. Petersburg. 1889; J. H. Bernard, for Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, with Eng. transl., introduction and notes, London, 1896; E. A. Bechtel, Chicago, 1902; and a fragment by E. von Dobachiits, in TU, 1899, PP. 167 aqq• Consult: L. Delisle, in Bibliothkque de l'i?cole des charter, xlvii (1877), 342348: T. Mommaen, in SBA, 1887, pp. 357‑364; E. W51fflin, in Archiv fur lateinische LexicoOraPh%e and Grammatik, iv (1887), 259‑277: C. Weyman, in TQS. Ixx (1888). 38‑50; L. de Saint‑Aignan, Le P&erinage de S. Sylvieen 586, Orl6ana, 1889; E. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der L%teratur des Mittelalters, i. 345‑347, Leipsic, 1889; G. Kriiger, in Preuasische Jahrbiicher, lxvi (1890). 491‑505; P. Geyer, Kritische Bemerkungen zu S. Silvite
, peregnnatio, Augsburg, 1890; F. Cabrol, etude eur la Peregrirwtio Silvio. Les tplisea de Ji?rusalem, la discipline et la liturg%e au iv. si,gcle, Paris. 1895; J. von der Vliet, in TSR, xiv (1896). 1‑29; M. F6rotin, Le Veritable Auteur de la Pereprinatio SyLv%o:, Paris. 1903; A. Bludau, in Der KathoLik, lxxxiv. 2 (1904), 61‑74, 81‑98; J. Anglade, De lat%nitate l%belli qu% inscriptus est PereArinatio
Paris, 1905; C. Meister, in Rhemiachea Museum, Iziv (1909), 337‑392.
	SIMEON, aim'e‑en: Second bishop of Jerusalem
and cousin of Jesus; d. c. 107. His father was
Cleophas or Clopas (see Alxxxus), who, according
to Hegesippus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xi. 2),
was a brother of Joseph. His mother may have
been the Mary mentioned in John xix. 25, who is
designated as the wife of Cleophas. Owing to his
family connections, Simeon was chosen successor of
James the Just in the leadership of the Jerusalem
congregation. He is said to have held his office a
long time, and to have attained an age of 120 years.
As successor of James, Simeon was the head not only
of the congregation of Jerusalem but of all other
congregations in Palestine. Since the congregation
of Jerusalem left the city before the catastrophe of
the year 70 and went to Pella, the seat of the activ
ity of Simeon must have been there. Tradition also
says that under Emperor Trajan and Governor At
ticus he was denounced by the Jews as a Davidite
and Christian, a pretender to the crown. At the
order of Atticus he wars for many days tortured and
finally crucified. 	(H. AcxELls.)
BIBLrOGRAPHY: The sources are Eusebius, Hist eccl., IIL, xi., xxii., xxxii., axxv.. IV., xxii. 4, Eng, transl. in NPNF, vol. i., passim: and the same author's " Chronicle "for the year 107. Consult further: Tillemont, Memoires, ii. 186 sqq.; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part IL, i. 15, 21‑22, 39, 58, 60, 66, ii. 443‑449, London. 1885; E. LSning Gemeindeverjassung des Urchrislentur„a, pp. 107‑114, Halle, 1888; A. C. MeGiffert, Apostolic Ape, pp. 564‑585, New York, 1897• T. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vi. 282 sqq., Leipsie, 1900; R. Knopf, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, pp, 1 aqq., Tiibingen, 1905; Harnack, Lilteralur, i. 223 eq~l.; DCB, iv. 677‑678; KL, xi. 307‑308.
SIMEON METAPHRASTES, met‑a‑fras'tfa: By‑
zantine hagiographer; flourished probably in the second half of the tenth century. Of his life scarcely a detail is known; even the younger Psellos' encomium and office for Simeon's day, Nov. 28 [now combined with St. Theoktiste's day, Nov. 0] (AfP(:,

418	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Silvis Aquitana
		Simeon ri
	cxiv. 183‑208), gives little information. It would
seem, however, that Simeon was born at Constanti
	nople, where he studied philosophy and rhetoric and
			attained high rank, although the only
	Life, Date, office which he is expressly said to have
		and	filled was that of logothete. The one
Writings. concrete statement of Psellos, that
			Simeon took part in a naval expedi
	tion, is, however, incorrect. This error is due to the
	misunderstanding of a passage in Simeon's revision
	of Niketas Magister's life of St. Theoktiste, which
	really states that Niketas, not Simeon, served on
	the expedition of Himerios against Crete in 902. To
	the information thus gained Markos Eugenikos (d.
	1443) adds that Simeon held a disputation with a
	Persian (Mohammedan?), and that, toward the end
	of his life, he became a monk and was buried in the
	Church of the Mother of God at Hodigi. Beginning
	with the time of Psellos (eleventh century), manu
	scripts of Simeon Metaphrastes are numerous, and
	he is mentioned with great frequency. A monastic
	record of 1196 ascribes to Simeon the authorship of
	a life of St. Paul of Mount Latros (d. Dec. 15, 956).
	It would seem, however, that this life was written
	soon after the reign of Nikephoros Phokas, or, still
	more probably, about 991; and it may well be
	doubted whether it really belongs to Simeon, espe
	cially as it is lacking in his collection and is assigned
	to him by only a single document. At the same
	time, it must be remembered that Simeon may have
	written encomiums which he did not include in his
	hagiography. It is clear, moreover, that the orig
	inal collection includes the festal sermon of Em
	peror Constantine on the translation of the Edessa
	picture of Christ, delivered Aug. 16, 944, and incor
	porated by Simeon almost without change, thus
	definitely placing the compilation in the second half
	of the tenth century. Again, in the life of St. Sam
	son, evidently written by Simeon, a miracle is re
	corded as happening to the Protospathary Bardas,
	the close friend of Romanos II., though the event
	in question may perhaps better be referred to the
	reign of Romanos' son, Basil (976‑1025), while the
	life contains other allusions to the reign of John
	Tzimiskes (969‑976). The theory of many scholars
	that the Logothete Simeon Magister to whom is
	ascribed a Chronicon (ed. CSHB, xxxi. 1838) is to
	be identified with Simeon Metaphrastes would prove
	that the author was a close associate of Romanos I.
	(920‑944), although he wrote in the reign of Nike
	phoros Phokas (963‑969); but the problem of the
	authorship of the chronicle is too unsettled to per
	mit its use in determining the date of Simeon Meta
	phrastes.	To the Logothete Simeon Magister is
	also ascribed a collection of canons (ed. MPG, cxiv.
	235‑292), which form the basis of the commentary
	of Alexios Aristenos (about 1130); and it is not im
	possible that this canonist was identical with the
	Logothete Simeon Magister who, according to the
	Practices of Eustathios Romance (lxiv. 1), was an
	elderly member of the imperial court of justice about
	1000, and even with the patrician and first secretary
	Simeon, who prepared two nomllce of Nikephoros
	Phokas in 964 and 967. The Arab historian Yahya
	ibn Said of Antioch, who continued the annals of
	Eutychius to 1026, sets the activity of " Simon, sec‑
retary and logothete who has written the accounts of the saints and their festivals," in the,early part of the reign of Basil II. (976‑1025), a statement borne out by the express declaration of Markos Eugenikos that Simeon's official career was during the reigns of Phokas, John (Tzimiskes), and Basil II. Nine letters are also ascribed to Simeon (MPG, cxiv. 227‑236), and some others are preserved in manuscript, but none of these contain any data establishing their authorship. He is likewise the putative author of some prayers (MPG, cxiv. 219224), iambics on the Eucharist (ib.), verses on Christ and the apostles (unedited), a series of " moral alphabets " (MPG, cxiv. 131‑136; penitential prayers in alphabetical form), twenty‑four " Ethical Discourses " excerpted from the writings of Basil the Great (MPG,,xxxii. 1115‑1382), 150 chapters on the fifty orations of Macarius the Egyptian (ib., xxxiv. 841‑965; see MACARILTI3, 1), and possibly three necrological poems (ed. L. Sternbach, in Eos, v. 7‑21). Only a thorough stylistic study, combined with the establishment of the manuscript transmission, can determine which of these writings belong to Simeon Metaphrastes, whose name was used to give prestige to many works by other hands, not only for edifying literature in general, beginning with the thirteenth century, but also for an anonymous account of the building of St. Sophia (ed. T. Preger, Scriptores origiaum Constantinopolitanarum, i. 74‑108, Leipsic, 1901). Older scholars ascribed to him a commentary on Luke on the basis of citations in the Catena of Niketas, although these passages are really quoted from his lives of the saints, as well as a work De moribus ecclesia (N. C. Papadopoli, Premotationes mystagogirte, Padua, 1697, p. 398), of which nothing more is known.
Simeon Metaphrastes owes his fame to his collection of the legends of the saints, which has won him the deep admiration not only of his own communion, but also of many Roman Catholic theologians. The extent, significance, and value of the work have all been matters of much debate, the
His Hagi‑ cause being the concentration on in‑
	ography.	dividual texts rather than on the col
		lection as a whole. It had already been
observed by Leo Allatius (in his De Symeonum scrip
tis diatribes, Paris, 1664) that a certain complex of
lives recurred in many manuscripts, while the trans
mission of the remaining lives was extremely dis
crepant. Working along this line, H. Delehaye and
A. Ehrhard have carried the problem much nearer
solution, the latter scholar determining the genuine
lives in the hagiography of Simeon to be 149. These
lives are preserved with remarkable uniformity in
the various manuscripts, while the rest present the
widest divergencies. The most of the genuine lives
still need critical editing, and the Greek text of
twenty‑four is extant as yet only in manuscript.
Nevertheless, the material already accessible is suf
ficient for a correct estimate of Simeon's mode of
work, although complete knowledge would involve
acquaintance with all his predecessors. This alone
would serve to determine the independence of Sim
eon in the choice of his texts, which in calendrical
order diverge sharply from other menologies and are
surprisingly close to the Constantinople Synaxarion.

Simeon xetaphrastes Simler
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
It is certain that Simeon created no new legends;
he was, as the epithet given him implies, a meta
phrast, reproducing the old legends in the style de
manded by the literary taste of his time, and at the
same time occasionally making alterations in the
matter and connecting traditions which originally
were distinct. The legends which he incorporated
in his collection, and for the credibility of which he
was in no way responsible, were themselves later
revampings of the original acts of martyrs; and
many offenses against good taste must be ascribed
to his sources and to the requirements of his age
rather than to Simeon himself, who was evidently
a man of culture, taste, and talent. It should be
noted, at the same time, that he did not stand en
tirely alone. A number of his contemporaries were
working in the same spirit; men like Nikephoros
Chumnos followed his example in the style of the
thirteenth century, and in the fourteenth Konstan
tinos Akropolites gained the title of " the new
Metaphrastes." In comparison with these imita
tors Simeon distinctly gains, and he was, so far as
a tenth‑century Byzantine could be, natural and
simple in diction. 	(E. vorr Dosscllfi'rz.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The collected works are in MPG, cxiv.cxvi. Cf. also Analeda BoUandiana, viii. 308‑316, and Delehaye, in Griffin and Nau's Patrologia orientalis, ii. 4, pp. 546‑557, Paris, 1907. Consult: L. Allatius, De Sgmeonum Scriptis diatriba, Paris; 1664; C. Oudin, Commentariu8 de acriptoribus ecclesiee antiquis, ii. 1300‑83, Frankfort, 1722; Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Grieco, viii. 29, x. 180‑345, xi. 295‑334, Hamburg, 1802‑08; E. E. Kunik, in P. Krug's Forschungen in der alteren Geachichte Russlanda, ii. 785‑807, St. Petersburg, 1848; A. Rambaud, L'Empire grec au x. siMe, pp. 92‑104, Paris, 1870; F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien, pp. 52 sqq., 303355, Leipsie, 1876; R. Nicolai, Geschichte der griwhischen Literatur, iii. 70, 100, 104, 107‑109, Magdeburg, 1878; H. Delehaye, in Revue des questions historiques, x (1893), 49‑85; Analecta Bollandiana, xvi (1897), 312‑329, xvii (1898), 448‑452; C. de Boor, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vi (1897), 233‑284, x (1901), 70‑90; A. Ehrhard, in Festschrift zum elfhundertyahrigen Jubilhum des deutschen Campo Santo in Rom, pp. 4682, Rome, 1897; N. Kondatoff, in ZWT, xlvi (1903), 434 sqq.; Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 178 eqq., 200 eqq., 358 sqq., 718‑719, et passim.
SIMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN: Mystic of the Eastern Church; b. in the village of Galate in Paphlagonia c. 965; d. in a monastery not far from Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon in Bithynia, Asia Minor, between 1032 and 1041. He was sent to Constantinople for his education, but showed no interest in the rhetorical and philosophical studies which were to fit him for the service of the State for which he was intended, nor in the life at court which he tasted as a page. Simeon the Studite (q.v.) had already confirmed his desire for a religious life, and became his spiritual guide after he entered the monastery of Studion, where his mystical bent developed. Being expelled for maintaining an exclusive friendship with his teacher, a thing forbidden by the rules, he went to the monastery of Mamas, near by, of which he became the head and received priesthood. He raised the monastery out of its demoralized condition and established his fame as theologian by his extensive literary activity. During this period Simeon does not seem to have been molested because of his individual views. It was only after he had laid down his office (c. 1017), in
order to live in retirement, that. he was involved in a conflict with the highest spiritual authority. Stephanos, the syncellus of the patriarch, a Canonist of fame and an acute dogmatician, attacked Simeon because he had permitted his namesake Simeon the Studite to be adored after his death in the monastery of Mamas. The syncellus demanded the abolition of this worship; since Simeon persistently refused to give up the worship of his spiritual father, he was banished from Constantinople by a synodical decree to the neighborhood of Chrysopolis. The adherents of Simeon compelled the patriarch to rehabilitate him formally, but he remained in exile and built a new monastery, where he died.
The theology of Simeon connects itself with a development of practical mysticism which may be traced to the end of the fourth century. Its characteristic element was the belief that in certain specially elevated moments there was possible a vision of the divinity as a supernatural light. Simeon was guided and taught by his confessor to consider the vision of the light as the aim of religious struggle. There is nothing novel in the religious experience around which the thoughts of Simeon moved, but the power with which he invested his experiences earned for him the title " new theologian." The vision of the light which was granted to him, Simeon understood as a revelation of God through which he was assured of grace and had personal intercourse with God. These experiences became for him the key for the interpretation of the New Testament, which he read with other eyes since he himself had come in contact with the realities of which the Scriptures testify. As the greatness of the Christian ideal in the New Testament became plainer to him, the more clearly he seemed to see that personal relation with divinity is the indispensable condition for an earnest Christian life, since only from a personally experienced grace flows the power for a life in the spirit. Simeon recognized that it is grace alone that elevates and renews man; no Greek has repeated so often and so emphatically the Pauline antithesis‑from grace, not from works. Such principles involved a polemic against the spirit of his church; this inevitably raised opposition to him, but the opposition could not prevent the formation of a school around him or the penetration of his principles into monasticism. The Hesychasts (q.v.) stood entirely upon his shoulders. In the line of Greek mysticism that from Clement and Origen, by way of Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite, finally leads to the Hesychasts, Simeon represents the culminating point. (K. HoLL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The " Works " are in MPG, ex=:., and an edition in modern Greek by Dionysios Zagoraios appeared Venice, 1790. A Vita by Simeon's Pupil Nicetas Stethatos is still in manuscript, but its publication by L. Petit is soon to be expected. Consult: K. Holl, Enthusiasmvs and Bussgervalt. Eine Studie zu Symeon dem neuen TheoWen, Leipsic, 1898; Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 152‑154; Fabrieius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Gra;ca, xi. 302 sqq., Hamburg, 1808; KL, xi. 1070.
SIMEON THE STUDITE: Monk in the monastery of Studion at Constantinople, and teacher of Simeon the New Theologian (q.v.); flourished about 975. Exact knowledge of his life is lacking, what is known coming from Nicetas Stethatos, a

417	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	$~meon Netaphrastes
		simler
monk of the same monastery in the middle of the
	eleventh century. According to Nicetas Simeon
wrote Biblon holen dpheleias ousan pneumatik8s
	agrammatos on (MPG, clii. 266 sqq.), perhaps the
same as " Thirty‑two Ascetic Sermons " attributed
to " Simeon the Monastic."
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Leo Allatius, De Symeonum scriptis, Paris,
		1664; Krumbaeher, Geschichte, pp. 140 _152‑154.
		SIMEON STYLITES. See STYLITEB.
		SIMEON OF THESSALONICA: Archbishop of
	that city in the early fifteenth century; d. prob
	ably in the latter part of 1428. Of his life almost
	nothing is known, except that he had become arch
	bishop of Thessalonica before 1423, when the city
was purchased from the Despot Andronikos Palai
	ologos by the Venetians, to whom Simeon remained
	loyal, despite the efforts of Murad II. to induce the
	Greeks to surrender Thessalonica to the Turks. As
	a theological writer Simeon exercised a wide influ
	ence, being used, and even copied, by many later
	authors. His works were first edited by Dositheos
	of Jerusalem (q.v.; Jassy, 1683), and were then re
	printed in MPG, clv., which also gives the pagina
	tion of Dositheos. One of the chief mystagogic
	theologians of the later Greek Church, he lays far
	less stress on doctrine than on participation in the
	divine mysteries, which alone give salvation; and
	as a polemist his critique of the Bogomiles and his
	defense of the Hesychasts have the value of orig
	inal sources. His chief work was the dialogue
	" Against all Heresies, and on the One Faith of our
	Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy
	Rites, and all Mysteries of the Church." The first
	part, which is much the briefer, is doctrinal, its
	special themes being the Trinity and Christology,
	but it also includes polemics against the Jews, Bogo
	miles, and Mohammedans, and declares that, while
	it is impossible to convert all men, the Christian
	should ever be ready to profess his faith. The sec
	ond part of the dialogue, a mystagogic introduction
	to the liturgy, begins with the doctrine of baptism
	and chrism; while the Eucharist affords an oppor
	tunity for a most minute discussion of the entire
	ritual connected with it, the vestmeL IS, the sanc
	tuary, etc. Ordination and the various orders of
	the clergy are then discussed, as well as confession,
	marriage, and extreme unction, with an appendix
	on prayer, the daily services, the hymns, the Tris
	hagion (q.v.), and the benedictions.
		The dialogue just analyzed (ed. Dositheos, pp.
	1‑270) is followed by a number of briefer writings.
	First among these is the treatise " On the Holy
	Temple " (pp. 271‑291), mystagogic like the dia
	logue. This is followed by three expositions of the
	Nicene Creed: the " Synoptic Interpretation " (pp.
	292‑‑312) ; the " Most Necessary Exposition " (pp.
	313‑319; repeated almost word for word in the
	Chronicon, iv. 22, of Georgios Phrantzea, who may
	indeed have been, as he claimed to be, the author
	of the treatise, rather than Simeon); and the " Di
	rect Interpretation " (pp. 319‑322; incorporated
	in the first reply of the Patriarch Jerrmias II., q.v.,
	to the Wittenberg theologians, and likewise of du
	bious authorship). Unlike these last two treatises,
	there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the
			X.‑27
" Answers to the Bishop " (pp. 323‑370), the prelate in question perhaps being the Metropolitan Gabriel of Pentapolis. This contains information on liturgy and such problems as the origin of evil, life after death, and the angels. The last treatise in the edition of Dositheos imparts the theory of the priesthood to a monk intending to become a priest, a strong tendency toward symbolism being a marked characteristic of the treatise. A number of works as yet unedited are also ascribed to Simeon of Thessalonica, among them a treatise on the exit of the soul from the body and on " The Similar Triodia of Passion Week " (both preserved in manuscript at Jerusalem), as well as.a number of letters contained in an Athos manuscript. (PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Leo Allatius, De Symeonum scriplis, pp. 185‑194, Paris, 1664; C. Oudin, Commentarius de scriptorsbu8 ecclesim, iii. 2242 sqq., Leipsic, 1722; M. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, ii. 58‑59, ib. 1740; W. Cave, Scraptorum ecclesiasticorum hist. literaria, ii., appendix, pp. 113114, Oxford, 1743; Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Greco, xi. 328‑334, Hamburg, 1808; Ersch and Gruber, Encyklopadie, I., ixxxvi. 87 eqq.; Krumbaeher, Geschichte, pp. 112‑113; KL, mi. 1073‑74.

SIMEON, CHARLES: Church of England; b. at Reading Sept. 24, 1759; d. there Nov. 13, 1836. He was educated at King's College, Cambridge, became fellow in 1782, and in 1783 incumbent of Holy Trinity Church in the same city. He may be considered the founder of the Low‑church party. His " evangelical " preaching at first encountered opposition; but eventually he made many converts, and exerted a wide influence. He became interested in missions, and Henry Martyn's work is traceable to him in part. He established a society for purchasing advowsons, and thereby was able to put his sympathizers at strategic points. He published a translation of Claude's Essay an the Composition of a Sermon (London, 1801), to which he added notes and a hundred sermon‑skeletons, and subsequently published such outlines (2,536 in number) upon the entire Bible (Horse Homileticm,, 17 vols., London, 1819‑28; new ed., with addition of remaining works, 21 vols., 1840) ; Memorial Sketches of Rev. David Brown, with a Selection of his Sermons Preached at Calcutta (1831); and a large number of occasional sermons.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Carus, Memoirs or flee Life of Charles Simeon . . . with a Selection from his Writings and Correspondence, London, 1847; F. Close, Brief Sketch of the Character and Last Days of C. Simeon, ib. 1836; J. Williamson, Brief Memoir of the Rev. C. Simeon, ib. 1848; H. C. G. Moule, Charles Simeon, ib. 1895.

SIMLER, JOSIAS: Swiss Protestant; b. at Cappel (15 m. s. of Zurich) Nov. 6, 1530; d. at Zurich July 2, 1576. He was educated at Basel and Strasburg, and, after completing his studies at Zurich in 1549, was for a few years a teacher and a, ministerial supply. In 1552, however, he was made professor of New‑Testament exegesis at Zurich, being also minister of the village of Zollikon, near Zurich, until 1557, and deacon of St. Peter's, Zurich, from 1557 to 1560. At Zurich he came into contact with such refugees from the Roman Catholic reaction under Queen Mary of England as John Jewel (q.v.) and John Parkhurst (later bishop of Norwich). In 1560 Simler succeeded Theodor Bibliander (q.v.), and,

Simler
Simon Magna
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
retiring entirely from ministerial work, divided the lectures on theology with Peter Martyr (q.v.), at whose death, in 1562, he took charge of the entire New‑Testament department, which he controlled until he died.
	Simler was a most prolific author. He began by
translating into Latin a number of the works of
Bullinger and other Protestant theologians, and by
editing a portion of Peter Martyr's writings, although
his projected edition of the collected works of the
latter was never realized. He was himself deeply
interested in problems of dogmatic theology, par
ticularly in view of the attacks of Italian antitrini
tarians upon Reformed tenets. First assailing the
teaching of Francesco Stancaro (q.v.), that Christ
was a mediator only in virtue of his human nature,
in his Responsio ad maledictum Franciaei Staneari
Mantuani librum adversus Tigurinae eeclesim mint
tros de Trinitate et mediatore nostro Jesu Christo
(Zurich, 1563), he likewise wrote, in defense of or
thodox Christology, his De ceterno Dei f lio Domino
et Sermtore nostro Jesu Christo et de Spiritu sancto,
adversus veteres et novos antitrwnitarios, id est Arianos,
Tretheistas, Samosatenianos et Pneumatomachos libri
quatuor (Zurich, 1568); Assertio orthodoxx doctrinee
de duabus naturis Christi opposita blasphemiis et
sophismatibus Simonis Budnwi (1575); Scripts vet
erum Latina de una persona et duabus naturis Christi
adversus Nestorium, Eutychen et Acephalos olim
edita (1571); De very Christi secundum humanam
naturam in his terris preesentia orthodoxy exposttio
(1574); and the anonymous Ministrorum ewlesice
Tigurince ad confutationem Jacobi Andrece apologia
(1575). His Commentarii in Ezodum were pub
lished posthumously in 1584; and he was the author
of Oratio de vita et obatu . . . Petri Martyris Ver
milii (Zurich, 1563; Eng. tranal. in A. Marten's
version of the " Common Places " of peter Martyr,
London, 1583) and De ortu, vita et obitu . . . Hein
rici Bullingeri (1575). Besides the works already
enumerated, Simler wrote on astronomy, the his
tory of literature, geography, and history, the latter
category including his De republ~,ca Helvetiorum
(Zurich, 1576), which went through repeated edi
tions until the middle of the eighteenth century,
and was translated into German, French, and Dutch.
His manuscript historical material, collected by his
grandson, is preserved in the municipal library of
Zurich. 	(G. MEYER VON KNONAU.)
BIBIaoaRAPHY: J. G. Stuki, Vita Joei(c Simleri, Zurich, 1577; W. A. B. Coolidge, J08lae Simler et lea originm de rAlyiniame jusqu'en 1800, Grenoble, 1904; G. Meyer van Knonau, in Jahrbuch des Schweizer Alpenklub, say. 217‑235; ADB, sxciv. 355‑358.
SIMON, sai'mon (SIMEON), BEN YOHAI: Rabbi of the second Christian century, to whom the authorship of the Zohar (see CABALA, § 17) is attributed. He was a favorite pupil of Akiba (q.v.), and was of the party opposed to the Romans. Tradition reports that he was compelled to remain in hiding in a cave for twelve years, until the death of the emperor (Hadrian), the cause being an outspoken condemnation of the Romans and their laws. An event which is better placed late in his life was his mission to Rome to obtain for his coreligionists greater freedom in worship and teaching, and in this
mission he succeeded. During his hermit life is placed the composition of the Zohar, the basis of the tradition probably being that he combined a certain mysticism in his teaching. Yet his teaching,
prevailingly halachic in type, was rationalistic in so far as he sought always the underlying reason for a Biblical injunction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Lewin, Rabbi Simon ban Jochai, Frankfort, 1893; JE, xi. 359‑363 (gives further literature, mostly in Hebrew).
SIMON THE MACCABEE. See HASMONEANa, 2.
SIMON MAGUS.

In the Book of Acts (§ 1). In the Apocrypha end Justin Martyr (§ 2). His System According to Later Heresiologists (§ 3). Untenable Theories Concerning Simon Magus (§ 4). A Sorcerer Syncretised with the Sun (§ 5). The Twofold Simonian System (§ 6).
	One of the most difficult and interesting prob
lems of apostolic and post‑apostolic history is pre
sented by Simon Magus, a Samaritan, who is de
scribed at once as a Christian, a Jew, and a pagan,
a magician and a sorcerer, a Christian religious
philosopher and an archheretic, a pseudo‑apostle
and a pseudo‑Messiah, the founder of a religion and
an incarnation of God. The earliest source con
cerning him is Acts viii. 5‑24, where he appears as
a sorcerer who had " bewitched the people of Sa
		maria, giving out that himself was
	:. In the some great one," yet becoming an ad
	Book of herent of the Apostle Philip and mar
	Acts. veling at " the miracles and signs
		which were done " (verses :r13). In
verses 14‑19, on the other hand, he seeks from Peter
and John, not (as one would expect in the case of a
sorcerer) the power of working miracles like Philip's,
but the gift of conferring the Holy Ghost by the
laying on of hands, only to have his request re
fused because of the unworthy motives which had
prompted it. It is held by some critics that this
entire account was based by a redactor of Acts on
some " Acts of Peter," this redactor substituting
Philip for Peter in verses 5, 6, 12, 13; adding allu
sions to John in verses 18b, 19a, 24, interpolating
verse 10, and adding verses 14‑18afnd 19b. It
should also be noted, in this connection, that neither
the extant Acts of Peter nor the Church Fathers
mention Philip and John in their accounts of Simon
Magus.
	The record of Acts is continued by the various
recensions of the apocryphal Acts of Peter and kin
dred literature (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom.,
vii. 17; Hippolytus, Philosophumena, vi. 20; Euse
bius, Hist. ecd., ii. 14‑15; Arnobius, Adv. genies,
ii. 12; Philostorgius, Hcer., xxix.; Epiphanius,
Haar., xxi. 4; etc.), all of which deal with the con‑
flict between Simon Peter and Simon 2. In the Magus. The scene is Samaria in the Apocrypha Acta Vercellenses only, the other sources and Justin substituting Judea (or Jerusalem and Martyr. Cwsarea) and, most frequently, Rome.
The time is the reign of Nero or (in the Acta Vercellenses) Claudius, but the only new trait ascribed to the characters is the pseudo‑Messiahship of Simon Magus, which is shown, for instance,

419	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Simler
		Simon Xsgns
in his attempted ascension (frustrated by the prayer
of Peter) and in the epithet: " He that hath
stood." An entirely different picture is given by
the heresiologists of the early Church. The frag
ments of Justin Martyr's lost work on heresies state
	that Simon Magus was born in the Samaritan village
	of Gitta, and went to Rome in the reign of Claudius.
There he is described as honored by a statue on an
	island in the Tiber, this statue bearing the inscrip
tion Simoni sancto deo (" To Simon, the holy god ").
This latter statement seems, however, to be due to
	confusion with a statue actually set up on the
island in question in honor of the Sabine deity Semo
	Sancus, with an inscription including the words
Semoni Sanco deo. At the same time, the tradition
	of Simon's residence at Rome in the reign of Clau
	dius was evidently wide‑spread, and Justin also
states that nearly all the Samaritans honored Simon
	Magus " as the first god, above all power, authority,
	and might," and as accompanied by a certain ex
	courtezan Helena, designated " the first under
	standing from himself " (Apol., i. 26; Tnypho, cxx.).
A valuable supplement to this information is
	given by a Roman heresiology written before 175
	and incorporated by Ifeneeus in his Hwr., i. 23, also
	being used, in all probability, by Celsus, Tertullian,
			Hippolytus, and the pseudo‑Tertullian.
	3. His Sys‑ Here Simon Magus appears in an essen
	tem Accord‑ tially Gnostic garb, being, on the one
	ing to Later hand, the " highest God " (or " Fa
Heresiolo‑ ther "), and, on the other, " the most
		gists.	sublime power of God "; while Helena
			(here brought into connection with
	Tyre) is represented as " the first conception of his
	[Simon's] mind," " the mother of all," " wisdom,"
" the Holy Spirit," etc. Emanating from the Fa
	ther, she descended to the realms beneath, where,
	in conformity to his will, she created the angelic
	powers which, without knowing the Father, created
	the world and man. Unwilling to be considered
	creatures, the angels imprisoned her in a female
	body, and she is the lost sheep for whose salvation
	the Father (Simon) appeared, to rescue both her
	and mankind from the slavery of the cosmic angelic
	powers. To deceive these powers, he was mani
	fested to mankind as man, as the Father to the
	Samaritans and the Son to the Jews, suffering do
	cetic passion. To this Irenaeus erroneously adds
	that Simon was supposed to have appeared as the
	Holy Ghost to the gentiles; and both he and Epi
	phanius give a number of further details which,
	while not impossible, can not definitely be ascribed
	to the system. An entirely different presentation
	of Simon's teaching is implied by Clement and
	Origen, and is further developed in the Philoso
	phumena (vi. 7‑18, x. 12; ANF, v. 74,81, 143).
	Here Helena (" Mind ") is unknown, and Simon is
	given his self‑designation‑" He that hath stood";
	but Clement adds practically no new material, and
	Origen little beyond the statement that Simon re
	garded idolatry as a matter of no concern (Contra
	Celaum, vi. 11). A similar ignorance of Helena and
	a like emphasis on Simon as " He that hath stood "
	are shown by the Philosophumend. Here the center
	of all being is " boundless power," which is both
	supramundane (inconceivable holy Silence) and in‑
tramundane (the " Father," " He that hath stood, that standeth, and is to stand," an androgynous power with neither beginning nor end, and essentially unitary). While remaining distinct as a seventh power, the Father causes to emanate three syzygies of cosmic powers, which in their spiritual aspect are " Mind," " Intelligence, " Voice," " Name," " Ratiocination," and " Reflection," and in their physical aspect are " Heaven," " Earth," " Sun," " Moon," " Air," and " Water." The Father is, moreover, " He that hath stood " in relation to premundane existence; " He that standeth " in relation to present being; and " He that shall stand " in relation to‑the final consummation. Man is simply the realization of " boundless power," the ultimate end of the cosmic process in which the godhead attains self‑consciousness. All this material is recapitulated, with some additional data, by the pseudo‑Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. Simon Magus is here described as a necromancer driven by Peter from Caesarea to Antioch, and finally to Rome, everywhere shown to be an impostor, though declaring himself to be Christ, and overcpme by divine miracles. Helena again appears, this time as "Wisdom," " the All‑Mother," and " Lady," sending forth two angels (who seize power over her), one to create the world, and the other to give the Law. The pseudo‑Clementine sources also add that Simon Magus was the son of Antonius and Rachel, that he was educated in Greek learning at Alexandria, and that, after being received among the thirty disciples of John the Baptist, he became head of the sect after the death of his teacher. He is likewise described, though without plausibility, as the representative of Samaritan worship on Mount Gerizim who expounded the Law allegorically and denied the resurrection of the dead, as the representative of pagan philosophy (especially of astrological fatalism), and even as the defender of Marcion's antithesis of the good and righteous God.
In some passages in these writings Simon Magus wears the mask of Paul, and attacks are made on Pauline teachings under the guise of polemics in favor of the Petrine theology against the tenets of
Simon Magus. There is, however, no
4. Unten‑ basis for the theory that the picture of able Theo‑ Simon Magus in the Clementine literaries Con‑ ture is deliberately designed to be a cerning caricature of Paul inspired by the Simon hatred of the Judaizing school, or for Magus. seeing in the struggle between Peter and Simon the victory of Petrine over Pauline Christianity. All the traits of Simon in this literature reveal him as only a magician or pseudo‑Messiah, later given not merely Pauline, but also pagan and Marcionistib, characteristics; so that both in the apocryphal Acts and in the pseudoClementine literature Simon Magus was primarily not a pseudo‑Paul, but a pseudo‑Christ, and therefore the antithesis of Peter. Equally improbable is the hypothesis which identifies Simon Magus with the beast of Rev. xiii. 11‑17, although it is not impossible that the Beliar which the Sibylline Books, iii. 63 sqq., describe as destined to come " from the Sebastenes " (Samaritans) represented Simon. It

Simon Xsgne Simon
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
	has likewise been maintained that Simon Magus is
to be identified with the heresiarch Simon of Gitta,
	who should, on this hypothesis, be dated in the early
	part of the second century, but for this theory there
	is not the slightest ground, especially in view of the
	testimony of Acts, Clement of Alexandria, and Jus
	tin. It is, on the other hand, not improbable that
	Simon Magus is to be identified with a Jewish ma,
	gician named Simon who acted as a go‑between for
	the procurator Felix of Judea. This Simon is de
	scribed by Josephus (ant., XX., vii. 2) as a Cypriot,
	but this statement probably rests upon a confusion of
	the Cyprian capital, Cittium (Hebr. Kittim), with the
	obscure Samaritan village of Gitta (Hebr. Gittim).
	All evidence goes to prove that Simon was what
	his epithet Magus implies‑a sorcerer. This was the
	motive for his association with the apostles in Sa
	maria, but while it would seem that he pretended to
	be, in the pagan sense, a god in human form (cf.
	Justin, Apol., i. 26), there is no indication that either
	Acts or Justin regarded him as a
	g. ASorcer‑pseudo‑Messiah; and even the apoa
	er Syncre‑ ryphal Acts and the pseudo‑Clementine
	tized with literature characterize him as a false
	the Sun. Christ merely on the ground that he
	was the first‑born of Satan (cf. Tgna
	tius, Epist. ad Trallenses, longer version, xi.). It is
	true that the heresiologists describe him as the su
	preme God and even as the Redeemer, but a careful
	study of the sources, particularly of the extant
	fragments of his " Great Announcement " (pre
	served by Hippolytus, Philosophumena, vi. 6 sqq.),
	shows that imon himself made no claim to Mes
	siahship,_this velug, at n u ed 16'hilnhy‑fiis disc
	les. With this falls the them "thatlmon NTagzus
	was the, _folulder of_& nnivgraal_religionintended to
rival Christianity~ 	fQUde~
	and he was noteven‑Ale fasectinhe‑sensethat such heresiarchs as Mar
	cion_ were. The very fact that‑Simon himself be
	,c~Te the subject of Gnostic speculation shows_that
he‑ was t_ e‑founder of .Gnosticism, nor do the
earlier sources so represent him; it was onl his
f_o_llq3vers who made this claim for him. Hi~y,
then, Simon was but A,, ~s~,p,,r.~c.~e?'er who asserted, that
fie was a, go. 	on, aided by the high
famTwiiich he enjoyed throughout Samaria (cf.
Acts viii.), beached its culmination in his i_dentific
'LL with the ‑,mta sa‑,fig ~,Jostrttr
was united with that of ,thg_.,.92>3‑‑g~iltlcALAawte"
This is confirmed by Simon'_s._o9mpanion,. Helena,
wtio is‑unknown to Acts, the apocryphal Acts, the
Alexandrine heresiologists, or the " Great Announce
ment," but whose name (" Moon "), combined with
the immoral past ascribed her and her Tyrian home,
obviously points to the Tyrian moon‑goddess with
her licentious rites. How long this cult of Simon
Magus, which had evidently arisen long before the
time of Justin, persisted in Samaria and other re
gions is unknown, but ;U the days of _Origen the
" Simonians " we re__exceedingly _few~ in uuhilier_.m
Palestine and the neighboring countries (Contra Celsum, i. 57), and by the time of Epiphanius (Hwr., xxii. 2) they had become extinct, On the other hand, they had spread widely 4p the West before 200, and there In ' W
,tshe,c,'Cvg~cf. Hippolytus, Philosophumend, vi. 15). They seem to
420
have developed a sect essentially occult and libertine in character, worshiping Simon (cf. Irenaeus, Hcer., T. xxiii. 4), and finally giving rise to two systems, that of the " Great Announcement " and that described by the heresiologists who based their writings upon Justin.
The authenticity of the " Great Announcement " has been assailed both because of its similarity to other Gnostic systems recorded by Hippolytus and
on account of its divergence from 6. The Simon's teachings as described by other Twofold heresiologigts. Neither of these arguSimoniaa menu, however, is sufficient to prove System. the document spurious, especially in
view of the confirmation of Hippolytus by other heresiologista; and the true explanation of the divergencies between the Philosophumena. and Justin lies in the fact that there were two Simonian systems, one influenced by Alexandria and the other by Syria. The former influence is especially evident in the doctrine of the Godhead as " He that hath stood," which finds a close parallelism in the Philonian system, and is also perceptible in the purely allegorical method of Biblical exegesis adopted by the " Great Announcement " (cf. also the account in the pseudo‑Clementine Homilies, ii. 22 sqq.). It is uncertain whether the " Great Announcement " was written in Alexandria, but at all events its citation of non‑Samaritan prophets and of Proverbs shows that it was composed neither by Simon nor by any of his Samaritan followers. The account given by Justin and those who drew upon him, on the other hand, indicates that the second Simonian system was evolved in Syria, its elements being a syncretism of Babylonian mythology and Hellenistic allegory (for the latter cf. Irenaeus, Halr., L, xxiii. 4; Epiphanius, Ht>'r., xxi.). Both the Alexandrine and the Syrian form of Simonianism are unique in the history of Gnosticism in that they make a historic personage the supreme God, and, although destitute of any real Christian spirit, both show Christian influence, the Alexandrian " Great Announcement " using written Gospels and the Petrine and Pauline epistles, and the Syrian system comparing Helena with the lost sheep of Matt. xviii. 12 and Luke xv. 6. (Hells WAITZ.)
In St. Peter's in Rome in the west division of the left aisle is an oil painting on slate by Francesco Vanni, " The punishment of Simon Magus," representing Simon Magus's fall from the skies at the prayer of St. Peter.
BIHLIOURAPHY: As an indirect source may be taken into account the excerpts from the Apophasis in Hippolytus, Hcar., VI., vii.‑xviii (Eng, transl. in ANF, v. 78‑81), on which cf. H. Stahelin, in T U, vi (1891). The most of the sources are named in the text, but the principal ones may be summarized here for convenience: Acts viii. 5‑24; Justin Martyr, I Apol., xxvi., Ivi., and Tr,;pho, cxx., both in ANF, vol. i.; Hegeaippus, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV., xxii. 5, in NPNF, 2 ser., Vol. i.; Irenaus, Han, L, xxiii. l‑4, in A NF, vol. i.; Clement of Alexandria. Strom., IL, xi. 52, VIL, xvii. 107‑108, in ANF, vol. ii.; Origen, Contr. Celaum, i. 57, vi. 11, in ANF, vol: iv.; the Clementina; Eusebius, Hiat. eccl., IL, i. 12‑15, in NPNF, 2 aer., vol. i.; Gregory Nazianzen. Oratio. xxiii. 18. xliv. Consult: F. C. Baur, in Tiibirger Zeitachrift fur Theologie, 1831, pp. 114‑138; •idem, Paulus, pp. 85 sqq.. 218 sqq., Tubingen, 1845; H. Simson, in ZHT, xi (1841), 15‑79; A. Sehliemann, Die CZenaentinen, Hamburg, 1844; A. Hil‑

421	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Simon Xseua
S%mon
genfeld, Die elementinischen Recognitionen and Homilien, pp. 317 sqq., Jena, 1848; idem, in ZWT, xi (1868), 357396, xlvii (1904), 545‑567, xlix (1906), 66‑133; J. Grimm, Die Samariter, pp. 125‑175, Munich, 1854; E. Zeller, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 158 sqq., Stuttgart, 1854, Eng. transl., Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles, i. 250 sqq., London, 1875; G. Volkmar, in Tfibinger theolopische Jahrbiicher, 1856; R. A. Lipsius, Quellen der rdmischen Petrussage, pp. 13‑46, Kiel, 1872; idem, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichte, ii. 1, pp. 28‑69 et passim, Brunswick, 1884; J. Delitzsch, in TSK, xlvii (1874); Dieterlen, L'Ap6tre Paul et Simon le Magicien, Nancy, 1878; T. Zahn, Cyprian von Antiochien and die deutsche Faustsage, Erlangen, 1882; C. Bigg, in Studia Biblica, ii (1890), 157‑193; F. Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen, pp. 145 sqq., Halls, 1891; C. Clemen, Chronologie der paulinischen Briefs, Halle, 1893; M. Krenkel, Josephus and Lucas, pp. 178‑190, Leipsic, 1894; A. C. McGiffert, Apostolic Ape, pp. 99‑100, New York, 1897; J. Kreyenbuhl, Das Evanpelium der Wahrheit, i. 174‑265, ii. 100 sqq., Berlin, 1900‑05; P. Lugano, in Nuovo Bulletino di archoologia cristiana, vi (1900); J. F. A. Hort, Notes Introductory to the Study of the Clementine Recognitions, London, 1901; R. Lieehtenhan, Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus, pp. 5 sqq., 56‑57, GSttingen, 1901; H. U. Mayboom, De Clemens‑Roman, parts i.‑ii. Groningen, 1902‑04; H. Waitz, in ZNTW, v (1904), 121‑143; idem, in T U, xxv. 4 (1904), 170 sqq., 202 sqq., et passim; Har nack, Litteratur, i. 153 sqq., ii. 2, pp. 518‑540; Schaff, Christian Church, i. 257‑258; Neander, Christian Church, vols. i‑ii. passim; and, in general, histories of the apostolic age; DB, iv. 520‑527; EB, iv. 4536‑60; JE, xi. 371‑373; DCB, iv. 681‑688; the literature under CLEMENTINA; and GNOsmCISv; and the principal commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles.

SIMON (SIMEON) STOCK, SAINT: Carmelite and general of the order; b. in Kent, England, c. 1165; d. at Bordeaux, France, May 16, 1265. Tradition makes him take up the hermit's life at the age of twelve, entering the Carmelite order in 1201, and studying afterward at Oxford; he became vicargeneral for the West, 1215, was in Palestine in 1237, went to England in 1244, and became general in 1245. His chief claim to fame is as propagator of the Scapular (q.v.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ASB, May, iii. 653‑654, 762, vii. 790; the Leben by A. Monbrun, Regensburg, 1888; DNB, Iii. 255; KL, xi. 319‑320.
SIMON OF TOURNAI, tfir"n@': Teacher at the Sorbonne about 1200. Of his life scarcely a detail is known, but if he may be identified with the Simon recommended to the archbishop of Reims by Stephen of Tournai (MPL, ccxi. 353), he would seem to have been born at Tournai (48 m. s. by w. of Ghent). According to Matthew Paris (Chron. majarn, on the year 1301), who claimed to have his account from an eye‑witness, Simon in one lecture alleged many objections to the doctrine of the Trinity, only to refute them in the following lecture. The applause which this won him filled him with such vanity that he blasphemously congratulated the Savior on the aid that his dialectic skill had given the Christian cause, though insuperable objections might have been brought against Christianity had the lecturer really been opposing it. Thereupon, Matthew records, Simon lost both speech and memory, and took two years to relearn the alphabet. A younger contemporary, the Dominican Thomas Cautipratanus (d. 1263), makes Simon declare Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed to be three impostors (Bonum universals de aptbus, 11. 48; Cf. IMPOSTORIBUS, DE TRIBITg), and then suffer loss of speech and memory; but
Henry of Ghent (q.v.) merely states that Simon, being too ardent an Aristotelian, was regarded by many as a heretic (De script. eccl., xxiv.). The entire account is explained by some as a legendary accretion, inspired by orthodox dread of the theological consequences of dialectic philosophy, about some catastrophe which befell Simon in the midst of a distinguished academic career.
(FERDINAND COHRB.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Histoire litt&aire de la France, xvi. 394; B. Haurdau, Hist. de la philosophic scholastique, ii. 1, pp. 58 sqq., Paris, 1880; H. Denifle, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, i. 45, 71, ib. 1890; Neander, Christian Church, iv. 418; KL, xi. 320‑321.
SIMON ZELOTES, ze‑16't5z: One of the twelve apostles. He is mentioned in all the New‑Testament lists (Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13). But with Luke alone, he bears the surname Zelotes; whereas in Matthew and Mark, as correctly read, he is termed the Canaanite, a designation which appears to be derived from a corresponding local name. The correct explanation of the term " Zelotes " is supplied by Luke, with his translation " Zealot," " man of ardor." The origin of this surname might rest in Simon's personal characteristics or in his individual labors rather than on the basis of some supposed connection with the revolutionary Galilean faction of Zealots (q.v‑).
	Identification of Simon Zelotes with the Simon
who is named among the brethren of Jesus (Matt.
xin. 55; Mark vi. 3), together with the cognate as
sumption that the latter was a brother of James the
son of Alph:Tus, is quite unfounded (see JAMES, I., 3),
as are the reports of a later activity of the apostle
in Egypt and in Britain (Nicephorus Callistus, II.,
xl.), or in Persia and Babylonia (Abdias, Hist., VI.,
Vii.‑Viii.). 	F. SIEFFERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the commentaries on the passages noted in the text, and the articles in the Bible dictionaries, consult: A. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 251, 522, ii. 603, New York, 1896; T. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kamm, vi. 293, 321, 361, Leipsic, 1900.
SIMON, DAVID WORTHINGTON: English Congregationalist; b. at Hazel Grove (8 m. s.e. of Manchester), Cheshire, Apr. 28, 1.830; d. at Dresden Jan. 17, 1909. He was educated at Lancastershire Independent College, Manchester (1848‑54), and the universities of Halle and Heidelberg (1854‑5.5, 18571858), and at Tiibingen (Ph.D., 1363), residing for a time at Darmstadt. After holding Congregational pastorates at Royston, Herts (1856), and Rusholme, Manchester (1858), and after the completion of his studies in Germany, he was Berlin agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society (1863‑69); principal and professor of general theology and philosophy at Spring Hill College, Birmingtam (now Mansfield College, Oxford), until 1884; principal and professor of systematic theology and church history in the Theological Hall of the Scottish Congregational Church, Edinburgh (1884‑93); and became in 1893 principal of the Yorkshire United Independent College, Bradford, Yorkshire. He translated E. W. Hengstenberg's " Commentary on Ecclesiastes " (in collaboration with W. L. Alexan‑

Simon
Simons
der; Edinburgh, 1860); I. A. Dorner's History of the Develop of the Doctrine of the Person of ptrist (5 vols., 1861‑63); H. Cremer's Biblico‑TheoZogiral Lexicon of New Testament Greek (in eollaboration with W. Urwick; 1872); and L. Stithlin's Kant, Low, Ritschl (1889); and wrote The Bible an Outgrowth of Theocratic Life (Edinburgh, 1886); The Redemption of Man (1886); ReconeaZiation by Incarnation (1898); Some Bible Problems (London, 1898); and The Making of a Preacher (1907).
SIMON, JOHN SMITH: Wesleyan Methodist; b. in Glasgow June 25, 1843. He was educated at Elizabeth College, Guernsey, and Victoria College, Jersey, and, after being a lawyer's assistant for four years, entered the Wesleyan ministry in 1863. He has served on many of the most important committees of his denomination, and in 1895 became one of the members of its Legal Conference. He was a delegate to the Methodist Ecumenical conferences of 1891 (Washington) and 1901 (London), and in 1907 was president of the Wesleyan conference. Since 1901 he has been governor of the Wesleyan Methodist Theological College at Didsbury, and is the author of Manual of Instruction and Advice for Class Leaders (London, 1892); Summary of Methodist Law and Discipline (1897); and The Revival of Religion in England in. the Eighteenth Century (1907).
SIMON, RICHARD: French Roman Catholic and the real founder of Biblical criticism; b. at Dieppe (33 m. n. of Rouen) May 13, 1638; d. there Apr. 1.1, 1712. In 1658 he became a novice of the Oratorians, and, after withdrawing, returned in 1662 on receiving permission to continue his studies during his novitiate. He was ordained to the priesthood in Sept., 1670, but on May 21, 1678, was expelled from the Omtorians because of the publication of his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Paris, 1678, and often; Eng. transl. by R. Hampden, Critical History of the Old Testament, 4 parts, London, 1682). He then retired to the parish of Bolleville in Normandy, which he had received in 1676, and later lived at Dieppe, Rouen, and Paris. Before his expulsion from the Oratorians he was for a time professor of philosophy at Juilly, though he found a more congenial task in cataloguing the oriental manuscripts of the library and in Biblical, rabbinical, and patristic studies. Rationalistic in temperament, and quarrelsome in disposition, the fresh knowledge which he acquired involved him in countless controversies, the most famous being that which centered about the Histoire critique just mentioned. This work, after seven years of preparation, had been passed by the censor and was in print, with the exception of the title and the dedication to the king, when the preface and table of contents fell into the hands of Bossuet. The heading of the fifth chapter, " Moses can not be the author of all the books attributed to him," was enough to cause Bossuet to interfere, and on June 19, 1678, the copies of the work, with a few exceptions, were destroyed. From one of those which escaped Daniel Elzevir prepared an incorrect edition (Amsterdam, 1680), and in 1685 Simon himself published another edition at Rotterdam with a preface as if from a Protestant and notes referring to Simon in the third
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
person. The work was vehemently attacked, but the New‑Testament portions were so increased in size that they were issued in separate parts under the titles of Hiatoire critique du terte du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1689; Eng. transl., 2 parts, London, 1689), Histoire critique des versions du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1690; Eng. tranal., London, 1692), and Histoire critique des 7rri'nci?aux commerttateura du Nouveau Testament (2 parts, Rotterdam, 1693), these being followed by the Nouvellea observations sur Is texts et lee versions du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1695) and by an anonymous French translation of the Vulgate (4 vole., Trwoux, 1702). This version was also attacked by Boesuet, and although Simon printed slips bearing changes in translation and explanations to be pasted over his first text, the book was prohibited. Toward the end of his life Simon printed Lettrea choisiea de M. Simon (Amsterdam, 1700) and, under the pseudonym of M. de Sainjore, Bibliothifque critique, ou recueil de diveraea pikces (4 parts, Paris and Amsterdam, 1708‑10). After his death his Nouvelle bibliothbque choisie appeared (2 vole., 1714), and among his other writings special mention may be made of his Hiatoire critique des dogmes, des eontroveraes, des coutumea et des c6r6moniea des Chrestierts orYentauz (Trwoux, 1711; Eng. transl. by A. Lovell, London, 1685).
	Richard Simon was the first to attempt to write
a history of the Bible as a piece of literature, an as
tounding innovation considering the intellectual
conditions of his time. He did not, however, direct
his attention to the contents of the Bible or to the
development of religious concepts, but rather to the
text, the versions, and the commentaries. Disre
garding the traditional and dogmatic presupposi
tions of the age, he critically discussed the Septua
gint and the Vulgate, and defended the translation
of the Bible into the vernacular. He regarded the
Masoretic text as representing a good tradition, but
postulated the late origin of the Hebrew vowel
points and square script. In New‑Testament criti
cism he defended the Hellenistic idiom against the
purists. In regard to the origin of the Old Testa
ment, he maintained that there were in Israel, from
the time of Moses, public scribes whose duty it was
to record all matters pertaining to religion and the
State, and also, in their capacity of public orators,
to give directions to the people, these addresses being
published from time to time, and after the Exile
giving rise to the Old Testament in its present form.
The verdict of succeeding generations was most un
favorable to Simon, nor was it until the rise of Jo
hann Salomo Semler (q.v.) that the true merits of
Simon, with all his shortcomings, received full
recognition. 	E. NESTLE.
BlslloaxnrlY: A. Bernus. Richard Simon el con 8iat. critique du Vieux Testament, Lausanne, 1889; idem, Nolice bsbLiopraphique cur Richard Simon, Basel, 1882; L. Dieatel, Oeachichte des Allen Testaments in der chrsatlichcn Kirchc, Jena, 1889; C. H. Wright, Introduction to the Old Testament, London, 1891 (the first part contains a history of criticism); H. Margival, in Revue d'hiat. et littEraEure relipievau, i (1898), 159, ii (1897), 17, 223, 525, iii (1898), 117, 138, 508, iv (1899), 122. 192, 310, 435; A. Bludau, in Der ICatlwlik, 1904, i. 29‑422, ii. 114‑122; A. Duff. Hid, of O. T. Criticism, New York, 1910.

428	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Simon
Simons
I. First Statement. Early Life and Views (§ 1). Paideutic Objective (¢ 2). Later Life; Literary Activity ($ 3). Theological Controversies (§ 4). Final Activities (¢ 5).
SIMONS, MENNOO.
Characterization (¢ 8). II. Second Statement. Views of Scripture (¢ 1). Sin; Justification by Faith (§ 2). Holy Living; the Ordinances (¢ 3). The Church (¢ 4). Christology (; 5).
I. First Statement: Menno Simons, Dutch Anabaptist, was born at Witmarsum (5 m. s.e. of Har. ingen), Holland, 1492, and died near Oldesloe (25 m. n.e. of Hamburg), Germany, Jan. 13, 1559. Though the Mennonites (q.v.) bear his name, he was not their founder, for they existed
:. Early in Holland seven years before he
Life and became a convert; but he was one
	Views.	of their most influential leaders and
		by far their most important author.
Many details of his life are uncertain, for his biog
raphy remained unwritten both in his own and in
the following generation, so that it must be gleaned
from scanty allusions in his writings and in the
works of his contemporaries. In 1515 or 1516 he
held an ecclesiastical office at Pingjum, a short dis
tance from his birthplace. In 1532 he became pas
tor at Witmarsum, where, as he confessed in later
years, he preached from motives of ambition rather
than conviction. Much of his self‑accusation, how
ever, may be due to the morbid severity with which,
like Bunyan and other converts, he judged him
self, for no suspicion of reprehensibility seems to
have attached to his name at any time, unless it
be charged against him that he remained in the
priesthood for twenty years despite his doubts. In
the very first years of his parochial activity he be
came skeptical of the doctrine of transubstantia
tion, and found support for his views on baptism
in the New Testament and the writings of Billican,
who, with some other Protestants, permitted parents
to choose between infant and adult baptism for their
children. This and the execution of the Anabap
tist Sicke Snijder at Leeuwarden in 1531 led to re
newed study of the Bible and the works of the
Reformers, with the result that Menno practically
became an Evangelical preacher, though he had
not yet broken openly with the Church. When he
entered upon his new parish of Witmarsum, he
seems already to have sympathized with Anabap
tist views.
Menno's attention was less directed, however, against Roman Catholic teaching than against errors which had recently sprung up in Ana2. Paideutic baptism, such as the doctrines of earth‑
	Objective.	ly power, sword, king, and the plurality
		of wives. In this spirit he wrote his
first book, Een gantsch duydelycke end klaer beunya
uyt die H. S. dat Jesus Christus is de reehte beloofde
David inn den geeat . . . tegen de grouwelicke ende
grootste blasphemie van Jan van Leyden, although
it was not printed until 1627. Menno's ambiguous
position received a rude shock in Apr., 1535, when
300 Anabaptists were defeated at Bolaward by the
imperial troops, 130 falling in battle, while the
remainder, including his own brother, were made
prisoners and drowned. He felt himself responsible
Relation to Rationalism (§ 6).
Relation to the Reformers (¢ 7).
Relation to the Swiss Brethren (¢ 8).
Relation to hidnater Anabaptists
Go).
Victim of Intolerance (§ 10).
in a sense for their fate, since he had not taught them the true way, and he also became convinced that his priestly office rendered it impossible for him to gain their confidence, so that on Jan. 12, 1536, he ‑resigned his pariah. This " conversion," or " rebirth," as Menno termed it, was characteristically Anabaptist, in that it was based less on a conviction of the grace of God through Christ in consequence of a sense of sin and repentance than on moral earnestness, renunciation, and devotion to divine truth, whether contained in the Bible or in the human heart. It was, therefore, the conversion of a layman rather than of a theologian or a priest. Yet Menno was not uneducated, for he wrote Latin fluently, was somewhat acquainted with Greek, and had a certain familiarity with the writings of his contemporaries (especially Erasmus) and the Church Fathers.
After his withdrawal from the priesthood and the Roman Catholic Church, Menno remained for a time in Friesland, where all who should
3. Later harbor him were threatened with death Life; in Oct., 1536. Two months later, at
Literary	the earnest petition of a number of
	Activity.	those who agreed with him in faith
		and life, he received the laying on of
hands from Obbe Philips, and became an elder
(bishop) of the community. Where Menno passed
the first years after he left the church is uncertain,
but it is not improbable that he lived in East Fries
land, baptizing both there and in Groningen in 1537.
He seems to have lived in East Friesland until 1541;
in Amsterdam and North Holland from 1541 to
1543; again in East Friesland from 1543 to 1545;
in and near Cologne and Limburg from 1545 to 1547;
and after this latter year in or near Lilbeck, with
the exception of a short residence at Wismar in
1553‑54. His life during these years may be best
traced by his writings, his first publications being
the most important. To this category belong his
Van de ware nieuwe geboorte; Veele goede . . .
leringhen op den ,26. Psalm, perhaps the best work
of its author; Van het rechte Christengeloove; and
Van de geestelicke verriiaenime. The most impor
tant of all his works, however, was the Fondament
boek (c. 1539), in which he sought to p‑ove the truth
of his doctrines and urged the authorities to test
the purity of the lives of the Anabaptists, thus
ending the persecution and showing their wide
divergence from the fanatics of Munster. In this
book, moreover, Menno defines belief as trust in
the grace of God and the promises revealed to
man in the words and life of Christ, bringing sor
row for sin, yet comforting the heart and strength
ening it in conformity to the divine pattern. The
substitution of adult for infant baptism is based
by him on the commandment of Christ and on

Simons
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
apostolic usage, as well as on the doctrine of regeneration, of which baptism should be the seal. The true mark of the Christian was regeneration, not baptism, while the Lord's Supper was regarded not as a sacrament but as a memorial service. The Fondamentboek was also designed to warn his followers against errors which might be construed as morally reprehensible, such as the doctrine of David Joris that external acts were indifferent, provided the intention was good.
The Fondamentboek was supplemented by the Lief'ehjcke vermaninge . . . hoe dat een Christen, sal geschickt zijn en van het schouwen ofte
4. Theo‑ afsnijden der valscher broederen en suslogical teren (1541); Kindertucht (Antwerp,
Controver‑ 1543); Verclaringhedesdoopsels(1544);
	sies.	Oorsaecke waerom dat ik Menno Simons
		niet of en laaxe to leeren (1544); and a
book, now lost, directed against David Joris (1545),
which was answered by Joris' son‑in‑law, Nikolaas
Blesdijk, in Verantwoording, in 1546. During these
years Menno resided for a time in North Holland,
and in 1547 he was one of the three elders who took
part in the conference with Blesdijk in Lubeck, where
the views of Joris were utterly refuted. Meanwhile
Menno became involved in the one great theolog
ical controversy of his life, the doctrine of the In
carnation. Several years after his conversion he
became acquainted with the teaching of Melchior
Hoffmann that the body of Christ was born in, not
of, the Virgin Mary, so that the Son of God trans
formed himself into the nature of man, rather than
took it upon him, also holding that this human
being was formed by God without any cooperation
of the mother. Although Menno laid little stress
upon the acceptance of this doctrine, he was chal
lenged to a disputation in 1543 by the East Frisian
superintendent Johannes a Lasco (q.v.). They met
in the following January, and Menno promised to
send his opponent the reasons for his belief, writing
them in Latin, but publishing them in Dutch under
the title: Een corte ende clare beliydinghe . . . van der
menschwordinge enzv. Lasco replied in his Defensio
incarnationis Christi (1545), and his opponent re
sponded in his turn with his Eyne dare bekentenisse
dat de gheheele Christus Jesus Godes eygen Sone is,
although it was not printed until 1554, when the
controversy was renewed. Menno's insistence on
this doctrine after 1547 is to be ascribed neither to
obstinacy nor to an excessive regard for it, although
he believed his dualistic theory more reasonable
than the orthodox teaching. To his mind a Christ
who was at the same time God and man was un
thinkable, and he accordingly believed that he was
created by God alone, without any intervention
on the part of father or mother, and that in his
earthly incarnation he was nothing but a man into
whom the Word had been transformed. While the
Church taught that we are brethren of Christ in
that he took our flesh upon him, Menno held that
only the regenerate are the brethren of Christ, and
then simply because they, like him, are begotten
of God. From this teaching, however, some drew
the deduction that Christ was not consubstantial
with the Father, but was merely one with him in
will and intent, thus denying the Trinity. The as‑
424
sembly of elders accordingly convened at Goch in 1547 and excommunicated their colleague Adam Pastor, one of the foremost advocates of this doctrine. Menno, who was present, wrote a rather feeble refutation of Pastor, entitled Behjdinghe van den drieenigen Godt, although he did not break off all association with him.
During his residence on the Lower Rhine in 1545‑47 and after he had settled in Holstein in
1549, Menno made frequent journeys
g. Final to confer with his fellow elders, and
Activities. between 1552 and 1554 he published
from his own press a number of writings, chiefly apologetic in character. One of these, the Beantwoordinghe over eene schrift Gelii Fabri, is the longest work of its author, and almost the only one which gives any information concerning his life and the conditions of his time. It treats, among other subjects, of the doctrine of the Incarnation, on which Menno disputed with Micronius at Wismar on Feb. 6 and 15, 1554. In the following year Micronius published the minutes of this disputar tion, to which his opponent replied in 1556, following it with another refutation in 1557. These are not the most felicitous of the products of Menno's pen; they are not at all free from personalities and wearisome repetitions. The closing years of his life were saddened by the controversies among his followers concerning excommunication. As early as 1551 Menno had ruled that the faithful should avoid all association with their fellow believers of unseemly life, unless these should prove responsive to admonition. In the course of the development of the community, however, many problems were evolved regarding excommunication. In 1550 Menno decided, in his Klaer bericht van de excommunicatie, that this avoidance should be extended to secular life as well, but not in cases where assistance might be rendered; he mitigated also the severity of the banishment as far as possible. The elders Leenaert Bouwens and Gillis van Aachen, on the other hand, demanded that excommunication be declared in the majority of cases without previous warning, and that, if one of a married pair had fallen under the ban, the other should avoid him or her. These measures aroused the deep resentment of the Anabaptists living along the Lower Rhine, and they accordingly sent their teachers Zylis and Lemmeken to Menno in 1556, whereupon, in the following year, he went to Franeker and Harlingen to win his fellow elders to a milder mood and restore peace. The reverse was the result, however, and Menno himself was threatened with excommunication. In his fear that he might have conceded too much to human weakness, he published his Grrondelic bericht in 1558, declaring openly that he had formerly erred and presenting the strictest views. Zylis and Lemmeken replied, only to be answered by Menno in a book couched in no very measured tones, though written just before his death. As he lay dying, however, he lamented this temporary severity and warned his followers not to be servants of men, as he had been.
Menno's character was a mixture of humility, warmth of heart, pessimism with regard to the world and life, spiritual piety, loyalty and love to

426	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Simons
the "community," and obstinacy, while he was deeply conscious of his responsibility as elder of the people of God. None of his Dutch con‑
	6. Charac‑	temporaries surpassed him in ability
	terization.	to write in a popular and edifying
		vein, or in ease of composition.
Through his toil, his books and letters, and the love
which he bore his followers, with which he in
spired them in their turn, he enabled the community
to increase in numbers and to hold fast to their
lofty morality. Every trace of the excesses of
Munster and Joiis had vanished, and henceforth the
community was to remain true to the teachings of
the New Testament as their sole rule of faith. Thus
the followers of Menno reverenced him deeply,
though only as one of their pious teachers. Grad
ually all his works were printed, not only as a
source of appeal in the controversies over excom
munication and the doctrine of the Incarnation,
but also for edification. The pietistic element
among the Anabaptists called themselves by his
name, as their opponents had done since 1544. In
Upper Germany and along the Rhine, on the other
hand, the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century were
estranged from him on account of their controver
sies [due to his insistence on his doctrine of the in
carnation and marital avoidance in case one of the
married pair was under discipline. Cf. A. H. New
man, Hist. of Antipedobaptism, pp. 309‑312, Phila
delphia, 1897], but in the seventeenth and eight
eenth centuries his name and writings won their
esteem as the representative of their separatiatio
life and their opposition to the established church.
The works of Menno, still preserved (so far as extant) in their original editions at Amsterdam, were written in colloquial Low German and translated into Dutch after his death. The first edition of a small collection appeared in 1562, followed by larger collections in 1601, 1646, and 1681, the latter being almost complete. A German edition of all his writings was published at Elkhart, Ind., in 1876, and Eng. transl., in 1871. Although there a;e several portraits of Menno, none of them were taken from life, and only one, which is preserved .at Utrecht, seems to have come from a circle which knew him personally. In his later years he was a
cripple. 	S. CxAMEx.
II. Second Statement: Menno Simons and his coworkers differed from the more prominent reformers of the sixteenth century in rejecting the doctrinal system of Predestination (q.v.). Prior to Jacobus Arminius (q.v.) they taught the freedom of the will. Of the doctrine that freedom of choice is not granted man, and yet he is held responsible and punished for sin, Menno speaks as " an abomination above all abominations " (Merino Simons, Complete Works, ii. 94, i. 221, Elkhart, Ind., 1871). John Calvin, in turn, who had evidently never acquired a first‑hand knowledge of Merino's teachings, speaks of Merino in most contemptuous terms.
While, according to the leading German reformers, " what is not against Scripture is for Scripture and Scripture is for it " (Luther), Merino held that, as concerns Christian doctrine and ceremonies, nothing can be rightly maintained that is not expressly taught and authorized in the New Testament. Need‑
less to say that he attributed to the opinion of neither pope‑whom he considered Antichrist‑nor
Church Fathers any authoritative z. Views of weight. On the relation of the Old
Scripture. Testament to the New‑Testament
Scriptures he differed fundamentally from Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Menno, as well as the Swiss Brethren and Huteritea (see MENNONTTE9), held that " Christ alone is our law‑giver." The Old‑Testament precepts were largely intended for premessianic times and have been restated by Christ and the apostles so far as they are to be applied to the Christian Church. The Old‑Testament Scriptures are indeed a part of the Word of God, they are the foundation and groundwork for the New, while the latter is the fulfilment of the Old; but in matters of Christian worship, practise, and life, the New‑Testament Scriptures are the only authority. While the Reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin justified, on Old‑Testament authority, a union of Church and State, war, capital punishment, the oath, and in part also ritualism, Menno rejected the same on New‑Testament authority. Of the doctrine of the inner light, as held by Hans Denk (q.v.) and a few other Anabaptists and later by the Quakers, not a trace is found in his writings.
On original sin Menno teaches that through the fall all men inherit a sinful nature. Christ, the sec‑
ond Adam, has atoned for the guilt of z. Sin; original sin, hence no one will be conJustificatioa demned for the sin of Adam. All in‑
by Faith. fants are saved through the atonement
of Christ,, according to his express promise. Condemnation awaits those who reject the means of salvation offered them. The doctrine of justification by faith is given great prominence in Menno's system. Luther's teaching on the sacraments (baptismal regeneration and forgiveness of sin through the observation of the Lord's Supper) he rejects as inconsistent with this doctrine. " To teach and believe," says Menno, " that regeneration is the result of baptism, my brethren, is terrible idolatry and blasphemy against the blood of Christ. For there is neither in heaven nor on earth any other remedy for our sins, be they inherited evil propensities or transgressions, than the blood of Christ alone, as we have often shown in our first writings " (Works, ii. 200). " The blood of Christ is and will ever be the only and eternally valid means of our reconciliation, and not works, baptism, or Lord's Supper " (i. 158). The statement that " Christ is the only means of grace " is found oftentimes in Menno's writings; all the riches of grace may be obtained through faith in Chriatrby no means through works and ceremonies.
Probably no contemporary of Merino Simons insists with more emphasis on the inseparable con‑
nection of an obedient, holy life with 3. Holy true faith. " Behold, beloved reader," Living; the says Merino, " thus true faith begets
Ordinances. love and love begets obedience to the
commandments of God " (Works, ii. 246). " For this can never fail, where there is true Christian faith, there is also dying to sin, a new creature, true repentance, a sincere regenerated, unblamabie Christian " (i. 118). " True faith which

6lmons
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
avails before God is a living and saving power which is, through the preaching of the holy Word, wrought of God in the heart, renewing, changing and regenerating it to newness of mind " (i. 59). On the Christian ordinances Menno says: " All the rites ordained of God, both in the Old and New Testament, have been instituted that our faith may be exercised and our obedience proven " (i. 34). The baptism of infants is invalid. Incidentally baptism is spoken of as the reception of " a handful of water " (i. 38, i. 124). Menno also observes that " the poor world has hitherto believed the new birth to consist in immersion in the water while the words are said, I baptize thee," etc. (ii. 215). He did not hold that believers' baptism to be valid must be administered by a representative of a church that is entirely orthodox. On the Lord's Supper his teaching concurs with that of Zwingli; he disapproves of " open " communion.
Menno defines the Church as the assembly of those " who hear, believe, accept, and rightly fulfil " the teachings of God's Word (ii.
4. The 345), hence a true Christian church is
	Church.	necessarily established on the volun
		tary principle. He says: " Faith is
the gift of God, therefore it can not be forced upon
any one by worldly authorities or by the sword."
" Tell me, kind reader, where have you in all the
days of your life read in the apostolic Scriptures
that Christ or the apostles called upon the power
of the magistracy against those who would not hear
their doctrine and obey their word? " (ii. 71). " Be
hold how haughtily and how wickedly the princes
assume, without any awe or fear, the authority of
God and the ofce of the Holy Ghost " (i. 186).
Toleration, accordingly, means the rejection of all
persecution. Menno would have taken it as an in
sult had he been charged with advancing the mod
ern idea that false doctrine is, on the ground of
Christian love and forbearance, to be tolerated in
the Church. The government of the Church was
administered by the elders. Questions of faith and
practise were not to be referred to individual con
gregations. The idea that among the early Men
nonites " every church was a law unto itself " is
erroneous. Menno and his colaborers withdrew
from congregations that sanctioned what they be
lieved to be unscriptural doctrine. The great mis
sionary commission of Christ was held by Menno
to have been given to the Church; he was in fact
preeminently a missionary. With emphasis he in
sists on the duty of the Church to care for needy
and destitute members. He testifies that notwith
standing the relentless, bloody persecution which
had left in their care numerous widows and orphans,
and in which many had lost their possessions, no
one of the church which he represented, nor their
children, had been known or would have been per
mitted to beg (ii. 309). The Church, according to
Menno, is the " communion of saints " in deed and
in truth; nevertheless there is always a possibility
of those having a form of godliness and denying the
power thereof being found in it. In his writings he
refereed to the fact that there was a hypocrite
even among the apostles, but insists that neither
offensive sin and transgression nor false doctrine
426
must be tolerated in the Church. Of church discipline he says: " In short, as a vineyard without a fence or inclosure, or a city without walls or gates, so is a church without discipline and the excommunication." Members of the church were not permitted to eat or do business with those who had been excluded, except in cases of emergency (I Cor. v. 11; II Thess. iii. 14). On this point both Menno and Dirk Philips wrote treatises against; the Swiss Brethren who disapproved of the " avoidance " of the excommunicated. The interesting history of this practise and the reasons why Menno advocated it can not be stated in a few sentences. That on his death‑bed he expressed regrets for the stand which he had taken in this matter, as was believed by the " Waterlanders," who were of one mind with the Swiss, is evidently a fable. In the last weeks of his life he wrote a little book which was published after his death, insisting on " avoidance ' as stringently as ever.
The swearing of oaths he believed to be forbidden by Christ. Of war he speaks as a " wicked, abominable business " (i. 137). Capital punishment he considered incompatible with Christian principles; he suggests confinement for life in its stead (ii. 407). Frequently he denounced the " houses of intemperance," " the accursed drunken taverns." He was an advocate of "the simple life"; churchmembers who permitted themselves to drift into worldliness were strictly disciplined by the church. Menno believed the coming of Christ near, not, however, to inaugurate the millennium, but for judgment.
The old accusation of some of Menno's opponents that he denied the divine nature in Christ, an insinuation which was vigorously re‑
g. Chris‑ pudiated by him, must be placed in
	tology.	the same category as other slanders,
		such as that he upheld communism
and was the head of a revolutionary sect. He held
a peculiar doctrine on the Incarnation: " The
whole Christ, God and man, man and God, is God's
son and is of heaven" (ii. 151, Elkhart, Ind., 1871).
Not only was he truly‑God from eternity, but his
human nature was also of heaven and was not the
result of a creation. Of Mary's body he partook
not otherwise than as a seed of grain partakes of
the field in which it is planted (ii. 337). To assert
that he could in that case not be truly human is to
deny God's omnipotence. Had he, as regards his
humanity, " been of the impure, sinful flesh of
Adam, he would be guilty also, through the eternal
justice of God, of judgment and death. And if he
himself owed a debt, how could he pay ours ?"
That this doctrine has a tendency toward the denial
of Christ's divinity was indignantly denied by
Menno. His opinion was, on the contrary, that
what is generally considered the orthodox view of
the incarnation dishonors Christ's divinity, repre
senting him as a creature as concerns his body.
" If the man [human nature of] Christ was of the
flesh and blood of Mary, it is manifest that he was
not God's son but a created being " (ii. 158). " That I
have ever said this [that the Word was changed into
flesh and blood] no one will, 1 believe, ever be able
to prove; nevertheless they have the effrontery to

427	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~9lmoas
say and write such of us. I have spoken of this as the eminent apostle has taught me, namely, that the Word was made flesh " (ii. 159). " As he is the only and true Son of God, he must also have the nature of the one of whom he is, this is too plain to be controverted" (ii. 392). " Although he humbled himself and laid down his divine splendor, privileges, and glory, nevertheless he was God and God's Word " (ii. 164). Menno states that " there are many among us " who have never " heard or asked a word " concerning the question of the origin of Jesus' body, and also testifies that he never refers to this doctrine in his sermons, " but I teach simply and plainly that Christ Jesus is truly God and man, a Son of God and a Son of man, conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the pure virgin Mary " (ii. 332). The said doctrine of the incarnation was held by the Obbenites (see MENNONITES) before Menno identified himself with them, and it was, according to his own confession, only after severe and prolonged mental struggles that he arrived at the conclusion that it is entirely Scriptual (ii. 330).
The supposition that the teachings of Menno and his coworkers were tinged with rationalism is without foundation. His faithful colaborer,
6. Relation Dirk Philips, of whom he observes that
to Ration‑ " Dirk and I are entirely of the same alism. mind " and whose extant writings fill a stately volume‑an English translation is now in press‑occupied the same position toward rationalism as Menno, and the same is true of the Swiss Brethren. The Dutch historian Brandt asserted that the excommunication of Adam Pastor (q.v.) for denying the deity of Christ was the work of Dirk Philips. Others have opined that Menno was at variance with Dirk in this matter. From Pastor's Underscheit tusschen rechte leer uncle valsche leer (published in vol. v. of Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica), it is clear that he held Menno responsible for his excommunication, and the latter testifies that Pastor was no longer of their number (ii. 96; the English translation of the passage is inaccurate, see Menno Symons' Wercken, p. 312, Amsterdam, 1681). In his refutation of Pastor, Menno speaks of the denial of the eternal preexistence of Christ as " a terrible blasphemy, curse, and abomination" (ii. 184). The hymn of Ludwig Haetzer (q.v.), expressing antitrinitarian sentiments, is not found in the hymn‑books of Swiss and South German Anabaptists, nor of the Mennonites. It is doubtful whether its author was rebaptized or baptized others, although he agreed with the Anabaptists in their opposition to state‑churchism and on a few other points (cf. F. Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, pp. 221‑222, 232, Munich, 1901; Heberle in TSK, 1858, p. 845). His friend Hans Denk, unlike Haetzer, a man of unimpeachable character, was an advocate of liberalistic sentiments although not an antitrinitarian, and became the leader of an Anabaptist party called " Denkians," but before his death retracted his former teaching on the necessity of rebaptism. Unfortunately Menno and the Mennonites have sometimes been judged from the writings of such men, with whom in fact they had nothing to do.
Touching the position of Menno and his friends with respect to the leading Reformers, it is to be noted that Menno's personal estimate of Luther was congenial and appreciative, far
q.	Relation more so than the opinion entertpined
	to the by Luther concerning any Anabaptists.
Reformers. Menno freely acknowledges that " the Lord has effected much good through Luther's first writings " (Works, i. 29). He severely criticizes Luther for permitting himself to lose sight of the principle of toleration which he had originally advocated. The Reformation, so far as it was identified with state‑churchism, was in Menno's opinion quite superficial: it leas, says Menno, not brought a change in the life of the people and its foundations were not laid along Scriptural lines. In the Lutheran states of central and northern Germany the priests were given orders to accept the new standards of faith and practise prescribed by the heads of the State. The priests, as a rule, accepted the new order of things and the populace followed them (no other creed being tolerated by the civil authorities) with the exception of those who accepted Anabaptist teachings. If we may believe Menno's testimony, both shepherds and flock continued " with few exceptions " in their old inconsistent life. There can be no doubt that Menno was eye‑witness of much that must give him an unfavorable opinion of State‑Church Reformation. It is interesting to notice his evident surprise upon forming the acquaintance of Johannes a Lasco (q.v.), that a man of his piety was a representative of Zwinglianism. Menno addresses him in one of his books as his " beloved, holy brother." In his view it was an inconsistency that while the pope was held to be antichrist, his ordination was accepted as valid. " The little gods of Babylon," says Menno, had been abandoned, but that which was in fact responsible for prevailing superficiality and inconsistencies had been left untouched.
Menno, in his extant writings, never mentions or even alludes to any of the great leaders of the Swiss Brethren. Was he not informed
8. Relation of the history of the Swiss and South
to the Swiss German Anabaptists ? Is there a his‑
	Brethren.	torical connection between the Swiss
		and the Melchiorites and Obbenites,
and if such is the case, did Menno know of it? In
vain is an answer to these questions sought in
Menno's writings. Of Melchior Hoffmann it is known
that he purposely ignored the Swiss and South
German Anabaptists, it is doubtful whether he was
ever connected with them. The Obbenites had,
with the exception of the doctrine of the incarna
tion, discarded those teachings which had separated
the Melchiorites from the Swiss Brethren, and
Menno's insistence on the " avoidance " of the ex
communicated was, as has been stated, not approved
by the Swiss. He was well acquainted with the
teachings of the Swiss and South German Anabap
tists. It is evident from his writings that there is
no direct historical connection between his people
and certain medieval sects, but this, it may be ob
served, does not exclude the supposition that such
a connection existed between the Swiss Brethren
and older sects although Menno was clearly not

Simons
Simony
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
428
aware of it. He says, " Soon after the death of the	such as choosing a king and what they taught con
	apostles, through the influence of the unenlightened	cerning the kingdom, the sword, polygamy, worldly
bishops, trust in outward works was permitted to	conformity, and the like abominations and infamy
take the place of trust in Jesus Christ " (Wercken, p.	we reject and hate with all our soul " (i. 197). " So
51, Amsterdam, 1681). " The understanding of the	it is in your instance, 0 ye mad ones," he addresses
	holy gospel, which was lost for many centuries, has	them, " (forgive me, for it is the truth that I write).
been found again." " May the holy city and temple	The prophets you read according to Jewish under
which lay desolate for many centuries, be again	standing, the doctrine of Christ and the apostles,
rebuilt," etc. Menno never mentions the Waldenses.	you say, is all fulfilled and pretend that there is
Dirk Philips makes mention of them in his En‑	now another dispensation," etc. (i. 97). " They
	chiridion, but his observations show that he was	have justified open adultery under the cloak of the
not well informed concerning their teachings.	custom of the Jewish fathers, together with other
		Concerning Menno Simons' relation to the Man‑	infamy of which a true Christian must be appalled
	sterites (see MUENSTER, ANABAPTISTS IN) it is first	and ashamed " (i. 227). " Is it not a grievous error
	of all to be noted that not all Anabaptists of the		that you suffer yourselves to be so wretchedly be
	Netherlands who disregarded the principle of non‑	witched by such worthless men, and so lamentably
	resistance were followers of John of Leyden (see		misled from one corrupt sect into another; first
	ANABAPTISTS; MUENSTER, ANABAPTISTS IN). Of	Minsterite, then of Batenburg, now Davidist [fol
			his own brother, who in many histor‑		lowers of Jan David Joris (q.v.)], and thus from
	g. Relation ical works figures as a Manaterite,		Beelzebub to Lucifer and from Belial to Behemoth "
	to Milnater Menno says: " My poor brother has		(i. 94).	How many innocent hearts have they
	Anabaptists. erred only in this, that he undertook	deceived l How many poor souls have * they ae
			to defend his faith with the fist and		duced I . What great shame have they brought upon
	to oppose violence by violence " (Works, ii. 101).		God's Wordl What abominations have some of
	It must be remembered that an unprecedented per‑		them committed under a pious appearancel How
	secution was waged against the dissenters. The	great cause have they given to the poor, blind
	law of the empire demanded that all who had sub‑	magistrates who have, alas! no understanding of
	mitted to rebaptism and were unwilling to recant		the holy word, to shed innocent blood " (i. 96).
	must die, and this law dates from the year 1529			After Menno's renunciation of Romanism and
	‑about four years prior to the rise of the Man‑		his identification with the religious body which he
	sterites. Very many had lost their lives. The Ana‑		so well represented, it was impossible for him to
	baptists were in continuous danger of death and	labor in public. He was an outlaw and a fugitive
	under temptation to take the sword in self‑defense.	although, through the leniency of local authorities,
	While Menno was yet a priest a large number of					he found it possible to sojourn com
	dissenters, among them his brother, sought refuge		lo. Victim paratively long in a few places. Had,
	in the " Old Cloister " near Bolaward and defended				of	however, any appointment for a meet
	it against a contingent of troops. " The poor er‑		Intolerance. ing in which he or one of his friends
	ring flock," says Menno, " which erred because they					was to appear been publicly announced,
	had no true shepherds, after many severe edicts,		he would unfailingly have been apprehended at the
	killing and slaughter, came together near my place	appointed place. In a number of instances the local
	of residence, in a place called Old Cloister, and,	authorities would apparently have tolerated him
alas, through the godless doctrine of Minster,	and his friends, had they not feared the vengeance
	contrary to Christ's spirit, word, and example,	of the provincial or imperial government. Menno
drew the sword to defend themselves, which the	knew full well that only as long as such magistrates
Lord commanded Peter to put up into the sheath "	could urge the excuse that they did not know of
	(i. 4). Although these people followed the Man‑	his whereabouts would they refrain from putting
steritea to the extent of taking the sword, they must	forth efforts to have him apprehended. He had a
not be held responsible for the highly offensive	few private discussions with Zwinglian theologians,
	practises originated by " King " John of Leyden	such as Johannes a Lasco, Martinus micronius
at Minster; in fact even many of those who had	(qq.v.), and Gellius Faber, who had obligated them
	accepted the latter's leadership and had gone to	selves to observe strict silence concerning these con
Minster were loath to follow him all the way. When	ferences. In several of his books Menno asks his
John, after long and persistent effort, had persuaded	Protestant friends to arrange for a public debate
Bernhard Rothnlann and the other preachers in	with him, obtaining for him a safe conduct from
Minster (see MUENSTER, ANABAPTISTS IN) that po‑	the government, but this desire was never granted
lygamy was the Scriptural course for the " New	him. Even Count von Ahlefeldt, who permitted
Israel," a rebellion occurred among his followers	him to live on his estate at Wiistenfelde in Holstein
within the walls of the besieged city. Mollenhecke,	(where Menno died in peace), would in all probabil
the leader of the resisting party, and his adherents	ity, had the matter been brought to the attention
were mercilessly put to the sword by " King "	of the imperial authorities, not have admitted that
John. Of Minaterite teaching and practise Me.,	he knowingly gave shelter to this " heresiarch."
speaks invariably in severest terms of condemns‑	Toleration for Menno and his people prevailed
tion. He denounced John of Leyden as a blas‑	neither on Roman Catholic nor Protestant terri
phemer, seducer, and worthless character, notwith‑	tory. He complains bitterly that " not only among
standing his unusual gifts as a leader. He says of	Papists and Turks, but among those who boast of
the Mansterites: " Their seditious abominations,	the holy word 11 and " in their first writings said

429	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	s oamy
much of faith, that it is the gift of God and that it must not be forced upon any one by the sword of iron " (i. 196) whoever refused to accept the creed of the State was relentlessly persecuted. Even the ruler of Saxony and sovereign of Luther, Elector John Frederick, treated " Anabaptism " as a capital crime. In 1536 a number of Anabaptists were beheaded at Jena in Saxony, upon Melanchthon's advice, for no other cause than error in doctrine. Menno says: " I seek . . . the praise of the Lord and my salvation and the salvation of many souls. For this I, my poor feeble wife and little children have for eighteen years endured extreme anxiety, oppression, affliction, misery, and persecution, and wherever we sojourned, we were in fear and danger of life. Yea, when the preachers [of the state churches] repose on easy beds and downy pillows, we generally must hide ourselves in secluded corners . . . and when the dogs bark, it may mean that the catch polls are upon us here. Whilst they are gloriously rewarded for their services with large incomes and easy times, our recompense and portion must be fire, sword, and death " (i. 7).
The writings of Menno Simons and Dirk (Theodor) Philips are the principal sources for the study of the principles and aims of the most prominent dissenting party of the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland of Reformation times. Not only were these men the spokesmen of their immediate followers, but the Swiss Brethren were of one mind with them on all vital points of doctrine and practise. A view of the Reformation which fails to take due account of the great body of Christians which attempted, with unexcelled devotion to principle ‑the Reformed historian Ernst Muller speaks of them as " a church of martyrs "‑the restoration of the Church to its primitive purity and power; which, at variance with the leading Reformers, insisted on the voluntary principle and separation of Church and State, must necessarily be inadequate.
JOHN HoRscH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographies have been written by A. M. Cramer, Amsterdam, 1837 (still the best); C. Harder, Konigsberg, 1846; B. C. Roosen, Leipsic, 1848; Browne, Philadelphia, 1853; F. Bastian, Strasburg, 1857; and C. Fleischer, Amsterdam, 1892. See also the literature under MENNONITES.
SIMONS, WALTHER EDUARD: German Protestant; b. at Elberfeld May 27, 1855. He was educated at the universities of Bonn, Strasburg (lie. theol., 1880), Zurich, Berlin, and Giittingen, and after holding pastorates at Rheinfelden, near Basel (1881‑83), and Leipsic (1883‑92), became, in 1892, privat‑docent for practical theology at Bonn, where he was appointed professor three years later. Since 1902 he has been professor of the same subject at Berlin, and also director of the catechetical seminar of the same university. In theology be belongs to the liberal school. He has written Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthdus benutzt f (Bonn, 1880); Eine altkolnische Seelsorgegemeinde als vorbild fur die Gegenwart (Berlin, 1894); Die dlteste evangelische Gemeindearmenpflege am Niederrhein (Bonn, 1894); Freikirche, Volkskirche, Landeskirche (Freiburg, 1895); Niederrheinisches Synodalund Gemeindeleben " unter dem Kreuz " (1897); Konfirmation and Konfirmandenunterricht (Tiibingen,
1900); KBlnische Konsistorialbeschliisse (Bonn, 1905); Matthes TV eyer, sin Mystiker aus der Reformationszeit (Tabingen, 1907); Bin Vermachtniss Calvim an die deutschrevangelischen Kirchen (1909); Urkundenbuch zur rheiniachen Kirchengeschichte, i. Synodalbuch (1909; in collaboration with others); and Die Konfirmation (1909).

SIMONY: A term defined by Thomas Aquinas as " the deliberate will to buy and sell spiritual things [privileges and rights] and their appurtenances." The primitive Church regarded this offense as the gravest among those exclusively‑within the province of ecclesiastic legal ruling, it being conceived as a sin against the Holy Ghost in that it assumed to engage the offices of the Holy Ghost in consideration of money or its equivalent. The name has its origin, according to the narrative in Acts viii. 18 aqq., in the sacrilege of Simon Magus (q.v.), who desired to buy from the Apostle Peter the power to impart the Holy Ghost to whom he would. Especially the sale or purchase of ordination for money or its equivalent must, from this account, have been viewed as simony, seeing that (even as early as the fourth century) the theory had grown up that by means of ordination, through the laying on of a bishop's hands, the Holy Ghost is received, and with it the power to forgive and to retain sins. By degrees the concept reached the expanded form expressed by Thomas Aquinas, ut sup. In the main, however, simony was held to be traffic in spiritual offices. The viciousness of simony in this peculiar sense of the term was purposely emphasized by the popes in opposition to the emperors during the investiture strife (see INvEs=RE), and was employed as chief weapon in that conflict. The Evangelical conception of ordination involves the consideration of simony as the bestowal and procurement of spiritual offices for money.
It is directly consonant with the primitive concept of simony, that to give and to take money or its equivalent not simply for the sacrament itself, but also for the administration of sacraments and sacramental acts, came generally to be viewed as simony. Nevertheless, it soon grew clear that a voluntary gift in token of gratitude for such dispensations and their acceptance ought not to be so branded; indeed, where a fixed custom had grown up of showing oneself thankful by means of suitable presents, not to recognize the favor came to be regarded as reprehensible. In that way the Stole Fees (q.v.) came into being. A special kind of simony, which can occur only in the Roman Catholic Church, is the granting or obtaining of admission into a spiritual order for money or its equivalent.
An extension of the idea is found when the Church treats as simony the selling and buying of the right of patronage on its own account. According to canon law, certified simony involves in the Roman Catholic Church for all the guilty parties excommunication from which the pope alone can give absolution. If the act has remained secret, however, the bishops can absolve it. In connection with ordination, simony subjects the ordained offender to suspension from the received rites of consecration, and to the construction of irregularity. Likewise

Simony
8lmultaneum
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
the ordainer becomes suspended from his pontifical prerogatives. All provisory transactions wherein simony has been committed are invalid. Whoever has procured a benefice through simony, becomes irregular, deposed from office, and incapable of obtaining abother appointment. Forfeiture of the benefice ensues even for the one who has obtained it through an act of simony wrought by others without his accessory knowledge, counsel, or approval, only he may recover such benefice by dispensation, unless in case of a simoniacal election. The inmate of a cloister who is guilty of simony in connection with admission to the cloister is visited with suspension from all capitulary offices, and from all rights of jurisdiction. The latest regulations are found in Constitutiones Pii IX., Apostolicce sedis, Oct. 12, 1869.
	In the Protestant church, as well, all transactions
affecting official appointments wherein simony has
occurred are accounted void, so that any resulting
grant of office becomes canceled. In the case of
patrons the act is punished by withdrawal of per
sonal right of presentation. Simony was also occa
sionally subjected to fine and imprisonment. Now
adays it is classed as a criminal offense, and so is
liable to civil correction. Wherefore all cognizance
in the matter devolves exclusively on the temporal
courts. From the present standpoint of the Roman
Catholic Church, simony is matter for ecclesiastical
discipline and the disciplinary province of the church
authorities. 	E. SEHLING.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: N. A. Weber, A Hist. of Simony in the Christian Church, Baltimore, 1909 (goes down to the 9th century); Bingham, Oriflinea, IV., iii. 14, XVI., vi. 28‑30; G. Phillips, Lehrbuch des Kirchenreehts, $ 193, 7 vole., Regensburg, 1845‑72; N, Munchen, Dos kanonische Strafrecht, ii. 274 sqq., Cologne, 1866; P. Hinsehius, Kirchenreeht. v. 161 sqq., Berlin, 1893; A. Leins, Die Simonie. Eine kanonistische Studie, Freiburg, 1902; Hirsch, in Archiv fur katholisches Kirehenrecht, Ixxxvi (1906), 3‑19; D. Barry, in Ecclesiastical Review, Sept., 1908, pp. 234‑245; J. Drehmann, Papst Leo IX. and die Simonie. Ein Beitrap zur Untersuchung der Vorgeschichte des Investituratreites, Leipsic. 1908; DCA, ii. 1900‑01; KL, xi. 321‑324; Schaff, Christian Church, vol. 1, passim. Documents relating to the subject are given in Reich, Documents, pp. 152, 198.
SIMPLICIUS, sim‑plish'i‑us: Pope 468‑483. According to the Liber pontifualis he came from Tibur (20 m. n.e. of Rome), and was consecrated as the successor of Hilary possibly on Mar. 3, 468. His importance arises from his participation in the Monophysitic controversy (see MONOPHYsrrEs, §§5‑7), in which he was second only to Leo the Great and Hilary. He made Bishop Zeno of Seville apostolic vicar in Spain. His biography names four churches at Rome which were dedicated by him, the establishment of a hebdomarius for baptism and penitence, and the offering of costly church vessels. His death, according to Duchesne (Liber pontificalis), occurred on Mar. 10, 483 (not Mar. 2).
(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are. Liber pontificulis, ed. Mommsen in MGH, Gest. pont. Rom, i (1898), 112‑113; Jan, Repesta, i. 77 eqq.; Epistold Romanorum pontifcum penuin®, ed. A. Thiel, i. 174 aqq., Braunsberg, 1867 (the letters of Simplicius); MPL, Ixviii. 1019 eqq.; and Evagriue, Hiat. eccl., III., iv. eqq. Consult further: J. Lsngen, Geschichte der r8mischen Kirche, ii. 126 eqq., Bonn, 1885; Hefele, Concilienpeschichte, ii. 802 sqq., Eng. trawl., iv. 26 eqq., Fr. trawl., ii. 2, pp. 9, 15 eqq.; Bower, Popes,
i. 257‑271; Milman. Latin Christianity, i. 314, 328‑327; DCB, iv. 890‑895 (full discussion); and the relevant literature under MONOPHYSITE&
SIMPSON, ALBERT B: Presbyterian; b. at Cavendish, Prince Edward Island, Dec. 15, 1844. He was graduated at Knox College, Toronto, in 1865, and also received his theological education there. He was pastor of Knox Church, Hamilton, Ont., 1865‑74, Broadway Tabernacle, Louisville, Ky., 1874‑$0, Thirteenth Street Presbyterian Church, New York, 1880‑81; since 1881, of the Gospel Tabernacle in the same city. He has been president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance since 1887, and in theology holds " the Evangelical faith in a conservative rather than liberal sense," also believing in adult baptism by immersion, though not a Baptist. Besides editing the Christian and Missionary Alliance since 1887 and Living Truths since 1903, he has written The Gospel of Healing (New York, 1884); Divine Problems in Genesis and Exodus (1890); The Land of Promise (1892); The Gospel of the Kingdom (1893); Jesus in the Psalms (1895); Heart Messages for .Sabbaths at Home (1897); Larger Outlooks on Missionary Lands (1897); The Holy Spirit; or, Power from on High (2 vols., 1899); Days of Heaven upon Earth (1900); Discovery of Divine Healing (1902); Christ in the Bible (a Bible commentary; 24 vole., 19021907); Echoes of the New Creation (1903); and collaborated with M. Wilson in Henry Wilson, One of God's Best (1909).

SIMPSON, JAMES GILLILAND: Church of England; b. at London Oct. 16, 1865. He was educated at Trinity College, Oxford (B.A., 1888), and was ordained to the priesthood in 1891. He was successively curate of Leeds parish church (18891893), curate of Edinburgh Cathedral and viceprincipal of Edinburgh Theological College (18931894), rector of St. Paul's, Dundee (1895‑1900), and principal of Leeds Clergy School and lecturer at Leeds parish church (1900‑10), besides being chaplain to the bishop of Brechin (1896‑1900), and select preacher at Oxford (1909). Since 1910 he has been a canon of Manchester. He has written Christian Ideals (London, 1908), Fact and Faith (1908), and Christus Cructfixus (1909).

SIMPSON, MATTHEW: Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. at Cadiz, O., June 21, 1811; d. in Philadelphia, Pa., June 17, 1884. He was educated at Madison College (subsequently merged into Alleghany College, Meadville, Pa.), where he was tutor in 1829; studied and practised medicine, 1829‑35; was ordained deacon in the Methodist Episcopal Church 1835, and elder in 1837; was vice‑president and professor of natural science in Alleghany College, 1837‑39; president of Indiana Asbury University, Greencastle, Ind., 1839‑48; editor of The Western Christian Advocate, Cincinnati, O., 18481852; and was elected bishop 1852. He changed his residence in 1859 from Pittsburg, Pa., to Evanston, Ill., and became president of the Garrett Biblical Institute in the latter place. He was the acknowledged prince of Methodist preachers, and his eloquent addresses did good service for the Union cause during the Civil War, enjoying, as he did, the personal

431	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Simony
		9imuitaneum
	friendship of President Lincoln. He was the author
of Hundred Years of Methodism, New York, 1876;
	Cyeloptedin of Methodism, Philadelphia, 1878; Leo
tures on Preaching, New York, 1879; and Sermons
(posthumous, ed. G. R. Crooks, 1885).
Bmrsoo"rHy: G. R. Crooks, Life of Bishop Matthew Simy
eon, New York, 1890.	'
	SIMPSON, SAMUEL: Congregationalist; b. at
	Centreville, Mich., N ov. 24, 1868. He was edu
cated at Olivet College, Olivet, Mich. (A.B., 1891),
	and Oberlin Theological Seminary (graduated
	1894). He also studied at Hartford Theological
	Seminary (1896‑98) and the University of Berlin
	(1900‑01). He held Congregational pastorates at
	Garner, O. (1894‑96), and Chardon, O. (1898‑1900),
	and was associate professor of American Church
	history in Hartford Theological Seminary (1902
	1909). He has written The Life of Ulrich Zwingli,
Swiss Patriot and Reformer (New York, 1902).
	SIMSOR, JOHN: Scotch theologian; b. at Renfrew
	(6 m. n.w. of Glasgow) about 1668; d. at Edinburgh
	Feb. 2, 1740. He received his education at Edin
	burgh University (M.A., 1692); and appears to have
	studied theology at least under the advice of John
	Marck of Leyden, as he acknowledged receiving in
	struction from him; he is known to have been
	librarian at Glasgow College in 1696; he was licensed
	by the presbytery of Paisley in 1698, but, possibly
	owing to infirmity in health, did not receive a charge
	until 1705, when he was called to Troqueer, Kircud
	brightshire; he became professor of divinity in the
	University of Glasgow, 1708. In this last place he
	was exceedingly influential, the presbyteries of the
	west of Scotland and north of Ireland receiving a
	considerable number of ministers from the men who
	studied under him, and yet his position was fre
	quently assailed, and it was believed that he was
	untrue to the standards. In part this was due to
	his fundamental position that reason was the basis
	of theology and to his effort to make orthodoxy un
	derstandable. In Mar., 1714, charges were brought
	against him in the presbytery of Edinburgh, to
	which charges he made answer in 1715, and the
	answer was referred to a committee; the next as
	sembly passed the matter over, and, in 1717, a qual
	ified censure of certain opinions and expressions was
	passed. In his later teaching, after combating the
	Semi‑arianism of Samuel Clarke (q.v.), he assailed
	Sabellianism; and in 1726 charges were once more
	brought against him, this time in the presbytery of
	Glasgow. The next year he was suspended by the
	general assembly, a committee being appointed to
	carry the case through. But in 1728 Simson's ac
	count of himself was regarded as establishing the
	orthodoxy of his belief, though his statements in
	teaching were not approved, and suspension fol
	lowed till the presbyteries could be heard from; the
	suspension finally occurred and was confirmed in
	1729. The emoluments of the chair were left to him,
but he was debarred from teaching.
	His only publications were those connected with
	his ecclesiastical trials: The Case of Mr. John Sim
	son (Glasgow, 1715); and Continuation of the Sec
	and Edition of the Case of Mr. John Simstm (Edin
burgh, 1727‑29).
BIBadooBAPaiY: In the British Museum Catalogue, ex., s column is devoted to titles of pamphlets, records, etc., dealing with the orthodoxy and trial of Professor Simeon. Consult further: Correspondence of Rev. R. Wodrow, ed. T. MacCrie, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1842 l3; Hew Scott, Poeti eeeleciat Swticanm, 5 parts, London, 1871; W. M. Hetherington, Hid. of the Church of Scotland, pp. 337, 340, 348, New York, 1881; H. F. Henderson, Religious Controvereiea of Scotland, pp. 5, 8, 11‑17, Edinburgh, 1905; W. Beveridge, Makers of the Scottish Church, p. 174, Edinburgh, 1908; DNB, Iii. 280‑287.
SIMULTANEUM (Lit., "simultaneous [exercise of religion] "): A term formerly used in the German Empire to denote the authorization of more than one religious body to hold services side by side in the same territory, so that the worship of the comparatively weaker communion should be more than the right of mere household devotion. The term also connoted, as it still does, the simultaneous right of two congregations of different confessions to the same ecclesiastical foundation, especially to the same church building, or the same churchyard. Such simultaneous conditions repeatedly arose in Germany, notably in the West and Southwest during the period between the religious peace of Augsburg and the Peace of Westphalia. The chief causes of this were the Protestant confiscation of a large amount of church property after the Peace of Augsburg, followed by its restitution, during the CounterReformation, in accordance with the edict of Mar. 6, 1629; as well as the changes, in the course of the Thirty Years' War, in the status of the religious bodies in the various territories; the frequent conversions of ruling princes (especially from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism); and the legal establishment of the joint rights of Roman Catholics to Protestant churches. The legal theory of the simultaneous use of ecclesiastical institutions (especially church buildings) is, however, only scantily developed and is much contested, since regulation by law is almost entirely lacking, except in Prussia and Bavaria. The legal basis for the simultaneous use of a church may arise from joint ownership of the building by both congregations, although it is also possible that the church in question may belong solely to one of the congregations, so that the title of the other religious body is merely one of prescription, the exact determination of conditions requiring a knowledge of the origin of the simuItaneum in each specific case. In these instances there are always two distinct congregations, conceived as separate legal entities, the view being untenable which maintains that the communions in question must be regarded, so far as the simultaneous church is concerned, not as distinct corporate bodies, but as a single congregation which still retains fellowship and unity of faith. Legal recognition of actual joint use is equivalent to a title to such right, and a legal simultaneum is also created in case one of the communions concerned cedes the privilege of joint use at the petition of the other party, while retaining the right of revoking such permission at any time. On the other hand, even right prescriptive can not create a simultaneum in case sufferance of joint use has been forcibly extorted from the party legally entitled to sole possession. Provision is thus made for cases in which the legal rights of the parties concerned can not be determined, the pre‑

nltaaeum sin
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
sumption being that the privilege of that party which was the later to receive permission of joint use was granted in response to petition and is revocable; while if the status of joint use can not definitely be determined, both communions are held to have equal rights.
The simultaneum is subject to great variation both in kind and in degree. One congregation may have the nave while the other has the chancel; separate hours may be appointed for the religious services of each communion; one of the parties may have the right to use the church only on special occasions, as for baptism; and in sporadic instances the two congregations may even worship together. Expenses, especially those for maintenance, must be defrayed according to any agreements previously drawn up, or, if occasion demands, from the common funds of the church. If such funds are lacking or are inadequate, both congregations, if possessed of simultaneous privileges, must contribute. When, however, one of the communions concerned has the exclusive right of possession, the other having only a right of use, the former must bear all charges legally incumbent on the owner, while the latter is required to contribute only in proportion to its rights of use. Any new creation of SiMultaneous rights in churches is precluded, from the standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church, by the rule that Roman Catholic churches must not be used for other than Roman Catholic services, and though Protestants play consistently grant the use of their church buildings to other religious bodies, as has been done repeatedly at the request of the Old Catholics, such action can scarcely give rise to obligations of a legal nature.
A simultaneum may be dissolved either by the union of the two congregations concerned (with the requisite sanction of their ecclesiastical superiors); or by surrender of rights by one of the parties in question, although this party is not thereby released from its possible obligations. It is a moot question whether one party may demand a settlement with reference to the simultaneous church and its joint property without the consent of the party of the second part, even txhough proper compensation be offered. This right is generally denied where the simultaneum has been created by legal enactments, as by the Peace of Westphalia; but if the simultaneum is based on a private contract, such a demand is legal as coming within the scope of private law. The principles of the modern State forbid it to use either administrative or legislative measures to compel churches to adopt a simultaneum. If, however, the parties to a simultaneum become involved in a controversy or dispute which disturbs the public peace, the authorities (especially the police) have the right to interfere. In case of severe breaches of the peace, the simultaneum may be temporarily suspended; but the attitude of the State toward religious communities forbids the permanent quashing of a simultaneum without the consent of the parties concerned.
In the case of cemeteries, however, the right of enforcing a limited or contingent aimultaneum is reserved by the State in connection with its claim to jurisdiction over burial. The Peace of Westphalia
enacted that if one of the recognized confessions possessed no cemetery of its own, its members might be interred in the churchyard of the other. This principle, with a number of modifications and amplifications, is still in force; but while it is recognized by the German Protestants as well as by the majority of the German States, the Roman Catholic Church rejects it except when absolutely compelled to do otherwise, in the latter contingency forbidding Protestant ministers to officiate at the burial, and also endeavoring, wherever possible, to set apart a special portion of the churchyard for non‑Catholics. The only modern possibility of the necessity of creating additional simultaneous conditions is the cleavage of a communion by differences evolved within itself. This contingency was realized in Germany by the Old Catholic movemeut. Both in Baden and in Prussia State law permits Old Catholic congregations, under specified circumstances, to have simultaneous use of Roman Catholic churches and churchyards, etc., but this has failed to give rise to a true simultaneum, since the Curia has forbidden Roman Catholics to worship in church buildings given by the government to Old Catholics.
E. SE111.1NG.
BiBLjoa$APHY: P. S. von der Auraeh. Die kirchiichen SimuUanverhdUniaae in der PJalz am Rhein, Mannheim. 1888; M. J. Hartung, Das kirchliche Rack der Proteatanten im vormalipen Herzopthum Sulzbach, Erlangen, 1872; x. Kbhler, Simultankirchen im Herzoptum Hesse, Darmstadt, 1889; W. Wagner, Unterauehung fiber die ryaurdeksche Relipionaklausel, Berlin, 1889; W. Kmjs, %irchliche Simultanverh8ltniaae, Wiirzburg, 1890; E. Sehling, Ueber kirchliche Simultanverhaltniaee, Freiburg, 1891; idem, in NHZ, ii (1891), 777 eqq.; T. Lauter Die Entatehung der kirchlichen Simultaneen, Wtiraburg, 1894; Waller, Beitrw sum Recht der Simultaneen (disputation at Erlangen, 1905); Stole, Das Simultaneum in Repperndorf (dissertation at Wiirzburg, 1905). Further references to literature on German ecclesiastical law are given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE. xviii. 374.
SIN.
Nature (¢ 1). In the Old Testament (¢ 2). In the New Testament (§ 3). Ancient and Medieval View (§ 4). Doctrine of the Reformation (§ b). Post‑Reformation‑Views (¢ 8). Criticism of the Doctrine (¢ 7). Theory of sin (§ 8). The Court of Conscience; Forgiveness (¢ 1)).
In religious terminology sin is the name for evil. Practical philosophy [in the Kantian sense] deals with a contradiction between what is and what should be in human life, and, in its mgt intense moral form, with a " radical evil." The criminal code knows of misdemeanor, felony,
	:. Nature.	crime. Moral judgment in common
		parlance speaks of want of character,
violations of duty, and vice. As sin, evil is conceived
in a religious philosophy only as it is judged remiss
in its duty to deity with its precepts of life. The
concept sin involves a peculiar modification of that
of evil: (1) its heinousness is more serious for a re
ligious person, because it is a transgression not only
of a human but of a divine order; (2) the scope of
this religious condemnation extends to offenses
which do not occasion the censure or even the no
tics of human authority; (3) with the idea of evil
understood as sin, there is combined the represen‑

433	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	s~ ulteaeum
and purity of the pious. Ceremonial shortcomings are sinful (Ezek. xxii. 26). However, the sense of sin did not lose in subjective keenness, if it did in ethical depth. The strictness of the positive prescriptions impelled to supplication for grace. The consciousness of sin became superficial with the period of the Wisdom literature. Although the presumption remained that sin is against God (Prov. iii. 32‑34), yet the idea is more current that it is offense against the wisdom of life, and on this account leads to misfortune (i. 24 aqq.). These tones reverberate in the post‑canonical literature, until the belief in the future life, judgment, and reward afford a deeper insight. The Old Testament treats sin as universal in a great many instances. Often it is the correlate of human weakness and frailty (Job iv. 18). There are just ones who walk. with God like Enoch and Noah, but such are models of piety, not of sinlessness. The latter vanishes in the light of God's majesty (Job ix. 2). The prophets called of God are not excepted (Isa. vi. 5). The law distinguishes between thoughtless sins (Lev. iv. 2), which may be atoned for by sacrifice, and presumptuous sins dishonoring Yahweh and entailing destruction (Nom. xv. 30). As thoughtless may be reckoned the sins of youth (Job xiii. 26) and the unconscious errors of man (Ps. xix. 12); but they, too, oppress a tender conscience and cause a craving for forgiveness, if fellowship with God is not to be forfeited (Ps. xc. 8, xxxii. 6). Only those may be comforted by the presence of God, who are of a broken heart and a contrite spirit (Ps. xxxiv. 18). Thought on the universality of sin led to the conclusion of the inclination to evil in every man. The doctrine of an evil tendency is in the later Jewish literature, but analogous conceptions are found in the canonical Old Testament. Sin lies in wait for man (Gen. iv. ?); man's heart is naturally evil (Jer. xvii. 9). More frequently is there mention of individual responsibility for the sin of the community. Pre‑exilic prophets speak of the common guilt of the people (Isa. i. 3‑4; Mic. vii. 1 sqq.). In earlier times the individual shared the burden of the sin of the environment (Gen. xix. 15); later generations are punished for the sin of the earlier (Ex. xx. 5). Later this was to be reconciled with the consciousness of the independence and the worth of the individual. As it had become the rule not to inflict punishment on the children for the offenses of their fathers (Dent. xxiv. 16), it became recognized as the divine norm that each was to suffer for his own sin (Jer. xxxi. 29 sqq.). However, the theory of individual earthly requital encountered great difficulties in the face of the facts, due not only to the limitation of .view to an external and temporal course of events, but to the overlooking of the moral solidarity. How torturing and hopeless the problem proved to be is shown not only in Ps. Ixxiii. and the book of Job, but also in the attempt of late Judaism at an equation of sins and merits, and in this way to understand man's earthly destiny, without the aid of the later Jewish foreglimpse of the other world. For a long time Israel did not feel called upon to investigate the origin of sin. That it lay in the common nature of mankind seemed patent, and there was a, general conviction of the power
tation of a permanent state of the human person transcending the individual act, which disturbs the relation to deity. The word sin involves a religious and a moral judgment of acts and of persons. The two are more or less inseparable. Natural religion considers as sins transgressions of the cult and the religious customs. In the ethical religions the positive standard appears as a sacred legal order, and sin assumes the character of legalistic violation. In the highest ethical religions, which, with H. Siebeck, may be called religions of salvation, there emerges, with an inward perception of the ethical life, the consciousness of a more intimate relation with deity. God leads his people ‑with fatherly long‑suffering and faithfulness, and expects in return not only obedience, but also gratitude and trust. He gives norms of religious life in the community, which transcend the ordinances of law, and aim at the mutual exercise of mercy and love. Where God's will is recognized, there ‑the comprehensive norm of the good is disclosed. Where this standard is transgressed, God's personal will is violated and fellowship with him is interrupted. Christianity, the perfected ethical faith, understands by sin apostasy from God, which at the same time is inseparably the violation of the absolute ethical norm of his will. Both phases condition the nature of the Christian consciousness of sin, the first its permanent activity, the second its seriousness.
The Jewish faith attained a vitality and depth in the consciousness of sin not met with in any other pre‑Christian religion. The general Semitic conception of sin as revolt against the divinity is not only followed to its issue, but also modified.
s. In the Offense to the will of God obtains a
Old Testa‑ significance not exhausted in the conment. sequent results of disaster. In the Babylonian penitential psalms, it is the external stress that awakens the thought of sin, followed by the cry for help and forgiveness. This coalescing of the stress of salvation with natural eudemonistic motives of an elementary religiousness is also manifest in the Psalms of the Old Testament (vi., x., lxxxviii., cii., cvii.); but in the upper stages of Israelitic piety the religious‑ethical idea gains due prominence (xxxii., li.), and the certainty of the nearness of God overshadows the outer event (lxxiii. 23 sqq.). Hence by the time of the prophets it came to be recognized that the favor of Yahweh could not be secured by cultic zeal (I Sam. xv. 22; Hos. vi. 6). Among sins are reckoned, besides worship of idols (Hoc. ii. 13; Isa. ii. 8; Ezek. vi. 13) and magic (Dent. xviii. 10‑11), unbelief in Yahweh's power ;Isa. vii. 9), trust in human help (Isa. xxii. 8 aqq.), unrighteousness in judgment and conduct (II Sam. xii. 9 sqq.), avarice (Isa. v. 8 sqq.), and extravagance (Amos vi. 4 aqq.). Yahweh's will is conceived as moral, and the requirements of his will as law, but this is presently exceeded. Insensibility to God's love (Hoses), ingratitude (Isa. v.; Jer. ii. 5), and hard‑heartedness (Isa. xlvi. 12; Dent. ix. 6, 13) are conceived to be sins. The ceremonial law of the post‑exilic period produced a change which affected rather the content than the intensity of the sense of sin. Attention is mainly directed to particular precepts for the maintenance of the obedience x. a8

sin
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
of the will to resist it (Gen. iv. 7). Where an evil act seemed inexplicable or fatal, it was supposed to have been ordained of God (Judges ix. 23; I Sam. xxvi. 19). Later Judaism treated such as due to evil spirits. Sin is not regarded as historically inherited (Isa. xliii. 27), but as the common attribute of one generation after another (Job xiv. ‑1). The account in Gen. iii. was not intended to explain the origin of sin but to show that death and other evils originated through it. Its influence, beside that of Gen. vi. 1 sqq., on the conception of sin is first marked in later Judaism (Eccles. ii. 24; Sirach xxv. 32). To Adam was then charged in part evil and in part an enhanced proneness to sin in humanity. In the first case, Adam's fall was said to have injured the state of man by bringing on evil and death (Baruch), yet each one was to be morally responsible for himself. But it is further asserted that Adam's sin increased man's inclination to evil (IV Esdras iii. 20 sqq.). But at the same place there was ascribed to Adam a root of evil; hence the historical explanation of sin was not consistently carried out. Least of all does the figure of the serpent offer a satisfactory explanation of the origin of evil. Identified later with Satan (see SERPENT IN WORsmP, I., § 1), it served only to symbolize temptation. The Old Testament offers the thought of the generation of sin in its actual manifestation as well as a deep consciousness of guilt and consequent disaster, arousing the desire for deliverance; but it furnishes little for the solution of the theoretical problem.
The testimony of Jesus against sin is intimately associated with the prophetical preaching. Sin is resistance to the promotive leadership of God, hence with indifference to moral requirements (anomia, Matt. vii. 23), contempt of grace (xi. 20 sqq.), and denial of recognized truth (Matt. xii.
3. In the 31 sqq.). It is treated as guilt deserv‑
New Tests‑ ing punishment (vi. 7). Its universalment. ity is assumed; all are called to repentance (iv. 17) ; and are called evil (vii. 11). The obligation of mercy Jesus bases on the general need of forgiveness (xviii. 11 sqq.); his contemporaries he calls an evil and adulterous generation (xii. 39). The victims of particular catastrophes are not sinners beyond others, but meet a judgment that all can avoid only through penitence (Luke xiii. 2‑5). The human world is so much under the dominion of sin that offenses are unavoidable (Matt. xviii. 7 sqq.). Although he mentions the righteous whom he did not come to call to repentance (Mark ii. 17), yet their righteousness is questionable. The Pharisees who claim it are hypocrites (Matt. xv. 7). Even others who assume it like the rich young man are not sufficiently earnest in self‑denial (xix. 16 sqq.). He who looks upon sin in his brother instead of in himself is worse (vii. 35). Jesus carries sin from its outer appearance back to its inner origin (v. 21‑25, xv. 19), and sees in it a persistent tendency (vii. 16 aqq., xii. 35). Proportions of sin and guilt vary; there are tempters worthy of the severest penalty, relative innocents misled by seducers (xviii. 6), and there is an unpardonable sin (xii. 31 sqq.). The greater the possible knowledge of the divine command, the greater the responsibility (Luke xii. 47‑48) ; where the revela‑
4s4
tion of grace receives no penitent response is the maximum guilt (Matt. xi. 20). Finally, the human attitude of acceptance or rejection is decisive, when the divine call to salvation is nigh (xxiii. 37). Jesus, like the prophets, does not explain the origin of sin; the fall is not mentioned in the Synoptics. From the practical point of view Jesus ascribes the present source of sin to the evil heart (Matt. xv. 19) and to the world's offenses (xviii. 7). As a further source is mentioned, repeatedly, the temptation of the wicked one (xiii. 19); but the subject is not treated theoretically. The reference serves to lay stress upon the infectious and far‑reaching power of evil (v. 37; Luke xxii. 31). The thought of the kingdom of Satan involves a close relation of sin and evil (xii. 25 sqq.); their connection is illustrated (ix. 2‑6), although to point out their proportion in individuals is not permissible (Luke xiii. 2r5). That God judges and punishes sin lies at the root of the teaching of Jesus throughout. Hence, there is no salvation without forgiveness (Matt. vi. 12, xviii. 23 sqq.); no way of accepting it but by confession of sins (Luke xviii. 13‑14) and repentance (Luke xiii. 5). The new in the teaching of Jesus is the height of his religious‑moral ideas (Matt. v. 48), in the light of which appear as sins what had been previously looked upon as excusable defects, and the way of salvation was revealed in his person (Matt. xx. 28). In connection with the contrast drawn between the salvation in Christ and the world without, Paul takes occasion to present a total picture of the nature and life of sin. It is not an individualized acting against the divine will, but a dominating power, a general tendency, and a total state (Rom. vi. 12, 14). It is personified, winning men to its service and compensating them (vi. 17, 23). Jews and gentiles are under its sway (iii. 9); so all, with the exception of Christ (II Cor. v. 21) and those whom he frees from the law of sin (Rom. viii. 3). Experience shows the universality of sin (i. 24‑31), as do the Scriptures (iii. 9‑20). In the last analysis the death of Christ would have been dispensable, if there had been any other way to overcome sin (Gal. ii. 21). Therefore, the universality of sin is of divine ordinance (Rom. xi. 32); the only way of escape was to ensue, that opened by grace and faith (iii. 24‑26), so that no person might glory (iv. 2). Slavery to sin leaves nothing to man but the experience of his impotence and the futility of his moral efforts (vii. 18 sqq.). The religious reference of sin as a contradiction against God is ever expressly emphasized and forma the background of Paul's statements. It is disregard of divine revelation, ingratitude for God's gifts (i. 19‑21, 25), alienation from God (Eph. iv. 18), enmity toward God (Rom. viii. 7), the unethical tendency of living for self (II Cor. v. 15); and leads in social life to envy, hatred, strife (Gal. v. 20). It lays weight on earthly things (Col. iii. 2), and especially yields to carnal desires (Rom. i. 24). Therefore uncleanness and unbridled sensuality hold sway over mankind (Gal. v. 19‑21), especially over the heathen world (Rom. i. 24 aqq.), while the Jews are more directly exposed to the danger of self‑deception and self‑righteousness (x. 3). But notwithstanding all moral differences (ii. 14), there is essentially

436	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	sin
no difference among men in God's sight (iii. 23). All are fallen under his judgment (iii. 19), and have forfeited the future glory (iii. 23). The gradations of sin are determined by the progress of divine revelation; the heathen perish without law (ii. 12) ; revelation of the law brings responsibility, the curse, wrath (iv. 15; Gal. iii. 10). Pre‑Christian sins are treated by God with long‑suffering (Rom. iii. 25); in view of Christian revelation, there is either grace (iii. 24) or judgment (II Cor. v. 10), either life or death (ii. 16). The connection of sin with the kingdom of Satan seldom occurs; only, deception and temptation are treated as his work (II Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2). Peculiar to Paul and original with him is his connection of sin with the flesh. He can not mean the identification of the flesh with sense, for sins of a purely spiritual nature he designates as works of the flesh (Gal. v. 16 sqq.). The whole man is represented as sarz, so far as he may be conceived in a religious‑ethical sense (Rom. vii. 18). The distinction is formed from the standpoint that the spirit of Christ first makes man what he is by the divine will intended to be (II Cor. iii. 17). Flesh is man who dispenses with the divine Spirit or shuts himself against his influence. Paul is thus enabled to designate the entire pre‑Christian development as the carnal or psychic (I Cor. xv. 45 sqq.). But this scheme gains its evident completion by another thought series of which Paul is unmistakably conscious. The flesh is the source of lusts which oppose God's commands (Gal. v. 16; Eph. ii. 3) ; and in this lies its positive significance for the origin of a bias of life against God. The pneumatic law which declares war on the lusts meets with opposition from the other (Rom. vii. 8, 14), which is called the "law in the members" (vii. 23). It is always the Christian's duty after he has been made free to withdraw his members from the service of sin (vi. 18‑19). These statements can scarcely be reconciled unless it be assumed that in the flesh Paul saw the gateway for the entrance of sin into the human organism. The natural man is therefore flesh in the twofold sense that he is without the divine Spirit, and so long as this continues the desires of the flesh have the upper hand. A stronger influence on the development of Christian doctrine than the preceding line of thought has been wrought by the Pauline teaching of the deed of Adam and its consequences (Rom. v. 12 sqq.). The object of the passage is to elucidate the power of Christ's obedience by the adverse parallel of the disobedience of Adam with a commensurate significance. As by disobedience death entered the world, by obedience came life. Physical death is meant, but possibly the contrast with the life of Christ gave it a wider significance. The origin and dissemination of sin can not be deduced from the passage; it only states that Adam's transgression was the first sin, not that he produced the condition of sinning. It is to be admitted that in vii. the same is said of the individual's confronting a commandment as of the progenitor in v. The effect of the act of Adam appears different according as the variously interpreted clause " for that all have sinned " (v. 12) is understood; either as an additional circumstance, or, what seems more likely, as a refer‑
ence to Adam's act, which would then be designated as a total act of humanity. According to the former, Adam would be only the leader; according to the latter, the totally valid representative or even the type of the human race. Questions are raised rather than answered. What it certainly implies, that Adam's act entailed a continuous judgment on mankind realized in death, does not exceed the view of Gen. iii. represented in late Jewish circles. These thoughts obtained a further expansion by Paul's noted parallelism, which occasioned a further extension of the comparison than the passage immediately had in view.
A striking completion of the Pauline doctrine of sin is contained in the Johannine writings. The totality of sinful life is more prominent. Sin is the rebellious refusal to accept the divine revelation of truth and love (John v. 40); it is essentially unbelief (xvi. 9); love of darkness (iii. 19); guilty blindness (ix. 41); contradiction of the divine standard of life (I John iii. 4). It constitutes a sphere of life, contrary to divine light and life (kosmos), and is attached to things that abide not (ii. 15 sqq.). The enemies of truth in it combine under the prince of this world (John xii. 31), hating the children of light and the light itself (xv. 19) but unable to sustain themselves under the condemnation of the light of Christ (iii. 19). Belief and unbelief originate a certain character, transcending time, so that one born of God seems incapable of sinning (I John v. 18), and one having known the truth who, by denying the same, has backslidden shall not be saved (probably sin unto death, v. 16). Constant need of forgiveness is recognized for the Christian life (i. 8). The Epistle to the Hebrews regards sin as a besetting, impeding power, causing man to stumble (xii. 1); polluting his conscience (ix. 14); separating him from God (xii. 14). Degrees in sin are discriminated as in the Old Testament; such as unintentional errors (ix. 7) and wilful sins (x. 26), among which is apostasy, for which there is no forgiveness (vi. 4‑6). The Epistle of James emphasizes that God does not tempt to evil, but sin is conceived as lust, and brings forth death (i. 13‑15).
The church doctrine is a continuation of the development of the Biblical only to a very limited extent. The principal thing in Scripture, the determination of evil according to experience by the norm of the revealed divine will, be‑
4. Ancient comes subordinate; the first sin, its
and Medi‑ connection with extra‑human evil
eval View. powers, and its penal consequences upon the human race come to the front. A background of the original state has arisen having little foundation in Scripture. For a fuller presentation of the doctrine of sin in the early Church see AUGUSTINE, II.; PELAGIUS, PELAGIANISM; and SEMIPELAGIANISM. The Eastern Church regarded sin as a weakening of the intellect and of the freedom of the will, and integrates it with the fall, from which it derived universal death. It is uncertain, however, whether the fall represents a becoming stationary at a lower level or a sinking from a higher one. In case of the latter the loss of the image of God could be thought of as brought upon the race

sin	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	436
by Adam. Human free‑will is preserved, already in antagonism to the physicism of Gnosticism. A more serious conception of sin arises in the West. But a strong sensuous admixture is already introduced by Tertullian with his combination of the physical unity of 'the generations from Stoicism, and the aversion to procreation of asceticism. In his presentation of sin Augustine starts from the will. Only after the fall, sin acquired the character of a tendency to evil imposed upon nature. This produces in the human race, as the " mass of perdition," moral depravity, which is incapable of good motives, though of apparently good actions. Freedom was retained but the good was beyond its power. Adam appears occasionally as the representative of humanity; predominantly, however, he is considered as its physical head. The transmission of sin takes place by the propagation of " corrupted nature." Sin is reproduced in " concupiscence," not without involving a divine judgment. This " original sin " deserves by itself eternal damnation; even children who have not actually sinned are subject to this damnation, although in the mildest degree, unless they have been baptized. The demoralizar tion of sin, Augustine thus considers not alike in all. In the Greek conception there was only an inherited evil; to Augustine both an original sin and an original guilt. Augustinianism was opposed by Pelagianism which, as an ascetic moralism, to preserve moral self‑development, held aloof from all physical representations of sin and hyper‑physical ideas of grace. It denied that sin could be inherited; held that sin was disseminated by the force of example, and asserted that sin could be avoided, although admitting a habit of sinning as a moral impediment. Baptism it could not conceive as a means of grace against original sin. Grace is rather pardon and moral direction than an inner impartation of power. Semipelagianism gives man in the state of sin the capacity of acceding to grace, and of affording it an inner relation. Moderate Augustinianism was continued in medieval scholasticism. Without abandoning the formulas of Augustine a rational conception arose alongside of the religious, by which it was gradually supplanted. In the original state, no longer held as the normal, the lower powers were subordinate to reason, and reason subject to God (Thomas Aquinas). This " original righteousness " was a " superadded gift," not to be reckoned with human nature. The fall deprived man of the supernatural gift; still his reason and freedom remained. Original sin, according to Thomas, is formally a " defect of original righteousness "; materially it is " concupiscence." The last is not a natural factor, for " it exceeds the limits of reason "; it is " contrary to nature," an " injury to nature." Original sin is thus a corruption of human nature (habitus corruptvs). Duns Scotus contests the sinful character of coneupiscentia, and reduces original sin to the absence of a long‑lost good.
The Reformation reasserted the religious character of sin, as a power fatal to the higher life. Art. 2 of the Augsburg Confession represents sin as the deficiency of the fear of God and trust in him, and concupiscence is subordinated as the consequence of this abnormity. Melanchthon follows Luther in
regarding unbelief as the essential element in sin. Original sin is not a mere passive heritage but the active power of a life contrary to God, 5. Doctrine and dominates the personal will. Adam of the Ref‑ is not only the remote ancestor but ormation. the type of every one; and the race participates in his sin. In the ideal picture of the original state " original righteousness " is not a " superadded gift," but the natural perfection of man. The fall resulted in the corruption of human nature, which is propagated in the race. Only Zwingli broke radically with the Augustinian doctrine. Without denying that Adam brought universal corruption upon humanity he would admit guilt only where the inclination to evil is appropriated by an act of will. Outside of this it is an infirmity or disease: The Formula of Concord (q.v.) maintained the total corruption of human nature, and the spiritual death of the natural man. Human cooperation in salvation, or synergism, is wholly excluded. On the other hand, the somewhat Manichean Flacian expressions of a substantial reality of original sin is excluded and the idea of the capability of justitia civUis belonging to universal reason, taught by Melanchthon, is acknowledged. The older Protestant dogmatics elaborated these views into a system, taking in all the reconcilable materials of tradition. As an illuminated background of the doctrine of sin is drawn a broad representation of the excellence of the original state, which was of the highest religious, moral, and natural perfection. The fall was a plunge to fearful depths, to be explained only by Satanic deception. The result was pride, ambition, and inordinate desire. The sinful act subjects man to divine disfavor. He becomes guilty and worthy of punishment. The penalty is death, i.e., physical death and spiritual death or deprivation of the original perfection, which is damnation. Original sin is fundamentally threefold; inherited sinfulness, inherited guilt, and inherited desert of punishment. The descent of sin and its consequences from Adam upon his progeny takes place naturally by propagation as well as legally by imputation. To escape the harshness of the latter there was brought forward the imputatio mediata, according to which the descendants' own sin was to subject them to this judgment of guilt and punishment. This device, however, led to no clear results. Adam is moral as well as natural head of the race, and his sin is justly imputed to all (Quenstedt). His sin becomes that of his descendants by propagation and the inherent original sin justifies the divine imputation. This parallelism continued only so long as the distinction between the inherited condition and the personal act was not drawn. Where sinfulness did not arrive at action, as in deceased unbaptized infants, the inconsistency became apparent. As manifest in the race, original sin is represented as blindness of reason, of a will devoted to evil, and as a riotous life of impulse. This " corrupt state " is the fruitful soil of actual sins. Previous to their commission the judgment of God by virtue of imputation overhangs humanity. As second nature this state is propagated, forming the substratum of the development of the natural life, never wholly disappearing.

437
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Baptism removes the " formal guilt " or original sin, but not the desire to evil or cancupiscentia. This disposition is not lost until the departure of the soul from the body. In degree it is total moral inability, at least in the spiritual sense.
The insuperable difficulties of this view consist in the speculative elements which are to be complemented by the empirical conception. The doctrine of the original estate makes the origin 6. Post‑Ref‑ of sin inconceivable and is an inade‑
ormation quate support for its determination;
	Views.	for according to it the fall appears as
		a transformation prepared by nothing,
which threatens the continuity of person and the
possibility of imputation. The relation of Adam
to his descendants is now of an individual to others,
and again of a genus to its members. Sin, guilt,
and punishment are inextricably confused. Most
defiant is the inconsistency of individual responsi
bility with the summary fate of the race, including
those who know nothing of Adam. Safer ground is
offered by psychological and religious‑ethical deter
minations, except for a closer distinction of the
ethical and religious. A special defect is the over
sight of sin as a social power. In considering the
relation of Adam and the individual that of man
and his fellow beings is overlooked. Only a
powerful ecclesiastical authority could keep relig
ious reflection in those grooves. The doctrine of
original sin became one of the first objects of prey
for the Enlightenment (q.v.), after the example of
the Arminians. Kant astonished the rationalists by
discussing a " radical evil " in human nature, a
fundamental inclination to evil, rooted in will, pre
ceding all empirical acts, involving guilt, and in
eradicable by human power. True, this was not
original sin, as Kant rejected historical origin and
physical inheritance and insisted that evil was in
explicable. With Schleiermacher sin is the afflicting
sense of impotence in the consciousness of God. It
transcends the personal life, being in each the work
of all and in all the work of each. It consists in the
total incapability of good. Judged by the highest
type of humanity realized in Christ, it is a dis
turbance of nature; in view of salvation to come
and the consciousness of God involved it may be
taken as ordered by God himself. The defect of this
theory is the neglect of the ethical standard, and of
sin as a transgression of will, in behalf of a meta
physical bias, threatening to make of sin only a cer
tain necessary moment of development. This idea
is distinctly represented by Hegel. Sin is the in
evitable transition‑point of the finite spirit that
emerges from the conditioned state of nature to
freedom. Richard Rothe designates the object of
human life as an integral part of a speculative plot
of a world drama. Matter is the basis of the earthly
sphere; it is created by God, yet his opposite. Man
continues God's creation, by overcoming with pro
gressive spiritualization the material inanity present
in himself as sensuousness. Sin is that motive of
life which antagonizes the normal development by
reverting to matter or nonentity. Yet not the de
termination of man by selfish and sensuous impulses
constitutes actual sin but positive assent contrary
to the moral law; not the natural egoism but ego‑
Sin
ism assumed as a principle. As contradiction of the divine cosmic order sin obtains religious significance also in the degrees of alienation from God and inimical opposition to him. The almost antipodal results are reached by Julius Maller. Sin originates not from natural conditions but from the self‑determination of the creature. Its principle is selfishness, a primary life tendency based on freedom using sense as a medium of expression. It takes its departure from a primitive extra‑temporal decision involving the character of freedom, of which the fall is the first revelation. The theory aims to preserve the universality of sin without abridgment of its guilty character, but only succeeds in basing personal responsibility on an artificially conceived presumption and in diverting the attention from the racial unity and its importance for the life of sin. A. Ritschl lays stress upon the social effect of sin, bringing into evidence a long‑neglected Biblical element. The kingdom of God has its antithesis in a kingdom of sin, in which every sinful individual is actively and passively involved, receiving and imparting influences of evil. He properly refers for support to the New‑Testament doctrine of the stumbling‑block (akandalon).
The assumption of a primitive state of perfection as well as of a fall permanently affecting the destiny of mankind has been irremediably shattered for dogmatics by historical and ethical criticism. The account of Genesis is to be understood as didactic narrative to be employed as illu‑
q. Criticism minated by other Biblical statements. of the The original state is the condition of Doctrine. untested innocence, and Adam is the type of the race according to its created disposition and its empirical demeanor. His act is the type of the human racial sin, which in the successive generations and social intercourse continues progressively so far as it is not counteracted by moral forces. Universality of sin is the presupposition for the need of universal redemption and the universal validity of the work of Christ. A truth is thus stated accessible to every maturer experience and attested at all times by witnesses unbiased by dogma. It may be termed original sin; for, although an ethical quality of will, and as obstinacy to God to be conceived of only in personal life, yet in the testimony of experience it becomes organic disorder. As such it can be propagated. With the doctrine of the heredity of acquired characteristics modern thought is more apt to overestimate than depreciate heredity and thus neglect the guilty character of sin. The idea of guilt attaches to the conduct of the individual person and its presupposed freedom. The history of the doctrine shows that the Christian judgment always adhered to two points: the recognition of the comprehensive racial reality of sin, and the personal contingency of guilt. As to the latter, the Augustinian doctrine could never satisfy the ethical consideration. Hence a sharper distinction between sin and personal guilt is to be followed. Sin is all action against the norm of the divine will, irrespective whether this contradiction to God's will is known or willed by the individual or not. Guilt is only the conscious resistance to this norm within the limits and powers of per‑

Sin	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	438
sonal life. Thus the New Testament attests that the individual is not accountable for the sin of the race as such, but only for his conscious participation of the same (Luke xii. 37; Matt. xgv. 42), and forgiveness is not of original sin, but individual sins (Matt. vi. 12, ix. 2). Guilt is always individual. It may be said that the greater the spiritual maturity of a man the more his sin has become his guilt, and the further his influence extends the more the sin of the community establishes his personal guilt. Likewise the traditional view of eternal damnation as the universal punishment of sin is not to be maintained. That the sin of man, awakened by divine revelation to his life mission, is at the same time guilt that estranges from God and must be removed by forgiveness is the irrelinquishable conviction of every Christian. It does not follow, however, that the punishment must be absolute and alike for all sins. Eternal damnation as a general punishment of original sin is inadequate to God's offended righteousness. The New Testament suggests an individualizing on the part of God's righteousness (Matt. xi. 24; Rom. ii. 2 sqq.). The Christian faith maintains, (1) without forgiveness of sins, no salvation; (2) every one that persists in unbelief will receive just punishment in proportion to his guilt known only to God. Religiously sin is unbelief, and as such simply godlessness, admitting of no degrees; ethically, it is a deviation from the moral standard, varying in extent, principle, and persistence. God judges according to the impartial standard of just ethical estimation. Only his pardon follows the higher norm of grace not conceivable on the principle of adequate requital, but immanent in him in the total idea of the moral world order.
The problem of the origin of sin offers no difficulties exclusively in the light of punishable sin. The basis of this is in the conscious practise of freedom on the part of the personal creature. More
8. Theory difficult is the inquiry how formal hu‑
	of Sin.	man freedom acquired a content con
		tradicting the divine will. Reference
to the total life and original sin only defers the prob
lem. That God willed sin or imposed it on man
through his nature or law of development is repul
sive to Christian judgment, and would be incon
sistent with the divine judgment of sin. Neither is
the evil will creative, but limited to the choice of
alternative conduct. Neither could an extra‑hu
man power contrary to God possess a creative
power beside him to originate evil. Attempts at
solution in this direction have resulted in holding
evil to be the mere negation of the good, which is
unsatisfactory to the Christian conscience. The
only solution remains that the content of the evil
will comes from God; but so far as this is true such
content is not yet evil, but mere imperfection. This
involves not only the sensuous character of the be
ginning of human life, but also the naive egoism
which obligates man to self‑preservation. Both
advance to the valuation of spiritual and common
good in the course of ethical development. With
this, imperfection is transmuted into sin. God in
tends this imperfection to be removed by man's own
moral self‑determination; man wants to retain it
against the known requirement of God. Imperfec‑
tion becomes sin when approved and asserted by
the alienated will as the state adapted to the sub
ject. A derivation of sin does not contemplate at
the same time establishing the basis of its religious
and moral judgment. The latter approves itself by
the revealed will of God; the former may be at
tempted only on the basis of coherent reflection
upon the facts of experience. If the preceding ex
planation should lead to an apology for sin, it were
better to abandon all attempt and assert the incon
ceivability of sin. Paul assumes this deduction of
sin; the Church in its teaching abandoned his view
by exaggerating the original state. If the first state
was one of innocency and imperfection, then the
latter became sin as soon as the human will refused
the divine law of life that prescribed conquest.
That it refused is an act of free will not further ex
plainable, yet always to be determined as avoidable.
	Christian faith can neither admit that God causes
sin as such, nor can it escape the conviction that
he is eternally aware of it and subjects it to his
world‑dominion. How an act in time maybe subject
		of eternal cognizance is inconceivable
	9. The to finite mind. The fact itself is at
	Court of tested by the revelation of salvation
Conscience; through the death of Jesus Christ on
Forgiveness. account of sin. How God permits room
		for sin in the world is to be seen in fact.
The judgment of sin is concomitant with its unfold
ing in that its promised success proves itself as de
ception and its expected freedom as servitude.
Servitude is punishment for the sinful deed. The
bondage of the will, however, consists less in a
confinement of the field of its activity than in the
contraction of its horizon of vision and in the de
terminism of its motives, both of which are charac
teristic of the natural man. Many other evils are
attendant penalties of sin which manifest their con
tradiction to the divine order and may only be re
ferred to the personal conscience for experience and
proof. The same holds true of Death (q.v.). A
revealing and intensifying judgment of sin takes
place in conscience, which reckons it as guilt to the
sinner; this happens to a certain extent in conse
quence of the moral law, and more extensively in
consequence of the moral message of divinely sent
prophets (Rom. v. 20). That God consents to the
unfolding of sin and sustains humanity in spite of it
receives full explanation in the manifestation of his
holy love for human redemption. This is a pro
gressive abolition of sin proceeding from within out
ward. Beginning with the forgiveness of the debt,
it continues with a renewal of the will, and culmi
nates in the removal of evil. Such a redemption must
have a historical act of God as its starting‑point,
attesting the divine disapproval of sin as well as
love for the sinner. The Gospel of such an act is
essentially one of forgiveness. In the Vedas and
the Babylonian prayers this appears rather as the
removal of the penal consequences than the restora
tion of the personal fellowship with God, as in the
New Testament (Matt. ix. 5‑6; Rom. v. 2). In the
forgiveness of sin, the interference of this with the
central relation of life to God is annulled, hence
within the conception of sin there is no wider con‑

439	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	sin
tract than that of unforgiven and forgiven sins. The former abolishes life in the highest sense; the latter gives it anew. This contrast has been employed for the classification of sin as pardonable and unpardonable; such as sins of oversight and rebellion in the Old Testament, and venial and mortal in the Roman Catholic Church. [The Roman Catholic distinction between mortal (or deadly) sin and venial sin is that the former deprives the sinner of habitual grace and of spiritual life, while venial sin does not. The names of the seven deadly sins will effectually illustrate their character: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, envy, gluttony, and sloth; and it is readily apparent that these sins, deliberately persisted in, will drive from the soul all state of grace. But if such deliberation is lacking, or if the sin be committed through an ignorance which the sinner has no means of avoiding, or if, again, the matter of the sin be of a less grave nature, then the sin committed is venial, i.e., " the all‑just and a,ll‑holy God does not see in it such depravity as deserves to be punished by eternal torment " (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 3d ed., iii. 40, New York, n.d.). It is, however, not always possible for man to know whether a given unlawful act is really sin, or whether, if sin, it is mortal or venial; this can certainly be known only by God; all that man can do is to have a more or less confident judgment in the matter. Venial sin does not cause even partial loss of habitual grace, since, if that were so, venial sin multiplied would amount to mortal sin, which is a contradiction. At the same time, venial sin hinders the operation of actual grace (i.e., grace which is the result of distinct divine acts). By the Decrees of the Council of Trent (Seas. xiv., cap. 5) it is obligatory to confess all mortal sins; it is not absolutely required to confess venial sins, although it is undoubtedly best to do so.] But the correctness of these distinctions is questionable. Both betray a confusion of legalistic and religious‑ethical standards. Also the opinion of A. Ritschl that pardonable sins are sins of ignorance raises doubts. In accordance with the New Testament pardon is to be attributed purely to God's unlimited grace, Christ's atoning work, and man's contrite faith, and not conditioned by the minor importance of a certain category of sins. The unpardonable sin (Matt. xii. 31‑32) is one that, as obstinate rejection and contemptuous debasement of the recognized truth, bars the return to repentance and faith. As pardon effects access to God, it translates into the kingdom where the divine will is supreme. This involves the renewed transformation of the whole life tendency, described by Paul as the becoming of a " new creature" (II Cor. v. 17) and by church doctrine as Regeneration (q.v.) or, with special emphasis on moral change, as Sanctification (q.v.). In the former sin does not disappear instantaneously and permanently (Rom. vi. 12 sqq.; Phil. iii. 12; i John i. 8, ii. 2); yet it is in a vanishing process and no longer capable of striking fresh root, the obverse side of which is cleaving to God through Christ, the unremittent battle against the remains of sin, and the practise of perfection. Like the individual, the Church may assume a purifying process against the common evil
resident in itself, and the more its	energies are
rallied to its great ideals of the new life the further
is its purification enhanced. 	(O. KIRN.)
Btsnjooasray: For expositions of the Scriptural doctrine of sin the reader is referred first of all to the works cited in and under BIBLICAL. THEOLOGY, particularly those by Schultz, Beyschlag, Oehler, Duhm, Smend, Schlottmann, Noack, Duff, Piepenbring, DiVmsnn, Holtzmann, Stevens. Gould, Estes, and Bovon. Consult further: J. Taylor, The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, London, 1738, 4th ed., Newcastle, 1845; L. Ernesti, Vom Uraprung der Shade each paulinischem LeArgehau, G6ttingen, 1855‑62; G. M. Straffen, Sin as set forth in Holy Scripture, London, 1875; E. M6nbgoz, Le P&U et la redemption d'apr" St. Paul, Paris, 1882; L. Lemme, Die Sunde wider den heiligen Geist, Breslau, 1883; J. S. Candlish, The Biblical Doctrine of Sin, Edinburgh, 1893; J. KSberle, Sunde and Gnade in religiosen Leben des Volks Israel, Munich, 1905; W. Staerk, Sunde and Gnade each der Voratellunp lea dlteren Judentums, Ttibingen, 1905; F. Bennewitz, Die Sunde im ahem Israel, Leipsie, 1907 (1908); DB, iv. 528‑536; DCG, ii. 630‑635.
As a subject in systematic divinity sin is treated by all the great dogmaticians, and discussions are to be looked for in the works named in and under DOoMA, Dooxsnes. Special works which may be cited from the large literature on the topic are: A. Burgess. A Treatise of Original Sin, London, 1658; G. Tomline, Refutation of Calvinism; in which the Doctrines of Original Sin, Grace . . , are explained, London, 1811; G. Payne, The Doctrine of Original Sin; or, native State and Character of Man unfolded. London, 1845; M. P. Squier, The Problem Solved; or, Sin not of God, New York, 1855; E. Girard, Lehre von der Sande, Strasburgi 1861; J. MOller, Die christliehe Lehre von der Sonde, 2 vols., 5th ed., Breslau, 1867, Eng. tranal., The Christian Doctrine of Sin, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1868; E. Naville, Le Probldrne du maZ, Paris, 1868, Eng. trawl., The Problem of Evil, Edinburgh, 1871; J. B. Brown, The Divine Mysteries: the divine Treatment of Sin, and the divine Mystery of Peace, London and New York, 1869; W. G. T. Shedd, Theological Essays, pp. 211‑264, New York, 1877; J. Tulloeh, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, Edinburgh, 1877; G. Heinrici, Die Siinde mach Wesen and Uraprunp, Frankfort, 1878; G. P. Fisher, Discussions in History and Theology, New York, 1880; A. Ritsehl, Rechtfer*ung and Versohnuny, vol. iii., 40‑43, 2d ed., Bonn, 1882‑83; R. W. Landis, Doctrine of Original Sin as Received and Taught by the Churches of the Reformation, Richmond, 1885; M. Dix, The Seven Deadly Sins, New York, 1888; S. Kierkegaard, Zur Psychologie der Sonde, Leipsic, 1890; J. Martineau, Seal of Authority in Religion, pp. 450461, London, 1890; D. Graeey, Sin and the Uniblding of Salvation. London, 1894; R. Harris, Is Sin a Necessity. London, 1896; R. C. Homer, Original and Inbred Sin Ottawa, 1896; C. Clemen, Die christliche Lehre van der Sande, Gbttingen. 1897; J. Royce, Studies of Good and Evil, New York, 1898; E. W. Cook, The Origin of Sin and its Relations to God, ib., 1899; F. R. Tennant, Origin and Propagation of Sin, London, 1902, 2d ed., 1906; idem, The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin, ib. 1903; J. Turmel, Hilt. du dogme du p&U originel, Mason, 1904; J. N. Espenberger, Die Elements der Erbsunde mach Augustin, Mainz, 1905; N. R. Wood, The Witness of Sin, New York, 1905; H. V. S. Eck, Sin, New York, 1907; N.W. Stroup, The Fact ofSin Viewed Historically and Doctrinally, Cincinnati, 1908; H. Windisch, Taufe and Sonde im Oltmen Christentum bis auf Oripines. Ein Beitrag sur allchrish lichen Dopmenpeschichte, TObingen, 1908; M. L. Burton. The Problem of Evil; a Criticism of the Augustinian Poit# of View, Chicago, 1909; J. H. Busch, Das Wesen der Erbsunde nach Bellarmin and Suarez. Eine dopmengeschichtliche Studie, Paderbom. 1909; W. D. Hyde, Sin and its Forgiveness, Boston, 1909; W. E. Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, London, 1909; F. J. Hall, Evolution and the Fall, New York, 1910; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, few. xxxi. 7‑16.
SIN: The name of a place in Egypt named in Ezek. xxx. 14‑16. Trouble has been caused for exegetes and investigators by what is clearly a wrong arrangement of the verses; a correct division

gig	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	"0
shows four pairs of names, thus: Pathros and Zoan; No and Sin; No and Sin; No and Noph. Of these pairs the first always belongs to Upper Egypt, the second to Lower Egypt. According, therefore, to the accepted Hebrew text, which is to be preferred, the correct view is, that Sin is a place in Lower Egypt. Ebers' surmise that it was in Upper Egypt because it appears to derive from the ancient Sun, which resembles the (creek Syene, overlooks the fact that this place existed in Hebrew times, and is mentioned by Ezekiel as Seveneh (xxx. 6). The Zoan that bears a relation to Sin in Ezek. xxx.14‑16, was probably known to the Hebrews under the name of Rameses (Gen. xlvii. 11). The Sin of Ezekiel is thought of as one of the most important places in Lower Egypt, being twice paralleled with Thebes (No); it could not therefore have been an unimportant place in the east of Lower Egypt (contrary to W. M. Milller, EB, iv. 4629). As " the fortress of Egypt," however, it protected during the course of history the town of Pelusium, which lay on the east arm of the Nile. To the east of this town a high boundary wall was erected (Diodorus Siculus, i. 57) and the town itself was surrounded by a wall twenty stadia long. The armies of invasion from the East could not ignore this arsenal and key to Egypt. As in strategic importance, so also in general significance Sin and Pelusium may be identical, as when Strabo alludes to the marshy surroundings of the town as Pelusium. But what was Sin‑Pelusium called by the ancient Egyptians ? Brugsch, in the appendix to his Dictionnaire gmgraphique, accepted the view of Dilmichen, the noted Egyptologist, in his Geachichte des alter Aegyptem (pp. 74, 263, 1878), according to which the capital of the nineteenth province of Lower Egypt was Am, named after the two eyebrows of Osiris, which were preserved as sacred relics in the temple of the town. W. M. Milller calls it Ame(t), " Prince of Lower Egypt " (EB, iv. 4628). In ancient Egyptian the word am (Coptic, ome) signifies morass. Whether the ancient Egyptians, who loved to play on words, placed a double meaning on the word " Am," the " town of the two eyebrows," is uncertain; there was a temptation to play on the word as the city was surrounded by marshes. At the present day, an ancient ruined castle, northwest of the ruins of ancient Pelusium, is called Tindh (" clay," or " mud "), an evidence that Sin was an appellation of Pelusium.
(E. K6N>G.)
According to the best recent conclusions in Egypt‑
ology Sin is either an unknown city or (more prob
ably) is to be identified with the Seveneh of Ezek.
xxix. 10, xxx. 6 (R. V.). 	J. F. M.
BiBuooasrHy: Consult the commentaries on Eselael by Emend, Leip®ic, 1880; Orelli, Munich, 1896; Bertholet, T66ingen, 1897; Kraetsechmar, Gbttingen, 1900; G. Jahn, Leipsic, 1905; C. H. Comill, Dar Bueh des Note Esechid, ib. 1886; and the articles in the Bible dictionaries.
SIN, DESERT OF. See WANDERING >N Talc DESERT.

SIN OFFERINGS. See SAcwsicE.

SINAI, sai'nai or sai'na‑ai: The mountain on which, according to the Pentateuch, Moses gave the
greater part of the Law to the Israelites; identified
for a millennium and a half with a peak of the range
which forms the center of the peninsula of Sinai,
between the two northern arms of the Red Sea.
The range in question consists of Jabal al‑Dair
			(6,472 ft.), Jabal Musa (7,363 ft.), and
	Topography Jabal Katarin (8,536 ft.), but it is ex
		of the	tremely difficult of access, being off all
	Traditional the main routes, and surrounded by
		Sinai.	barren wastes, especially to the north.
			The central group of these mountains
is bounded by valleys on three sides, but continues
without deep indentation on the south. Jabal al
Dair throws out a triangular spur toward the north
and is bounded on the east by the Wadi al‑Sadad,
called Wadi al‑Saba'iyah further south. On the
northwest of Jabal al‑Dair is the Wadi al‑Shaikh,
which turns northward; and on the southwest is
the short Wadi al‑Dair, the upper part of which is
called Wadi Shu'aib (" Valley of Jethro "), and
which debouches into the Wadi al‑Shaikh. The
other side of the Wadi al‑Dair is enclosed by the de
clivities of the second lofty peak, the southeast sum
mit of which is called Jabal Musa (" the Mountain
of Moses "), and the northwest summit Ras al
7raftaf (" Mountain of the Willow "; 6,540 ft.), the
northwest slopes of the latter running parallel with
those of Jabal al‑Dair to the Wadi al‑Shaikh, which
continues to the southwest to the steep Wadi al
Laja, which soon turns to the southeast and leads
to the abandoned Dair al‑Arba'in (" Monastery of
the Forty [martyrs slain by the Mohammedans] ").
South of Jabal Musa and the monastery rises Jabal
Katarin, the highest peak of the whole group, the
foothills of which connect with Jabal Musa. On the
northeast slope of the latter mountain is the Mon
astery of St. Catharine, behind the apse of the church
of which is the Chapel of the Burning Bush, which
is honored by the removal of the shoes of all who
enter (cf. Ex. iii. 5). The summit of Jabal Musa
may be reached in an hour and a half from the
Monastery of St. Catherine. On the way a little
spring is passed where Moses is said to have tended
Jethro's flock (Ex. ii. 15 sqq.); at a height of 6,900
feet is the small chapel of Elijah (cf. I Kings xix.
11 sqq.); and on the summit are another chapel
and a small mosque, beside which are the ruins of
a church. [Beneath this mosque is a grotto, sup
	posed to be that in which Moses stood when Yah
weh passed by (Ex. xxxiii. 22).] The other summit
is hard to climb. It takes its name, Rae al‑Zaftaf,
from a willow (Arab. rafza f) from the wood of which
Moses is supposed to have cut his miraculous rod
	(Ex. iv. 2). On the road which passes through the
Wadi al‑Dair into the Wadi al‑Laja and past the
Dair al‑Arba'in, is the Hajar Musa (" Rock of
Moses "), a block of reddish‑brown granite about
eleven feet nine inches high, identified with that
from which Moses brought the water (Num. xx. 8
	sqy.), and this water is said to have returned here
after having accompanied the Children of Israel in
their wanderings (cf. I Cor. x. 4). Near the junction
of the Wadi al‑Laja, Wadi al‑Dair, and Wadi al
Shaikh is the traditional spot where the earth swal
lowed up Korah and his followers (Num. xvi.), while
a small hole in the rock is shown as the mold of the

441	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	sin
golden calf (Ex. xxxii.). The plain of Wadi alRaha, northwest of the junction of the three wadis just mentioned, is held by many to be the campingplace of the Children of Israel (Ex. xix. 2, 17)..
According to tradition, Jabal Musa is the mountain where Yahweh first revealed himself to Moses (Ex. iii.), where he descended with fire and cloud and gave the Decalogue (Ex. xix., xx.; Dent. v.), and where Moses abode forty days and forty nights (Ex. xxiv. 18; Deut. ix. 9). If the arid Wadi alRaba be taken as the camping‑place of the Israelites, Ras al‑7,,aftaf would be Sinai, since
Attempted	the peaks of Jabal Musa are invisible
Identifica‑	from Wadi al‑Raba (cf. Ex. xix. 17,
lions in the xxiv. 17): Since, however, the craggy
Sinaitic and perilous summit of Ras al‑7afzaf
	Peninsula.	would be ill‑adapted for the sojourn
		of Moses with Yahweh, it was assumed
that Jabal Musa was Sinai. This theory led to the
supposition that the place of assembly of Ex. xix.
17 was the Wadi al‑Saba'iyah, which bounds Jabal
Musa on the east; but this stony, arid, and narrow
valley does not fit the topography required by the
Bible. Sinai has also been identified with Jabal
Sarbal (6,730 ft.), south of the Wadi Firan. This
portion of the peninsula was evidently once densely
populated; the city of Pharan is mentioned by
Ptolemy (V., xvii. 3); and it was the seat of a
bishop in the fourth century and of an archbishop
in the fifth century, until, in the time of Justinian,
the orthodox monks removed from Jabal Sarbal to
Jabal Musa. This identification is, however, ren
dered impossible by the statement of the " Pilgrim
age " of Silvia of Aquitaine that Faran was thirty
five (Roman) miles from the " mount of God," a
distance which agrees with that between the oasis
of Firan and the Sinaitic monastery, but is several
times too large for that between the oasis and Jabal
Sarbal. It would appear, therefore, that in the
days of Silvia (about 385) Sinai was identified with
Jabal Musa, and it is equally obvious that Ras al
Z,af$af was held to represent Horeb.
The Old Testament gives two different names to the " mount of God," Sinai and Horeb; and, while it was formerly held that Horeb was the general name of the region, and that Sinai was the name of the specific mountain, it is now maintained that Horeb is peculiar to E and D, and Sinai
Critical	to J and P. Two possibilities thus arise,
	View.	either that, like Hermon (q.v.), the
		same mountain had two names, or that
the sources really designate two different places. The
location of Horeb seems to be best indicated by
Deuteronomy, which indicates (i. 2) that the moun
tain was west of Kadesh‑barnea, and also states
(i. 6‑7, 19‑20) that the Israelites went from Horeb
to Kadesh‑barnea " through all that great and ter
rible wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the
mountain of the Amorites." In Ex. iv. 27, Aaron
goes from Egypt into the wilderness to meet Moses,
whom he finds at " the mount of God," or Horeb
(cf. Ex. iii. 1), which would thus again seem to be
located on the road running from Egypt eastward
to Kadesh‑barnea. J gives the name Sinai to the
mountain on which Yahweh spoke with Moses (Ex.
xix. 11, 18, 20, 23, xxxiv. 4), while P (Num. x. 12)
	locates the wilderness of Paran (q.v.) near the wil
	derness of Sinai, which obviously derived its name
	from Mount Sinai and is often mentioned (Ex. xix.
	1; Num. i. 1, 19, iii. 4, etc.). This would apparently
	locate Sinai not far from Kadesh‑barnea, in the
	desert lying north of the peninsula proper. The
	Song of Deborah (Judges v. 4‑5) states that Yah
	weh rose up from Sinai to help the Israelites against
	the Canaanites, and that he came from Seir and the
" field of Edom." Since, however, Sinai can not be
	sought in Edom, Seir and the "field of Edom"
	must designate the southern boundary of Canaan
or of the mountain districts of the Amorites. This
	is borne out by Deut. xxxiii. 2‑3, where Sinai is
	paralleled by Seir and Paran, while the goal was
	Kadesh‑barnea (reading Zfadhesh for kodhesh), these
	places all pointing to the southern boundary of
	Canaan toward Edom. These passages, therefore,
	like Hab. iii. 3, locate Sinai in the southern (or
	rather southeastern) vicinity of Kadesh‑barnea; but
	while this may easily be reconciled with P, J and,
	still more clearly, E and D refer to the western
	neighborhood of Kadesh‑barnea. If the Sinai of J
	be identified with the Sinai of Judges v. 4‑5, and
	if the " three days' journey into the wilderness " of
	Ex. iii. 18, v. 3, viii. 27, be taken as having Sinai
	as the goal, the real distance must have been much
	minimized (cf. the daily marches recorded in Num.
	xxi. 12‑20); but if these days' journeys be taken
	strictly, the statements of J, E, and D practically
	coincide and indicate that Sinai and Horeb were two
	names of the same mountain, or at least designated
	two mountains close tpgether. Judges iv. 4‑5 in
	dubitably locates Sinai further east than is implied
	by any combination of the statements of the Pen
	tateuch. The Old Testament thus gives divergent
	data regarding the location of the mountain on
	which the Law was given; but while it would seem
	that Judges v. 4‑5 best represents actual tradition,
	the region is still too imperfectly explored to permit
	of identification of Sinai. The attempt has also
	been made to identify Sinai with Jabal Barghir, or
	Jabal al‑Nur, four or five hours northeast of 'Ababa;
	and others, on account of the association of Moses
	with Midian (Ex. ii. 15, 22, iii. 1), have located
	Sinai in Midian (q.v.), southeast of Edom. This
	theory is, however, irreconcilable with Judges v.
	4‑5. The hypothesis has likewise been advanced
	that the theophany recorded in Ex. 16, 18; Deut.
	iv. 11, ix. 15 indicates that Sinai was regarded as a
	volcano, so that it has been supposed to be repre
	sented by one of the extinct craters of northwestern
	Arabia, southeast of Midian, in the region between
	Tabuk and Mecca. While some of the volcanoes in
	the Hauran, east of Damascus, may have been active
	within historic times, there is no certain evidence
	that the Israelites were acquainted with them, nor
	do the data of the Old Testament necessitate such
	a hypothesis. 	(H. GUTHE.)

BIHLIaaRAPHT: C. W. Wilson and H. S. Palmer, Ordnance Survey of the Peninsula of Sinai, 5 vols., Southampton, 1889‑72; C. R. Lepsius, Reise van Theben nach der Halbin8el Sinai, Berlin, 1846 Eng. transl., A Tour from Thebes to the Peninsula of Sinai, London, 1846; idem, Briefe aus Aqpypten, AChiopien, and der Halbinsel des Sinai, Berlin, 1852, Eng. transl., Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia; and the Peninsula of Sinai, London, 1853; J.

Sinai	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	442
Sinim
	Hamilton, Sinai, the Hedjaz, and Soudan, London, 1857;
	W. H. Bartlett, Forty Days in the Desert on the Track of
	the Israelites, London, new ed., 1867; E. H. Palmer, The
	Desert of the Exodus, 2 vols., London, 1871; C. Beke, Dia
	coveries of Sinai in Arabia, and of Midian, London, 1878;
	S. C. Bartlett, From Egypt to Palestine through Sinai the
	Wilderness, and the South Country, New York, 1879; R. F.
	Burton, The Land of Midian Revisited, i. 144 aqq., 235
	238, London, 1879; G. Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai,
	Leipsie, 1881; A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine in Con
	nection with their History, new ed., New York, 1883;
	G. Ebers and H. Guthe, Palastina in Bild and Wort, ii.
	255 sqq., Stuttgart, 1884; E. Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai,
	and Western Palestine, London, 1885; H. S. Palmer, Sinai,
	from the Fourth Egyptian Dynasty, London, 1892; R. L.
	Bensly, Our Journey to Sinai, London, 1896; A. Freiherr
	von Gall, Altisraelitisehe KultsLBtten, pp. 1 sqq., Giessen,
	1898; W. H. Hume, Rift Valleys and Geology of Eastern
	Sinai, London, 1901; E. Meyer, in SBA, xxxi (1905), 640
	aqq.; idem, Die laraeliten and ihre Nachbarstdmme, pp.
	67 sqq., Halle, 1906; W. M. F. Petrie, Researches in Sinai,
	New York, 1906; E. Hornby, Sinai and Petra, London,
	1907; Robinson, Researches, i. 90 sqq., 119 sqq., 14(1, 158,
	176‑177; DB, iv. 536‑538; EB, iv. 4629‑43; JE, xi. 381
383.
SINAITA. See JOHANNES CLIMACUS.
	SINCLAIR, WILLLIAM MACDONALD: Church
	of England; b. at Leeds June 3, 1850. He was ed
	ucated at Balliol College, Oxford (B.A., 1873), and
	after being ordained to the priesthood in 1874 was
	successively curate of Tortworth, Gloucestershire
	(1874‑75), assistant minister of Quebec Chapel,
	London, and evening lecturer in logic at King's
	College, London (1875‑76), and vicar of St. Ste
	phen's, Westminster (1880‑89), besides being chap
	lain to the bishop of London (1877‑83), assistant
	examining chaplain to Bishop Jackson of London
	(1883‑85), examining chaplain to Bishop Temple
	of London (1885‑97) and Bishop Creighton of the
	same diocese (1897‑1901), honorary chaplain to
	the queen (1889‑95) and chaplain in ordinary
	(1895‑1901), honorary chaplain to King Edward
	after 1901, grand chaplain of England after 1894,
	and chaplain to the order of St. John of Jerusalem
	after 1900. Since 1889 he has been archdeacon of
	London and canon of St. Paul's, and has written,
	in addition to several volumes of sermons, The
	Psalms, the Authorised Version in the Original
	Rhythm (London, 1879); Commentary on the Epis
	tles of St. John (1880); Lessons on the Gospel of St.
John (1886);	The Christian's Influence (1892);
	Christ and our Times (1893); Words to the Laity on
	Subjects of Ecclesiastical Controversy (1895); Lead
	ers of Thought in the English Church (1896); Points
	at Issue between the Church of England and the
	Church of Rome (1896); The Churches of the East
	(1898); and Memorials of St. Paul's Cathedral
(1909).
	SINECURE (sine curs): A prebend whose enjoy
	ment is not bound by services rendered, and is there
	fore to be distinguished from simple " Benefice "
	(q.v.), to which certain duties are attached, and
	from " cure," or the charge of souls. But where the
	incumbent of a benefice has authorization to sojourn
	at a distance from his place of office and to have his
	office discharged by a vicar, his benefice becomes a
	sinecure. While sinecures occur but seldom in the
	Roman Catholic Church, they still frequently
	appear in the Evangelical Church (of Germany).
	This is explained by the fact that, although in con‑
sequence of the Reformation foundations and cloisters were usually abolished and their properties applied in behalf of churches and schools or incorporated in the exchequer of the State, yet certain cloistral and endowed positions were perpetuated, and the Protestant endowment and cloistral prebends became sinecures which ceased to have any real ecclesiastical affinity.
	But far more numerous than in	Germany are the
court, state, and church positions that are sine
cures in England [these being often used as means
for the advancement of learning by being given to
scholars engaged in special tasks or investigations].
		(E. SEHLINO.)

SINGER, ISIDORE: Austro‑American Jewish editor; b. at Weiaskirchen (160 m. a.e. of Prague), Moravia, Nov. 10, 1859. He was educated at the universities of Vienna and Berlin (Ph.D., Vienna, 1884), and after founding, editing, and publishing the Allgemeine bsterreichische Literaturzeitung (Vienna) from 1884 to 1887, accepted the post of secretary and librarian to Count Alexandre Foucher de Careil, late French ambassador at Vienna. Going to Paris with the count, he became a member of the staff of the press bureau of the French Foreign Office. In 1894‑95, after residing for a time at Rome, he founded and edited at Paris La Vraie Parole to counteract Edouard Drumont's anti‑Semitic La Libre Parole. In 1895 he left Paris for the United States to publish The Encyclopedia of the History and Mental Evolution of the Jewish Race, which became The Jewish Encyclopedia (12 vola., New York, 1901‑05), of which he was managing editor. He has written Berlin, Wien and der Antisemitismus (Vienna, 1882); Presse and Judentum (1882); Sollen die Juden Christen werdenf (1884); Briefe beriihmter christlicher Zeitgenossen fiber die Judenfrage (1885); Auf derv Grabe meiner Mutter (Prague, 1888); Le Prestige de la France en Europe (Paris, 1889); La Question juive (1893); Anarchie et antisfitisme (1894); Der Juden Kampf ums Recht (New York, 1902); and Russia at the Bar of the American People (1904).

SINGLENESS OF HEART: Perhaps the most adequate rendering of the Greek haplotes, a word which occurs seven times in the New Testament and is variously translated in the English versions (Rom. xii. 8; II Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11, 13, xi. 3; Eph. vi. 5; and Col. iii. 22). The adjective haplous occurs Matt. vi. 22 and Luke xi. 34, and the adverb haplbs James i. 5.
As a Biblical‑theological conception, haplotes denotes a mood or condition of the religious‑ethical life which in natural life is near the idea expressed by nafvete, but is, however, a matter of moral selfdetermination (Matt. xviii. 3). The New‑Testament conception approaches very closely the classical use, but its use in the New Testament is to be explained from the fact that it served in Jewish Greek (Septuagint) as the translation of the Hebrew yosher and tom. The conception finds its real explanation in the fundamental view of the Evangelical announcement that the kingdom of God is the only highest good in such a way that all doubleheartedneas is excluded (Matt. vi. 33, 24, viii. 22,

443
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
x. 37‑39; Luke xi. 23; etc.). Thus singleness of heart stands in contrast with a condition of heart in which different tendencies exist side by side, the religious‑ethical disposition being interwoven with tendencies of the natural ego and thus obscured in its purity and deprived of its value which lies in its oneness and singularity (Matt. xxii. 37; 11 Cor. vi. 14 sqq.). Excluding the intermingling of different currents or tendencies, which destroy the compact unity of Christian character, singleness of heart in the religious sense denotes the entire uprightness, straightforwardness, and determination of the heart which in undivided receptivity accepts the grace of God as he offers it (Ps. cxix., cxxx.). In the ethical sense, singleness of heart denotes purity, soundness, and soberness of disposition by means of which the ethical action is the spontaneous outgrowth of love from faith. Self‑preservation in singleness of heart is a duty of the justified who will not fall back into the error of self‑redemption.
In dogmatics the conception has found its place under the conception of sanctification because of the peculiar constitution of the religious‑ethical consciousness, which must cling to the human cooperation with grace in order that the progress of the state of grace according to the essence of the Kingdom of God may take place in an ascending line. (L. LEMME.)

SWIM: The name of a region or a people mentioned in Ira. xlix. 12. The prophet announces in the context that Yahweh is about to gather his still scattered people from the places of their imprisonment. He then closes with the statement: " Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west [Hebr. miyyam, " from the sea"]; and these from the land of Sinim." Divergent views exist as to the interpretation of the thrice‑occurring " these." On first sight the meaning seems to be " these . . . , others . . . , and still others . . . ," i.e., three categories seem to be embraced. In that case, Nagelsbach's suggestion that the first " these " is general and is distributed by the second and third " these " does not comport with the text. It is to be noted that before the first and second cases comes the Hebrew word hinneh (rendered in the A. V. " Behold . . . lo," in the R. V. more correctly " Lo . . . to "). It can not be supposed that a third " to " has fallen out and that consequently the general statement " from far " is explained by the designation of special localities in what follows. Duhm and Marti propose to strike out the clause " from the north " and to substitute the sentence " and those from the ends of the earth," making four categories. But the junction in the text of " from the north and from the west " makes of this clause a joint description of one class of exiles‑i.e., those in the northwest, the land of Phenicia in its whole extent, Syria, Asia Minor, and the " isles " (Ira. xlix. 1), where since the sixth century prisoners had been sold (cf. Obad. 20). The prophet does not intend to name here four regions (for a case where four are mentioned cf. Ira. x1iii. 5‑6), but three, and to this threefold partition Greek and Aramaic translations, and so the best Jewish tradition, testify. Nor is Cheyne justified in
making miyyam here mean as an exception " from the South" (Prophecies of Isaiah, ii. 16, London, 1884).
In defining the expression " from far," one must realize that the spiritual center for the dispersed Israelites as well as the center of reference of the author of Ira. xl. aqq. was Palestine (cf. Ira. xl. 9, xlix. 14, Iii. 7). As compared with Assyria and Babylonia, the northwestern regions of Phenicia and Syria were relatively near. Since the transportation of captives from Israel and Judah were to the Tigris and Euphrates (II Kings xvii. 6, xxiv. 15; Tobit i. 10, 14), when one spoke of exiles the Hebrews in those regions came naturally to mind. The expression " from far " would naturally refer, therefore, to those regions. But the collocation of words in the text does not relate " from far " and " from the land of Sinim," which latter therefore did not lie in the most distant east or south. In locating Sinim one must remember the law of prophecy: prophets whose date can be surely fixed reveal a parallelism between prediction and history, and they name only such lands or peoples as are within the ken of those whom they address. Accordingly Sinim must refer to the inhabitants of Sin (q.v.), viz., the inhabitants of the region about Pelusium, of which Sin was the frontier fortress, the key, the entrance, and the emblem. To note the importance to the Hebrews of the region of which Sin was the beginning one need but remember Jer. xlii. 1 aqq. Moreover, it is to be remarked that expressions such as " the land of . . ." designate always a small district (Ira. ix. 1). With this interpretation agrees the construction of the Targum, Jerome, Rashi, David Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, Bochart, Ewald, and Bunsen. One may not correct the text and read Sewenim (with A. Klostermann in Deuterojesaia, Munich, 1893; T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to Isaiah, London, 1895; K. Marti, commentary on Isaiah, Tiibingen, 1900, and others), since Swnh (Ezek. xxix. 10) and Syn (Sin) (Ezek. xxx. 15) are different places in Egypt. [See remark under SIN, following signature.]
In accordance with the law of prophecy enunciated above, Sinim might refer to the Sinites of the Phenician coast (Gen. x. 17), only that these would be already included in the miyyam in the preceding clause. It would be possible also to think of the Kurdish clan Sin in the district of Kerkuk in the province of Bagdad suggested by Egli, provided the stock is really old enough and had significance for the hearers or readers of this prophecy; but in that case it would be natural to hear something of the exiles in that place, and the silence needs explanation. But this very law of prophecy does not encourage one to think of China. When this prediction was written there had been no emigration of Jews to China, and it was, in general, impossible for the author of the passage in question to have meant by Sinim the inhabitants of the Middle Kingdom. Authorities do not claim a settlement of Jews in China before the third century before Christ (EB, iv. 4644; JE, iv. 33‑34), and the tradition of the Chinese Jews carries their history in the country back to the Han dynasty (206 a.c. to 201 A.D.). Finally, were the region of China referred to in the passage, etymological considerations would lead

Sinker	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	444
Biz ertiolee
	one to look for a sibilant different from the one
which is found in the Hebrew word.
	(E. KOMG.)
	BIBmoa8AP8r: Discussions of the subject are to be found
	principally in the commentaries on Isaiah (see the bib
	liography under that article), especially those of Delitsach
	(3d ad., 1879, 4th ad., 1889). Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald
	NNgelebach, Cheyne, KSnig, Von Orelii (2d ad., 1904),
	Dillmann, Condamin, Marti (TObingen 1900) and Duhm
	(2d ad., Gbttingen, 1892). Also the Hebrew dictionaries,
	especially Gesenius, Thesaurus, pp. 948‑950, and Brown
	Briggs‑Driver, p. 896. Consult further: F. ion Rieht
	hofen. China, i. 436137, 504, Berlin, 1877, cf. Yule in
	Academy, xiii. 339; Egli, in ZWT, vi (1863), 400110;
	T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, p. 275,
	London, 1895; idem, Isaiah, in SBOT; DB, iv. 538; EB,
	iv. 4643‑44; JE, iv. 33; Jacobus, SBD, p. 817; G. P. ion
	Mdllendorf, Das Land Sinim, in Monotaechrift far Ge
	whichte and Wiesenxhaft des Jvdsnthums, mviii (1893).
	8‑9; E. KSnig, Hebr. and cram. Warterbuch. p. 300, Leip
sic, 1910.
	SINKER, ROBERT: Church of England; b. at
	Liverpool July 17, 1838. He was educated at Trin
	ity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1862; M.A., 1865),
	where he was chaplain from 1865 to 1871, having
	been curate of Coton, Cambridgeshire, in 1863‑66,
and librarian since 1871.	He has edited Testamenta
	duodecim patriarcharum on the basis of the Cam
	bridge and Oxford manuscripts (Cambridge, 1869),
	together with an appendix giving a collation of the
	Roman and Patmos codices (1879), and has trans
	lated the same document for The Ante‑Nicene 4i
	brary (Edinburgh, 1872), besides editing Bishop
	Pearson's Exposition of the Creed (Cambridge, 1882).
	He has written The Characteristic Differences be
	tween the Books of the New Testament and the imme
	diately Preceding Jewish and the immediately Succeed
	ing Christian Literature considered as an Evidence
	of the Divine Authority of the New Testament (Cam
bridge, 1865);	Catalogue of Fifteenth Century
	Printed Books in the Library of Trinity College
	(1876); Catalogue of English Books Printed before
	1601 in the Library of Trinity College (1885); Memo
	rials of the Hon. Ion Keith‑Falconer (London, 1888;
	new ed., 1903); The Psalm of Habakkuk: A revised
	Translation with exegetical and critical Notes ors the
	Hebrew and Greek Texts (Cambridge, 1890); The
	Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (1891); Heze
	kiah and his Age (London, 1897); Higher Criticism:
	What is it f (1899); Essays and Studies (Cambridge,
	1900); and Saul and the Hebrew Monarchy (London,
1904).
	SIRACH, WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF. See
ArocaxpaA, A, IV., 12.
	SIRICIUS, sf‑rish'ius: Pope 384‑398. He was
a Roman, and was chosen, in succession to Damasus,
Dec., 384, or Jan., 385. His pontificate has little
historical significance, except for the development
of the papacy. He regarded seriously his rights and
duties as overseer of the Church, demanded that
his decisions be preserved, and so prepared the way
for Innocent T. and Leo T. His first letter, Feb. 10,
385 (to Bishop Himerius of Tarragona in Spain),
dealt with the matter of converted Arians and the
observance of the early times for baptism, Easter,
and Whitsuntide, with various classes in the Church,
such as penitents, undisciplined monks, married
priests, and the like; a synod held at Rome Jan. 6,
386, dealt with matters of like purport. He also insisted upon compliance with canonical prescriptions in reference to filling bishoprics and admission to the ranks of the clergy. In regard to Illyria he fostered its relations to Thessalonia, intending through Illyria to hold open for himself a door to the East. In 390 or 392 he held a synod which excommunicated Jovinian and eight associates.
(A. HAuc$.)
BIBUOaaAPHT: The Epietoto end Decreta are in A. Gallandi, Bibliotheca eeterum patrum, vol. vii., 14 vole., Venice, 176581; in MPL, miff.; and F. C. P. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo Ieidariana, pp. 520 sqq., Leipeie, 1863. Consult: Liber pontificalea, ad. Mommsen, in MGH, Ged. pont. Ross., i (1898), 85‑86; Jaf, Rcgeeta, i. 40 Nqq., P. Hinschiue, Kirchenrecht, iii. 683, Berlin, 1882; G. Rauschen, Jahrbacher der chriaaichen Kirche unter Theodosius, p.197 et passim, Freiburg, 1897; Mirbt, QueUen, pp. 50‑51; Hefele, Concilienpeechichte, ii. 45 sqq., Eng. transl., ii. 385‑388, Fr. tranel., ii. 1, pp. 68‑75; Bower, Popes, i. 107‑126: Platina, Popes, i. 88‑92; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 119.
SIRMOND, demon, JACQUES: French Jesuit and one of the most noted of French Roman Cathotic scholars; b. at Riom (8 m. n. by e. of ClermontFerrand) Oct. 12, 1559; d. at Paris Oct. 16, 1651. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1576, and, after completing his studies and teaching for five years, was called, in 1590, to Rome, where for sixteen years he was secretary to the Jesuit general, Aquaviva, at the same time pursuing studies which enabled him to give great assistance to Baronius in the preparation of his Annales. In 1608 he returned to France, and on Feb. 22, 1612, was one of the Jesuits who declared themselves ready to follow the Sorbonne with reference to Gallicanism, He took part in the condemnation of Suarez, and in 1617 became rector of the Collbge Clermont at Paris, where he had already been for five years After 1637 he was confessor to Louis XIII., and in 1615 and 1645 revisited Rome to take part in the election of new generals of his order.
As an editor Sirmond was indefatigable, his work here including editions of Go, frfdi abbatis Vindocinenais epistolm, opuscula, ser»wnes (Paris, 1610); Ennodius (1611; the standard for more than two centuries); Flodoardi‑historic ecclesite Resismen (1611); Fulgentiua de veritate pradestinationis et gratilv (1612) and Librorum contra Fabianum excerpts (1643); Valeriani episcopi homilies viginti (1612); Petri Cellenaia epistolm (1613); Apollinaris Sidonius (1614); Paschasjus Radbertus (1618); Idatii chronicon et fasti cavsvlares (1619); Mareellini comitis Illyriciani chronicon (1619); Anastasii bibliothecarii eollectanea (1620); Faeundus episeopus Hermianensis pro defensione trium eapitulorum (1629); Sancti Augustini novi sermones quadraginta (1631); Theodoret (4 vols., 1642); Alcimus Avitus (1643; also a standard for over two hundred years); Hincmar of Reims (1645); and Theodulf of Orldaans (1646). Among his more independent works special mention may be made of the following: Pradestinatus (Paris, 1643) and Historic Prwde8tinatiana (1648); Appendix codicil Theodosiani novis constitutionibus cumulatior (1631; best ed. by G. Mind, Bonn, 1844); Concilia antiqua Gallic', cum epiatolis pontificum, pr$ncipum constitutionibus, et aliis Gallicanm ref ecclesiastics monimentis (3 vols.,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
'Se
1629; supplementary volume by P. Delalande, 1668); Antirrheticua de carwne Arauakarw (2 parts, 1633‑34); and the Historic ptenitentio; flca, item disquieitio de azynw (1651). His collected works were edited by J. de la Banns under the title Opera txiria rturec primum colleda (5 vole., Paris, 1698; enlarged ed., 5 vole., Venice, 1728).
(G. LAUBMANNt.)
Bn;nloaaerar: The funeral oration by H. Valeeius and a
short sketch of the life are included in vol. i. of the Opera. Consult further: A. de Backer and C. $ommervogel, BiblioVAque de la eompapnie de JEaua,vii. 1237‑81; Liehtenberger, ESIt, u. 819‑822.
SISEBUT, si's6‑but: Successor of Gundemar (Gunthemar) as king of the Visigoths; d. in 820. He ascended the throne in 612, and was an excellent ruler in moat respects, clement, just, and of a glowing religious devotion, distinguished also as an author and as a hero in war. He nevertheless won a dismal reputation as the first Spanish persecutor of the Jews.
Since the earlier periods of the Roman empire the Jews had been numerous in the Iberian peninsula, and were highly respected on account of their wealth. The Visigoths, tolerant as they were, maintained the public rights of the Jews during the entire Arian epoch. Recared the Catholic was the first to impose restrictions upon them, promulgating the prohibition against the circumcision of Christian slaves and the acquisition of them either by purchase or donation (Leges Yisigothoram, XII., 2, no. 12, ed. K. Zeumer in MGH, Leg. natiottum Germ., i. 305, Hanover, 1902). On these provisions Sisebut based his two notorious laws concerning the Jews, starting his anti‑Semitic campaign at the beginning of his reign (Legea Viaigothorum, XII., 2, 13‑14, pp. 30b309). As rightly interpreted by Dahn, his orders prescribe that Christian bondsmen of Jews should become Roman citizens and free by law, as should runaway Jewish servants who were willing to accept Christianity. Jews were not allowed to have as servants hired free men. Marriages between Jews and Christians were declared null and void. Isidore in his Historic Gothorum (issued in 824), while appreciating the pious intentions of his royal friend, objected to the mode of conversion employed. In fact, Sisebut's persecution went far beyond those restrictions. That there were many compulsory baptisms of Jews, there is no doubt, and so the third edict conjectured by Joat‑‑presumably without justification‑compelling them to choose between exile and baptism, is not necessary to explain the numerous departures of Jews from the country. Many sought refuge among the Franks.
With such a zealous ruler on the throne the Church was able to display far‑reaching activity, especially as to synodal matters. But with all his religious enthusiasm Siaebut was no " parsons' king," sometimes rather sharply taking the episcopate to task. In 615 he inaugurated the war of extermination against the Byzantine which he carried to a successful end. As a victor he proved humane enough to set the captured Byzsatines free and to dismiss them to their home country. (FRANZ GSRRas.)
Bisctoaasrst: Sources are. The Chroniea of Ieidore of
8evlle, ed. 5fommeen in MGM, Avd. ant., xi (1894). 479W, and ha Historic; Gotlwrum, in the same, pp. 291 eqq.;
the letters of Sieebut to Patricius Cesarius, ed• W. Gundlsoh in MGM, Epic.. iii (1892), 882‑67b; his hexameters, ed. G. Goets. Index schofarum Jenenaium, Jens, 188788; the " Chronicle " of Fredegsr, ed. B. Krueoh is MGM, Script. rer. Meros., ii (1888>. 133; and the Lqpu Viaipothortan antiquiorum, ad. K. Zeumer, pp. 30509, Hanever, 1894. Consult: F. I)abn, Die S6niye der Gsrmanen, vole. v.‑vi. passim, Leipeic, 1888; F. Games, is Z WT, al. 284‑29a, zli. 105‑111, slii. 27022, 942‑4b0, zlv. 41‑72. Also: J. M. Jost, Gem:hiehta der laraeliten, v. 110‑120, Berlin, 1825; J. Asehbach, Die Guchichte der Weatpoten. pp. 238‑241. Frankfort,. 1827; A. HelHerich, Wcdyotenliteht. pp. 88‑71, Berlin. 1888; P. B. Gams. Himhenge_ aehichte 3paniene, ii. 2. pp. 78‑x. 86‑90. 101. 3 vole., Regensburg, 1882‑79; K. Zeumer, in NA, z:vii (1902), 409‑944; Gibbon, Deelina and Fall, chap. uzw.: ADS, w. 418‑421; DCB, iv. 703‑704; end the literature on the dews in Spain and Portugal under Issszar„ Hlexox: or.
SISERA. See DEBORAH, 2.
SISIZYNIUS, ai‑ain'at‑us: The name of several persona of note in church history.
1. Pope, Jan. 18‑Feb. 8 (7Y), 708. He was a Syrian, and was ill when elected to the papal chair; and all recorded of him is that he made preparations for the restoration of the city wall.
B. The lfovtttian: Novatian bishop of Conetantinople. He studied with Julian under the philosopher Maximus; became a reader in the Novatian community, and in 395 bishop. Socrates (Hilt. eccl., Y., a., alti., VT., axi., Eng. tranal., NPNF, 2 aer., ii. 123, 129, 152, 158) notes his literary activity, especially in his work on penitence against Chryaostom, and one against the Messalians.
8. Sisinnius of Constantinople: Orthodox bishop of that city 426‑X27. He is mentioned by Socrates (Hid. eccl., VIL, xxviii., Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 eer., ii. 168‑169).
4. Patriarch of Constantinople, 995‑999. He wrote on the marriage law, and also an encyclical for the eastern bishops on the procession of the Holy Spirit. (A. HAUCH.)
Brsrroaxerar: On 1: Mann, Popes, i. 124‑128; Bower, Pop‑, ii. 14; Plstim. Pope#, i. 175. On 2‑4: DCB, iv. 704‑70b.
SISTERHOODS Se DEACONE86, IIL, 2; MoNASTICIaM; WOMEN, CONaREOATION$ OF; and WOMEN's WORK n1 Tea Ctlvxca.
SISTERS OF CHARITY. See Casarry, SI9rER8 OF.
SISTERS OF MERCY. See 11faacy, SISTERS OF.
SIX ARTICLES, ACT OF THE: An act of the English parliament, dated June 28, 1539, marking a departure from Protestant principles. It imposed upon the English people the doctrines of transubstantiation under penalty of death by burning and confiscation of goods; depravation of the sacrament subjected to the same penalty; claims in behalf of communion in both kinds, and breaking of the vows of celibacy were felonies punishable with death; clerical marriages were dissolved; and special commissions were to be issued quarterly for the enforcement of the provisions of the act. The measure was in part political, aiming to prevent action against the king, Henry VIII., on the part of continental Roman Catholic powers. While the law was severe, executions were few under it. It was modified in 1544 and repealed in 1547. The

Six‑Principles	lea Baptists
Skinner, John
text is given in Gee and Hardy, Documents, pp.
313‑320.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Overton, The Church in England, i.
	390, 395, London, 1897; J. Gairdner, The English Church
	in the 19th Century, passim, ib. 1903; A. Plummer, Eng
	lish Church History (1608‑76). pp. 80‑81, 84, 805, Edin‑
burgh, 1965.
SIX‑PRINCIPLES BAPTISTS. See BAPT1sTs, II., 4 (a).
SIXTUS: The name of five popes.
	Sixtus L : Pope in the reign of Hadrian (Li
berian Catalogue) and successor of Alexander (ac
cording to the papal lists). But the monarchical
constitution of the Church was not introduced into
Rome before the middle of the second century,
therefore Sixtus must be regarded as a presbyter
whose name went on the records because he was a
martyr. 	(A. HAucs.)
BrswoGSSrur: Inter pantsficalis, ed. Mommsen in MGH,
	!lest. Pont. Rom., i (1898), 98‑100; Bower, Popes, i. 11;
	Plating, Popes. i. 22‑24; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 250.
	Sixtus IL: Pope 257‑258. He restored the
communion between the Roman and African
churches which had been broken off in the pontifi
cate of his predecessor, Stephen I. (q.v.), in the
strife over the baptism of heretics. He fell a martyr
in the Valerian persecution, Aug. 8, 258. The later
reports are mingled with legendary elements. The
length of his pontificate is differently given in dif
ferent sources. Harnack (T U, xiii. 1) regards him
as the author of the pseudo‑Cyprianic writing Ad
Novatianum, though his view has not found general
acceptance. He is right, however, if the question
is concerning the authorship of a composition written
at Rome, 253‑258, for no other person of the period
is likely as author. 	(A. HAUC%.)
BreLjoORAPBY: R. A. Lipsius, Chronolopie der remiachan Bischdje, p. 213, Leipsie, 1889; J. Laogen, GeaAichte der r6mixhen Kirche, i. 347, Bonn, 1881; Harnaek, TU, xiii. 1 (1895), 1 aqq., xx. (1901), 118 sqq.; idem, Litteratw, ii. 2, pp. 190 aqq., 387 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i. 34‑35; Platina, Popes, i. 53‑55.
Sixtus IIL : Pope 432‑140. He was consecrated July 31, 432; was in office during the Nestorian and Pelagian controversies, but bad little interest in Christological questions, and was concerned chiefly in restoring peace between Cyril and the Syrians. In reference to Pelagianism he was opposed to Julian of Eclanum. He maintained the rights of the pope over Illyria and the position of the archbishop of Thessalonica as head of the Illyrian church. His biography mentions the building (enlargement) of the churches of St. Lorenzo and of St. Maria Maggiore and of rich gifts secured for both churches and for St. Peter's and the Lateran basilica. (A. HAucg.)
BrBLrooSAPwT: Liter pontifecaiie, ed. Mommaen in MGH, (lest. Pont. Rom., i (1898), 98, ed. L. Duchesne, i. p. cxxvi., Paris, 1888; Jafft;, Repesta, i. 57; J. Langen, Gesehichte der romisehen Kirche, i. 387, Bonn, 1881; F. Gregorovius. Hiet. of the City of Rome, i. 184‑185, London, 1894; Bower, Popes. i. 186‑189; Platina, Popes, i. 103‑105.
Sixtus IV. (Francesco della Rovers): Pope 14711484. He was born in the vicinity of Savona (23 m. w. of Genoa) in 1414; entered the Franciscan order; studied in Pavia and Bologna, and obtained the doctor's degree at Padua. In 1484 he became general of his order; in 1487, cardinal, with the
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
448
title of S. Pietro in Vincoli. He passed not only for a learned theologian, but was also an unscrupulous autocrat, never embarrassed on the score of means. When he ascended the papal throne in 1471, he first rewarded Cardinals Orsini and Borgia, to whom he owed his election; and then endowed his nephews with dignities and benefices. The one, Giuliano, obtained bishoprics, pretends, and the cardinal's rank, in quick succession. The other, Pietro Riario, was endowed still more affluently, and became noted for his prodigality with the wealth of the Church. After Pietro's death in 1474, the pope diverted his favors to Pietro's brother, Girolamo; and in 1480 appointed him " captain general " of the Church, and made two other nephews cardinals.
	The existing situation laid a double task on the
pope: on the one side, the adjustment of affairs in
the East and protection against the Turks; on the
other side, the strengthening of the papal political
power. Sixtus discharged the first of these tasks
piecemeal, sending auxiliary funds to the Venetians.
In the other direction, he made effectual use of his
nephews, weakening the feudal lords of the Papal
States, while he kept creating new complications in
the territorial policy of the Italian states and thus
extended his own power (cf. F. Gregorovius, History
of the City of Rome, book xiii. 3, London, 1900). A
typical instance of his procedure appears in the
conspiracy set afoot, with his acquiescence, by the
Pazzi in Florence against Lorenzo the Magnificent
in 1478. The assassins overpowered and killed their
victim, Giuliano de' Medici, at high mass, but
Lorenzo escaped. The news of the miscarriage of
the plot put Sixtus in a rage and he sequestered all
Florentine possessions in the Papal States of the
Church, and declared war on the republic; peace
was concluded only in view of the new Turkish
war, 1480. On the death of Mohammed II. in the
following year, his intrigues turned upon Italy again,
in order to widen the dominion of Girolamo, whose
portion already embraced Imola and Forli, by the
addition of Ferrara. This fell through, but a bloody
war with the barons in the Papal States ensued.
Sixtus died Aug. 12, 1484, before matters were con
cluded. 	K. BENRATH.
Brsraoaseray: Pastor, Popes, iv. 197 aqq. (exhaustive);
	Creighton, Papacy, iv. 84‑134; Muratori, Scriptores, ii.,
	p. iii., cola. 1071 aqq.; W. Roscoe, Life of Lorew the Mag
	nificent, 2 vole., new ed., London, 1878; J. Burchard,
	Diarium, ed. L. Thumne, i. 1‑18, Paris, 1883, Eng. tranal.,
	Diary of John Burohard, pp. 1‑15, London, 1910; S.
	Infessum, Diario della Citth di Roma, ed. Tommassini, pp.
	75‑283, Rome, 1890; J. Burekhardt, Geschichte der Renais
	sance in Italien, ed. H. Holtzinger, Stuttgart, 1904; Bower,
	Popes, iii. 238‑254; Schaff, Christian Church, v. 2, § 52.
Sixtus V. (Felice Peretti): Pope 1585‑1590. He was born at Grottamare (1 m. s. of Ancona) Dec. 13, 1521; received his education at the neighboring Franciscan cloister in Montalto; and soon became a favorite preacher. During the times of Julius III. he was in Rome, and won the attachment of Philip Neri (q.v.) and of Michele Ghislieri, afterward Pope Pius V. After he had been regent of his order's cloisters in Siena, Naples, and Venice, where he also represented the holy office before the senate, he was recalled to Rome as the order's procurator‑general. Pius V. made him bishop of Fermo, and created him a cardinal in 1570. But the succeeding pope, Greg

447
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Six‑Principles fVtists Skinner, John
cry XIII., kept him remote from affairs. During this period the increase of his collection of books was his absorbing pursuit in the beautiful villa on the Esquiline, which he exchanged in 1585 for the papal palace. When the election was settled, he surprised the constituency of the Church by showing himself the ruler born.
In the first place, Sixtus restored personal security and order in the Papal States. Within two years he exterminated brigandage, suppressing it with stern hand and by frequent executions. He also gave attention to the ordering of the civil administration and finances, terminated wastefulness and peculation, and within three years deposited three million crowns in Castle Saint Angelo as a prudeptial fund in event of need. Ultimately, however, he expended the sums acquired upon imposing public structures. Thus he had massive creations in stone achieved by the ingenious architect Domenico Fontana; whence the Rococo style came to dominate in Roman architecture for more than 100 years. His principal achievements in this line were the Via Sistina, and the Square of the Lateran. Moreover, Rome owes to this pope the restoration of one of the great aqueducts (named after him, Aqua Felice). Sixtus also left his footprints in the domain of ecclesiastical organization and administration; he found already in operation the still effective division of the governing boards as " congregations," whose number he increased to fifteen. Since the appointment of cardinals as members or as chairmen of the congregations had to emanate exclusively from the pope, the matter was duly provided that no opinions or decisions should be put forth which might contradict the general trend of papal policy. The administration of the city of Rome Sixtus concentrated in his own grasp, except for some few remnants of communal independence. Things took the same course in the remaining cities of the Papal States, and it was carefully provided that all significant positions came into the hands of ecclesiastics.
	It is remarkable how Sixtus, who was inflexible
in his own ecclesiastical and political policy, showed
diplomatic pliancy even to the extent of wavering
and indecision in dealing with other states. Thus
Venice was able to enforce collection of tithes from
the orders, as from the secular clergy. With Spain,
despite the pope's yielding in the question of his
feudal claims to Sicily, the situation came to open
rupture because Sixtus declined to pay the 700,000
crowns promised toward equipment of the Great
Armada on the ground that no landing was made
on the English coast. So with Henry IV., the pope's
continual changes so angered the king that he
threatened openly to retract his obedience. Prior
to a decision, Sixtus was overtaken by death, Aug.
27, 1590. 	K. BEN11AT8.
BIHLIOa$AP87: The sources are Muminatingly discussed in
	Ranks, Popes, iii. 200‑257, including the lives by G. Led,
	2 vole., Lausanne, 1869, and C. Tempeeti, Rome, 1755,
	and a considerable number of documents. The account
	by Ranks, Popes, i. 34 aqq., is the best for the reader of
	English. The British Museum cataiopue has an interest
	ing list of documents under " Rome, Church of, Popes,
	Sixtus V." Consult further. J. Dumeenil, Riot. do Sixte.
	Quint Paris. 1889 J A. H6bner Sixse‑Quint, 3 vole.,
	ib. 1870; A‑ von Reumont, GosakkAte der &adt $o=., iii.
584 eqq., Berlin, 1878; G. Goaaadini, t3. Pepoli a Sido V,, Bologna, 1879; M. Brooch. Geschichte des Kirchenataates, vol. i.. chap. vii., Gotha, 1880; L. Capranica. Papa Sido, a vols.. Milan. 1884; 1. Rsulieh, in Nuoroo Archivio Venda. iv (1892); Bower, Popes, iii. 322‑325.
SSALSKY, GUSTAV ADOLF: Austrian‑Hungarian theologian; b. at Opatovice near Czaslau (45 m. ex.e. of Prague), Bohemia, Mar. 13, 1857. He received his education at the gymnasium in Teschen, the University of Vienna under the Protestant Evangelical Faculty (D.D., 1898), and the University of Erlangen; served as pastor in Khmov, Bohemia, and Lhota in Moravia, till 1896, when he became a member of the Protestant Evangelical Theological Faculty in the University of Vienna, lecturing on pastoral theology and Austrian Protestant church law. He has been active not only in the lines of his teaching work, but in labors for the benefit of the Czechs and Slovacs in Vienna and also in connection with the organization of the Young Men's Christian Association in Austria. His theological standpoint is that of the New Lutheran Erlangen school, so far as its position is applicable to conditions in Austria. Besides a considerable number of works in the Czech language, he has issued Zur Geachichte der evangelischen Kirehenverfasaung in Oeaterreich bis zum Toleranzpatents (Vienna, 1898); Zur Reform des oesterreichiachen Eherechta (1906); Der oerterreichiache Staat and die evangelische Kirche im Oeaterreich in ihrem mechaelaeitigen Verh4ltnis 18.¢8‑61 (1908); and J. A. Comeniua ale Reforn>alor der Erziehung and der Schule (1908); and has edited a number of important papers bearing on the early history of the Unity of the Brethren.
SKEAT, skit, WALTER WILLIAM: Church of England; b. at London Nov. 21, 1835. He was educated at Christ's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1858; M.A., 1861), and was curate at East Dereham, Norfolk (1860‑62), and Godalming, Surrey (1863‑64). He was mathematical lecturer at Christ's College (1863‑71), and English lecturer (1867‑83), while since 18,78 he has been Elrington and Bosworth professor of Anglo‑Saxon in the University of Cambridge. In 1873 he founded the English Dialect Society, and was its president till 1896. He is best known as an editor of Angle‑Saxon and Early English Texts, and among his works those of theological interest include his editions of Langland's Piers Plowman (2 vols., London, 1867‑84); Joseph of Arimathwa (1871); The Four Gospels in AngloSaxon and Northumbrian (4 rook., Cambridge, 18711887); Wyclife'e New Testament (Oxford; 1879); EIfrie's Lives of the Saints (4 vols., London, 18811900); The Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic (Oxford, 1882); The Complete Works of Geoffrey chaucer (London, 6 vola., 1894); and the Proverbs of Alfred (1907).
SKMRER, JOHN: The name of two Scotch divines. ,
1. Scotch Episcopal;‑ b. at Longside (27 m. n. of Aberdeen), Scotland, May 17, 1744; d. at Aberdeen July 18, 1816. He; received his higher education at Marischal College, Aberdeen; served as private tutor, 1761‑63; was ordained deacon, 1763, and priest, 1764; took charge of the congregations of

Slavery
Slavery	THE NEW $CHAFF‑HERZOG	448
Ellon and Udny, Aberdeenshire, 1764; was appointed to the Longacre congregation, Aberdeen, 1775; was consecrated coadjutor to the bishop of Aberdeen, 1782, succeeding to the bishopric, 1786, and being elected primus, 1788. His significance rests on two facts: (1) he was active in the transmission of the Scotch episcopal succession in America, having part in the consecration of Samuel Seabury (q.v.; also see PROTESTANT EP1sCOPALuNs, I., § 2); (2) also in the ending of the non‑juring Scotch schism. He presided at the synod at Aberdeen April 24, 1788, which resolved to pray for George III. as king, and later visited London in the interest of his church. He published A Course of Lectures (Aberdeen, 1786); A Layman's Account of his Faith (Edinburgh, 1801); and Primitive Truth and Order Vindicated (Aberdeen, 1803).
English Presbyterian; b. at Inverurie (14 m. n.w. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenshire, Scotland, July 18, 1851. He was educated at the University of Aberdeen (M.A., 1876), Free Church College, Aberdeen (1876‑77), New College, Edinburgh (1877‑80), and the universities of Leipsic (1876) and G6ttingen (1877). He was Hebrew tutor at New College, Edinburgh (187980); held Free Church ministries at St. Fergus, Banffshire (1880‑86), and Kelso, Roxburghahire (1886‑90); and since 1890 has been professor of Hebrew and apologetics in Westminster College (the theological college of the Presbyterian Church of England), Cambridge, England. He has written Historical Connection between the Old arid New Testaments (Edinburgh, 1899); and has edited Ezekiel for The Expositor's Bible (London, 1895); Isaiah for The Cambridge Bible for Schools (2 vols., Cambridge, 1896‑98); and Genesis for the International Critical Commentary (1910).
SgIRNER, THOMAS HARVEY: Presbyterian pastor and educator; b. near Harvey's Neck, N. C., Mar. 7, 1791; d. at New York Feb. 1, 1871. He was graduated from Princeton College, 1812; was copastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, 1812‑16; then pastor of the Arch Street Church, same city, 1816‑32; professor of sacred rhetoric at Andover, 1832‑35; pastor of the Mercer Street PresbyterianChurchNewYork, 1835‑40; and professor of sacred rhetoric and pastoral theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1848‑71. He wrote Aids to Preaching arid Hearing (1839), Hints to Christians (1841), Life of Francis Markoe (1849), Discussions in Theology (1868); he also translated and edited Vinet's Pastoral Theology and Homiletics (1854). Dr. Skinner was a leader in the New School branch of the Presbyterian Church, a preacher of great spiritual power, an able theologian, and a pattern of saintly goodness.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. L. Prentiss, A Discourse in Memory of T. H. Skinner, New York, 1871; idem, The Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York: hisWrical and biographical Skdchea of its first fifty Years, ib. 1889; idea, The Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, its Demon and another Decade of its History, ib. 1899.
SKOPTZL See RUSSIA, II., 1 5.
S113tEFSRUD, akrefs'ridd, LARS OLSEN: Norwegian missionary to India; b. at Faaberg (84 m. n. of Christiania), Norway, Feb. 4, 1840; d. at Benagaria, near Ebenaer, India, Dec. 11, 1910. On
account of poverty he was unable to attend the
gymnasium, but by application he acquired a remark
able education, being gifted with the ability to use
about forty‑five languages. He attended Proch
now's missionary training‑school in Berlin, gradua
ting after a period of brilliant achievements; he
was then sent by the Gosaner society to Purulia,
India, but friction arose with the German members
of the mission, and Skrefsrud sundered his connec
tion and established in 1867 the Santhal mission,
which became in many ways a model. In the
interest of the mission he several times visited
Europe, first in 1873‑74, when his lectures resulted
in the formation of the first European Santhal mis
sion committees; in 1881‑83, when he was ordained
by the Church of Norway; and in 1894‑9a, this
time also visiting America. His contributions to
linguistics were notable and numerous; among them
may be mentioned A Grammar of the Santhal
Language (Benares, 1873); Santhal‑English and
English‑Santhal Lexicon (material completed in
1904 after a period of preparation covering thirty
five years); and a translation of the Bible into
Santhal‑one of the most difficult languages
known. 	JOHN O. EvJEN.

SLATER, WILLIAM FLETCHER: English Methodist; b. at Uttoxeter (30 m. n. of Birmingham), Staffordshire, Aug. 25, 1831. He was educated at Wesleyan College, Didsbury (graduated 1855), and the University of Cambridge (B.A., 1875), and held successive pastorates in his denomination at Allendale (1855r58), Newcastle‑on‑Tyne (1858‑60), Glossop (1860‑63), Sunderland (1863‑66), Harrogate (1866‑69), Barnsley (186972), Cambridge (18721875), Leeds (1875‑78), Edinburgh (1878‑81), Liverpool (1881‑$4), and London (1884‑87). From 1887 to 1903, when he retired from active life, he was professor of Biblical languages in Wesleyan College, Didsbury. In theology he is an Evangelical Arminian, and has written: Religious Opportunities of the Heathen before Christ (Sunderland, 1866); Methodism in the Light of the Early Church (Fernley lecture; London, 1885); Faith and Life in the Early Church (1892); the Gospel of Matthew in The Century Bible (1900); and Limitations, Divine arid Human (1906).
SLATTERY, CHARLES LEWIS: Protestant Episcopal; b. at Pittsburg Dec. 9, 1867. He received his education at Harvard University (B.A., 1891) and the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass. (B.D., 1894); was made deacon, 1894, and priest, 1895; was master of Groton School and rector of St. Andrew's, Ayer, Mass., 1894‑96; dean of the cathedral of Our Merciful Savior, Faribault, Minn., 1896‑1907; rector of Christ Church, Springfield, Mass., 1907‑10; and became rector of Grace Church, New York City, 1910. He was also lecturer in Seabury Divinity School, Faribault, Minn., 1905‑07, and in Berkeley Divinity School, 190910. He is the author of Felix Reville Brunot (New York, 1901); Edward Lincoln Atkinson (1904); The Master of the World; a Study of Christ (1906); Life Boyond Life; a Study of Immortality (1907); The Hiatoric Ministry and the Present Christ; an Appeal for Unity (1908); and Presen4Day Preaching (1909).

449
1. Slavery among the Hebrews.
Status of Hebrew Slaves (§ 1).
Sources of Supply ($ 2).
Value of Slaves; Duration of Servitude (§ 3).
Legal Position and Rights (§ 4). II. Slavery and Christianity.
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
SLAVERY.

Extent of Grew‑Roman Slavery ($ 1).
Status end Treatment of Grec:o‑Roman Slaves (§ 2).
Slavery and the Early Church ($ 3).
The Medieval Church and Slavery (§ 4).
European Slavery in the Middle Ages
I. Slavery Among the Hebrews: Slavery existed among the Jews throughout their national life, although this servitude was one neither of debasement nor of cruelty. In patriarchal times the servants, together with the cattle, formed a por‑
><. Status tion of the estate of the head of the of Hebrew family or tribe (Gen. xxiv. 35, xxvi. 14;
	Slaves.	Job. i. 3), and there was, accordingly, a
		traffic in slaves (Gen. xxxvii. 28),
which was actively carried on by the Phenicians.
The rich nomad chiefs owned numerous slaves,
Abraham having 318 that were " born in his house,"
i.e., hereditary property (Gen. xiv. 14); and slaves
were also purchased (Gen. xvii. 23, 27). The female
servants seem to have been the especial property
of the wife or daughter, and to have been given as
concubines to the husband (Gen. xvi. 1 sqq., xxix.
24, etc.). The slaves " born in the house " were, in
general, devoted to the family, and some had the
entire confidence of their masters (cf. Gen. xv. 2‑3).
Even in the nomad period these servants were not
mere chattels, and the fact that the rite of circum
cision was performed on servants born in the house,
as well as on those obtained by purchase, indicates
that they were received as members of the same
race, and as such had religious rights and duties.
In the national period the traditional legal principles
were observed, as in the Babylonian code of Ham
murabi, although the latter lacked to some degree
the ethical and religious spirit that, from the time
of Moses, exercised its more humane influence on
the Jewish law. The Mosaic idea that the whole
Tsraelitish race had been in slavery in Egypt, and,
being freed from the house of bondage by Yahweh
(e.g., Ex. xx. 2; Deut. v. 6), had now become his
servants and property, led to the inference that,
being his own, they would never again become
the servants of a stranger (Lev. xav. 42, 55, xxvi.
13); while the recollection of their harsh treat
ment in slavery taught them to be considerate
and humane to their servants (Deut. v. 15, xv. 15).
With the development of national consciousness,
however, the law distinguished between bondser
vants of Israelitiah stock and aliens (cf. Lev.
xxv. 39‑46), though practise may have been less
rigorous than theory.
Slavery was, throughout Jewish history, one of the consequences of war, and as warriors were more apt to be killed than taken prisoners, the majority of captives were women, especially
s. Sources virgins, who were the prize booty of
	of Supply.	military and predatory expeditions
		(Gen‑ xi‑. 12; Judges v. 30; II Kings
v. 2; Deut. xx. 14, xxi. 10 sqq.; etc.). Many pris
oners of war were sold in foreign lands (Joel iii. 4, 6;
Amos i. 6), and many were bought by the Israelites .
from traveling Phenician merchants.
	X.‑29	Alien settlers i
Skinner Slavery
Slavery in America (¢ 8).
The Philosophical Attack on Slavery

The Christian Attack; abolition of Slave Trade (§ 8).
Attitude of Religious Bodies ($ 9).
in the land were also liable to come into bondage, and the Canaanitish population gradually became the slaves of the Hebrews, especially in the regal period. After the exodus, slaves of foreign stock were employed in lower menial capacities in the camp and in the sanctuary, thus ultimately giving rise to the Nethinim (see LEVi, LEVITEa, § 3). Both David and Solomon employed non‑Israelitic slaves in public works, the latter monarch having 153,600 of these bondsmen (I Kings ix. 20 sqq.; II Chron. ii. 17‑18). It was a capital crime unlawfully to deprive a man of his liberty and to sell him (Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7; cf. the Code of Hammurabi, §14). On the other hand, a thief caught in the act was to be sold into slavery unless he could make restitution (Ex. xxii., 3). Tradition forbade, however, the selling of a thief into foreign slavery, so that Herod's law requiring such sale (Josephus, Ant., XVL, i. 1) was a serious infringement of hereditary legal custom. It was usually abject poverty and insolvency that entailed the loss of freedom (cf. Lev. xxv. 39, 47 aqq.), and in such a case a man might sell his own daughter. The regulations of the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxi. 7‑11) apply only to a daughter sold to be the concubine or wife of the buyer or his son, and expressly protect her rights as a member of the family; but Deut. xv. 12 sqq. distinctly refers to female slaves. The law does not specify whether a father may sell his son, but he doubtless did so, in case of poverty, rather than sacrifice his own freedom. A Jewish creditor might seize both the family and the person of his debtor, and sell him (Amos ii. 6, viii. 6; II Kings iv. 1; cf. Isa. 1. 1; Neh. v. 5;
I	Matt. xviii. 25), though this was not sanctioned in
	the Pentateuch.
	A slave's	value depended on sex, age, health,
capacity for work, and the relation between supply
and demand. Thirty silver shekels was the average
damages for the death of a slave, whether male or
female (Ex. xei. 32), and some indication of the
		value of slaves may perhaps be
3. Value gained from the scale given in Lev. of Slaves; xxvii. 2 sqq. for those desiring to be Duration of released from their vows to serve in the
	Servitude.	sanctuary: for a boy between one
		month and five years old, five shekels,
and for a girl three shekels; for a male between five
and twenty years old, twenty shekels, and for a female ten; for a man between twenty and sixty years old, fifty shekels, and for a woman thirty. for a man over sixty years old, fifteen She1Ce15, and for 3
woman ten. The price for captive Jews, 120 drachmas a head, is almost the same average (Josephus, Ant., XII., ii. 3). The duration of bondage was limited only in the case of Israelitish slaves, who were never absolutely to lose their freedom, unless they definitely refused to accept it (Ex. xxi. 1‑11;

Slavery ,.	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	450
Deut. xv. 12‑18; Lev. xxv. 39‑55). An Israelite could buy a fellow Hebrew, whether male or female,. for six years only, and in the seventh year must let the slave go free, a rule which probably applied also to those sold into slavery for theft (cf. Josephus, Ant., XVI., i. 1). On the other hand, a gentile woman given to such a slave as a wife had no claim to freedom, and the offspring of the pair were also held in bondage. In the year of jubilee an Israelite slave was to be set free, together with his children (Lev. xxv. 39 aqq.), but if these were born of a gentile mother, they, like her, must remain in slavery (Ex. xxi. 4). The Hebrew slave of a gentile master should also be freed in the year of jubilee, although he should previously be redeemed, if possible, by his family or kindred, his price being reckoned according to Lev. xxv. 50 aqq.
Bondservants were better treated by the Hebrews than were those of ancient Greece and Rome, or even Phenicia and Babylonia. At the same time Mosaic law made a distinction between Hebrew slaves and those of alien birth, priestly legislation especially considering a Hebrew bondman not as a " bondservant," but as a " hired servant " (Lev. xxv. 3940, 46). While he was not to be compelled to do
work that was too severe, or unworthy 4. Legal of a man, this falling to the lot of the
Position alien, all slaves, without exception, and Rights. benefited by the Sabbath law. Fur‑
thermore, both those slaves who had been born in bondage and also, as a rule, those who were acquired by purchase were circumcised, thus being received among the people of Yahweh, and so possessing the privilege of sharing in the religious feasts, especially in the Passover (Ex. xii. 44; Deut. xii. 12, 18, xvi. 11, 14). If a slave had been circumcised, he could never be sold to a gentile. While it was permissible to discipline a slave (cf. Prov. xxix. 19, 21; Ecclus. xxxiii. 24 eqq.), cruelty to slaves was punished, not simply by compensating the master for injury done to his slave, as in Babylonia (cf. Code of Hammurabi, J§ 199, 219), but by enacting that a master who seriously injured his slave, whether male or female, must manumit the slave in question without receiving compensation (Ex. xxi. 26‑27). A master had no power over the life of his servant, and if he struck his slave with a rod and he died under his hand the servant should be avenged (Ex. xxi. 20‑21); but if the slave survived his punishment for a day or two, no notice was taken, the money loss caused his master by his death being deemed a sufficient penalty. However, according to tradition, if the master used a deadly instrument in chastisement he incurred the death penalty, even though the slave did not die for some time; and tradition likewise held that, should a third person kill or wound a slave, he should be punished as though he had injured a freeman. The status of Israelitish female slaves who were to become part of the immediate family is set forth in Ex. xxi. 7‑11; and it is also provided that a gentile prisoner of war should have a month to mourn her kinsfolk before being married to her captor (Deut. xxi. 10‑14). Respect for the rights of a slave was considered a divine ordinance from very early times (Job xxxi. 13‑15), and to the present day the lot of the slaves
of the Semitic Mohammedans is a very tolerable
one. In ancient Judaism, however, the Essence and
Therapeuta; alone rejected all slavery, since they
regarded the system as irreconcilable with the
brotherhood of all mankind, and consequently as
unnatural. 	(C. VON ORELLI.)
II: Slavery and Christianity: The problem of the influence of Christianity on slavery has been profoundly modified by the researches of economic history concerning the origin, nature, extent, character, and abolition of bondage, so that, rejecting the older view that the suppression of slavery was caused entirely by Christianity, many now hold that this abolition was a purely economic process in which religion had no part. Equally
r. Extent problematical is the precise state of
of Greco‑ affairs confronting Christianity when
Roman	it came to confront slavery, for the
	Slavery.	extent of the system in antiquity is now
		underrated as much as it was formerly
exaggerated. In Greece the climax was reached at
the close of the Persian wars, when a single rich
Athenian could lease a thousand slaves for the Thra
cian mines; and in Rome the system was most flour
ishing at the close of the Republic and the beginning
of the Empire, when at Delos, the chief market, tens
of thousands of slaves were sold daily. The majority
of these were employed in agriculture and manufac
turing, although the Romans availed themselves of
household slaves to a greater extent than the Greeks,
who preferred financial gain to luxury. At the same
time, the freeman was never entirely superseded by
the slave, least of all in the provinces (cf. for Pales
tine, Matt. xx. 1 aqq.; Mark i. 20; Luke xv. 17),
even though cheapness made slave labor predomi
nant in estates, mines, quarries, factories, and the
handicrafts and trades of the great cities.
The status and the treatment. of slaves varied at different times and places as greatly as their numbers. In the patriarchal conditions of the earliest times the slave, generally a prisoner of war, belonged to the family and was treated accordingly. In Greece slaves enjoyed much liberty even later, especially at Athens; but in Rome
s. Status rigid severity was the rule, particularly and in large establishments where cruel Treatment overseers, mostly belonging originally
of Greco‑ to the servile class, intervened between
Roman	master and slave (cf. Matt. xxiv. 49).
	Slaves.	While, moreover, the slaves seldom
		worked in fetters, punishments to in
sure obedience and to prevent escape were so cruel as
to cause terrible insurrections. It is true that many
slaves fared better than freemen, but even here any
day might bring a change of masters, and though
the slave had many safeguards, he was still, legally
speaking, only a chattel, exposed to every caprice
of his owner. His possession of moral qualities was
ignored; he might at any time be torn from his
family; and he could give testimony only under
torture; yet in religious matters he seems to have
enjoyed liberty. The ancient world never escaped
the antinomy of regarding the slave as at once a per
son and a thing. Plato considered him a creature
of a lower order of being, only semi‑rational, this view
perhaps being colored.by the fact that most slaves

461	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	slavery
were barbarians; while Cato reckoned slaves as farm implements. Toward the end of the Roman Republic the status and treatment of slaves changed partly under the influence of Greece and the superior culture of the Greek slaves, and partly through the Stoic doctrine of the equality of all men. Hadrian deprived the master of the right to put his slave to death and allowed him to be tried kas he always had been at Athens) in the courts; and Marcus Aurelius even permitted slaves to lodge complaints against their masters in certain cases, while manumission was made increasingly easy. In all this, however, there is no demonstrable trace of either Christian or Jewish influence, the real operative force being that of Greece. At the same time, the ancient world never dreamed of a society without slaves, except as a sort of Utopia or as a reminiscence of the golden age, which the Roman Saturnalia and similar slave festivals in Athens, Cydonia, etc., sought to typify, and the Essenes, Therapeutm, and such Gnostic sects as that of the Carpocratian Epiphanes to realize.
With such tendencies as these Christianity had nothing in common. It simply accepted slavery as a necessary constituent of ancient civilization, nor is there the slightest evidence that it either condemned slavery as a principle or sought to abolish it. In his parables Christ presupposed the natural relations of master and slave (Matt. xviii.
3. Slavery 23 aqq., xxv. 14 sqq.; Mark xiii. 34;
and the Luke xii. 42 sqq., xvii. 7 aqq.); and Early Paul expressly declared that Christian‑
	Church.	ity made no change in existing condi
		tions, and that he who was a slave
ought to remain one, even were freedom offered
him (I Cor. vii. 21; cf. also the attitude assumed
toward Onesimus in Philemon 16). All the gentile
Christian communities contained large numbers of
slaves (cf. Rom. xvi. 10‑11; I Cor. i. 11; Phil. iv.
22), although these communities were far from con
sisting predominantly of bondmen. There were also
Christian masters, as is clear from the admonitions
in Eph. vi. 9; Col. iv. 1; I Tim. vi. 2 (cf. Clement of
Alexandria, Pxdagogm, III., iv. 26, xi. 73, xii. 84;
Chrysostom, Hom. on I Cor. xl. 6). Of the conditions
in Judeo‑Christian households little is known (cf.
Acts xii. 13). The Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 62)
enumerate the purchase of a slave among the neces
sities of life which justify a Christian in visiting the
marketplace; the Acts of Thomas represent the
apostle as the slave whom Christ sells to a king of
India; and Ignatius (Epist. ad Polycarpum, iv. 3)
discourages the ransom of slaves at the expense of
the community (cf. Salvianus, Ad eccl., iii. 7), which
seems to have intervened only when a slave's Chris
tianity was endanged. On the other hand, wealthy
Christians appear to have bought Christian slaves
to manumit them (cf. Hermas, Shepherd, " Simili
tudes," i. 8; Apostolic Constitutions, iv. 9), and
cases are also recorded in which Christians volun
tarily sold themselves into slavery to aid the poor
with their price (cf. I Clement, Iv.). But despite
external continuity, there was a change of spirit,
kindness of masters and fidelity of slaves becoming
a matter of Christian principle, instead of personal
character, as in paganism (cf. Eph. vi. 5 eqq.; Col. iii.
22 aqq., iv. 1; I Tim. vi. 1‑2; Tit. ii. 9‑10; Philemon
16; I Pet. ii. 18 sqq; Didache iv. 10‑11; Apostolic Constitutions, iv. 12), while Augustine, commenting on Pa. exxv. 7 (NPNF, 1st series, viii. 602), expressly declares: "He (Christ) hath not made men free from being servants, but good servants from bad servants "(cf. Conf., IX., viii. 17). Christians sought, moreover, to save the souls of slaves (Acts. xvi. 16 eqq.; Aristides, Apol., xv.; Augustine, De sermons Domini in monte, i. 59). Christianity did even more than this‑it gave the slave the status of a man (LCor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11; cf. IrenBBus, Hcer., IV., xxi. 3; Origen, Contra Celsum, iii. 54; Lactantius, Institutio, v. 15). It is true that a slave required his master's permission before he could be baptized (Hippolytus, Canones, x. 63), but even if this were refused, he could still be an associate member of the congregation; and if he were baptized, he enjoyed the same rights as a freeman. Slaves might take orders, and some, as Calixtus I., even became popes, while many slaves were venerated as martyrs, among them Blandina and Potamiaena (qq.v.). Not only were Christian slaves forbidden to sacrifice for their masters, whether pagan or Christian (Tertullian, De idolalria, xviit; Peter of Alexandria, Canones, vi: vii.), but the new faith energetically combated the vices to which slaves of both sexes had been compelled to minister, besides doing away with execution by crucifixion and the branding of fugitive slaves.
The Christian Church, interested only in the faith of the slave, and leaving his legal position entirely to the State, made no attempt to abolish slavery. With the increasing secularization of religious life, the social cleavage between bond and
4. The free became wider still, and only the Medieval monasteries clung to the concept, based Church and on a commingling of classic Stoicism
	Slavery.	and early Christianity, of the equal
		rights and the human status of the
slave. It was from the monasteries, indeed, that the
revolution with regard to slavery was destined to
come. During the imperial period of Rome the im
portation of slaves had decreased, and they had
largely been replaced by coloni, or serfs, whose num
ber might include slaves, and more often free
peasants. This system, aided by the subjection of
the conquered peoples in the new German Empire,
persisted in places as late as the eighteenth century;
and though the Church took little part in all this,
and though she frequently protected the oppressed
and even recruited her clergy from the serfs, she
herself exercised seigniorial rights and proved un
able to exercise a moral influence sufficient to
alter conditions: There were, moreover, actual
slaves until late in the Middle Ages. Even the
Church owned them and vigorously asserted her
rights over them; but though the slave might still be
bought and sold, and required his master's per
mission in the most important and personal decisions
of life, he enjoyed (as in Greek and later Roman
legislation) a limited freedom in regard to rights and
property, as well as the protection of the wergild.
The Church took these rights under her protection,
afforded asylum to those seeking refuge, insisted on
humane treatment of slaves, sought to make mas
ters responsible for the morality of their slaves, for‑

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
slavery
bade concubinage with slaves, and secured the freedman against capricious revocation of his liberty, while each parish exercised the right of protection over the freedmen within it. The manumission of slaves, very frequent in pagan time, was carried to an extreme after the conversion of the rich and great in the fourth century. It is clear, however, from the apocryphal acts (e.g., Acts of Peter and Andrew, xx.) that this was not regarded as a Christian duty in behalf of the slaves, but as an act of asceticism on a par with renunciation of property, later coming to form a preliminary to entrance on the monastic life (cf. Augustine, Sermones, ccclvi. 3, 6, 7). Manumission was usually formally declared in the church (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., I., ix. 6; Codex Theodosianus, iv. 7), and the classic legal fiction of sale or gift to a divinity or temple was also observed by Christians.
Unlike the Church, which maintained existing conditions, monasticism assailed slavery and finally, as already implied, overthrew it, the two positions being combined in Gregory the Great, who as a monk praised manumission as a good work, and as pope demanded the most rigid discipline from
' the slaves belonging to the Church g. European (cf. Epist. vi. 12 with ix. 200). Canons
Slavery in of councils, as that held at Agde in 506,
the Middle forbade bishops or abbots to diminish
Ages.	the property of the Church by manu‑
mitting slaves; and in many ways, as by the prohibition against ordaining a slave or receiving him in a monastery without his master's consent, it was clearly shown that slavery was accepted as an institution, the council of Elvira, by its eightieth canon, even excluding the freedmen [of pagans] from holy orders. The monasteries, on the other hand, received slaves as readily as freemen, and, unlike the churches, were not expected to own bondmen. Since, as already noted, the Church was more interested in the slave's Christianity than in the slave himself, frequent prohibitions were enacted, beginning with Constantine, against ownership of Christian slaves by Jews; and the laws against the exportation of slaves from the various Christian lands were closely connected with the prohibition against selling Christian slaves to pagans. Nevertheless, the Jews of Lyons imported large numbers of Christian slaves to Spain and Africa in the reign of Louis the Pious; the Venetians had an equally evil notoriety; and Rome itself was a center of the traffic. The slave‑trade increased after the Slavic wars and the Tatar inroads, those sold into bondage being chiefly heathens.
It was only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that real slavery disappeared from northwestern Europe, although the system of serfdom long continued. In 1031 Conrad II. forbade all traffic in slaves, and a synod held at London in 1102 repeated the prohibition. In southern Europe, on the other hand, slavery still persisted, aided not only by the constant wars with the Mohammedans, but also by pirate raids. Slavery was made by custom to include Christians, despite the protests of the Church, which herself legalized the system as a punishment for heretics and enemies of the Curia, and made bondmen of the offspring of priests. Latin Crusaders did not hesitate to enslave Christian Greeks,
452
and the revival of Roman law and the reverence in which scholasticism held Aristotle alike combined to maintain the system. At late as 1548 Paul 111. confirmed the right of the clergy and laity to hold slaves, although their number was no longer large in Italy. In Spain, on the other hand, there was a regular system of slavery in the old Roman sense until the sixteenth century, the bondmen here being thousands of Moors; while the Portuguese imported negroes direct from Africa after 1441. On the other hand, Christians frequently became slaves of unbelievers, and, the redemption of captives being esteemed a good work from the earliest times (cf. Neh. v. 8; Socrates, Hist. eccl., vii. 21), not only were funds of the Church devoted to this purpose by the council held at Ch&lons in the middle of the seventh century, but the Order of Mercy (see NOLAsCO, ST. PETER) and Trinitarians (q.v.) were founded with this special object in view.
(E. vON DOBBCHVTZ.)
Personal slavery having diminished in Europe in the fourteenth and following centuries (ut sup.), it was revived upon a gigantic scale on this continent shortly after the discovery of America. The scarcity of labor in the New World, and the necessity for it, seem to have overcome all objections to the system, whether founded upon motives
	6. Slavery	of Christian duty or upon economic con
in America. siderations. All the European nations,
		Roman Catholic and Protestant, which
had colonies in America, engaged in transporting
slaves from the coast of Africa to this continent.
The result was that more than five millions of hu
man beings were carried from Africa to America
between 1579 and 1807, where they and their de
scendants became slaves. For more than two cen
turies and a half no voice, either in the Church or out
of it, was heard against the slave‑trade and its con
sequences.
About the middle of the eighteenth century, however, two distinct movements arose, one based on philosophical, and the other on Christian, grounds, one confined to France and the other to England. Upon one or the other of them, modern opinion and legislation in regard to negro slavery have been based. The philosophical basis is found in that portion of the celebrated work of Roust'. The Phil‑ seau, ‑Omile, called Profession de foi
osophical	d'un vicaire savoyard. The views there
Attack on laid down made a profound impression
	Slavery.	upon all writers on the theory of gov
		ernment during the remainder of the
century. According to Rousseau, man is a being by
nature good, loving justice and order. 'In an ideal
state of society each member would be free, and the
equal of every other. These doctrines and the vast
system which grew out of them were, for various
reasons, embraced with the utmost enthusiasm in
France. But the first public official document in
which these opinions are clearly set forth was the
Declaration of Independence; though in France, the
first article of "The Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizen," adopted in 1789 at the
beginning of the Revolution, asserts, "Men are
born free and equal, and have the same rights."
And as a logical result of this declaration, based

453	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	slay
upon the teaching of Rousseau, the French Convention (Feb. 4, 1794) decreed that negro slavery should be abolished in all the French colonies, and that all men therein should have the rights of French citizens. This was the first act by which any nation in Europe decreed the abolition of slavery.
By the side of these attacks of the French philosophers on slavery as a violation of natural rights, a movement arose about the same time, chiefly in England and in the United States, having the same object in view, but founded upon convictions of Christian duty. Conscience was the impulse to action, and the result was earnest, persistent, and personal work. The African slavetrade was at first the main point of attack by the abolitionists. In 1772 Granville Sharp
8. The urged its suppression on religious
Christian grounds. Just before the Revolution,
Attack;	Virginia petitioned that no more Afri‑
Abolition	can slaves be sent into the colony; a
of Slave‑ few years later, Thomas Clarkson (q.v.)
	Trade.	devoted his life to convincing his coun
		trymen that they should prohibit the
slave‑trade by law, as violating every principle of
Christian humanity. Among the religious denomi
nations which as a body took an active part in this
work were the Quakers, who presented to the house
of commons a petition for the abolition of the alave
trade in 1784; the Methodists and Presbyterians
(see below); [and the Baptists. In 1789 the Gen
eral Association of the Baptists of Virginia resolved:
" That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights
of nature, and inconsistent with a republican gov
ernment, and (we) therefore recommend to our
brethren to make use of every legal measure to
extirpate this horrid evil from the land." A. s. N.]
By incessant work, and constant agitation of the
subject in the press and at public meetings, the
little band of abolitionists gained the support of
many prominent public men in England, Wilber
force, Pitt, Fox, and Burke among the rest. Such
was the feeling roused by the discussion of the
subject, and especially the general conviction of the
violation of Christian duty in maintaining the traffic,
that, forced at last by the outcry of the public
conscience, Parliament abolished the slave‑trade in
1807. In the United States the foreign slave‑trade
was prohibited in 1808. Shortly afterward, all the
maritime nations of Europe followed the example of
England and of this country; and the work was
crowned by the declaration of the European Con
gress of Vienna in 1815, engaging all the powers to
discourage the traffic, as one " reproved by the law
of religion and of nature "; thus recognizing the
two forces, religion and philosophy, which had
combined to bring about the result.
In this country the testimony of the Quakers, as a religious body, against slavery had been uniform from the beginning. In 1688 the German Friends residing in Germantown, Pa., petitioned the yearly meeting to take measures against slaveholding. From 1696 to 1776, the society nearly every year declared " the importing, purchase, or sale of slaves " by its members to be a " disownable offense." John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, illustrious as
Quaker philanthropists, were the pioneer abolitionists of modern times. In 1776 the holding of slaves was prohibited by the discipline of the
g. Attitude Society of Friends, and since that time of Religious its members have been conspicuous in Bodies. supporting anti slavery opinions and legislation. The highest judicatory of the Presbyterian Church in this country made formal declaration in favor of the abolition of slavery no less than six times between 1787 and 1836. In 1845 and in 1849 the General Assembly (Old School) in its action, without avowing any change of opinion as to the sinfulness of slavery, dwelt more particularly upon the formidable obstacles to the practical work of emancipation. In 1864, during the Civil War, that body proclaimed openly " the evil and guilt of slavery," and its earnest desire for its extirpation. The Methodist‑Episcopal Church has been opposed to slavery from the beginning. At the organization of the general conference in 1784, a general rule of its discipline was adopted, declaring slavery contrary " to the golden law of God and the inalienable rights of mankind," and directing that preachers holding slaves should be expelled. Nevertheless, after 1808 slaveholding among the private members of the society was not made a subject of discipline, though the old rule affirming slavery to be a great evil, and that slaveholding should be a bar to office in the Church, was still unrepealed. The aggressive antislavery sentiment at the North was always very powerful among the Methodists; and in the general conference of 1844 it was strong enough to effect the passage of a resolution by which Bishop Andrew, who had come into the possession of certain slaves in right of his wife, was requested to suspend the exercise of all episcopal functions until the slaves were freed. This led to the disruption of the conference, and the formation of two Methodist‑Episcopal churches in this country, one at the North, and the other at the South. See METHODISTS, IV., 1, § 5.
	Before the war there were, in the northern states,
multitudes of Christians of thoroughly antislavery
sentiments who took no active part in the abolition
movement, because they were restrained by con
scientious convictions as to their duties as citizens;
but when slavery was made the pretext of rebellion
and war against the government, and an attempt
was made to found an empire the corner‑stone of
which was slavery, and especially when the national
government had decreed the emancipation of the
slaves, every motive for its further toleration was
removed. By the victory of the North in the Civil
War, the abolition of Slavery in the United States
was made complete. See NEGRO EDUCATION AND
EvANGELIzATIGN. 	C. J. STILLit.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On slavery in the Bible consult: J. L. Saalschatz, Archdolopie der HebMer, ii. 238 eqq., Berlin, 1856; A. Barnes, An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery, Philadelphia, 1857; M. Mielziner, Die Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Ifebraer, Leipsie, 1859, Eng. tranal., in Evangelical Review, 1862, pp. 311‑355; P. Schaff, Slavery and the Bible, Mercersburg, 1860; M. J. Raphall, Bible View of Slavery, New York, 1861; M. Z. Zahn, L'Esclavape selon la Bible et le Talmud, Paris, 1867; P. Kleinert, Das Deufgronomium and der Deuteronomiker, pp. 55 aqq., Bielefeld, 1872; A. Granfeld, Die Stelluno der Sklaven bei den Juden, Jena, 1886; M. Mandl, Das Sklavenrecht des

Slavery
Sleidanue
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
454
A. T., Hamburg, 1888; J. Winter, Die Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden. Halls. 1888; J. B. Lightfoot, in his commentary on Philemon, the introduction, 3d ed.. London, 1890; T. Andrh, L'Ewlavage chu lea anciem h6breua, Paris. 1892; A. Bertholet. Die Stellung der laraeliten and der Juden zu den Premden, Freiburg, 1898; J. F. McCurdy, History. Prophecy, and the Monuments, ii. 188 sqq., New York, 1898; Bensinger, Archdolopie, pp. 123‑127; DB, iv. 481‑489; EB, iv. 4653‑58; DCG, ii. 641‑642; .TE, xi. 403‑408.
On slavery in Greece and Rome consult: H. Wallon,
Hint. de L'eaclavage done 1'antiquit6, new ed., 3 vole., Paris, 1879; J. Marquardt, Privatleben der 116mer, pp. 135 sqq., 175 eqq., Leipsic, 1886; W. Richter, Die Sklaverei in griechischen Altertume, Breslau, 1886; L. Halkin. Lea Esclavea publics chez lea romaine, Li€ge. 1897; M. Sehneide• win, Antike Human", pp. 206 sqq.. Berlin, 1897; P. Guiraud, La Main d'auvre induacrielle clans raneienne Grtce, Paris. 1900.
On the general history of slavery employ: T. Clarkson,
Hint. of the Slave Trade, London, 1849; k Levaeseur, Hiat. den classes ouvri6rea en France . . . juaqu h la rivo• lotion, 2 vols., Paris, 1859; A. Cochin, L'Abolition de 1'eselavage, 2 vole., Paris, 1862, Eng. tranal., The ReBVua of Slavery, Boston, 1863, and The Results of Emancipation, ib. 1863; J. E. Cairnes, The Slave Power; its Character, Career, and Probable Designs, London, 1863; H. Wiskemann, Die Sklaverei, Leyden, 1866 (a crowned essay); H. Wilson, Hiat. of the Rise and Fall of the Slave‑Power, 3 vole., Boston, 1872‑77; A. Tourmagne, Hint. de feadavape ancien et moderns, Paris, 1880; A. Ebeling, Die Sklaverei, Paderborn, 1889; C. D. Michael, The Slave and his Champions: Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, W. Waberforee, Sir Thomas Polwell Button, London, 1891; W. R. B. Brownlow, Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe, London, 1892; J. K. Ingmm, Hint. of Slavery and Serfdom, London, 1895; C. J. M. Letourneau, L'tvolution de fesclavage, Paris, 1897; H. J. Nieboer, Slavery as an Industrial System, The Hague, 1900; W. H. Smith, A Political Hint. of Slavery, 2 vole., New York, 1903; W. Stevens, The Slave in History, London, 1904.
On the relation of Christianity to slavery consult: E.
Biot, L'Abolition de l'eaclavage done 1'occident, Paris, 1840;
J. A. Mdhler, in Geaammelte Sehriften, ii. 54 aqq., Regens
burg, 1840; C. Schmidt, Essay hiatorique our la aocieM
civile done Is monde romain, et our as transformation par Is
chriatianisme, Strasburg, 1854; K. J. Hefele, Beitrage zur
Kirchengeschichte. i. 212 sqq., TUbingen, 1864; A. Rivibre,
Vtgliae et feaclavage, Paris, 1864; Overbeek. Studien zur
Geachichte der alters Kirche, i. 158‑2300 Schloss Chemnits,
1875 (on the relation of the early Church to slavery);
P. Allard, Lea Eaclavea chr6tiena depuia lea premiers tamps
de i'l plies juaqu h la fin de la domination romaine en occi
dent, Paris, 1876; W. E. H. Leeky, Hint. of European
Morals, ii. 66‑90, 3d ed., London, 1877; V. Lechler,
Sklaverei and Chriatenthum, Leipsic. 1877‑78; T. Zahn,
Sklaveres and Chriatenthum in der alter Welt, Heidelberg,
1879 idem, Skitzen aua dem Leben der alter Kirche, pp.
116‑159, Leipeic, 1898; C. L. Brace, Geata Christi; or, a
Hint. of Human Progreaa under Christianity, London ad
New York, 1882; G. Uhlhorn, Christian Charity inn
e Early Church, Edinburgh, 1883; A. Roettscher, Die AUP hebung der Sklaverei durch daa Chrigentum, Frankfort, 1887; R. Knopf, Daa naehapoatoliache Zeitalter, pp. 67 eqq., Tilbingen, 1905• A. Hamack, Expansion of Christianity, new ed., London, 1908; Schaff. Christian Church, i. 444‑448, ii. 347‑354.
On slavery in America consult: A. T. Bledsoe, An Ba‑
aay on Liberty and Slavery, Philadelphia. 1857; G. Haven, National Sermons. Boston, 1869; A. G. Haygood, our Brother in Black; his Freedom and his Future, New York, 1881; L. C. Matlack, Anti‑.Slavery Struggle and Triumph in the M. E. Church, New York, 1881; G. W. Williams, Hint. of the Negro Race in America New York, 1882; A. Willey, Anti‑Slavery nn State and Nation Portland; Me., 1888; J. R. Brackett, The Negro in Maryland, Baltimore, 1889 J. S. Basssett, Slavery and Servitude in . . . Noah Carolina, 2 parts, Baltimore, 1896‑97; M. S. Locke, AntiSlavery in America, 1818‑1808, Cambridge, 1901; J. C. Ballagh. Hist. Of Slavery in Virgin,,, Baltimore, 1902.
SLAVIC MISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES: Missions founded in the interests of evangelism among the Bohemians who had emigrated to the
United States, and later extended to include Poles and Hungarian Slovaks. There are already in this country nearly three millions of these people, many of them contiguous, accessible, and responsive to missionary effort. On coming to America multitudes of the Slavic race abandoned the formal adherence which in Europe they had preserved to the Roman Catholic Church, and, finding here unrestricted religious liberty, drifted from religious indifference into every phase of unbelief. The danger to the body politic from the existence of an element of the population with these tendencies, awakened the attention of the thoughtful and religious. The founder of the first mission was Charles Terry Collins (d. Dec. 21, 1883), pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, Cleveland, Ohio, adjacent to whose parish were living, in 1880, 25,000 of the 250,000 Bohemians then in the United States. He took counsel with Dr. Albert Henry SchaufHer (q.v.), then recently returned from service in Bohemia and Moravia, who undertook the conduct of the mission in 1882. Dr. Schauffier's pioneer work in Bohemia, his mastery of the language and of kindred dialects, and his passion for souls amply qualified him to organize and develop this new and important field. He was, moreover, the only American Protestant missionary linguistically qualified to carry on the work. Olivet Chapel, of which he accepted the pastorate, was at first made the center of his labors, but soon proved too distant from the chief Bohemian colony and a new location was secured. The Congregational Churches of the city were interested, and in June, 1883, adopted the work as their own, made an appropriation, and enlisted the aid of the denominational Home Missionary Society. The Bohemian Mission Board of Cleveland, Ohio, was incorporated Mar. 22, 1884, with representatives from each Congregational Church in the city which chose to elect such representatives. Meanwhile, in 1883, Dr. Schaufer had been commissioned by the Home Missionary Society superintendent of Slavic Missions in the United States, and among his duties was included that of surveying the centers of Slavic colonization in the United States with a view to future evangelization. The local mission in Cleveland was carried qn in a place secured for it, and
services were conducted in Bohemian and English, while a Sunday‑school was also instituted. Interdenominational help was secured for the purchase of a lot and the erection of a church on Broadway, in the center of the colony; the building was dedicated Jan. 1, 1885, and was named '° Bethlehem " after
the church in which John Hues preached in Prague. A church was organized with fifty‑nine members on
Mar. 28, 1888‑the first Bohemian Congregational church in the United States, from which three missions or branches have since been formed, Cyril Mission (1890), Immanuel Mission (1904), and Mizpala (1908), all in Cleveland. This church carries on a
dual work with separate membership, pastorate, and services in Bohemian and English.
In accordance with the general duties of the
superintendent mentioned above, Chicago was visited, the claims of the fifty thousand Bohemians of that city and vicinity were presented, and a mission organization was effected in 1884 with the

455	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Bleglsidan>as
very
assistance of Professor Samuel Ives Curtiss and Deacon C. F. Gates. The Rev. Edwin A. Adams, who had been an associate with Dr. Schauffter in Bohemia, was placed in charge of the Bohemian Mission in Chicago. The result is a church reporting about 200 members, with a Sunday‑school having an average attendance of 500. Farther extension of this work appears in the opening of missions to this people at St. Louis (1889), Silver Lake, Minn. (1890), Milwaukee, Wis. (1890), Crete, Neb. (1895), St. Paul, Minn. (1895), and Vining, Iowa (1899). The Presbyterians have missions for the Bohemians at Pittsburg, Pa., and at Wisconsin, South Dakota.
Outside of Cleveland and Chicago, the first Slavic mission was the outgrowth of Polish Sunday‑school work maintained chiefly by the First Congregational Church at Detroit, Mich., where in May, 1892, there was formed the first Protestant Polish church in the United States. The second Polish mission was undertaken in a large community contiguous to Bethlehem, Cleveland, Ohio, where Mizpah Chapel was erected in 1893 and work carried on with the concurrent use of four languages, Polish, Bohemian, German, and English. . Under Congregational direction Polish missions have been attempted in Toledo, Ohio, Bay City, Mich., and in the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Work has also been done by the Baptists at Buffalo, by the Methodists at Baltimore and Detroit, and by the United Presbyterians at Pittsburg. Another interesting and successful work was begun Aug., 1890, at Braddock, Pa., among the Hungarian Slovaks‑a Slavic people resident in Hungary prior to the advent of the Magyar‑which resulted in 1896 in the organization of a church with 119 members, and in the rapid extension of Slovak mission work to all the suburbs of Pittsburg, Pa.
Such expansion required additional workers, trained and educated in the Slavic and English languages, for thus far the converts had but a meager education. The Slavic Department of Oberlin Seminary was instituted in 1885, and has since been amply endowed, to educate a sufficient ministerial force; and also The Schauffler Missionary Training School of Cleveland, Ohio, was established (1886)‑also endowed‑for the training of Slavic women as missionaries and Biblereaders, through whom the homes of the foreign population may be reached, as can not be prudently done by men.
The estimated force (1911) of trained missionary workers is 125, occupying sixty church buildings, in thirteen different states, and working for five different denominations. There are, also, religious papers, published weekly and widely circulated, in Bohemian and Polish. It is everywhere confessed, by those who are opposed, as well as by friends of this work, that these missions have exerted a great and uplifting influence for good morals, good citizenship, and a high ideal of religious life, wherever established. FRANCIS METHERALL WHITLOCK.
BrBLjoGHAPHT: Consult the reports of Dr. Schaufder in The Home Missionary Magazine. New York; and the Reports
of the Congregational Home Missionary Society, 1884 sqq.
SLAVS, CONVERSION OF THE. See CYRIL AND METHODIUS; MIECZYSLAw; and WENZEL, SAINT.
SLEIDANUS, alai‑l6'nus, JOHANNES: Historiographer of the German Reformation; b. at Schleidea (35 m. s.w. of Cologne) probably in 1506; d. at Strasburg Oct. 31, 1556. His family name was Philippi. He was educated at Li6ge and apparently at Cologne and Louvain, and by 1530 was an Erasmian humanist, although professing deep admiration for Melanchthon. In 1533 he took up his residence in France, where he occupied a number of positions which brought him into contact with the anti‑Hapsburg policy of Francis I., who sought alliance with German Protestantism. During this same period Sleidanus received from the works and personal letters of Calvin an influence which modified his entire outlook on life, and he became deeply interested in the importance of modern history for the statesman. In 1537 he published at Paris his epitome of Froissart's chronicle under the title Froasardi . . . hiatoriarum opus omne, jam primum et brevfxer collectum, et Latino sermons redditum (Eng. transl. by P. Golding, London, 1608), and three years later was secretly commissioned to watch a delegate sent to the diet of Hagenau to prevent an alliance of the Schmalkald League, especially Philip of Hesse, with Charles V. On his return he wrote, under the pseudonym of Baptista Lasdenus, an attack upon the pope entitled Oration . . . van des Bapatumbs aufkomen and abnrmen (Strasburg [?], 1541), following this with two similar " orations " (Augsburg [?], 1542; Strasburg, 1544). In 1541 Sleidanus was sent as interpreter on a second fruitless mission, this time directly to the leaders of the Schmalkald League. His position was then complicated by the repression of French Protestantism by Francis I., but though he spent some time in Germany, he returned to France, whence, after accompanying Cardinal Jean du Bellay in a vain effort to attend the Diet of Speier in 1544, he was apparently sent on a secret mission to Germany to win the Schmalkald League to alliance with France, thenceforth residing at Strasburg.
Butzer, whose shorter catechism Sleidanus had translated into Latin in 1544, now urged Landgrave Philip to appoint the statesman historiographer of the Reformation, for which he had long been gathering material. The work was delayed; however, by the French war, and in the mean while Sleidanus prepared a Latin translation of Philippe de Comines' chronicle under the title De rebus gestis Ltulovici . . . undecimi, Galliarum regia, et Caroli Burgundia= duds (Strasburg, 1545). In 1545 he was sent on another fruitless mission to England, and this interruption was followed by another French war, but in 1551 he was promised an annual pension by Edward VI. and Cranmer. From the autumn of 1551 to Apr., 1552, he was an envoy at Trent, and took part in an embassy to Henry II., while in May, 1554, he was the representative of Strasburg at a conference held at Naumburg. During all this time he had labored on his history, despite poverty and scanty material, and in 1555 it appeared at Strasburg under the title De statu religionia et rei. publiciv, Carob Quinto CCTsare, commentarii (Eng. transl. by J. Daus, A Famous, Chronicle of ours Time, Called Sleidanes Commentaries, London, 1560, and E. Bohun, The General History of the Reform‑

Smalley
S	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG		456
	mith
	tion of the Church from the Errors and Corruptions
	of the Church of Rome, ib., 1689). Storms of protest
arose against it on every side, both Roman Catholic
	and Protestant, and Melanchthon declared that its
	revelation of Protestant folly and pettiness was such
as to render it unfit to be placed in the hands of
impressionable youth (CR, viii. 483).
	The tenure of office of Sleidanus, who had taken
	an active part in school administration in Stras
	burg since 1553, expired in June, 1556, and such was
	the odium excited by his book that no one would
now employ him.	When, however, a university
	was founded at Duisburg, his name was proposed
	for the professorship of history, but before any
	action could be taken he was dead. A few months
	before his death he published his De quatuor sumr
	mis imperiis, Babylonieo, Persico, Grow et Romano,
	libri tres (Eng. transl., London, 1627), which ran
	through repeated editions and translations, being
	used as late as the eighteenth century. A number
	of his writings, including the one just mentioned,
	were collected in his opuscula (ed. H. Putschius,
	Hanover, 1608), and his correspondence has been
	edited by H. Baumgarten (Sleidan's Briefwechsel,
Strasburg, 1881).	(G. KAwERAU.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Earlier works are rendered paaeb by H.
	Baumgarten's Ueber Sleidane Leben and Briefioechsel,
	Strasburg, 1878, and the Briefieechsel of Sleidanus, ib.
	1881. Consult further: J. O. Miiller, A us den Eifelbergen,
	Langenberg, 1887 Bourilly, Jean Sleidan d le Cardinal
	du Bellay, in Bulletin historique et littiraire, pp. 225 sqq.,
	Paris, 1901; idem, Guillaume du Bellay, Paris, 1904;
	A. Hasenclever, Sleidan‑Studien, Bonn, 1905; ADB, mtiv.
354 sqq.
SMALLEY, am81'li, JOHN:	Congregationalist;
	b. in Columbia, Conn., June 4, 1734; d. in New
	Britain, Conn., June 1, 1820. He was graduated
	from Yale College, 1756, where he experienced what
	he described sometimes as his actual, sometimes as
	his second, conversion, his first having occurred dur
	ing childhood. This later conversion he attributed
	to his reading of Edwards' treatise on the Will.
	Through this he became a leader in the contest
	against the enthusiasm of the Separates, against
	the Half‑way Covenant, and in defense of the New
England Theology (q.v.).
	Having pursued his theological studies with Dr.
	Joseph Bellamy, he was ordained Apr. 19, 1758,
	over the Congregational Church in New Britain,
	Conn. He remained in this pastorate more than
	fifty‑five years, and the marked success of his pas
	torate is a matter of historical interest. His suc
	cess as a theological instructor was yet more re
	markable. Among his pupils may be named Na
	thaniel Emmons, and Ebenezer Porter (qq.v.), who,
	as a professor at Andover, exerted a formative in
fluence on the seminary.	Four of Smalley's ser
	f ns were of great importance. Two were on The
	Consistency of the Sinner's Inability (Hartford,
	1769 republished in England). Two were entitled
	Justification through Christ an Act of Free Grace, and
	None but Believers saved through the All‑Sufficient
Satisfaction of Christ (1786, 1787;	repeatedly
	republished). He also issued two volumes of Dis
courses (1803, 1814).
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American
	Pulpit, i. 559‑565, New York, 1859; W. Walker, irk Amer
	ican Church History Series, vol. iii. passim, ib. 1894; F. H.
Foster, Genetic Hist. of the New England Theology, pp. 199200, 221, Chicago, 1907.
SMARAGDUS, ama‑reg'dus: The name of several medieval monastic authors.
1. Abbot of St. Mihiel, in the diocese of Verdun, and one of the most distinguished representatives of Frankish theology in the Carolingian period. In 810 he was one of Charlemagne's envoys to bear the resolution of the Synod of Aachen to Leo III., and was secretary in the ensuing negotiations regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost and the liturgical use of the Nicene Creed. Louis the Pious not only gave him many gifts and privileges for his monastery but also made him one of the arbitrators in the controversy between Ismundus, bishop of Milan, and his monks. His works, most of which are collected in MPL, cii., reveal considerable patristic learning and much practical piety, but are almost wholly devoid of originality. His chief exegetical work, Commentarius, give collectiones in evangelia et epidolm quo per circuitum anni in templis leguntur, is a compilation for homiletic use; but his Expositio, give cammentarii in regulam Sancti Benedicti reveals him as an adherent of the strict reforms of his contemporary, Benedict of Aniane (q.v.); and a similar tendency is discernible in his compilation of ascetic rules, chiefly from Cassian and Gregory the Great, entitled Diadems monachorrlm. The latter treatise was abridged by Smaragdus for the use of Louis the Pious, the strictly monastic sections being omitted, and the remainder expanded or curtailed as the special theme of this new Via regia demanded. He likewise wrote the Acta collationis Romance and collaborated in the Epistola Frotharii et Smaragdi ad Ludovicum Augustum, while he is also held to be the author of the Epistola Caroli Magni ad Leonem Tedium Pontiftcem de procesau Spiritus Sancti (MPL, xcviii. 923). His Commentarius in Prophetas and Historia Monasterai Sancti Michaelis are still unedited, but a few fragments of his Grammatica, major, sive commentarius in Donatum have been published by J. Mabillon (Vetera analecta, Paris, 1723, pp. 358‑359). This was evidently the earliest of his works, probably written whfle he was still master of the monastery school (between 800 and 805). [His Carmina, ed. E. Dommler, are in MGH, Poet. Lat cevi Car., i. (1881), 607‑619, ii. (1884), 698; cf. M. Manitius in NA, xi. (1886), 563.]
2. Biographer and successor of Benedict of Aniane; b. 783; d. at Aniane (16 m. w.n.w. of Montpellier) Mar. 7, 843. His real name was Ardo. His Vita of his predecessor, an admirable bit of biographical writing, has repeatedly been edited (ASB, Feb., ii. 106‑620; MPL, ciii. 354 sqq.; MGH, Script., xv. 698‑220, Hanover, 1887).
3. Abbot of a monastery at Luneburg, Saxony; flourished about 1000. He has been regarded, though without sufficient evidence, as the author of the Grammatica major noted above.

(O. ZOCKLERt.)
BIBL100RAPAY: The prolegomena in MGM, Poet. Lat., ut
sup., i. 804‑$07• Hdstoire littlraire de to France, iv. 439‑
447, 708; B. Haur6su, Singularities historiques d Utlm‑
raires, pp 100 sqq., Paris, 1861; K. Werner. Alkuin and
seinJahrhundert, pp, 25, 317‑318, Vienna, 1876; A. Ebert,
Geschichte der Literatur dea Mittelatters, ii. 108‑112, Leip.

457	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	amit y
sic, 1880; Wattenbach, DGQ, i (1893), 326; Werminghoff, in Hiatoriache Zeitachrift, 1902, pp. 193‑213; O. ZSekler, Die Tvgendlehre des Christentume, pp. 133‑134, Giitersloh, 1903; Hauck, KD, ii. 113‑114, 592‑594 et passipa; DCB, iv. 708‑709; ASB, me. iv., i. 5.^.9‑590; KL, a. 427‑428.
SMECTYMNUUS. See CALAMY, 1.
SMEND, schmendt, JULIUS: German Protestant; b. at Lengerich (18 m. n.e. of Munster) May 10, 1857. He studied at the universities of Bonn, Halle, and Gottingen from 1876 to 1879 (lie. theol., Bonn, 1884) ; was assistant pastor at Paderborn (1879‑81), Bonn (1882‑85), and Siegen (1885); and pastor at Seelscheid (1885‑91). He was then professor of practical theology at the seminary for preachers at Friedberg, Hesse (1891‑93); and since 1893 has occupied a similar position at the University of Strasburg, where he was rector in 1906‑07. In theology he describes himself as a " pupil of Albrecht Ritschl, but does not belong to any party and, with decidedly liberal theological convictions, is devoted as a preacher and teacher to the promotion of ecclesiastical piety." He has been associate editor (with F. Spitta) of the Monatschrift fur Gottesdienst and kirchliche Kunst since 1897, and has written Deutsches Liederbuch (Dortmund, 1892); Feierstunden (GGttingen, 1892); Der erziehliche Wert der Musik (Dortmund, 1894); Die evangelischen deutschen Messen bis zu Luthers deutscher Messe (Gottingen, 1896) ; Der erste evangelische Gottesdienst in Strassburg (Strasburg, 1897); Der Wert der Todeserinnerung fur das inhere Leben (1897); Kelchversagung and Kelchspendung in der abendldndischen Kirche (Gdttingen, 1898); Das Wesen der evangelischen Frommigkeit (Strasburg, 1899); Feierstunden, neue Folge (G6ttingen, 1901); Zur Frage der Kultusrede (Freiburg, 1902) ; Der evangelische Gottesdienst, vine Liturgik nach evangelischen Grundsdtzen (G6ttingen, 1904); Kirchenbuch fiir evangelische Gemeinden (2 vols., Strasburg, 1906‑08); Schleiermachers politische Predigt (1906); Festpredigten (1908); Evangelische Predigten (1910); and Dem Volke muss die Religion erhalten Werden (1911).
SMEND, RUDOLF: German Protestant; b. at Lengerich (18 m. n.e. of Milnster) Nov. 5, 1851. He was educated at the universities of G8ttingen, Berlin, and Bonn (Ph.D. Bonn, 1874), became priva cent at Halls, 1875 associate professor 1880; professor of theology at Basel, 1881; professor of Old‑Testament exegesis in the philosophical faculty of the University of Gbttingen, 1889. He has written Der Prophet Ezekiel Erkldrt (Leipsie, 1880); Die Inschrift des Kdnigs Mesa von Moab (Freiburg, 1886; in collaboration with A. Socin); Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsurissenschaft (Freiburg, 1893); Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Text and Erkldrung (1906); Grieehischrsyrisch‑hebrdischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin, 1907); and Alter and Herkunft des Achikar‑Romans and sein Verhdltniss zu Aesop (Giessen, 1908).
SMET, smet or smg, PIERRE JEAN DE: Jesuit missionary; b. at Termonde (20 m. s.w. of Antwerp), Belgium, Jan. 30, 1801; d. in St. Louis, Mo., May 23, 1873. He left Belgium for the United States at
the age of twenty and became a Jesuit novice at Whitemarah, Md., but in 1823 a new Jesuit settlement was established at Florissant, near St. Louis, whither De Smet went. His influence with the Indians became so strong that he was requested by the United States Government to allay threatened uprisings in Oregon and Washington (1858). Again in 1862 and 1867 he visited hostile tribes, but steadily refused to have any association with American military measures against the Indians. In 1868 he was the prime mover of the treaty of peace signed by Sitting Bull between the Sioux and the United States Government, and two years later he made another visit to the same important tribe. He was unceasing in his efforts to protect the Indians against the encroachments of the Americans, and his religious zeal and piety were commensurate with his humanitarian endeavors. His control over the Indians was marvellous, and in his efforts for the amelioration of their condition he crossed the ocean nineteen times, pleading their cause everywhere. Among his workers special mention may be made of his Letters and Sketches, with a Narrative of a Year's Residence among the Indian Tribes of the Rocky Mountains (Philadelphia, 1843); Oregon Missions and Travels over the Rocky Mountains in 184,5‑4G (New York, 1847); Voyage au grand desert en 1851 (Brussels, 1853); Western Missions and Missionaries (a series of letters; New York, 1863) ; and New Indian Sketches (1865).
131BLIOGRAPHY: F. Deynoodt, P. J. de Smet, missionairs beige aux hats Unis, Brussels, 1878; H. M. Chittenden and A. T. Richardson,'Life, Letters, and Travels of Pierre 'Jean de Smet, S. J., 4 vole., New York, 1905.
SMITH, ALEXANDER COKE: Methodist Episcopal, South, bishop; b. in Sumter Co., S. C., Sept. 16, 1849. He was educated at Wofford College, Spartanburg, S. C. (A.B., 1872), and, after holding various pastorates in his denomination, was professor of mental and moral philosophy in the same institution (1886‑90); and of practical theology in Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. (1890‑92), after which he again took up ministerial duties. In 1902 he was elected bishop.
SMITH, ARTHUR HENDERSON: Congregationalist; b. at Vernon, aonn., July 18, 1845. He was educated at Beloit College (A.B., 1867), Andover Theological Seminary (1867‑69), Union Theological Seminary, New York (graduated 1870), and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City (1870‑71). In 1871‑72 he was a missionary at Chicago and Clifton, Ill.; was stationed at Tientsin, China (1872‑80) under the auspices of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; was at P'ang Chuang, Shantung (1880‑90), although in 1886‑87 he was acting pastor of the First Congregational Church, Pasadena, Cal. He was in Peking during the siege of the city in 1900, and was then stated supply of Union Church, Tientsin, in 1900‑01, after which he returned to Pang Chuang for four years (1901‑05). Since 1906 he has been a " missiol.ary tt large " in China, except for a brief visit to the United States, and is now engaged in literary work, speaking and traveling extensively in the interest of missions. In theology he is a liberal

8‑M	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	458
conservative, and, besides his work as associate editor of The Missionary Review of the World, has written The Proverbs and Common Sayings of the Chinese (Shanghai, 1888); Chinese Characteristics (Chicago, 1890); Village Life in China (1899); China in Convulsion (1901); Rex Christus: An outline Study of China (New York, 1903); China and America Today: Study of Conditions and Relations (1907); and Uplift of China (1907).
SMITH, BENJAMIN MOSBY: Presbyterian; b. at Montrose, Powhatan County, Va., June 30, 1811; d. at Petersburg, Va., Mar. 14, 1893. He was graduated at Hampden‑Sidney College, Prince Edward County, Va., 1829, and at Union Theological Seminary, Va., 1834; was tutor there, 1834‑36; pastor at Danville, Va., 1838‑40; at Tinkling Spring and Waynesborough, 1840‑45; and at Staunton, 1845‑54; and then became professor of oriental and Biblical literature in Union Seminary. From 1858 to 1874 he was with Dr. Dabney pastor of the Hampden‑Sidney College Church. He published A Commentary on the Psalms and Proverbs (Glasgow, 1859; 3d ed. Knoxville, Tenn., 1883); Family Religion (Philadelphia, 1859); Questions on the Gospels (vol. i., Richmond, 1868).
SMITH, CHARLES SPENCER: African Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. at Colborne, Ont., Mar. 16, 1852. He was ordained to the ministry of his denomination at the age of twenty; and was a member of the Alabama House of Representatives (1874‑76). He then pursued a course of study at Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn. (graduated 1880). In 1882 he founded the Sunday‑school Union of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, of which he was secretary and treasurer until 1900, when he was elected bishop. He is presiding bishop of the missions of his denomination in South Africa, having visited the western and southwestern coast of that continent in 1894. He has written Glimpses of Africa, West and Southwest Coast (Nashville, 1895).
SMITH, CHARLES WILLIAM: Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. in Jefferson township, Fayette Co., Pa., Jan. 30, 1840. He was educated in the public schools and privately. For twenty‑one years (1859,80) he held pastorates in the Centreville circuit, Somerset Co., Pa., Carmichaels, Pa., Bridgeport, Pa., Carson Street, Pittsburg, Uniontown, Pa., Arch Street, Alleghany, Pa., First Church, Canton, O., Smithfield Church, Pittsburg, and First Church, McKeesport, Pa. He was presiding elder of the Pittsburg district, 1880‑84, and from 1884 until 1908, when he was elected bishop, was editor of the Pittsburg Christian Advocate. He was vice‑chairman of the committee that framed the present constitution of his denomination and a member of that which compiled the present hymnal of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; and that assisted in organizing the Methodist Church in Japan.
SMITH, DAVID: Presbyterian; b. at Carluke (28 m. s.w. of Edinburgh), Lanarkshire, Scotland, May 21, 1866. He received his education at the academy at Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Glasgow Uni‑
versity (M.A., 1887; D.D., 1908), and the Free Church College, Glagsow; was Geo. A. Clark scholar and lecturer in Glasgow University; minister of the United Free Church, Tulliollan, 1894‑1907, and of St. Andrew's United Free Church, Blairgowrie, 1907‑10; Bruce lecturer in Glasgow United Free College, 1909‑10; and was appointed professor of theology in Magee College, Londonderry, 1910. He has written: The Days of his Flesh: the earthly Life of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (London, 1905; 8th ed., 1910); The Pilgrim's Hospice: a little Book on the Holy Communion (1906); the volume on Matthew's Gospel in The Westminster New Testament (1908); The Face of Jesus (1908); A Legend of Bethlehem (1909); Man's Need of God (1910); A Legend of Jerusalem (1910); and the Epistles of John in The Expositor's Greek Testament (1910).
SMITH, ELI: American missionary and Biblical translator; b. at Northford, Conn., Sept. 15, 1801; d. at Beirut, Syria, Jan. 11, 1857. He was graduated from Yale College, 1821, and from Andover Seminary in 1826, and in May of the same year embarked as a missionary of the American Board to Malta. In 1827 he went to Beirut, and in March, 1830, undertook with Harrison Gray Otis Dwight, under directions from the American Board, a journey through Persia, to get information concerning the Nestorian Christians. The expedition, which lasted a year, resulted in the establishment of a mission among that people. In 1838 he accompanied Edward Robinson in exploring the desert of Sinai. He accompanied the same scholar on his journey in 1852, and contributed materially to the accuracy and discoveries of Robinson's Researches. In 1846 he began his translation of the Bible into Arabic, and finished a translation of the entire New Testament, and the Pentateuch, historical books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other portions of the Old Testament. He possessed eminent attainments in Arabic, and has a distinguished place in the annals of the American mission at Beirut. He published Researches of... Eli Smith and . . . H. G. 0. Dwight in Armenia: including a Journey through Asia Minor and into Georgia and Persia, with a Visit to the Nestorian and Chaldean Christians of Oormiah and Salmas (2 vols., Boston, 1833; London, 1834).
BIBLIo68APHT: Mission Herald, 1857, pp. 224‑229.

SMITH, GEORGE: Assyriologist; b. at Ca (4 m. s.w. of St. Paul's), England, Mar. 26, 1840; d. at Aleppo, Turkey, Aug. 19, 1876. He began life as an engraver; taught himself the oriental languages, and first came into prominence in 1866 by a contribution to the London Athenancm, upon the Tribute of Jehu, which revealed his studies, assiduously carried on at leisure moments, of the Ninevite sculptures in the British Museum. In 1867 he entered upon his official life at the British Museum, and in 1870 was appointed a senior assistant of the lower section in the department of Egyptian and Oriental antiquities, and from that time stood in the first rank of Assyrian scholars. He made expeditions to Nineveh in 1873 at the expense of the London Daily Telegraph, and in 1874 and 1875 on behalf of the British Museum, and obtained immense

459	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
treasures in cuneiform inscriptions (see AssYRIA, III., j 7, for his explorations). He published The Phonetic Values of the Cuneiform Characters (London, 1871); The Chaldean Account of the Deluge . . . Reprinted from the Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology (1873); Assyrian Discoveries; an Account of Explorations and Discoveries on the Site of Nineveh, during 187'3 and 1874 . . . with Illustrations (1875); The Assyrian Eponym Canon, Containing Translations of the Documents, and an Account of the Evidence, on the Comparative Chronology of the Assyrian and Jewish Kingdoms, from the Death of Solomon to Nebuchadnezzar (1875); Ancient History from the Monuments, 1., Assyria, 11., Babylonia (2 vols., 1875‑77); The Chaldean Account of Genesis, Containing the Description of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, the Times of the Patriarchs, and Nimrod; Babylonian Fables, and Legends of the Gods; from the Cuneiform Inscriptions. With Illustrations (1876); History of Sennacherib (1878). See ASSYRIA, III., § 7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. H. Sayee, in Nature, Sept. 14, 1878; TSBA, vols. i.‑v.; R. W. Rogers, Hint. of Babylonia and Assyria, vol. i., New York, 1900; H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, Philadelphia, 1903; DNB, liii. 39‑41.
SMITH, GEORGE ADAM: United Free Church of Scotland; b. at Calcutta, India, Oct. 19, 1856. He was educated at Edinburgh University (18731875; M.A., 1875) and New College, Edinburgh (1875‑78), and the universities of Tubingen (1876) and Leipsic (1877). He then traveled in Egypt and Syria, and in 1880 became assistant minister at the West Free Church, Brechin, also being tutor in Hebrew in the Free Church College at Aberdeen in 1880‑82. From 1882 to 1892 he was minister of Queen's Cross Free Church, Aberdeen; became professor of Old‑Testament language, literature, and theology in the United Free Church College, Glasgow, in 1892; and principal of Aberdeen University in 1909. He has traveled extensively in Palestine, and was Percy Turnbull Lecturer on Hebrew poetry at Johns Hopkins in 1896, Lyman Beecher Lecturer at Yale in 1899, and Jowett Lecturer in London in 1900. He has written Book of Isaiah (2 vols., London, 1888‑90); The Preaching of the Old Testament to the Age (1893); Historical Geography of the Holy Land (1894); Book of the Twelve Prophets, commonly Called the Minor (2 vols., 1896‑97); Life of Henry Drummond (1898); Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (Lyman Beecher lectures; 1901); Forgiveness of Sins, and Other Sermons (1904); and Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics, and Historyfrom the Earliest Times to A.D. 70 (2 vols.,1908).

SMITH, GEORGE VANCE: English Unitarian; b. at Portarlington (40 m. w.s.w. of Dublin), Ireland, June 13, 1816; d. at Bowdon (25 m. e. of Liverpool), England, Feb. 28, 1902. He was educated in Manchester New College, York, 1836‑41, and London University (B.A., 1841); was minister at Bradford, Yorkshire, 1841‑43, and Macclesfield, 1843‑46; theological tutor in Manchester New College, Manchester and London, 1846‑57; minister at York, 18581875; at the Upper Chapel, Sheffield, 1875‑76; and from 1876 was principal of Carmarthen Presbyterian College, Wales. He was one of the New Tester
ment revisers from the formation of the committee in 1870. A " liberal Christian," unfettered by subscription to theological creeds, he was the author of The Prophecies Relating to Nineveh and the Assyrians, Translated from the Hebrew, with Historical Introductions and Notes, Exhibiting the Principal Results of the Recent Discoveries (London, 1857); Eternal Punishment, a Tract for the Times: with Remarks on Dr. Pussy's Defence of the Doctrine (1865); The Bible and Popular Theology: A Re‑statement of Truths and Principles, with special Reference to recent Works of Dr. Liddon, Lord Hatherley, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, and Others (1871); The Spirit and the Word of Christ, and Their Permanent Lessons (1874); The Prophets and Their Interpreters (1878); Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Afecting Theological Doctrine briefly Reviewed (1881); The Bible and its Theology as popularly Taught (1892); and one of the authors of The Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant, in a New Translation (1859).

SMITH, HASKETT: Church of England; b. in London July 16, 1847; d. at Chorley Wood (20 m. s.e. of Hertford), Hertfordshire, Jan. 12, 1906. He was educated at Christ's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1870); was ordered deacon in 1870 and ordained priest in the following year; was curate of Canwick in 1870‑72; and of St. Mary Magdalene, Lincoln, 1872‑75; second master of Lincoln Grammar School, 1870‑75; and rector of Brauncewellcum‑Anwick, Lincolnshire, 1875‑99, although he resided for several years on Mount Carmel and traveled extensively, spending also two years in the United States, when he was in charge of All Saints', Pasadena, Cal., 1898‑1900. In 1900 he took charge of Ballarat Cathedral, Australia. In theology he was a Broad‑churchman. He wrote The Divine Epiphany, in Ten Progressive Scenes (London, 1878); The Lord's Prayer: A Series of short meditative Addresses (1885); For God and Humanity: A Romance of Mount Carmel (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1891); Handbook for Travellers in Syria and Palestine (London, 1892); Guide to the Mediterranean (1900); and Patrollers of Palestine (1906).

SMITH, HENRY: Puritan; b. at Withoote (12 m. e. of Leicester) c. 1550; d. at Husbands Bosworth (13 m. s.s.e. of Leicester), buried there July 4, 1591. His father was wealthy and his connections were aristocratic. His education was received at Oxford (B.A., 1578‑79), and he became a Puritan while an undergraduate. He had conscientious scruples against taking a pastoral charge and so ministered in other ways, first in Husbands Bosworth, and from 1587 to 1590 in London where he was " lecturer " at St. Clement Danes. Ill‑health compelled his resignation and he returned to the country to die. He made a great reputation for himself as a preacher, winning the sobriquet of "silver‑tongued." His sermons were taken down in shorthand and printed at first without his knowledge, but before his death he made a collection of them and gave them his revision. They passed through at least seventeen editions, but the modern reader finds them less interesting than he expects. They are, however, good reading. Perhaps enough are given

Smith	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	480
in The Sermons of Henry Smith, the Silver‑Tongued Preacher, a selection edited by John Brown, London, 1909. He wrote also Latin poetry, and some has been translated.
BIBrcooaeraY: There is a Memoir by Thomas Fuller in an edition of Sermons, London, 1675, new ed., 2 vols., 1866. Consult further DNB, liii. 48‑49, where references are given to scattering notices.

SMITH, HENRY BOYNTON: American theologian; b. in Portland, Me., Nov. 21, 1815; d. in New York Feb. 7, 1877. He was graduated from Bowdoin College in 1834; studied theology at Andover and Bangor, and then spent a year as tutor in Greek and as librarian at Bowdoin. Late in 1837 he went abroad on account of ill‑health, and passed the winter in Paris, hearing lectures at the Sorbonne, at the Institute, and at the Royal Academy. The next two years were spent chiefly at Halle and Berlin. After a short visit to England, he returned home in the summer of 1840, and was at once licensed to preach. But his health again gave way, delaying his settlement until the close of 1842, when he was ordained as pastor of the Congregational Church at West Amesbury, Mass. Here he labored four years, supplying also during two winters the chair of Hebrew at Andover. In 1847 he became professor of mental and moral philosophy in Amherst College, and in 1850 of church history in Union Theological Seminary, New York City. Three years later he was transferred to the chair of systematic theology. In both departments he wrought with the hand of a master, and, alike by his teaching and his writings, won a commanding position as one of the foremost scholars and divines of the country. His influence was soon felt throughout the Presbyterian Church and was especially powerful in shaping opinion in the New School branch of it, to which he belonged. He was sole editor of The New‑York Evangelist, and joint editor of The American Theological Review, The American Presbyterian and Theological Review, and, later, The Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review. In 1859 he published Tables of Church History, a work embodying the results of vast labor. He took a leading part in the memorable Union Convention at Philadelphia in 1867. During the war he wrote very ably in support of the national cause. In 1859 he revisited Europe, also in 1866, and again in 1869; the latter visit, lasting a year and a half, included a journey to the East. After his return he resumed his labors in the seminary, but with health so greatly enfeebled that early in 1874 he resigned his chair and was made professor emeritus.
Whether regarded as a theologian, as a philosophical thinker, or as a general scholar and critic, Smith was one of the most accomplished men of his time. He was specially gifted as a theological teacher, arousing enthusiasm in his students, inspiring them with reverence for the Holy Scriptures, fostering in them a devout, earnest, catholic spirit, dealing gently and wisely with their doubts, and impressing upon them continually, alike by example and instruction, the sovereign claims of their Redeemer, the glory of his kingdom, and the blessedness of a life consecrated to him. His services to the Union Theological Seminary were varied and inestimable. The Presbyterian Church in the United
States also owes him a lasting debt of gratitude. He has been called " the hero of re‑union," and no man better merited the praise. Most of his essays and reviews are embraced in his Faith and Philosophy (ed. G. L. Prentiss, New York, 1877); his Lectures on Apologetics (ed. W. S. Karr) appeared in 1882, New York. He was also the author of Introduction to Christian Theology: 1: A general Introduction; S: The special Introduction; or, the Prolegomena of systematic Theology (ed. W. S. Karr, 1883); and System of Christian Theology (ed. W. S. Karr, 1884).
BIHwOGRAmT: Mrs. H. B. Smith, Henry Boynton Smith, his Life and his Work, New York, 1880; L. F. Stearns, Henry Boynton Smith, Boston, 1892; G. L. Prentiss, Union Theological Seminary in . . . New York; historical and biographical Sketches, New York, 1889; idem, Union Theological Seminary, . . . Another Decade of its History, Asbury Park, 1899.
SMITH, HENRY GOODWIN: Presbyterian, son of the preceding; b. in New York City Jan. 8, 1860. He was educated at Amherst College (A.B., 1881) and at Union Theological Seminary, New York (1884). He was pastor of the Presbyterian church at Freehold, N. J. (1886‑96), and, after studying in Europe in 1896‑97, was appointed professor of systematic theology in Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, O., a position which he retained until 1903, when he retired from active life.
SMITH, HENRY PRESERVED: Congregationalist; b. at Troy, O., Oct. 23, 1847. He was educated at Marietta College, Amherst College (A.B., 1869), Lane Theological Seminary (1872), and the universities of Berlin (1872‑74) and Leipsic (18761877). He was instructor in church history at Lane Theological Seminary (1874‑75), and in Hebrew (1875‑76); professor of Hebrew and Old‑Testament exegesis in the same institution (1877‑93). From 1898 to 1906 he was professor of Biblical literature at Amherst College (1898‑1906); and professor of Hebrew language and literature at Meadville
Theological School, Meadville, Pa., since 1907. In theology he affirms his " belief in religion as the life of God in the human soul, and in the Christian religion as the fullest measure of that life, mediated through Jesus Christ." In 1875 he was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry, but was suspended for
alleged " heretical " teaching by the Presbytery of Cincinnati in 1893. Six years later he was received into the Congregational ministry by the Hampshire Association. He has written Biblical Scholarship aced Inspi<rration (in collaboration with L. J. Evans; Cincinnati, 1891); Inspiration and Inerrancy (1893); The Bible and Islam (New York, 1896); Critical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (1899); and Old‑Testament History (1904).
SMITH, ISAAC GREGORY: Church of England; b. at Manchester Nov. 21, 1826. He was educated at Trinity College, Oxford (B.A., 1849), and was fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, from 1850 to 1855. He was ordered deacon in 1853 and ordained
priest in the following year. He was rector of Ted_ stone‑Delamere (1854‑72); vicar of Great Malvern (1872‑96), and rector of Great Shefford (1896‑1904), when he retired from active life. He was prebendary

of Pratum Minus in Hereford Cathedral (187"7), rural dean of Powick (1882‑96), examining chaplain

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	smith
to the bishop of St. David's (1882‑97), and honorary canon of Worcester (1887‑96), and Bampton lecturer in 1873. He has written Life of Our Blessed Saviour (London, 1864); Faith and Philosophy (1867); The Characteristics of Christianity (Bampton lectures; 1873); History of the Diocese of Worcester (in collaboration with P. Onslow; 1883); History of Christian Monasticism (1892); Boniface (1896); The Holy Days (poems; 1900); The Athanasian Creed (1902); What is Truth 1 (1905); and Thoughts on Religion. (2 series, 1909).

SMITH, JAMES ALLAN: Church of England; b. at Pyecombe, Sussex, Aug. 2,1841. He was educated at Wadham College, Oxford (B.A., 1863), and was ordered deacon in 1864 and ordained priest in 1865. He was curate of Holy Trinity, Marylebone, 1864‑66; lecturer of Boston, Lincolnshire, 1866‑70; vicar of Holy Trinity, Nottingham, 1870‑84; and vicar of Swansea in 1884‑1902 and of Hay in 19021903; prebendary of Sanctm Crucis in Lincoln Cathedral in 1875‑97, and chancellor and canon residentiary of St. David's Cathedral in 1897‑1903; became dean 1903; chaplain to the bishop of St. David's, 1897.

SMITH, JOHN: Founder of the General Baptists. See SMYTH6 JOHN.

SMITH, JOHN: One of the leaders of the school of seventeenth‑century philosophers known as the " Cambridge Platonists " (q.v.); b. at Achurch (14 m. s.w. of Peterborough), Northamptonshire, 1616; d. at Cambridge Aug. 7, 1652. He studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge (B.A., 1640; M.A.,1644, in which year he was chosen fellow of Queen's). He seems to have shown something of Whichcote's marvellous power as a teacher, and to have been of pure and lofty character; but he left behind him nothing except the Select Discourses (ed., with Memoir, J. Worthington, London, 1660), which are animated by the breath of a high, divine reason, and show a logic almost as keen and direct as Chillingworth's, and an imagination as rich as Jeremy Taylor's. Taken together, they form the first part of a scheme of thought which Smith did not live to finish. The opening discourse, " Of the True Way or Method of Attaining to Divine Knowledge," gives the keynote of his system, and shows how he attempted to draw up a scheme of speculative, and Platonic, philosophy. Having defined the mode of attaining the divine, and distinguished it from atheism on one side and superstition on the other, he proceeds to expound its main principles, immortality and God, to which he intended to add " the communication of God to mankind through Christ.
BIHLIOGBAPHT. Besides the memoir in the Select Discourse*, ut sup., consult: W. M. Metcalfe, Natural Truth of Christianity, Paisley, 1880; J. Talloch. Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the 17th Century, ii. 117‑192, Edinburgh, 1882; E. T. Campagnac, The Cambridge Plakniats, Oxford, 1901; E. George, Seventeenth Century Men of Latitude: Forerunners of the New Theology, New York, 1908; DNB, liii. 74‑75: and in general the literature under CAMBRIDGE PLATONIHTe.
SMITH, JOHN PYE: English Independent; b. at Sheffield May 25, 1774; d. at Guildford (17
m. s.w. of London) Feb. 5, 1851. He had no regular schooling, but read omnivorously in his father's book‑shop, and in 1796, on the expiration of his apprenticeship, studied theology at Rotherham Academy until 1800, when he was appointed resident tutor at Homerton College, London. Six years later he was promoted to a theological tutorship, which he retained until shortly before his death. As tutor he lectured on the New Testament, Hebrew grammar, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, and, in his later years, on science. He was essentially a man of industry, versatility, and piety rather than of brilliancy or depth, yet he made a profound impression on the theological thought of his time by his Scripture Testimony to the Messiah (2 vols., London, 1818‑21; a valuable defense of Trinitarianism against Unitarianism) and Relation between the Holy Scripture arid some Parts of Geological Science (1839). He was likewise the author, among other works, of The Reasons of the Protestant Religion (London, 1815); Four Discourses ors the Sacrifice arid Priesthood of Jesus Christ, and on Atonement aced Redemption (1828); On the Principles of Interpretation as applied to the Prophecies of Holy Scripture (1829); Scripture and Theology (1839); and the posthumous First Lines of Christian Theology (1854).
BIHLJoaHAPHY: J. Medway, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of John Pye Smith, London, 1853; DNB, liii. 8"7.
SMITH, JOHN TALBOT: Roman Catholic; b. at Saratoga, N. Y., Sept. 22, 1855. He was educated at the Cathedral School, Albany, N. Y., and at St. Michael's College, Toronto (1874‑81). After being a missionary in the Adirondacks from 1881 to 1889, he was editor of the New York Catholic Review from 1889 to 1892. Since 1900 he has been a trustee of the Catholic Summer School, and president since 1905. He has written A Woman of Culture (New York, 1881); Solitary Island (1884); His Honor, the Mayor (1891); Saranac (1893); The Training of a Priest (1896); The Chaplain's Sermons (1896); Brother Azarias (1897); Lenten Sermons (1899); The Man who Vanished (1902); The Closed Road (1904); and History of the Catholics of New York (3 vols., 1905).
SMITH, JOSEPH. See MoaMoNs.

SMITH, JOSEPH FIELDING: Mormon; b. at Far West, Mo., Nov. 13, 1838. At the age of ten, he went to Salt Lake with the other Mormons expelled from Nauvoo, and for six years (1848‑54) was a herdsman, harvester, and woodsman in Utah. In 1854 he was sent as a Mormon missionary to Hawaii, where he remained until 1858, returning to be sergeant at arms of the territorial legislature (1858‑59). In 1858 he was made a high priest and a member of the high council, and in 1860 was a missionary to England, also visiting Denmark and Paris in 1862. He again visited Hawaii in 1864, where he was in charge of the Mormon missionaries, but was recalled and was associated with the church historian's office, and engaged in home missionary work, until 1866, when he was ordained an apostle, being also elected a member of the city council of Salt Lake City and of the territorial legislature in the same year. In 1867 he was made one of the council

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HER,ZOG
of twelve, but in 1868 removed to Provo, Utah, returning, however, to resume his work in the historian's office. Appointed director of all the Mormon missions in Europe, he made a tour of England, Scandinavia, Germany, France, and Switzerland in 1874, and again visited Europe is 1877. He was recalled by the death of Brigham Young, but made a short mission to the eastern states in the same year, after which he was in charge of the endowment house at Salt Lake City until it was closed in 1884. In 1880 he was appointed second counselor to President John Taylor, and in 1882 was also president of the council of the Utah legislature, as well as president of the Utah constitutional convention. He was continued in his position of second counselor by President Wilford Woodruff, and, on the death of Lorenzo Snow in 1901, succeeded him as president of the Mormon Church, which dignity he still holds.
SMITH, JUDSON: Congregationalist; b. at Middlefield, Mass., June 28, 1837; d. at Roxbury, Mass., June 29, 1906. He was graduated from Amherst College (A.B., 1859) and from Oberlin Theological Seminary, Oberlin, O. (1863). He was tutor in Latin and Greek in Oberlin College (18621864); instructor in mathematics and metaphysics at Williston Seminary, Easthampton, Mass. (18641866), and was ordained to the ministry (1866). He was professor of Latin in Oberlin College (1866‑70), and of ecclesiastical history and positive institutions in the Oberlin Theological Seminary (1870‑84), also serving as dean of the faculty; lecturer in modern history at Oberlin College (1875,84), as well as at the Lake Erie Female Seminary, Painesville, O. (1879,84); and lecturer on foreign missions in the Hartford Theological Seminary from 1884 till his death. He was acting pastor at the Second Congregational Church at Oberlin in 1874‑75 and again in 1882‑84. In 1883‑54 he was editor of Bibliotheca Sacra, on which he continued to serve as associate editor. After 1884 he was foreign secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. His theological standpoint was that of the New England theology, holding fast to the historic faith of Christendom, but welcoming all new light that broke forth from the Word of God. He was the author of Lectures in Church History and the History of Doctrine from the Beginning of the Christian Era to 181,8 (Oberlin, O., 1881), and T.eeturea in Modern History (1881).

SMITH, RODNEY ("GIPSY SMITH ") : Methodist evangelist; b. at Wanstead (6 m. n.e. of London), Essex, England, Mar. 31, 1860. He is of Gipsy parentage, and was converted at the age of sixteen. In 1877 he became an evangelist under the auspices of the Christian Mission of London, and preached successfully in various places, particularly at Whitby, Sheffield, Bolton, Chatham, Hull, Derby, and Hanley. Meanwhile, the Christian Mission had developed into the Salvation Army (q.v.), and in 1882 Smith was dismissed for a technical breach of discipline. He continued to preach in Hanley, however, but in 1883, after conducting evangelistic services for a time at Hull, made a brief visit to Sweden. Returning to Hanley, he remained there until 1886
when he resigned to resume evangelistic work, being engaged in these labors until the end of 1888. Early in 1889 he visited the United States, conducting services in various cities, returning to England later in the same year and becoming connected with the Manchester Mission. In 1891 he again visited the United States. In 1892 he conducted services in Edinburgh, and from this grew the Gipsy Gospel Wagon Mission, devoted to evangelistic work among his own people. He visited America for the third time in 1893. After a five months' revival in Glasgow in 1893‑94, Smith went to Australia, preaching at Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney, after which he returned to England by way of the United States. In 1895 he preached in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, as well as in many smaller cities, and in 1896 paid his fifth visit to America, returning to England and conducting brief evangelistic campaigns until 1897, when he became first missioner of the National Free Church Council. This position he still retains, and in this capacity he has conducted revivals throughout England, besides paying still another visit to the United States in 1907.
Bisncoansra:: Oipay Smith, Aia Life and Work (sutobiog1'ePhY), new ad., New York, 1907.
SMITH, SAMUEL FRANCIS: American Baptist; b. in Boston, Mass., Oct. 21, 1808; d. there Nov. 16, 1895. He attended the Boston Latin School 1820‑25; was graduated from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1829, and from Andover Theological Seminary, Mass., 1832; was pastor of the First Baptist Church, Waterville, Me., 1834‑42, and during the tame period professor of modern languages in Waterville College; pastor of the First Baptist Church, Newton, Mass., 1842•‑54; and editor of The Christian Review, Boston, 1842‑48, and of the publications of the American Baptist Missionary Union, 1854‑69. Though his fame rests upon the authorship of the hymn " My country, 'tie of thee " (written at Andover, Mats., in Feb., 1832, while a student in the theological seminary), and the missionary hymn " The morning light is breaking " (written in the same year and place), he wrote many other hymns. Most of the pieces included in Lowell Mason's Juvenile Lyre (Boston, 1832), the first book of children's music, were his translations from the German. He edited Lyric Gems,
being selections of poetry, with several original pieces (Boston, 1843); and in collaboration with Baron Stow The Psalmist (1843) which contained twentyeeven of his own hymns, and is the most creditable and influential of the American Baptist collections of its period; also Rock of Ages, being selections of poetry, with some original pieces (1866); and he was the author of Life of Rev. Joseph Grafton (1848);
Missionary Sketches (1879); History of Neurton, Mass., Toran and City from its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time (1880); and Rambles in Miasionr fields (1884).
B:atsoaasrar: 8. W. Duffield, Erpliah $ymne. P• 380, New York, 1888; Julian, $ymROlopy, pp. 1083‑84.
SMITH, SAMUEL STANHOPE: American Presbyterian; b. at Pequea, Lancaster County, Pa., Mar. 16, 1750; d. at Princeton, N. J., Aug. 21, 1819. He was graduated from Princeton College, 1767;

483	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Smi~
was tutor there, 1770‑73; first president of Hampden Sidney College, 1775; became professor of moral philosophy at Princeton College in 1779; and was president, 1794‑1812. In 1786 he was a member of the committee which drew up the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church. He had a high reputation as a pulpit orator and college president. He published Sermons (Newark, N. J., 1799); Lectures on the Evidences of the Christian Religion, (Philadelphia, 1809); Lectures . . . on . . . Moral and Political Philosophy (Trenton, N. J., 1812); Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion (New Brunswick, N. J., 1815); (posthumous) Sermons, with Memoir (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1821).
BmmoaRAPay: W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, iii. 335‑345, New York, 1858; 1. W. Riley, American Philosophy; the early Schools, pp. 497‑509, ib. 1907.
SMITH, SYDNEY: Church of England; b. at Woodford (7 m. n.e. of Charing Cross), London, June 3, 1771; d. in London Feb. 22, 1845. He was graduated from Oxford, 1792; took holy orders, 1794; was minister of Charlotte Episcopal chapel, Edinburgh, 1797‑1802; canon of Bristol, 1828; and canon residentiary of St. Paul's, 1831. He was one of the most famous of English wits; but he was also a forcible, earnest preacher, and a sagacious critic and reviewer. He was the real founder of The Edinburgh Review (1802 sqq.) and wrote for it some eighty articles which are among the best that appeared during the first twenty‑five years of its publication. Besides his Sermons (2 vols., London, 1809) he published Peter Plumley's Letters, and Selected Essays (1886), which did much to promote Roman Catholic emancipation; Sermons Preached at St. Paul's Cathedral, The Foundling Hospital, and Several Churches in. London, together with Others Addressed to a Country Congregation (1846); Elementary Sketches of Moral Philosophy (1850); and in 1848 appeared the fourth edition of his works in 3 vols.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lady Holland (his daughter), A Memoir of the Rev. Sydney Smith. With a Selection from his Letters, ed. Mrs. Austin, London, 1855; S. J. Reid, Sketch of the Life and Times of . . . Sydney Smith, ib. 1884; A. Chevrillon, Sydney Smith et la renaissance des Wee lib&ales en Anpleterre au xix. sQcle, Paris, 1894; DNB, liii. 119‑123.
SMITH, THOMAS: Free Church of Scotland; b. at Symington (31 m. s.e. of Glasgow), Lanarkshire, July 8, 1817; d. at Edinburgh May 23, 1906. He was educated at the University of Edinburgh, and in 1839 was ordained a missionary to Calcutta. Until 1858 he was engaged chiefly in teaching in the General Assembly's Institution and after 1843, when be joined the Free Church, in the institute of the latter denomination. He was long an associate editor of the Calcutta Christian Observer, and for ten years edited the Calcutta Review. For a short time during the Mutiny he was chaplain of the Black Watch, and it is especially noteworthy that he was the first to organize the system of zenana missions in India. In 1858 he returned to Scotland; was minister of Cowgatehead Free Church, Edinburgh (1859‑‑80); and professor of evangelistic theology in New College, Edinburgh (1880‑93). He wrote Medimval Missions (Edinburgh, 1880); Anselm of Canterbury (1882); Alexander Duff (London, 1883); Memoirs of James Begg (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1885‑88); and Euclid, his Life and System (1902); translated the
Clementine Recognitions for the Ante‑Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh, 1867) and G. Warneek'a Modern Missions and Culture (1883); and edited the letters of S. Rutherford (1881).
SMITH, WILLIAM ANDREW: Methodist Episcopal, South; b. at Fredericksburg, Va., Nov. 29, 1802; d. at Richmond, Va., Mar. 1, 1870. He professed religion at seventeen years of age, prepared for the ministry, and was admitted into the Virginia Conference in 1825. In 1833 he was appointed agent for Randolph‑Macon College, then in its infancy. He then filled many of the most important stations in his conference until 1846, when he was called to the presidency of Randolph‑Macon College. This position, as well as that of professor of mental and moral philosophy, he filled with great acceptability and efficiency until 1866, when he moved to St. Louis, Mo. After serving here as pastor of Centenary Church for two years, he became president of Central College, located at Fayette in that state. At the eventful general conference of 1844 he took a specially prominent part; and in the celebrated appeal of Rev. Francis A. Harding, and in the extrarjudicial trial of Bishop James Osgood Andrew, he won a national reputation for deliberative and forensic eloquence and for rare powers of argument and debate. He was a hard student and an earnest thinker. The vigor and clearness of his intellect, his candor, independence, energy, and unquestioned ability, caused him to stand in the front rank of the leading minds in the MethodistEpiscopal Church, South. His Philosophy and Practice of Slavery (Nashville, 1857) attracted wide attention as one of the ablest presentations of the southern side of the slavery question ever published. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A biographical sketch by Bishop J. C. Granbery is embodied in the Minutes of the denomination for 1870.
	SMITH, WILLIAM ROBERTSON: English crit
ical theologian and Semitic scholar; b. at New Farm,
near Keig (22 m. n.w. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenddre,
Nov. 8, 1846; d. at Cambridge Mar. 31, 1894."Tie
was educated by his father and at Aberdeen
		University (1861‑65), New College (the
	Life. Free Church theological hall), Edin
		burgh (1866‑70), and the universities of
Bonn and Gbttingen (summers of 1867 and 1869),
while in 1868‑70 he was also assistant to the pro
fessor of natural philosophy in Edinburgh Univer
sity. In 1870 he was appointed professor of oriental
languages and Old‑Testament exegesis in the Free
Church College at Aberdeen, and five years later he
became a member of the Old‑Testament revision
company. It was during this period that a crisis
occurred in Smith's career when he was invited to
prepare articles on Old‑Testament criticism for the
ninth edition of the Encyclopwdia Britannica. The
very first articles (" Angel " and " Bible ") aroused
a storm of protest, and on the unfavorable report of
an investigating committee, in 1877, Smith demand
ed formal trial. His activity as a teacher practically
ended in the following year; his entire series of
articles for the encyclopedia were held to impair
belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures; and in
1881 he was suspended from his professorship. He
had meanwhile delivered at Edinburgh and Glasgow

Smith	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	484
6nethen
two series of lectures which were published as The
Old Testament in. the Jewish Church (Edinburgh,
1881) and The Prophets of Israel (1882). In 1881 he
was invited to become editor in chief of the Ency
dopmedia Britannica, to which he had continued to
contribute, and for which, besides his editorial
duties, he now prepared a series of additional ar
ticles. He did not, however, permit his Semitic
studies to languish, but spent the winter of 1879,80
in Egypt (also visiting Syria and Palestine) and the
following year in Egypt and Arabia. In 1883 he was
appointed to the Lord Almoner's professorship of
Arabic at Cambridge, where he was elected a fellow
of Christ's College in 1885, and in 1886,89 he was
chief librarian of the university. In the latter year
he was chosen Adams professor of Arabic, a dignity
which he held until his death: In 1888‑91 he had
been Burnett Lecturer in Aberdeen, the three courses
being the religious institutions of the Semites, their
religious beliefs, and the historic significance and in
fluence of their religion. Failing health, however,
forbade him to publish more than the first series,
Lectures on the Religion. of the Semites: Fundamental
Institutions (Edinburgh, 1889).
	Smith maintained that Semitic religious concepts
were common to all primitive peoples, and that these
concepts were to be deduced from the data of known
popular religions, the outworking of this theory be
ing best seen in his Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia (Cambridge, 1885) and in his Religion of the
Semites. It was, indeed, in these two books that his
scientific work reached its acme. His study of
primitive Arab life, both as recorded in literature and
as observed at the present day, led him to identify
		it, in all essentials, with that of the
	Theory	early Semites as a whole. As the basis
of Semitic of the most primitive Arab social organ
	Religion. ization he assumed matriarchy, with
		exogamous polyandry and a totemistic
clan system, and for this he sought parallels among
the Hebrews and Arameans. His underlying
ethnological theories, however, need much investi
gation and revision, and his comparative method,
operating with analogies, often gives his hypotheses
only the support of phenomena first recorded
at a late period. Nevertheless, the Kinship and
Marriage represents an amalgamation of scattered
data into a system of culture‑history never be
fore attained in Semitic science. In the Religion of
the Semites Smith sought to ascertain the original
significance of the earliest religious institutions,
maintaining that the history of ancient religions
must be based essentially on ritual, sacrifice, and
religious law, and thus seeking to prove that religion
was the common possession of the prehistoric Semitic
race. Here again, however, the precautions already
noted must be observed. He held that the conserver
of religion was the tribe united by the consanguinity
of all its members, personality being merged in com
munism. At this period there is an animism which
makes little distinction between beings and things.
The tribal god is considered the physical source of the
tribe, and thus a member of it. To the earlier matri
archy corresponds a mother goddess, beside whom
arises a father god with the development of patri
wchy. As the tribe expands in power, the tribal god
gains prestige and is regarded as king. With the rise
of kingship comes an exaltation of law, the king often
being the source of law and being in duty bound to
safeguard it. The concept of the tribal god thus
receives an ethical content, that of justice. This
ancient trital religion was crystallized in fixed in
stitutions, particularly in sacrifice, and its cardinal
concept was " sanctuary," which Smith compared
with the Polynesian taboo and regarded as especially
affecting sacred places. Side by side with this re
ligion of the nomadic Semites Smith posited the
Baal‑cult of the agricultural Semitic peoples, Baal
being, according to him, essentially a fertility deity.
This double system was reflected by the Semitic
sacrifices, those to Baal being a tribute of the prod
ucts of the field, and those to the tribal god being an
animal victim which was eaten (its blood being
devoted to the deity), thus renewing and strength
ening, by eating the same sacrificial victim, the blood
kinship within the tribe as well as between the tribe
and the tribal deity. This kinship, however, could
be secured only if the sacrificial victim was itself
akin to the tribe, so that the victim was the totem
of the tribe, which might be killed only for the sacri
ficial mead. From such a meal Smith deduced his
theory of sacrifice. Gradually the communal meal
and the offering became blended, and the sacrifice
even became (notably in India) a means of actually
controlling the deity. On the other hand, his theory
of the basis of human sacrifice is untenable, nor can
all the phenomena of Semitic religion be derived, as
he fancied, from a single source; while it is also
problematical whether all the concepts of a primitive
religion can be coordinated in a fixed system. ..~
(RUDOLF STfE.)
Bxsraoan"a:: DNB, liii. 160‑162. in the British Museum Catalogue, ax., are entries of pamphlets concerning the trial and the views of Smith, but they are controversial and add little to knowledge of his life. Consult on the trial H. W. Moncrieff, Hist. of the Case of Professor W. Robertson Bmith, Edinburgh, 1881; H. F. Henderson, The Religious Comroroeraies of Scotland, chap. xi., Edinburgh, 1905.
SMYRNA. See ASIA MINOR, IV.
SMYTH smaith (SMITH), JOHN: English Sepa‑
ratist, generally considered the founder of the General Baptists; d. in Amsterdam Aug., 1612 (buried Sept. 1). He studied at Christ's College (he is identified by the principal authorities with a John Smith
who was graduated B.A., 1576; M.A., 1579). He was cited before the university authorities for preaching on Ash Wednesday, 1586, in favor of a strict observance of the Sabbath; was preacher or lecturer at Lincoln, 1603‑05; after nine months of consideration and perplexity he left the Church of
England, and became pastor of a Separatist congregation in Gainsborough,1606. For further notice of his work see BAmsTS, I., 1.
Smyth's publications were A True Description out of the Word of God of the Visible Church (1589; several
times reprinted); The Bright Morning Star, or the Resolution and Exposition of the twenty‑second Psalm, Preached publicly ire Four Sermons at Lincoln (Cambridge, 1603; the only known copy is in the library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge); A Pattern of True Prayer, a Learned and Comfmrtahle Exposition

466	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Emit'
		$nethen
or Commentary upon the Lord's Prayer (London, 1605
and 1624; apparently the first edition has disap
peared); The Differences of the Churches of the
Separation (n.p., n.d., probably 1608 or 1609; it
called forth a reply from Ainsworth, 1609); Par
allels, Censures, Observations (1609; a reply to
Richard Bernard and Ainsworth); The Character
of the Beast (1609; in controversy with Richard
Clifton on infant baptism); A Reply to Mr. R. Clif
ton's 'Christian Plea' (1610). The library of York
Minster possesses a unique tract which contains
(1) An Epistle to the Reader by T. P. [Thomas Pig
gott]; (2) The Last Book of John Smith, Called the
Retraction of his Errors and the Confirmation of the
Truth; (3) Propositions and Conclusions concerning
True Christian Religion, Containing a Confession of
Faith of Certain English People, Luring at Amster
dam, in 100 Propositions; (4) The Life and Death
of John Smith (reprinted in Robert Barclay's Inner
Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth,
pp. i.‑xvi., following p. 117, London, 1876).
BtnLxoaaAPHY: Edward Arber, The Story o) the Pilgrim
	Fathers, pp. 131‑140, London, 1897; T. Crosby, Mist. of
	the English Baptists, i. 91‑99, 265‑271, ib.1738; J. Ivimey,
	Hist. of the English Baptiste, i. 113‑122, ii. 503‑505, ib.
	181130; J. Clifford, The English Baptists, app. x., xm.,
	London, 1881; H. M. Dexter, The True Story of John
	Smyth, the Se‑baptist, Boston, 1881; A. H. Newman,
	Hist. of Antipedobaptism, pp. 378 393, Philadelphia, 1897;
	DNB, liii. 88‑70.
	SMYTH, JOHN PATERSON: Church of Ireland;
b. at Killarney (44 m. w.n.w. of Cork), County Kerry,
Feb. 2, 1852. He was educated at Trinity College,
Dublin (B.A., 1880), and was ordered deacon in 1880
and advanced to the priesthood in the following
year. He was curate of Lisburn Cathedral (1881
1883), and of Harold's Cross, Dublin (1883‑88); and
incumbent of Christ Church, Kingstown, until 1902.
Since 1902 he has been vicar of St. Ann's, Dublin.
He has also been chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland since 1889 and professor of pastoral the
ology in Trinity College since 1902. He has written
How we got our Bible (London, 1886; 18th ed., 1906) ;
The Old Documents and the New Bible (1890); How
God Inspired the Bible (1892); The Divine Library:
Suggestions how to Read the Bible (1896); The Bible
for the Young (3 vols., comprising Genesis, Exodus,
Joshua, Judges, Prophets and Kings, and Matthew;
1901‑08); The Preacher and his Sermon (1907); and
Gospel of the Hereafter (1910).
	SMYTH, SAMUEL PHILLIPS NEWMAN: Con
gregationalist; b. at Brunswick, Me., June 25,
1843. He was educated at Bowdoin College (A.B.,
1863) and at Andover Theological Seminary
(graduated, 1867). In 1863 he was an assistant
teacher in the Naval Academy at Newport, R. I.,
and in 1864‑65 was lieutenant in the Sixteenth Maine
Volunteers. From 1867 to 1870 he was acting
pastor of the Harrison Street Chapel (now Pilgrim
Church), Providence, R. I., after which he was
pastor of the First Congregational Church, Bangor,
Me. (1870‑75), and of the First Presbyterian
Church, Quincy, Ill. (1876,82). In 1882 he be
came pastor of the First Congregational Church,
New Haven, Conn., becoming pastor emeritus
in 1908. He has written The Religious Feeling:
A Study for Faith (New York, 1877); Old Faiths
		X.‑30
in Net, Lights (1879); The Orthodox Theology of To‑day (1881); The Reality of Faith (sermons; 1884); Christian Facts and Forces (1887); Personal Creeds (1890); Christian Ethics (1892); The Place of Death in Evolution (1897); Through Science to Faith (1902); Light in Dark Places (1903); Passing Protestantism and Coming Catholicism (1908); and Modern Belief in Immortality (1910).
SHAPE, ANDREW: Participant in the Bangorian controversy (see HoADLY, BENJAMIN); b. at Hampton Court (13 m. s.w. of London) in 1675; d. at Windsor Castle Dec. 30, 1742. He was educated at Eton and at King's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1693; M.A., 1697; D.D., 1705); became lecturer at St. Martin's, London, and chaplain to the sixth duke of Somerset, by whom he was made rector of St. Mary‑at‑Hill and St. Andrew Hubbard in 1706; he became chaplain to Queen Anne and afterward to King George I.; then headmaster of Eton in 1711, in this period attacking Benjamin Hoadly, one of his Letters to the Bishop of Bangor (1717) passing through many editions; his part in the controversy caused the loss of the king's favor and the position of chaplain; he was made provost of King's College, Cambridge, 1719, and was vice‑chancellor of the university, 1723‑24; became rector of Knebworth, Hertfordshire, 1737, and the same year changed to West Ildesley, Berkshire, holding this position till his death. His sermons were collected, Forty‑five Sermons on Several Subjects (3 vols., London, 1745); he also edited the Sermons of Dean Robert Moss (1732).
B:BLtoaasray: DNB, liii. 203, where references to scattering notices are found.
SNETHEN, NICHOLAS: Methodist Protestant; b. at Fresh Pond (now Glen Cove), Long Island, Nov. 15, 1769; d. on a journey from Cincinnati May 30, 1845. In 1794 he entered the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and served for four years in Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine; preached in Charleston, S. C., 1798‑99; and during 1800 was traveling companion of Bishop Asbury (q.v.); he was secretary of the general conference of 1800, and a member of the conferences of 1804 and 1812, taking a prominent part in the measures for the limitation of the prerogatives of bishops; he retired to his farm at Longanore, Md., 1806, but in 1809 reentered the ministry, serving in Baltimore, Georgetown, and Alexandria, and acting also part of the time as chaplain of the house of representatives; in 1829 he removed to Indiana, and, when the Methodist Protestant Church (see METHODISTS, IV., 3) was organized, united with it, preaching and traveling in behalf of it till his death; he became one of the editorial staff of The Methodist Protestant in 1834; in 1836 took charge of the college of the denomination which was founded in New York City, which enterprise, however, was a failure; in 1837 he returned to the west to take charge of the Manual Labor Ministerial College started at Lawrenceburg, Ind., which also failed, and he then took up his residence in Cincinnati, where he continued to live. His principal publications were A Reply to O'Kelly's Apology (1800), and Answer to O'Kelly's Rejoinder (1801); Lectures on Preaching (1822); Essays on

Snowden	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	466
Social Service
Lay Representation (1835); Lectures on Biblical Sub
jects (1836), and a volume of sermons (1846; ed. W.
G. Snethen).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: References to him will be found in the
	literature on the early Methodists, e.g., J. M. Buckley, in
	American Church History Series, v. 341, 364, 366, 533,
	599, New York, 1896.
	SNOWDEN, JAMES HENRY: Presbyterian; b.
at Hookstown, Pa., Oct. 18, 1852. He was educated
at Washington and Jefferson College (A.B., 1875)
and Western Theological Seminary, Alleghany, Pa.
(graduated, 1878). He has held pastorates at Huron,
O. (1879‑83), First Presbyterian Church, Sharon,
Pa. (1883‑86), and Second Presbyterian Church,
Washington, Pa. (since 1886). From 1893 to 1898
he was also adjunct professor of political economy
and ethics in Washington and Jefferson College, and
since 1898 has been editor‑in‑chief of The Presby
terian Banner (Pittsburg). He favored the revision
of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith in 1901‑03
and union with the Cumberland Presbyterian
Church in 1904‑06, and in theology belongs to the
progressive wing of his denomination. He has
written Scenes and Sayings in the Life of Christ
(Chicago, 1903); and Summer across the Sea (New
York, 1909).
	SOCIAL BRETHREN: A denomination of Chris
tians holding to the general doctrines of orthodox
Christianity, formed in 1867 by an association of
persons who had been members of various churches
but disagreed with their former brethren on certain
points of doctrine and usage. The leading points
of their faith are belief (1) in the Trinity as united
SOCIAL SERVICE
I. General Survey of Philanthropy.
	Among Hebrews and Orientals
		(§ 1).
	In the Eastern Christian Church
		(§ 2).
	The Occident (§ 3).
	Decline in the Middle Ages
		(§ 4).
	Rise of Monastic and Cathedral
		Hospitals (§ 5).
	Municipal Hospitals (§ 6).
	The Reformation (§ 7).
	Humanism and Modern Philan
		thropy (§ 8).
II. Philanthropy in Great Britain.
	To Downfall of Monasteries
		(§ 1).
	To End of Seventeenth Century
		(§ 2).
into one godhead; (2) in the Scriptures as containing all things necessary to salvation; (3) in Christ as the only mediator between God and man; (4) in the visible Church as the congregation of the faithful who have been redeemed through Christ, among whom the pure Word of God is preached and to whom the sacraments are duly administered; (5) in redemption, regeneration, sanctification, and salvation through Christ as enduring to the end, yet with a possibility of apostasy; (6) in baptism‑by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion‑and the Lord's Supper as ordinances of Jesus Christ appointed in the Church, of which true believers are proper subjects, to which all such have right to be admitted; (7) in suffrage and free speech in the Church as the right of all lay members; and (8) that ministers are called of God to preach the Gospel and that only.
The churches are principally in Illinois and Missouri. They are grouped into associations of the ordained ministers, licensed preachers, exhorters, and delegates of the societies of a covenant body of three or more churches; the associations possess appellate jurisdiction over the churches. The associations are affiliated in a general assembly composed of the ordained ministers, licensed preachers, exhorters, general superintendent of schools, and delegates of two or more associations, and this assembly has appellate jurisdiction over the associations. The associations meet annually, the general assembly every second year.
The United States Census Bulletin for 1910 gives them for 1906: 17 organizations, 15 ministers, 1,262 communicants, 15 church buildings with two rented halls, and church property valued at $13,800.
OF THE CHURCH.
Sporadic Efforts for Relief of Need
(§ 3).
Legislative and Other Relief Measures (§ 4).
Rise of Corporate Philanthropy
(§ 5).
Hospitals; Care of Insane; Nursing (§ 6).
Anti‑Slavery and Prison‑Reform (§ 7).
Ragged Schools; Young People's .Societies (§ 8).
Movements under Personal Initiative (§ 9).
Movements in Scotland (§ 10).
Total Abstinence (§ 11).
The Colonies (§ 12).
Prospects (¢ 13).
III. Philanthropy in America.
	I. General Survey of philanthropy. The pre
Christian world possessed no philanthropical insti
tutions. The Old Testament demands mercy and
		charity and contains individual ordi
	i. Among nances for the care of the poor (tithes,
	Hebrews Deut. xiv. 28, 29, xxvi. 12 sqq.), but
	and there was no organized philanthropy
	Orientals. in Israel. There was no need of in
		stitutions because economic conditions
prevented poverty on a large scale. Post‑exilic Juda
ism laid great stress upon almsgiving and there
was much xuutual aid among the Jews, especially in
Colonial Practise (¢ 1). Church and Voluntary Philanthropies (§ 2). Defects Remedied by Organization (§ 3). Public Administration of Aid (§ 4). Principles of Work (§ 5). The Church's Higher Duties (§ 6). Conclusion (§ 7).
IV. Poor‑Relief, General Survey. The Ante‑Nicene Church (§ 1). The Post‑Nicene Church (§ 2). The Middle Ages (§ 3). The Reformation Period (§ 4). Three Modern Types (§ 5).
V. Poor‑Relief in the United States. Early Practise (§ 1). Modern Conditions and Methods (§ 2).
the Diaspora. Likewise there was no organized charity in Greece and Rome. The aid of needy citizens in Athens as well as the distribution of corn
in Rome were not acts of philanthropy, but of a political character. The idea of Christian Philanthropy is approached most closely in the so‑called coller of the Romans, which aided their members by defraying funeral expenses, by distributing bread,

wine, or money, and by giving financial aid in cases of sickness, journeys, and other eventualities.
A real activity of charity developed first in the Christian congregations; but here, too, there were

487	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Snowden
Social service
no institutions for the reason that they were not needed. The members of the small congregations were able to fulfil their mutual duties
z. In the without institutions, and the poor who
Eastern	were mostly slaves were provided for
Christian	by their masters. These conditions
	Church.	changed with the fourth century in
		consequence of the entrance of the
people generally into the Church and the economic
decline of the empire with its resultant pauperism.
The foundation of philanthropical institutions was
one of the results of meeting larger needs with larger
means. They originated in the Orient not earlier
than the middle of the fourth century. Basil
founded near Cwsarea a large institution for the
sick, and especially for lepers and strangers; and,
according to his letters, poorhouses at various
points in his diocese, which were administered by
rural bishops. At Antioch, during Chrysostom's
activity (c. 380), there existed a hospital for the
sick and a house for the poor before the city for
those who, suffering from elephantiasis and can
cer, were forbidden to enter the city. In Constan
tinople under Theodosius T. existed hospitals of
the churches. Chrysostom mentions an inn for
strangers, the necessary expenses for which were
defrayed by the church. The assumption that the
number of such institutions increased in the fifth
and sixth centuries is undoubtedly correct, owing
not only to their recognized value, but doubtless
also to the expansion of monasticism, and Johannes
Cassianus reports that the oriental monastical so
cieties regularly supported xenodochia (houses for
strangers); but there is no positive proof. With the
growing number of institutions there naturally
took place a division of labor. The foundation of
Basil was at the same time an asylum for strangers,
an institution for the poor, a place of occupation, a
hospital, and a home for incurables. This combina
tion was impossible for any length of time; and
according to the rich terminology of the Codex of
Justinian there was a differentiation into poor
houses, foundling‑hospitals, orphanages, and homes
for the aged.
The Occident followed the example of the East somewhat later. Here philanthropical institutions seem to have been unknown until toward the end of the fourth century. Ambrose does not mention them and Augustine, in preaching of
3. The hospitality, clearly betrays that the
	Occident.	reception of strangers in private houses
		was still necessary; but he, through
one of his presbyters, erected a xenodochium. About
Rome the first foundations proceeded from the
circle of men and women influenced by Jerome.
Later establishments are ascribed in the book of
the popes to Pope Symmachus, to Belisarius, the
general of Justinian, and Pelagius IT. In the let
ters of Gregory T. xenodochia are mentioned several
times. Beside those, Gregory the Great knoyvs also
of smaller institutions of the same kind, called dear
conries, i.e., houses in which deacons cared for the
poor of their district. He mentions such in Rome,
Pesaro, and Naples. In Gaul Sulpicius Severus is
the first to be known to have founded a philan
thropical institution by transforming his own house
into a hoapitium domus. The early institutions were founded and supported by the churches or by private individuals. The Church undoubtedly gathered the means of support from its members. It is not improbable that in the beginning the State for a time participated in the support; but it is certain that as early as 390, the xenodochia and kindred institutions were left entirely to the care and administration of the Church, and the State restricted its power to protect and advance them. It approved the principles of organization, complemented them with norms of administration, and granted privileges which the Church then incorporated in legislation. The Roman emperors on the whole approved the episcopal administration of the philanthropical institutions, as well as of the other estates of the churches, and invested the bishops with the duty as well as the right over the acquired bequests. Roman law considered philanthropical establishments as ecclesiastical institutions and granted them and their administrators the same rights and privileges which the Church possessed in general. Concerning the inner arrangement and especially the personnel of the xenodochia there is only incomplete information. Their administration was in the hands of officers appointed by the bishop. In the hospitals there were physicians and a great number of servants partly remunerated, such as probably the Alexandrine Parabolanoi (q.v.). More frequently the nurses seem to have been taken from the circles of ascetics. They lived after the manner of the monks. This seems to have been the case especially in the Occident. Gregory the Great ordered that only religiosi should be elected deacons in Sardinia. The conceptions of monasterium and xenodochium seem to merge together. During the political disturbances from the second half of the fourth century, which finally led to the destruction of the Roman Empire, a great number of philanthropical institutions perished; but the institution as such continued in the East and the West. The number of xenodochia in medieval Constantinople, according to C. du Cange, amounted to thirty‑five. Under Gothic rule the hospital of Cwsarius of Arles was founded and the three hospitals of Symmachus were built while Theodoric the Great governed Rome. In the Frankish Empire Childebert and his wife Ulthrogota founded a large xenodochium at Lyons; the one mentioned by Gregory I. was built by Queen Brunehilde and Bishop Syagrius at Autun. Besides large institutions like these there can not have been wanting xenodochia in the country; for the Synods at Orleans (549) and at Chalon‑sur‑Sane (after 644) protected their possessions in the same way as that of churches and monasteries. Gregory of Tours mentions an asylum for lepers at Chalonsur‑Sane; such are also said to have been at Verdun, Metz, and Maestricht (636), besides many other institutions at various places. Most widely dispersed throughout the Frankish Empire were the small poorhouses (matriculce) in the different churches. In the course of time these matriculce developed into brotherhoods of lower church servants, probably brought about by requiring of their inmates, if capable of work, small church services

Social Service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	468
in return for the alms received. The matriculce of the Frankish period seem originally to have belonged regularly to churches or monasteries. From the Rule of Chrodegang it is evident that episcopal churches possessed matriculcv also in the country. The development of the law of church property in the Franxish period made it poosi' le for individual matreculce to develop nto in,eoendent institutions under administrative heads. They were allowed to acquire their own property and to dispose of it, subject to the will of the bishop. Male adult paupers seem to have been cared for in the matriculce, sofar as may be determined.
Although the philanthropical institutions transmitted from the ancient Church continued in the Frankish Empire, and their number, perhaps, even increased, yet after the migration of
4. Decline nations the period of the institutions in the closed owing to the economical transMiddle formation of Europe. Commerce was Ages. interrupted, change of population ceased, industry was paralyzed, and cities emptied themselves into the agricultural districts; hence, the need of such institutions ceased with the exception of asylums for lepers and hospices on the mountain‑passes. From the time of Charles Martel and his sons and the alienation of ecclesiastical property the independent xenodochium almost entirely disappeared, except in Italy. They existed in the passes of the Alps for the reception of pilgrims, also in the bishoprics of Modena, Arezzo, Aquileia, partly the possession of the bishoprics and partly of the king or the landed nobility. Although their purpose was still the care of the poor and the reception of strangers, the revenues were frequently not used for that purpose, or the institutions had fallen into decay; and the efforts on the part of the nobles for their restoration and the application of their means to their original object were in vain. Thus in Italy the historical continuity was almost though not quite broken; the hospital of the Middle Ages linked itself with the xenodochium of the early Church. North of the Alps, it is evident that the xenodochia as institutions became quite extinct, and in Britain the name does not occur. Into the gap, however, advanced the rising monastic philanthropy. This is already indicated in the rules of Benedict, and the restoration of monastical philanthropy was included in the reform of the monasteries under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious in the ninth century, succeeding that of decay. It is true, the monasteries again greatly degenerated in the latter times of the Carolingians, but the efforts of Charlemagne were not entirely futile. The statutes of Corbie, the property‑list of Priim, and other sources indicate monasteries here and there in which strangers and poor people found refuge and assistance. But its very limited extent goes to show that institutional philanthropy at the beginning of the Middle Ages had lost its importance. The practise of hospitality in the monasteries indeed was more extensive, but this was in the least degree beneficent.
The further reform of the monasteries in the tenth and eleventh centuries and the foundation
of the new orders had, no doubt, an influence upon
the growth of monastical philanthropy. In every
		well‑arranged monastery there was
	g. Rise of now an infirmary for the monks, a
	Monastic hospital (hoapitale pauperum, elee
	and mosynaria) in which a number of
	Cathedral paupers were continuously supported
	Hospitals. and needy travelers received refresh
		ment, while well‑to‑do strangers were
cared for in a special hospice for clericals and
monks. But the support fell mainly to transients
and beggars and the aid to the permanently de
pendent was negligible. Uhich of Zell reports
that in the Lent season of 1085, at Clugny,
1,700 poor were fed, but at the same time,
the number of permanently aided people in the
eleemosynaria of this extraordinarily rich monas
tery amounted only to eighteen. To the hospitals of
the monasteries were then added those of the cathe
drals. Canon 141 of the rule of Aix‑la‑Chapelle
expressly prescribed that every cathedral should
have also a hospital for the poor. The necessary
expenses were to be provided from the property
of the churches, and the canons had to contribute
a tithe of their revenues. Although these ordinances
may not have been followed strictly by all cathe
dral churches, yet from that time in many of them
an asylum for the poor and numerous city hospitals
existed. The work in these hospitals was done in the
beginning by members of the monastery or the
cathedral, or at least taken in charge by them; at
a later time by the laymen of minor brotherhoods
and sisterhoods who crowded the monasteries and
cathedrals in great numbers. These formed a con
vent by themselves and developed in the course of
time into an order by adopting a rule, most fre
quently the so‑called rule of Augustine, and receiv
ing a master or mistress. Thus there developed
from the monastical hospital the house of the hos
pital brotherhood. Many of these hospitals re
mained in the possession and under the supervision
of the monastery or cathedral to which they be
longed, others acquired independence and became
again mother‑houses of new hospitals which were
consolidated with them. There arose hospital
orders, or monastical societies, the chief task of
which was the hospital service. The most famous
hospital orders are those of the knighthood. When
hospital service among the knights gradually re
ceded behind the service of arms and was left to
the half lay brethren and half sisters of the third
estate of the order, the common hospital orders
took up their work. The largest among them were
the Orders of the Cross who had settled chiefly in
Italy, the Knights of the Cross with the Red Star
in Bohemia and Silesia (see CROSS, ORDERS OF), the
Knights of St. Anthony (see ANTHONY, SAINT,
ORDERS OF), and the Order of the Holy Spirit.
The houses of the hospital orders and brother‑
hoods constituted the transition from the ecclesiastical to the municipal hospitals, whereby only these institutions again acquired a more general signifi‑
cance for the promotion of social conditions. Municipal became most of the " Holy Spirit hospitals," which since the thirteenth century were founded in different places in Germany; they were the fruit

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	social service
of either private or municipal initiative, to meet the emergent needs of the rapidly growing cities, but were in the least degree hospitals
6. Munic‑ according to the later sense. The ad‑
ipal ministration and care of inmates were Hospitals. as a rule in the hands of a corporation like an order, while others were under the direct administration of the municipal council which installed the hospital officers and in every case guarded the administration of the property. The inmates bought a place in these institutions for old age or were received through the favors of those having charge of the funds. Besides these, strangers, travelers, paupers, and the sick found in them a temporary refuge. Hospitals in the real sense there were none. Many cities beside the hospitals provided also a house for lepers before the gates. In France in 1225 there were 2,000 houses for lepers, in England 115. A special order was organized, the Order of the Brethren of the House of Lepers of St. Lazarus in Jerusalem, or, as it called itself at a later time, the Knighthood of St. Lazarus (see LAzARmT8). After the thirteenth century there were numerous houses for the support and burial of destitute pilgrims, and Alpine hospices, and orphans and foundlings were received in hospitals. Foundling‑hospitals were numerous in Romance countries, but rare in Germany. The Elsingspittel in London was designed for the blind; in Paris Louis the Pious founded an institution for 300 blind people. Insane asylums are met with only toward the end of the Middle Ages, but they were penitentiaries rather than sanitariums. Fallen girls found refuge in the houses of the Order of St. Mary Magdalen and the Sisters of Penitence. The tendency toward municipal control increased until in the fifteenth century the appearance of civil, communal poor‑relief, which took place first in the hospitals. Local councils proceeded from the control of purely municipal foundations to that of the ecclesiastical, made necessary by their decline. The members of the hospital orders had become rich lords and the funds for the poor had become diverted to their luxury or to ecclesiastical objects, frequently not without fraud; as a result of which the cities took over the hospitals for their reform and administration.
At first the Reformation seems to have had a destructive rather than constructive influence upon philanthropy and philanthropical institutions, be‑
cause of a sudden the old motives of 7. The almsgiving ceased before the appearReformation. ance of the new of spontaneous be‑
nevolence (ut sup.). With the new stimulus the Lutheran Reformation revived the aim of communal poor‑relief. The institutional for the time retired into the background. The process of secularizing was to be carried out everywhere, the older hospitals were to be reorganized or incorporated with the communal poor‑relief, or new ones, essentially asylums for the sick, were to be erected. In spite of the renewed motive, the abundant charitable activity, and the wide multiplication of institutions, the worthy aim of the Reformation, which was the sufficient care of communal poor and the suppression of mendicancy, fell short
of realization and went down in the Thirty‑Years' War. More, however, was accomplished in the Reformed Church. In Zurich and Geneva, poor‑relief was turned over wholly to the municipalities. By the restoration of the office of deacons the Reformed churches in the Netherlands and in France succeeded in calling to life a philanthropy that was in many respects exemplary; especially the excellently managed orphanages in the former, which had a great influence upon charitable work in Germany, in particular upon August Hermann Franeke and in the nineteenth century upon Theodor Fliedner (qq.v.). In England medieval ecclesiastical philanthropy was replaced by the parish care of the poor under the authorization of the State. The principle of the " work‑house " (ut sup.) established in England is still in force, but it has been supplemented by the foundation of special institutions; especially, for poor children (the district and parochial schools) and for the destitute sick (the infirmaries and convalescent homes). In the Roman Catholic Church, the Council of Trent commended the medieval type of the institutions to the special care of the bishops, but communal poor‑relief was not restored, and philanthropy continued preeminently institutional. It is to the credit of that Church that after the Reformation great service has been rendered; new institutions and new orders have been added, especially in France, Italy, and Spain. The main defects to be pointed out are the diversion of funds to prelates and nobles, and the want of systematic efficiency and unity. The Lutheran Church received a new impetus from Pietism. The orphans' home in Halle, the great work of Francke, gave rise to many similar foundations; but the zeal soon slackened contemporaneously with State assumption of the entire sphere of poorrelief. By an edict of July, 1774, the government of Prussia was entrusted with the supervision of the pious bodies and all benevolent institutions, especially hospitals, orphanages, and poorhouses. Consequently numerous philanthropical institutions of the Church were secularized.
The humanism of the Enlightenment presented the first idea of a rational philanthropy, revolutionizing the same not only in Protestant‑
8. Human‑ ism but caught up as the keynote also ism and in Roman Catholic domains. The inModera terest aroused by an abundant humanPhilan‑ istic current literature toward the close thropy. of the eighteenth century resulted in numerous establishments, beginning with the general charitable institution at Hamburg in 1788. Orthodox Christianity was stimulated by the influence and began to develop a more strenuous activity. The Society of Christianity of Basel, founded in 1780, cultivated not only the distribution of Bibles and tracts, but also the care of the poor and sick, training‑institutions, and the like. The distress on account of the wars of French conquest and liberation called to life institutions of various kinds for the alleviation of pain and dis. tress, and with the reawakening of the Christian sense, with the gradual invigoration of churchly life, there went hand in hand a revival of philanthropy which called into existence a multitude of

Social Service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	470
institutions of all kinds; especially houses for the education of male and female workers in the sphere of philanthropy (deacons and deaconesses), houses of refuge, Magdalen asylums, asylums for drunkards, colonies for workingmen, hospitals, infirmaries, institutions for the blind, the deaf and dumb, epileptics, and others. The Innere Mission reports for 1907 18,200 deaconesses of the Kaiserswerth Federation and others, and in all 25,000 sisters engaged in charitable relief; and likewise German brotherhoods with a membership of 2,645. There are no statistics for philanthropical institutions in Germany. Those for Prussia contained in Statistisches Handbuch fur den preussischen Staat, i. 409 (1893), indicate 1,441 general institutions for the sick alone, with 75,224 beds, besides equally numerous institutions covering the other departments of philanthropy. A surprising feature of philanthropy in Germany is the preponderance of municipal institutions over those of the State, the Church, and private foundations. Here the idea of the Reformation is fully realized. The importance which philanthropical institutions on the whole have for the care of the poor is shown by the statistics of the German Empire for 1885 (Statistik des Deutsehen Reichs, xxix.), according to which 270,038 persons in institutions and 616,533 persons outside of institutions were supported. Thus almost one‑third of all the beneficiaries in the empire was supported in institutions, which warrants the inference that the philanthropic institution has become the permanent basis for public charity and is destined to advance along this line.
(A. HAucs.)
II. Philanthrophy in Great Britain: The history of the relation of Christianity toward eleemosynary activities in England and the other portions of the
United Kingdom extends over a i. To Down‑ period of thirteen centuries divisible infall of to three distinct epochs. The first of Monasteries. these covers the interval between the introduction of Christianity into England in 597 A.D., and the dissolution of the monasteries in that country which was practically completed by 1540. In Scotland they were put down, and in many cases destroyed by the mob, about twenty years later. More than, perhaps, in any Portion of western and southern Europe, Christianity had appeared in England as a civilizing as well as a moralizing agency, and its functions resembled those of modern missions to the barbarous tribes of Africa and Polynesia rather than those of missions planted in the midst of the venerable civilizations of India and China. Throughout this
Period of nearly one thousand years, the framework of society was predominantly military. In such an atmosphere of continual contention the care of the sick, the relief of the needy, and even the instruction of youth, were possible only under the supernatural sanction claimed by the Church, and for the most Part all three were in the hands of the moAastic orders. The transition from paganism to Christianity among the masses of the Population was a far slower process than was the nominal acceptance of that faith by the chiefs of the Petty kingdoms forming the Saxon Octarehy. Speaking particu‑
larly of the Northumbrians, J. R. Green observes, " With Teutonic indifference, they yielded to their thegns in nominally accepting the new Christianity as these had yielded to the king. But they retained their old superstitions side by side with the new worship." With this view E. A. Freeman agrees. Such religious zeal and humane impulses as the Dark Ages produced found their expression mainly in the cloistered life. When, in the comparative enlightenment of the thirteenth century, the great preaching orders of itinerant friars sprang up, those who adopted the rule of Francis of Assisi (q.v.) were charged by their great founder to minister to the sick in the lazar‑houses whose occupants leprosy and kindred diseases had doomed to isolation from their fellows. The oldest existing hospital in London, St. Bartholomew's, originated in a monastery dating from the twelfth century. Institutions set apart for the treatment of the sick as such were hardly known until the sixteenth century.
With the downfall of the monasteries ends the first period. The next century and a half constitutes the second epoch. During it, philanthropy was dependent on the means and conscience of the individual citizen, except so far as the State supervened under the Elizabethan poor law. Toward the end of the seventeenth century forms of associated benevolence begin to appear. This phase constitutes the third stage in its evolution.
It is easy to understand why the abrupt suppression of these ecclesiastical institutions in both Eng‑
land and Scotland should leave a z. To End chasm in the lives of the poor. The
of Seven‑ situation is brought vividly before the
teenth eye in the following passage from a Century. report by the commissioners charged
with receiving the surrender of Beaulieu Abbey in Hampshire (the original spelling is retained):
" Ther be Sayntuary men here for dett, felony, and murder, xxxii; many of them aged some very seke. They have all, within (except?) iiii wyves and childem, and dwellynge houses and ground wherby the lyve with their famylies, whiche beynge all assembled before hus, and the Kinges Highnes pleasure opened to them, they have verye lamentable declared that if they be nowe send to other Saynturyes, not onlie they but their wyves and childern also shal be utterly undon."
The law which dissolved the monasteries did indeed transfer the liability to perform the accustomed services for the poor to the shoulders of the new owners of the confiscated property, but it was a duty easily evaded. Though not the only cause, the alienation of monastic property‑and there were 645 monasteries whose aggregate revenues were estimated at $8,000,000‑was one of the principal causes of the great distress chronicled by Bishop Latimer and other contemporary writers. Himself no friend of the old order, that prelate breaks forth against the lax morality of the new in the following vehement passage from one of his sermons: " In times past men were full of Pity and compassion, but now there is no pity . . . . Now charity is waxen cold, none helpeth the scholar nor yet the poor." For two generations there appears to have

471	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8ooia16ervioe
been an interregnum in the general provision made by society for its less fortunate members from the extinction of the religious orders to the passing of the first poor law, only partially filled by the custom of placing in the churches boxes for the receipt of alms for the poor. Instances also are recorded of poor men received into wealthier persons' households. Gradually benevolent private citizens came forward who were liberal in their bequests of property for maintaining schools and alms‑houses. Perhaps the majority of the older towns of England contain grammar‑schools dating their foundation to one of the Tudor sovereigns. It may be doubted whether, in many of these instances, the monarch for the time being had any real share in establishing them. Henry VIII.'s school at Coventry, for example, was so named in order to win his protection, but it was endowed by John Hales, a private citizen.
During the period which elapsed between the final severance from Rome and the accession of the House of Orange in 1688, the sympa‑
3. Sporadic this of the benevolent discovered
Efforts	further scope in founding loan charities
for Relief for assisting deserving tradesmen to
	of Reed.	start in business, in dowries for por
		tionless maidens, in ransoming the
Christian captives of the Mohammedan despots
on the North African littoral, in providing work
for the unemployed poor, and in gifts and bequests
to ameliorate the lot of the sick and of debtors and
other prisoners. The late Rev. B. Kirkman Gray,
in his standard work A History of English Phi
lanthropy (London, 1905), mentions " forty‑six be
quests for setting the poor on work between 1572
and 1692." The express injunctions contained in
the Gospels had always given to the relief of the
sick and of prisoners an especial sanction, and the
frequently recurrent visitations of the plague and
other epidemics, as well as the harshness of the
criminal law, offered abundant opportunity. The
Rev. J. Bamford, rector of St. Olaves, Southwark,
was a shining example of fidelity to one's post. Dur
ing the plague year of 1603, he incurred consider
able unpopularity among his flock by urging on them
the unfamiliar practise of isolating patients under
proper guardianship, instead of thronging round
them or deserting them as pity or panic got the
upper hand. Another remarkable example is that
of Nicholas Ferrar (q.v.). This gentleman, who
in early life had been secretary to the Virginia
Company, removed from London during the plague
year of 1625, and collected round him at Little
Gidding, a sequestered village in Huntingdonshire,
a band of persons of both sexes numbering at one
time, including his own family, as many as forty,
into a kind of religious community having for its
object joint prayer, almsgiving, and acts of personal
charity, such as teaching school, preparing cordials,
dressing wounds, and otherwise tending the sick.
Unfortunately, these efforts, however creditable to those who made them, were but sporadic, inadequate to the needs of the time, and of uncertain duration. The community of Little Gidding survived its founder's death only to be dispersed in the unquiet times of the Civil War. This last event,
by impoverishing the propertied classes, cut off a principal source of the flow of material charity,
although the Puritan majority in the 4. Legisla‑ Long Parliament are entitled to credit
tive and for passing enactments conceived in Other Relief the interest of the masses, such, for in‑
Measures. stance, as those in relief of poor debtors
and for the reform of prison abuses. Dishonest trustees too often intercepted and misapplied the funds dedicated to endowments confided to their administration. Again, the philanthropist of the seventeenth century was handicapped at every turn by his want of practical knowledge. His art was in its infancy. The reserve of past experience on which he could draw was small. He had to make his own experiments, and to grope his way by the light of his own blunders., John Evelyn (d.1706), a stanch churchman of the period, was one of four commissioners appointed by Charles II. in 1664 to undertake the care of the sick, wounded, and prisoners in the then pending war with the Dutch. His own district took in the coastline of Kent and Sussex, and he seems to have extended his attention to the families of the slain, for he notes in his diary under date of May 16, 1665, " To London to consider of the poore orphans and widows made by this bloudy beginning." He reckoned the expenses of his mission at $5,000 a week and subsequently at double that sum, and had the greatest difficulty in extorting it from the government of the day, as may be judged from the following passage from a letter to the lord treasurer's secretary: "One fortnight has made me feele the utmost of miseries that can befall a person in my station and with my affections: To have 25,000 prisoners, and 1,500 sick and wounded men to take care of, without one peny of money, and above £2,000 ($10,000) indebted. It is true I am but newly acquainted with buisinesse . . . learning that at once which others get by degrees." He proceeds to speak of his desire of serving God " in anything which I hope He may accept, for I swears to you no other consideration should tempt me a second time to this trouble."
The closing years of the seventeenth century saw, as Kirkman Gray has pointed out, the extension of individual into corporate philanthropy. The leaders in this new departure included men like
Robert Nelson (d. 1715) who had made 5. Rise of the grand tour of France and Italy, for
Corporate the older countries of the continent
Philan‑ were at that time somewhat in advance
thropy. of the English in this respect. The in‑
flux of Huguenot refugees consequent upon the revocation of the Edict of Nantes also lent a stimulus to the movement. With Nelson was associated Anthony Horneck (d. 1697), a German settled in England who had taken orders in the Established Church. Evelyn describes him as " a most pathetic preacher, a person of a saint‑like life." Both Nelson and Horneck were authors of numerous theological works. They joined in forming associations for the reformation of manners and morals which sprang up during the last quarter of the century as a reaction against the license prevalent during Charles the Second's reign. Nelson was one of the founders of the Society for Promoting

Social Service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	479
Christian Knowledge (see TRACT SOCIETIES, III., 2) in 1698 and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 1701. He was also a member of the commission appointed by the house of commons to add fifty new churches to the metropolis, then rapidly extending its boundaries. A great object of both the societies above named was, in the first instance, to extend religious teaching to portions of Great Britain and her dependencies which were untouched by the parochial system of the Church of England. Thus, regions so far apart as the Scottish Highlands and the American plantations became objects of their efforts. A cooperator in the same field was Thomas Bray, commissary to the governor of Maryland. The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge had its headquarters in London, but had correspondents throughout the country. A great feature of its work was the establishment of " charity schools." These were originally day‑schools imparting rudimentary instruction in reading and writing and, generally, also in arithmetic and some simple manual occupation. Religious instruction was insisted upon in all the schools. In the absence of any uniform or national system of education, the society did a great work, although the total number of children in attendance all over the country appears never to have exceeded 30,000 at any one time. The system continued to be actively carried out through the greater part of the eighteenth century. Toward the end of this period Miss Hannah Ball (d. 1792), an early disciple of John Wesley, started a Sunday‑school at High Wycombe. Another was set on foot in Gloucester by Miss Cooke, also a Methodist, for the benefit of the children engaged in her uncle's pin‑factory. From such‑small beginnings the movement was spread largely through the sympathy of the editor of the influential Gloucester Journal, the well‑known Robert Raikes, (q.v.). In 1801 a conservative estimate computed these schools at 1,516, with an average exceeding 100 children in each, in London alone (see SuNDAYseHOOI.s).
The eighteenth century witnessed the spread, and indeed almost the genesis, of the modern hospital system. Until then, the only hospitals, even in
London, had been adapted from the 6. Hospitals; medieval monastic establishments of
Care of St. Bartholomew's and St. Thomas's.
Insane; Bedlam was rather a house of deten‑
Nursing. tion than a curative institution for the
insane. While the care of the sick, in its early stages, was intimately connected with the afflatus of Christianity, the forward movement of the period above mentioned appears to have owed its origin mainly to the humane instincts of leading medical practitioners combined with an entirely legitimate desire in the profession to utilize the institutional care of the sick in the study and advancement of the science and practise of the healing art. From these considerations it would seem that, so far as the extension of the hospital system at this date was a branch of philanthropy, it falls outside the title and scope of the present section. An exception should perhaps be made in the case of the new and more humane treatment of the insane inaugurated in 1791 at York by William Tuke (d.
1822), a tea‑merchant of that city and a member of the Society of Friends. In the Tuke family, as in the sect to which it adhered, philanthropy has been hereditary. William Tuke's great grandson, James Hack Tuke (d. 1896), twice traveled in Ireland to administer relief during the famine year of 1847, and again during the distress of 1881. He also journeyed to Paris during the Commune of 1871 to distribute $100,000 raised by his denomination to relieve the sufferings arising from the siege of the preceding winter. A further exception with regard to the late Miss Florence Nightingale (q.v.), who first established a training‑school for sick‑nurses, and had herself in early life been a disciple of Elizabeth Fry (q.v.), should also, perhaps, be made.
Conversely, the Methodist movement of the same century (see METHODISTS, I.) was too exclusively concerned with the Evangelical revival to rank
among directly philanthropic or social 7. Anti‑ agencies, though John Wesley himself
Slavery and wrote against Slavery (q.v.). With the Prison‑ founders of the so‑called "Clapham
Reform. Sect," however, the association of the
agitation against the slave‑trade, and ultimately against slavery itself, was close and intimate. As early, indeed, as 1727, the Society of Friends at its annual meeting had taken up the position that " the importing of negroes from their native country and relations by Friends is not a commendable nor allowed practise." From these two bodies were drawn most of the champions of the crusade. The historian Lecky remarks that the activity of the philanthropic spirit " has been largely stimulated by the Evangelical Revival." The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded by Granville Sharp (d. 1813) in 1787 was largely composed of Quakers. William Wilberforce (q.v.) was a leading member of the Low‑church or Evangelical colony settled round Clapham Common, and was besides an influential member of parliament and a friend of William Pitt, the prime minister. Thus he constituted a link between the religious and the political worlds. Thomas Clarkson (d. 1846) was already in deacon's orders in the Church of England when he took up the question, and actually refrained from taking priest's orders lest that profession should interfere with his prosecution of the cause, to which he felt so strong a call that he writes, " At length I yielded, not because I saw any reasonable prospect of success in my new undertaking (for all cool‑headed and cool‑hearted men would have pronounced against it) but in obedience I believe to a higher Power." Again, the era of Prison Reform (q.v.) was inaugurated by john Howard (q.v.). Of Non‑conformist training and strong religious sentiments, his duties as high sheriff of Bedfordshire brought him into contact with the harsh treatment of prisoners in his native land. The horrors of jail fever were equaled by those of the miscellaneous herding together of the novice or perhaps the innocent with the most depmVed. His end came in the course of prosecuting his investigations in the prisons of South Russia. His endeavors were directed toward the reform of the system; those of Elizabeth Fry who, like the Tukes, came of a prominent Quaker family, aimed

473	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Social service
at the reform of the individual prisoner. Their memories have been perpetuated and their work continued by societies bearing their names.
Inspired also by the Evangelical sentiment, and one of the foremost pillars of that branch of the Church of England throughout the middle half of last century, was Anthony Ashley Cooper, seventh earl of Shaftesbury (q.v.), of whom Professor Blaikie has remarked, " The lives of Howard, Mrs. Fry, Wilberforce, and other great philanthropists are associated mainly with a single cause‑Shaftesbury's with half a score." Like Wilberforce, he stood for the ideal of philanthropy in the stormy cross‑seas of politics. His sympathies for the suffering were first attracted to the insane by an inquiry instituted in parliament into the condition and treatment of that unfortunate class. Thenceforward he continued throughout his life a member of a permanent commission charged with the supervision of asylums for lunatics. In 1833 he proceeded to engage in the amelioration of the lot of industrial workers, particularly of women and children, at that time employed not only in factories but also in collieries. Not content with knowledge at second hand, he ascertained the conditions under which they worked by personal visitation. And here it seems permissible to observe that the charity of one generation is apt to become the oppression of its successors. One of the abuses against which Shaftesbury strove was the exploitation of young children in the textile trades. Yet this very practise had been fostered, if not inaugurated, in those schools for imparting instruction in manual crafts as well as in book‑learning and conduct, set up by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and carried still further in schools connected with the workhouses of those days. Of course there was always this marked difference that the factories were run for private profit, while the receipts from the school‑children's handiwork went to support the schools, and not into the pockets of the managers.
To return to Lord Shaftesbury. In the "hungry forties" he took up the cause of the uncared‑for boys in the streets, and promoted the organization of
the so‑called Ragged Schools for their
8. Ragged benefit‑another of those charitable
Schools; movements directly traceable to religYoung ious impulse. Rather than oppose,
People's in common with the land‑owning class
Societies. as a whole, the repeal of the Corn
Laws, he vacated his seat in the house of commons. By this time he had acquired a definite influence among the working classes, who were beginning to appreciate his disinterested efforts on their behalf. When the wave of discontent, which had been gathering mass and moment through a long series of years, threatened in 1848 to catch infection from Paris and to break forth into active revolt, he was besought to exercise that influence in favor of peace and order, and afterward received the thanks of the home secretary for his efforts in that direction. Another cause which enlisted his aid was that of the improvement of working‑class dwellings. Lord Shaftesbury was also a supporter of the Young Men's Christian Association (see YouNe PEopLz's Soc=TIEB). This
society was set on foot in 1844 with the primary object of evangelizing the masses of young men engaged in trade and business in the metropolis, many of them living at a distance from their families and friends, and left to their own resources to avoid or to succumb to the varied temptations surrounding them in so vast a city. In time it added to its original program by establishing libraries and reading‑rooms, classes in various branches of study, and employment bureaus. Sir George Will'ams (q.v.), himself head of a large drapery firm in St. Paul's Churchyard, was identified with this effort from its commencement, and was its treasurer until his death, when the association included 7,229 branches scattered throughout the United States as well as the British Empire. A sister society for young women followed in 1855. Reference has been made to the Ragged School movement. Connected with it as regards the class to be benefited was the Reformatory and Refuge Union, founded in 1856 to supply a center of information and encouragement for the already numerous local and isolated efforts to meet the needs of the various classes of delinquents ‑e.g., youthful offenders, unfortunate women, and discharged prisoners.
It has been pointed out above that the last two centuries have been the age of associated benevolence. But this is not to say that individual beneficence has been superseded. On the
g. Move‑ contrary, during the past half‑cenments under tury, as much at least as during any
Personal	earlier period, schemes of the greatest
	Initiative.	magnitude have been the outcome of
		the initiative of a single person. Even
the method of three centuries ago of bequeathing
money for pensions or almshouses is not extinct.
But the ideal of personal service is higher, and the
chief benefactors have in their lifetime drawn to
gether bands of sympathizers who act under their
leadership and can continue their work. The great
mission carried on by the late Dr. Thomas John
Bamardo (d. 1905) had its modest beginning in his
compassionate observation of the city arab class
while himself a medical student. At the date of his
death 60,000 children were computed to have
passed through the various institutions he had
founded, 16,000 having been placed in British
colonies. Of these it is said that only 300, or less
than two per cent, have failed to do well. Another
great organization in the same field is the Church
of England Society for Waifs and Strays. With its
establishment the Rev. Edward de Montjoie Rudolf
has been especially connected. The Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which holds a
quasi‑official position, and has had 144,234 children
under its notice during the twenty‑five years of its
existence, was the creation of Benjamin Waugh, a
Congregationalist minister. As an example of what
individual inspiration can effect, it would be hard to
find a more conspicuous example than that of the
Salvation Army (q.v.), the creation of the evangel
izing zeal of the Rev. William Booth (q.v.), and his
wife Catherine Mumford Booth (q.v.). To plan an
organization designed for home mission work upon
a military framework must have demanded great
originating power in the first instance. To extend it

Social Service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	474
so as to meet multiform distress in many lands and races demanded obviously great organizing power. When General Booth issued his scheme of social reform In Darkest England (London, 1890), the Army had already officers and others engaged wholly in the work to the number of 4,506 in the United Kingdom and 4,910 in the United States and the rest of the world, and it possessed Shelters, Rescue Homes, a Prison Gate Mission, and other institutions. The Church Army is a somewhat similar organization founded in 1882 by the Rev. Wilson Carlile (q.v.), a Church of England clergyman, rector of St. Mary‑at‑Hill in London.
As stated above, the monastic system came to an end in Scotland about twenty years after its overthrow in England. In John Knox's work on ecclesiastical government, entitled The Book of Discipline, it is recommended that the revenues
io. Move‑ of the old Church should be applied
meats in among other things to the maintenance
	Scotland.	of education in the parish and burgh
		schools, and to the relief of the aged
and infirm poor. The able‑bodied poor were, ac
cording to his scheme, to be compelled to work.
In 1562, the General Assembly of the Kirk peti
tioned for provision to be made for the poor. Prac
tical effect, however, was not given to Knox's
recommendations respecting education until an Act,
passed in 1696, stipulated for the maintenance of a
school in every parish at the cost of the heritors,
or landowners. Nearly three centuries after Knox,
another great divine of the Scottish Presbyterian
church led the van in the reform of poor‑relief,
which took place in Scotland as in England, though
not upon identical lines, in the first half of last
century. This was Thomas Chalmers (q.v.), a man
of wide interests who had added to his professional
training in theology the study of natural science
and of political economy. Placed in charge suc
cessively of the large parishes of Tron and St. John
in the city of Glasgow, then rapidly growing into
the commercial capital of Scotland, he organized,
with the help of a number of zealous lay coadjutors,
the administration of relief to the poor of the
parish on such lines that, while the total expendi
ture was reduced. from $8,000 to $1,400, "this
result," according to Professor Blaikie, one of his
biographers, " was accompanied not by a diminu
tion but an increase of comfort and morality.
Drunkenness decreased, and parents took an in
creased interest in the welfare of their children."
The influence of Chalmers' experience and teaching
in this department of philanthropy was wide‑spread,
and its fruits may still be seen in the extensive
ramifications of the charity organization system on
both sides of the Atlantic and of the Pacific.
The movement in favor of Total Abstinence (q.v.) found in Ireland one of its earliest champions. This was Theobald Mathew (q.v.), a Fran‑
ce. Total ciscan friar in Cork. Visiting much
Abstinence. among the poor, he became impressed with the evils of intemperance, and, having taken the pledge himself at the instance of some Non‑conformist friends, he proceeded to preach what he already practised. Possessed of an engaging personality, his influence was immense
with his fellow countrymen. Judges on assize commented on the diminution in crime. The exchequer officials had to comment upon the diminution in revenue, for the receipts from the excise on spirits fell by one‑third. Unfortunately the famine diverted his energies to raising funds for the sufferers. He visited New York and Washington, and prosecuted his campaign there between 1849 and 1851.
Enjoying ample land‑room with general prosperity, the over‑seas self‑governing countries'of the empire have so far escaped the necessity of dis‑
covering new solutions for distress in rs. The their midst. Local adaptations of
Colonies. machinery originated in older countries
‑the societies founded by St. Vincent de Paul (q.v.) from France, the Salvation Army and the Young Men's and Young Women's Christian Associations from England, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union from the United States‑‑appear to have proved adequate hitherto to supplement the governmental activities of a democratic rdgime. A great deal of quiet benevolence and neighborliness is exhibited in the ready adoption of orphans and destitute children into private families.
Within the last forty years the desire for social reform in Great Britain has taken three new shapes, those, namely, of charity organization, of tenement reform, and, through reform of tenements, the reformation of the tenants, and of settlement work. While great public spirit and much genuine human sympathy have been displayed in these movements, and while, in all three, zealous clergymen and other church‑members may be found taking a share, they, in common with the earlier hospital movement, have been too little the product of ecclesiastical or definitely religious leadership to come within the scope of the present treatment.
It may be that philanthropy is on the verge of passing into a further stage. From causes which were glanced at in the opening paragraphs, law, state‑craft and diplomacy, medicine and literature, as well as education, were once subordinate but almost exclusive domains of the Church. To be
able to read was proof presumptive 13. Pros‑ that a man was a priest, or at least in
	pects.	minor orders. The four first pur
		suits have, of course, long since passed
into the hands of the laity, and education is passing
now. At the present moment, departments which
hitherto have formed the realm of philanthropy
are in process of annexation by the State itself.
Already school‑children are fed, septuagenarians
pensioned, and employment bureaus and relief works
subsidized at the public cost. Proposals embodying
a drastic alteration of the poor law are being ac
tively urged. If they are carried out in their
entirety the drain on private resources will react
first of all on the funds available for purposes of
voluntary charity, while at the same time few de
partments of benevolence will remain outside the
control of the State or of municipalities. The trans
ference of power from the classes supplying benefac
tors to the classes supplying beneficiaries, already
to a great extent effected, is likely to accelerate

476	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	social Service
this process, of which the attendant dangers are, obvious. It can only be hoped that the motives which have hitherto inspired philanthropic action will in the future inspire the conscientious and sympathetic discharge of their new duties on the part of the central and local administrations and their officials. In this connection the influence of the Christian Social Union, a body under the guidance of Bishop Gore of Birmingham, Canon Scott Holland, and other distinguished Anglicans both lay and clerical, which studies social and economic problems and seeks to control industrial and commercial relations in accordance with the principles enunciated in the New Testament and by the Church, may have a great future open to it.
C. H. d'E. LEPPINGTON.
III. Philanthropy in America: The development of philanthropy in the modern western world is illustrated by the parable of the seed growing secretly, " First the blade, then the ear, then
x. Colonial the full corn in the ear." In the pioneer Practise. communities there is little poverty and no pauperism; the few who need assistance are cared for by their neighbors; organized charity is not needed. The churches in the early New England colonies included practically the whole population, and any of their members who were in need or in suffering were relieved by the voluntary compassion of the brotherhood. As the communities grew older, and families decayed, and the number of the defective and the decrepit and the helpless multiplied, some communal provision was made for the care of the poor; each town contracted with some citizen for the keeping of its dependents. Later, poorhouses were erected and yearly appropriations were made, at the town meetings, for the support of the poor. In these poorhouses the hopelessly insane were also confined, no provision yet being made for restorative treatment. Outside of New England the county was generally charged with the care of the poor; the almshouses and infirmaries were county institutions. Thus it will be seen that the tendency pointed out above (I., § 7) as prevailing among the Lutheran and Reformed churches at the time of the Reformation was active in the American communities. The care of the poor was turned over to the public authorities. When the town and the church were practically one this was of no importance; but when the standing order was disestablished, and the secular community was discriminated from the religious community, this virtual abandonment by the church of one of its primary functions was a serious matter for the church and perhaps for the poor.
At the present day, therefore, the American churches do not consider themselves wholly responsible for the care of the poor of the com‑
b. Church munity. The same thing is true of
and Volun‑ Great Britain. This work has been tary Philan‑ largely taken over by the civic author‑
	thropies.	ities‑by the town or the parish or the
		city or the county. The churches do,
however, find work of this kind to do. Many
churches have in their own membership those
who, from misfortune or accident, are in want, and
something is done for the relief of these, though, even here, the ministry often lacks much of being all that could be desired. The churches, also, through mission Sunday‑schools and other such agencies, extend their acquaintance among the poor aad the unfortunate, and thus the rich and the poor are brought together and want is supplied and sorrow comforted. Services of this nature are not noised abroad, but it is probable that the amount of help thus quietly extended to needy persons is considerable. A great variety of voluntary philanthropies are also maintained in every populous town or city. Hospitals, homes for the aged, orphanages, cr6ches,. Magdalen asylums, societies for the relief of the poor in their homes, free dispensaries, diet kitchens, convalescent homes, district‑nursing organizations, social settlements, and many other such organized methods of compassion and friendship are everywhere in operation. By these voluntary philanthropies a large part of the charity of the community is administered. These are, in good part, the inspiration of the churches; most of the workers in them are church‑members. Generally these voluntary charities are undenominational; representatives of all the churches unite in maintaining them; they furnish a grateful occar sion for the manifestation of Christian unity.
The administration of this voluntary philanthropy by the churches and the various charitable organizations, is apt to be defective in two ways; there is, first, much overlapping, and
3. Defects unscrupulous mendicants are often
Remedied able to secure aid from several differ‑
by Organi‑ ent sources at the same time; and,
	zation.	secondly, the relief is apt to be ren
		dered without adequate investigation,
and upon sentimental and emotional, rather than
practical, considerations, so that habits of mendi
cancy are encouraged and the character of the re
cipients is damaged. For these reasons the organ
ization of the voluntary charities has been found
necessary, so, that cooperation migfit be secured
and relief be administered by more rational and
conservative methods. The " Charity Organiza
tion Societies " or " Associated Charities " have
been, for the last quarter of a century, effective
agencies in the improvement of the methods of
charitable relief. They have not always been able
to secure so large a degree of cooperation as they
have sought, for there are many sentimental per
sons in the churches and the charitable societies
who have but dim comprehension of the amount
of harm that may be done by fostering mendicancy,
and who are more disturbed by a tale of physical
discomfort than by the spectacle of a ruined charac
ter. But the principle of the charity organization
societies, " Not alms but a friend," is the sound
Christian principle; the aim is to stimulate self
respect, self‑reliance, industry, and frugality; to
give temporary relief when that is needed, but,
above all, to help the poor to help themselves.
Much criticism has been bestowed on this work by
those who view the matter superficially; these
organizations have sometimes been called " socie
ties for the prevention of charity." It is quite
probable that the repressive features of the work

Social Service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	478
philanthropic work in America at the present time
are somewhat chaotic; the work is not well sys
		tematized; there is much conffict of
g. Principles jurisdictions and much confusion of
	of Work methods; there is great need of some
		revision of the entire program of char
itable relief. The principles which should govern
this administration have been somewhat roughly
indicated in this survey. (1) It is important that
the State should more clearly define its own phil
anthropic function; that it should determine how
much it can wisely undertake in behalf of the de
pendent classes. The institutional work in which
it is now widely engaged should, for the most part,
be carried forward. If public outdoor relief is to be
attempted this relief should be given in such a way
as not to demoralize the recipients. The work to be
done in such cases is largely the repair or the re
building of damaged character. It ought to be in
the hands of those who have some skill in the res
toration of souls. If the State can not furnish offi
cials who know how to save men and women, it
would better leave this work to be done by others.
But it will still be necessary that the law stand
near to help the volunteer workers. There is many
a broken family the wreck of which is caused by
the brutality and dissipation of the husband and
father, and the wisest help will fail to lift the fam
ily out of misery unless he can be separated from
them and subjected to a discipline in which he
may recover his manhood. He ought also to be
kept at productive labor and his net earnings turned
over to his family. Charity workers are constantly
meeting complications of this sort in which the
power of the State must be invoked for the protec
tion of the weak and the enforcement of conjugal
or parental responsibility. If, therefore, such co
operation as this between the State and the volun.
teer workers is to continue, the terms upon which
it is carried on should be explicitly defined by law.
(2) It is also needful that the churches should come
to a clear understanding of their relation to this
entire problem of philanthropy. If they have in
spired the commonwealth to undertake these works
of compassion they have done well, but their work
is not yet done; it is hardly conceivable that an
institution which represents Jesus Christ in the
world should ever be able to discharge itself from
responsibility for the poor, the sick, and the un
fortunate. It has no business on its hands more
urgent than this; it can never convince the world
of the genuineness of its commission unless it is ad
dressing itself intelligently and efficiently to this
task. (3) The churches of every town or city should
recognize their joint responsibility for the care of
all the poor and the miserable and the unfortunate
of their community. If the State has taken over
some portion of it, still the churc~es are responsi
ble for seeing that the work of the State is hu
manely done. This is a work that can not be
done by the churches without systematic coopera
tion. If there were no other reason for the union
of the churches of the community, this would be
reason enough. The Christian people of every city
are confronted by poverty, sickness, distress, and
misfortune. They can not count themselves dis‑
have sometimes been over‑emphasized, but the
need of such discriminations and restraints can not
be gainsaid, and the efficiency of our voluntary
charities largely depends on such cooperation and
regulation as the charity organization societies
seek to secure. 	n
The greater part of philanthropic work, however, is done by public agencies. The Christian religion has filled modern society with what Benjamin Kidd
calls " a great fund of altruistic feel4. Public ing," which finds expression in a vaAdministra‑ riety of public philanthropies. To
Lion of Aid. that extent the State has been Christianized. " All‑of‑us," cooperating through civil institutions and public agencies, are seeking to care for the poor and the sick and the unfortunate. Let it not be forgotten that it is the enforcement of the teachings of Jesus Christ by his Church that has brought this to pass. Such results are not visible in non‑Christian countries. The public philanthropies are largely institutional. Hospitals, almshouses and infirmaries, asylums for the insane, the blind, the deaf, the feeble‑minded, the epileptic, homes for orphan children, sanatoriums for the victims of tuberculosis‑all such institutions are provided for the most part gratuitously for the helpless poor and the unfortunate. Much of this work is of such a character that it could not well be left to voluntary agencies; the burden of it ought to be borne by the entire community. That the community is willing to bear it‑that public opinion requires the imposition of this charge upon the public treasury is a signal triumph of Christian civilization.
The legitimacy and necessity of what is technically called indoor relief are thus apparent. But the State also undertakes to administer relief to the poor in their own homes, and for this service it is ill qualified. If, indeed, such conditions as prevail in the German cities could be secured‑if the municipality could enlist a large force of its most intelligent and competent men and women to serve as visitors, this work might be done by the public with the best results. In Berlin more than 3,000 visitors of the poor are appointed by the city. They are selected with great care, are men of character, and are compelled to serve. The districts are small and the service is not onerous, but it is not optional; the penalty of refusal or neglect is disfranchisement. With such a force of visitors the city can dispense relief intelligently. But it is doubtful whether any such service as this could be secured by an American city; the investigating force is always absurdly inadequate and generally incompetent; the officials charged with this duty are frequently careless and sometimes corrupt; the funds are used for political purposes, and, as a rule, the needy are neglected and impostors get the lion's share. For this reason some American cities have abolished public outdoor relief and leave the care of the people in their own homes to voluntary charity, sometimes employing the associated charities or other voluntary organizations to do the work of investigation, and granting relief upon their recommendation.
It thus becomes evident that the conditions of

477 1	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	8oMs1 servfae
ciples of Jesus Christ if they are indifferent to this call. And they can not meet this responsibility unless they unite. This is the summons to the organization of the municipal church, which must include all who call themselves Christians. Something which might thus be described ought to exist in every Christian community. The responsibility of this body for the care of the needy and the helpless can not be gainsaid. No creed is needed for such an organization; it should be simply " the union of all who love in the service of all who suffer." (4) In many communities the nucleus of such an organization already exists. There is a " Federation of the Churches," or a " United Brotherhood," which holds occasional union meetings, but sometimes finds it hard to justify its existence. Let it envisage this task. Let it assume the responsibility for the philanthropies of the city. (5) When it is manifest that the churches are united for this purpose, it will not be difficult to bring the local charities into cooperation. Most of the workers in these local charities are members of the churches and they will recognize the right of the municipal church to take charge of this business. Thus the entire field would be covered, every section of the city would be supervised, and the work would be so divided among the churches and the other organizations that there would be no overlapping, and no failure to reach and relieve cases of real need. (6) The administration of outdoor relief would thus be made intelligent and adequate; the churches by uniting would recover for themselves that sacred and vital function which through their divisions they have so largely permitted to lapse, and they would regain the opportunity of exercising that friendship which is the primary reason for their existence. How‑ greatly this would strengthen their hold upon those portions of the community which are now largely alienated from them needs not to be said. The financial burden, if all the churches shared it, would be very light; the actual amount of money needed for the relief of want in American communities is not large; the help that is needed is moral, rather than material. Every poor family needs a friend, and in the majority of cases the less there is of financial assistance the better for all concerned. (7) This municipal church would also put itself into closest sympathetic relations with all the voluntary philanthropic institutions of the city which are studying these problems, and seeking to make their service more intelligent and efficient. All these institutions are dependent on the churches, and there is great need that their relation to the churches be made more vital and organic. The municipal church would have a committee in charge of the interests of each one of them, watching its work, giving sympathetic counsel and support, and reporting its needs to the churches. (8) The municipal church would also establish helpful relations with the municipal charitable and reformatory institutions, with hospitals, children's homes, work‑houses, juvenile courts, jails, and prisons. Over all the unfortunate in these places it would exercise a watchful care. There would be an efficient committee over each of them observing the conditions, studying the problems,
and keeping the Christian community thoroughly informed respecting them. It is not to be assumed that this supervision of public institutions would be necessarily critical or inquisitorial; it would normally be sympathetic and helpful; it would only seek to bring the good‑will of the Christian community into close and practical relations with some of its neediest members.
It is a deplorable fact that the organizations which represent Jesus Christ in our modern communities have no methods of keeping themselves in touch with the inmates of these public charitable and correctional institutions. They have passed all that business over to the State, and have divested themselves of responsibility for it: It is a faithless performance. In that impressive parable of the judgment the Son of man arraigns those who are brought before him, because, as he says, " I was sick and in prison and ye visited me not . . . . Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it not to me." Until the Christian Church in every city or town has put itself into relations of practical friendship with all these classes, it is resting under a heavy condemnation.
Such are some of the pathological phases of the philanthropy which the Christian Church in the modern community may be expected to practise.
But the true philanthropy is not 6. The merely remedial. It seeks to discover
Church's and remove the causes of misery.
Higher And the Christian Church has, for so‑
Duties. ciety as well as for the individual, not
only a message of redemption but also a message of regeneration. It must cleanse the sources from which want and sickness and vice are flowing. It is futile to go on relieving all these social maladies and leave untouched the causes which constantly produce them. And the municipal church, when it has once fairly grappled with its great tasks, will feel that its most important work, after all, is to give us a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. (1) It will discover that the sickness and physical debility to which it is trying to minister are in considerable part the result of bad housing‑conditions, of unsanitary tenements and overcrowding, and it will turn the light on these conditions and stir up a public sentiment which shall abolish nuisances and pestilence‑breeders, and secure healthy habitations for the people. (2) It will bring home to the Christian conscience of the community the fact that in most of our cities multitudes of children have no accessible playgrounds but the streets, and that the conditions there surrounding them are unfavorable to the development of sound character. Abundant evidence shows that the streets are the seminaries of vice and crime. Little that is normal in the life of a child is permitted in them; the tendency of the associations of the street is toward that which is abnormal and criminal. Safe and wellregulated playgrounds are a vital need of city boys and girls and far less costly than the reform schools to which so many of them are later sent. A few intelligent men and women have discovered the importance of this provision and are working to

Social service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	478
secure it, but the churches are primarily responsible for the welfare of these boys and girls, whether they belong to their Sunday‑schools or not, and it is their business to educate the community upon this vital matter. (3) It is hardly needful to dwell upon the devastations of the drink evil (see TOTAL ABSTINENCE); nor to point out how large a share of our philanthropic labors and sacrifices are made necessary by this destructive vice. The municipal church will be wide awake to this evil, and may be depended on to do what it can to abate the injuries of which the saloons are the source. It is to be hoped, also, that it may discover the importance of meeting that bad influence by counter‑attractions, and providing safe places of social resort for the multitude of homeless young men and women. The terrible ravages of the social evil will also challenge the faith and courage of the municipal church. For much of the poverty, the disease, the crime, the wreckage of homes is due to this cause. Competent observers of social conditions assure us that the damage done by the saloons is trivial compared with this. To whom may people look for an intelligent, thorough, adequate treatment of this social malady, if not to the Christian Church? Is it possible that the institution which is charged with the moral education of society can venture to ignore this responsibility? (4) Much of the poverty and sickness to which we are called to minister is due to the devitalized condition of the laborers, and this, in many cases, is the result of child labor in earlier years. When the municipal church begins to deal with the causes of the ills it is trying to cure, it will find here some serious work to do. (5) Unemployment is an ungainly word, but it describes an ugly thing. Much of it is due to shiftless men or inefficiency, but by no.means all. Two‑thirds of the families which apply in good times to the charity organization societies for aid are in need because they are out of work. To this tremendous problem the municipal church must address itself sympathetically and intelligently. This is the gravest of misfortunes, the sorest of troubles. If any man deserves a friend it is the man who is in need and is willing to work. Such a man ought never to be in doubt that there is one great friend to whom he can go, and that is the Christian Church. Such men generally do go to the ministers; there is a constant procession of them to the doors of the study, but it is hardly possible for the minister to find work for many of them; if the municipal church were properly organized it would have an employment bureau. (g) Not a little of the unemployment and the consequent poverty which taxes philanthropy is caused by industrial wars. Very destructive and disastrous to the fortunes and the characters of employers and employed are these bitter conflicts; the municipal church ought to be able to put an end to some of them. It is the representative of the Prince of Peace, and it has no more sacred function than that of the peace‑maker.
These are not the only ways in which the municipal church could exert its influence in removing the causes of those ills to which it is called to minister. But enough has been said to make it clear that when the Christian Church comes to
itself and realizes its opportunity and its responsibility it will find a mighty task upon its hands
and a reason for being of which it has y. Conclu‑ as yet hardly seemed to be aware. Not lion. only in relieving existing want and
suffering, but in attacking and removing their causes, it will rise to its full stature and fulfil its high calling. It will not be needful to explain to any one whose church it is; in its life the life of the Son of man will be reflected. Such a church will justify its own existence; it will be evident that its most vital function has been fully restored to it, and it will recover the credit it has lost, not only among the less fortunate classes, but also among all earnest men and women to whom the common welfare is a serious concern.
WASHINGTON GLADDEN.
IV. Poor‑Relief, General Survey: Pre‑Christian times afford no evidence of a systematic relief of the poor. In the heathen world there were some
approaches to it; such as at Athens i. The the care of those incapacitated for Ante‑Nicene work and in Rome the distributions
Church. of corn and, from Nerva's reign, the
alimentations. Liberality and personal benevolence were customary in Israel. An organized poor‑relief, however, was first provided by Christianity. The beginnings of the care of the poor in the congregation are noted in the New Testament; and. by the second century the organization was complete. The means were collected by free gifts; partly through monthly contribution to the parish treasury, and partly through the oblations made at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, consisting principally of natural products. Compulsion to give, direct or indirect, was excluded (II Cor. ix. 7). The administration of these means and the general superintendence of poor‑relief were vested in the bishop, who was assisted by several deacons. The discipline of the Church was a sufficient safeguard against the careless diversion of such means to the unworthy. The Church has at no other time more strongly emphasized the duty of the care for the poor and unfortunate, and at no other time has it more positively insisted that everything be done freely from the motive of love. Assistance was chiefly in kind, and the limited size of the parishes also made possible an effort to help each one according to his particular need. Above all, it was sought to make the poor economically independelit by procuring for them employment and tools. A poor‑list, in which the circumstances of the needy were described, prevented any being overlooked. Widows and orphans were special objects of attention, the education of the latter being entrusted to the bishop. The sick were attended, and strangers received the privileges of hospitality. By means of letters of introduction any stranger coming in Christ's name was kindly welcomed; and, before examination as to being a true brother, he was provided with rest and refreshment. He was cared for but two or three days at the expense of the Church; thereafter he must work [cf. Didache, xi. 5, ed. P. Schaff., p. 200 and note, New York, 189o]. The individual parishes also mutually aided one another. In this period

479	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Social Service
poor‑relief actually attained its end, and there was no want within the Christian communities.
The triumph of ,the Church under Constantine, placing as it did large means at its disposal, at first tended to improve the condition of
s. The the poor. Freedom to receive bequests Post‑Nicene attached the ever‑increasing idea that
	Church.	almsgiving had a penitential efficacy
		and opened an abundantly increasing
source of revenue. These means enabled the Church
to extend its poor‑relief to meet the growing need
attending the economic decline of the empire. The
poor‑lists of the metropolitan churches now num
bered thousands of names. At Antioch 3,000
widows and young women, and at Alexandria, in
the time of Johannes Eleemon (q.v.), 7,500 poor
were regularly cared for. At the same time there
were poorhouses, orphan‑asylums, hospitals, and
guest‑houses for pilgrims and strangers. All the
great bishops of the period were true guardians of
the poor. Yet with the expansion of the Church,
the relief of the poor was more and more trans
ferred from the parishes to the Church at large, or
to institutions. The oblations in increasing meas
ure lost their significance, the larger part of the
funds being supplied by the Church estates. Grad
ually the deacons, on account of the complicated
administration of Church estates, made way for
stewards as mediaries between them and the bishop.
A considerable part of the work, attended to pre
viously by the parishes was transferred to the in
stitutions, and the care of the poor lapsed into a
wholesale almsgiving. Christian charitas came to
be very like the Roman liberalilas; the bishops took
the place of the emperor as the great purveyors of
alms. The organized poor‑relief of primitive days
ceased, and begging became more and more preva
lent.
The conditions amidst which the new Frankish kingdom came into being excluded the poor‑relief of the congregation in the early times. This re‑
	quired a higher economic basis and
3. The	higher development of the cities. In
Middle	stead of administration of money there
Ages.	was a return to the distribution of
	natural products. The unsuccessful
attempt at the restoration of primitive poor‑relief
disappears with the dissolution of the Frankish
Church. Charlemagne had not only enjoined the
Church to bestow on the poor a portion of its tithes,
but promulgated laws compelling landed proprietors
in case of need to support their vassals. In the
famine year of 779 he levied a formal poor‑tax.
Begging was expressly prohibited. No landed pro
prietor was to suffer the poor to go begging on his
domains. No one was to give to beggars who would
not work. But after Charlemagne's death this
scheme of poor‑relief quickly fell to pieces. Dur
ing the ensuing Dark Ages there was no organized
poor‑relief by either Church or State. The dictum
that the property of the Church was the possession
of the poor under the influence of the feudal sys
tem lost its meaning. It was not the parishes that
exercised benevolence, but isolated individuals or
associations in asylums and cloisters. The funda
mental reason why there was no organized poor‑
relief in the Dark Ages was that benevolence was primarily not to help the poor, but to secure one's own personal salvation. There was abundant almsgiving in individual cases and beneficiary funds of all sorts were established; there were institutions, orders, and associations; but no effort was made to reduce the whole to a well‑ordered system, and there was neither coherency nor at bottom the primary aim to help the poor. The result was general mendicancy, which was looked upon not as a disgrace but as a kind of profession. There were gilds and brotherhoods of beggars, and towns levied a tax on the beggar gild as they did on others. The Liber roagatorum (Eng. transl., The Book of Vagabonds and Beggars,, London, 1860) which Luther republished, with an introduction, shows that frauds of every sort were associated with begging. Steps had to be taken against this state of things, though it would have been contrary to medieval views altogether to forbid it. Attempts were at least made to introduce some sort of order, to determine who might beg and how. These laws became numerous in the fifteenth century; and as these regulations of beggars precede the later administration of the poor, so they mark the first advent in the fifteenth century of communal poor‑relief. This appears first as associational. Already the ancient work associations involved the duty of mutual aid. But now in the towns, independently of the gilds, which assisted their own poor when necessary, associations of citizens were formed for the care of the poor. At first these had no connection with the local government, which, from the fourteenth century, however, came to administer their affairs, and the associational relief became the communal. There had arisen, besides, a municipal poor‑relief, an income being derived for that purpose from funds deposited by citizens with the authorities. As this work increased, special officers were appointed to superintend it.
These were, however, but beginnings. The Reformation awakened fresh motives of active charity, and set up new aims. By the doctrine
4. The of justification by faith, it struck at Reformation the motive of the merit of good works
	Period.	and replaced the same by that of lov
		ing gratitude. The new aim was not
to secure personal salvation but primarily to relieve
the poor. A new poor‑relief was developed, the
outlines of which had appeared in Luther's An. den
Chrislliehen Adel deutscher Nation (Wittenberg,
1520). Begging was to be abolished not merely by
prohibition but by local provisions for all the poor.
All who could work were to do so, and relief was
restricted to the necessaries of life. It was in effect
the old parish poor‑relief of the primitive churches.
In place of ordinances regarding beggary, poor
laws were passed; first, that of Augsburg (Mar.
21, 1522), more important that of Nuremberg (July
23, 1522). After the Peasants' War the poor‑relief
was reorganized with the reconstitution of the
Church‑system. Funds were collected in part
through charitable endowments and in part through
collections taken either in the churches or in house
to‑house visitation. Contributions were voluntary
and the funds were administered by overseers known

Social Service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	480
as treasurers or deacons authorized by the congregations or civil governments; and they were governed by strict regulations. Excellent as the system was in theory, it did not succeed in practise. The income from endowments was not what had at first been anticipated; and, after the first enthusiasm had subsided, the collections declined. But, even more important, the overseers were inexperienced and incompetent. In the Reformed congregations of Germany, France, and particularly Holland, the aim toward a considerate, personal, and individual treatment of the poor was successfully worked out to the smallest details. In the Roman Catholic countries and districts voluntary poor‑relief has continued through the various orders and establishments, though not by parish relief; and a work has been done to which Protestantism offers no parallel.
Fundamental are three great types of poor‑relief, of which all others are modifications: namely, the
English, French, and Dutch. Foreg. Three most is the English. The law of Eliza‑
Modern	beth of 1601 has remained to this day
	Types.	as the basis of poor‑relief. In every
		parish from two to four citizens in good
standing were appointed overseers of the poor, and
to them was confided the duty of providing work
for all who were without means of support and had
no settled employment. They had the right of
taxing the members of the parish for means of sup
plying material for the employment of those ca
pable of work, and for supporting those who were
incapable. The emphasis upon setting to work the
able‑bodied led to the rise of workhouses (at first
called ° the industrial house "), the first of which
was opened in 1679. In 1713 an act authorized
such workhouses, and any pauper who refused as
sistance at one was denied it elsewhere. There then
arose a distinction between assistance given in an
institution (indoor relief) and that given outside
(outdoor relief). By the Gilbert act of 1782 and
the act of 1796, outdoor relief was legalized and be
came the rule. The " allowance " system was
started, by which the difference between actual
earnings and a minimum scale based on market
prices and the size of the family was paid by the
State. Pauperism vastly increased. In 1834 re
forms were introduced. Outdoor relief was limited.
Poor‑associations, called unions, were formed,
each with a board of guardians, composed of the
justices of the peace and selected members of the
parish, to distribute relief. A central board of com
missioners, the poor‑law board, was established,
which from 1872 has been subordinated to the local
government board. This system is now entirely a
matter of civil administration; its aim is, by in
door strictness and hard labor, to diminish the
numbers of outdoor paupers. It is lacking in the
element of training and promotion, rpot providing
suitably for the sick, the weak, or the unfortunate
by accident. The civil poor‑relief confines itself
only to the immediate necessities and leaves the
rest to benevolent initiative, and nowhere else have
societies and institutions of free beneficence mul
tiplied as in England.
In France the constitution of July 4, 1793, pro‑
claimed that public poor‑relief was a sacred obligation. It was proposed by a decree of July 7, 1794, to acquire the hospitals and other private institutions. Workshops were to be opened for those who could work, and a yearly pension given to those who could not. Of this scheme the only part put into execution was that connected with the destruction of the old system. After the Revolution benevolent institutions so far as possible were restored to the Church, and Napoleon I. reestablished the orders of relief and granted every sort of State recognition and support. The old orders and congregations increased and new ones were gradually added; and relief rests mainly upon the voluntary aid of these. By a decree of Nov. 27, 1796, local boards (bureaux de bienfaisance) were established in the ecclesiastical communes, to render house‑relief; but these are not in conflict with the matitutions. These boards were not, however, made compulsory, and in 1897 existed in less than one‑half of the communes. They have no power to levy assessments. The State has, however, taken over the care of the young and the insane and assigned them to the poor regulations of the departments.
The Thirty‑Years' War almost put an end to poor‑relief in Germany. After the war numerous regulations were adopted, but rather to prevent begging than to aid the poor. Toward the end of the seventeenth century workhouses and houses of correction were established. The Pietist movement, by its free impulse toward charity, and the Enlightenment (q.v.), by its humanism, contributed toward the progress of poor‑relief. For the first time a comprehensive literature on poor‑relief sprang up and from 1870 there has been an earnest effort for reform. A general institution for poorrelief was established at Hamburg, and widely copied. The basis for the care of the poor was really laid, however, by the general law of June 6, 1870, on the principle adopted in Prussia Dec. 31, 1842, and gradually extended to include all of the empire excepting Bavaria and Aleace‑Lorraine. According to this the former homerelief was replaced by that of dependent residence, qualification for which was established by two‑years' standing in the parish or lost by a two‑years' absence. Whoever has no dependent residence is called " land poor." Whenever any one within this privilege happens to be in want the local charity must take cognizance of the same. The work is in general in charge of poor‑associations, and its character and scope are determined by the laws of the different states, to which imperial legislation has entrusted all details. The Elberfeld system has been extensively and successfully introduced. The essential characteristic of this is the principle that to the individual overseer only a very small number of dependents (not more than four) are assigned with the largest freedom of adaptation, limited only by general directions. The theoretical result of the evolution of poor‑relief is summed up in the phrase, promotion of self‑support; and the practical result was voiced in the expression of the charity congress of 1857 at Frankfort‑the organic cooperation of the civic authorities, the church offices, and voluntary associations. The Church

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Social Service
fulfils an intermediate function between the private relief of individuals and associations, and the civic relief, being voluntary like the former and organized like the latter. The Church fosters the motive of voluntary charity and has regard in the distribution for the religious‑moral welfare of the beneficiaries, especially of the young. The State acts in regard to its own safety, is impartial to all, and thus has the advantage of strict and just discrimination, systematic administration, and enforced contribution. The legitimate sphere of the charity of the Church is in the congregation, which is concurrent with that of the municipality and the State, See
CHARITY. 	(G. UHLaoRNt.)
V. Poor‑Relief in the United States: Two general methods of poor‑relief exist in the United States; outdoor relief, and indoor (or institutional) relief. Each of these classes is subdivided into private and public relief. Public relief is relief given wholly or in part from public funds (state, coun‑
:. Early ty, or municipal). Private relief is
Practise. relief given from funds administered by private organizations or societies receiving their funds from voluntary contributions, endowments, and the like. The basis of public poor‑relief in the United States is the almshouse or poorhouse, the terms being synonymous. In early American life, inmates of poorhouses were let out to the lowest bidder, a system obviously unjust to the pauper. Poorhouses in the early nineteenth century were, so to speak, a human refuse heap for the dependent and defective classes. Abuses were frequent and the conditions of subsistence and existence of the inmates were anything but satisfactory. In the early middle period of the nineteenth century, special institutions began to be established for special classes of dependents and defectives. To‑day in many parts of the country children under two years of age, the insane, the epileptic, and the more markedly feeble‑minded have been removed from the poorhouse and placed in special institutions, generally under the State authorities. The residue of the poorhouse is composed largely of the aged and infirm. Most poorhouses shelter temporarily the tramp and vagrant classes, thereby perpetuating the existence of vagabonds, who are able‑bodied but live in idleness. In many modern poorhouses the cottage system of construction and classification is in vogue. In New England and in the Middle Atlantic States the poorhouses are generally under township management; in other parts of the country they are under county management. However, in over one‑half of the counties in the United States there are no poorhouses. Instead, paupers are maintained by so‑called public relief or " boardipg‑out " under the supervision of overseers or similar officials, comparable to the English " relieving officer." The boarding‑out system has its advocates on the ground of economy. While efforts are made with increasing frequency to control tendencies to pauperism and special aid through poorrelief, it must still be said that much of the public outdoor relief given to American dependents is misdirected or palliative, in that the relief results, at the best, in the perpetuation or reduction of pauX.‑31
perism in the individual case, but does not prevent the pauperism of others.
American poor‑laws are based largely on English poor‑laws. Settlement with the subsequent right to poor‑relief is obtained through residence, the time necessary to acquire settlement differing in the various States from several months to several years. Much of the difficulty in wisely administering poor‑relief in the United States arises from the temporary character of the appointments to office of the overseers of the poor, and their consequent lack of training in the best principles of charitable relief; partly also from the migratory nature of many of the families and individuals in receipt of poor‑relief. Vagrancy laws are lax and indifferently enforced. The " passing‑on system " of relieving the community of a considerable part of the burden of poor‑relief is so frequent as to be a subject of much serious discussion among progressive charity workers.
The United States is rich in certain forms of benevolent institutions. The special census report of benevolent institutions in 1905 shows 4,207 institutions of all kinds, 2,166 of which were known to have been in existence in 1890, 2,004
2. Modern having been founded between 1890
Conditions and 1903 inclusive. Of these there
and	were 1,075 orphanages and children's
	Methods.	homes, 1,493 hospitals, 753 perms,
		nent homes for adults and children,
449 temporary homes for adults and children, 166
nurseries, 156 dispensaries, 61 schools and homes
for the deaf, 39 schools and homes for the blind,
15 schools and homes for the deaf and blind. The
total population Dec. 31, 1904, was 284,362; in
mates admitted during 1904; exclusive of dispensa
ries and nurseries, 204,372. Cost of maintenance,
1903, $55,577,633, of which the annual subsidy from
public funds was $6,089,226. This enumeration
omits all almshouses, public and private hospitals
for the insane, and schools for the feeble‑minded,
as well as institutional activities of an occasional
character. Special census reports on the above
named institutions show the following:
			Admitted
		Dec. 31,	during
		1903.	1904.
	Insane in hospitals 	............	150,151	49,822
	Feeble‑minded in institutions 	14,347	2,599
	Paupers in almshouses . . . . . 	..	. . 	.	81,764	81,412
246,262		133,633
	Totalfor1904 .		379,895

An article in The Metropolitan Magazine for Oct.,
1909, estimates as follows New York State's char‑
	itable expenditures for 1907:
	Institutions reporting to the State Board of
	Charity
	Institutions and organisations not reporting to
	board 	17,000 000
	Hospitals for insane, etc 	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	5,927,000
	Church 	3,000,000
	Individuals 	15,179,770

$85,004,783
The same article estimates that $260,019,132, or over a quarter of a billion, annually is expended for charity in the United States.
	..	..	=23.898,013

Social Service	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	482
Socialism
	In about 200 cities in the United States there
	are charity organizations or similar private socie
	ties, the fundamental principles of which are the
	relief of the poor in their homes, registration of
	cases, cooperation with other charitable societies,
	careful investigation of applications for relief, or
	other aid. In some cities, notably New York, no
	public outdoor relief is given by the city; the pri
	vate charitable societies alone caring for the poor
in their homes.	In most cities the charitable or
	ganizations and the public poor‑officials work more
	or less in harmony in the administration of poor
relief.	In general, institutions for special classes
	of the dependent and physically or mentally de
	fective are under state or other governmental man
	agement. Almost every state has a public super
	visory body, generally appointed by the governor
	to inspect and advise, and, in some states, to
administer state charitable institutions.	Generali
	zing, it may be said that poor‑relief in the nineteenth
	century saw three general stages of development.
	The first, the development of institutions for the
	care of the various classes of the poor; secondly, the
	development of the system of the care of the poor
	in their homes in which the relief of the individual
	family was the goal. The third stage developed
	from about 1895, and is marked by increasing
efforts to prevent pauperism.
	The doctrine of prevention has become practically
	a gospel in charitable work. The most prominent
	movements to‑day in preventive charity are tene
	ment‑house reform, warfare against tuberculosis,
	against child labor, the movement for parks and
	playgrounds, the movement for the reduction of con
	gestion of population, for prison reform, for better
	health, and many other like movements. The prob
	lem of poor‑relief in the United States is becoming a
	national problem of the reduction of poverty. The
	public press, periodicals, magazines, etc., are lay
	ing special emphasis upon charitable and correc
tional problems.	Charity workers are emphasi
	zing the prominence of heredity and environment
	as causes of poverty, and take the standpoint that
	with the reduction or removal of preventable con
	ditions, due to heredity and environment, poverty
will be reduced.	O. F. LEwls.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the history the standard work is G.
	Uhlhorn, Die christliche Liebesthdtigkeit, 3 vols., Stuttgart,
	1882‑90, Eng transl. of vol. i., Christian Charity in the
	Ancient Church, New York, 1883. Consult further on the
	history E. L. Chastel, Etudes historiques sur l'influence
	de la chariM durant les pr6miers sidles, Paris, 1853; A.
	Emminghaus, Doe Armenweaen and die Ar»asnge8etzge
	bung der europdischen Staaten, Berlin, 1870; A. Thijm, De
	Gestichten van Liefdadighead in Belgie van Karel d. Gr. tot
	aan de zvi. eeuw, in M6moirs couronnis of the Royal Acad
	emy, Vol. xlv., Brussels, 1883; idem, Les Hospitauz en
	Belgique en moyen‑dge, LSwen, 1883; B. Riggenbach, Dos
	Armenwesen der Reformation, Basel, 1883; G. Ratzin
	ger, Geschichte der kirchlichen Armenplege, Freiburg, 1884;
	C. J. R. Turner Hist. of Vagrants and Vagrancy, London,
	1887; D. Tourbie, Ddnisches Armenrecht, Berlin, 1888; F.
	H. Wines, Report on the Defective, Dependent, and Delin
	quent Classes, U. S. census, Washington, 1888; H. G.
	Willink, Dutch Home Labour Colonies, London, 1889; R.
	P. Lamond, The Scottish Poor Laws, Glasgow, 1892; L. A.
	Rubbrecht, RemMes contre is pauper:ame, Brussels, 1892;
	B. H. Dahlberg, Bidrag tell Svenska Fattiglagstiftningens
	Histarra, Upsala, 1893: E. Chevallier, La Loi des pauvres
	et la soeUM anglaise, Paris, 1895; J. Cummings, Poor‑Laws
	of Massachusetts and New York, Baltimore, 1895; W. G.
Lumley, Union Assessment Acts and the Poor Rate Ad, London, 1895; A. Loth, La Charith catholique en France avant Is r6volution, Tours, 1898; Sir G. Nicholls, A Hist. of the English Poor Law, 2 vols., London, 1898; E. Mischler, Die Armempflege and Woh1thdtigkeit in Oesterreich, Vienna, 1899; E. M. Leonard. Early Hist. of English Poor Relief, Cambridge, 1900; O. B. P. G. de C16ron, Assistance publique et bienfaisance privge, Paris, 1901; W. H. Diemeday, Hadden'a Overseers' Handbook, London, 1901; J. B. Little, The Poor Law Statutes, 3 vols., London, 1901; P. F. Asehrott, The English Poor Law System, London, 1902; H. S. Brown, American Philanthropy in the 19th Century, 2 vols., New York, 1902; A. Hoffmann and H. Simon, Wohlfahrtspfege in Rheinland and Westfalen, Diisseldorf, 1902• L. Lallemand, Hist. de la charitk, 4 vo1s., Paris, 1902‑10; J. J. Esser, De pauperum cura apud Romanes. Campia (?), 1902; C. A. Ellwood, Public Relief and Private Charity in England, Columbia, Mo.,1903; B. Kuske, Doe Schuldenwesen der deutwhen Stddte im Mittelalter, Tiibingen, 1904; E. Marescont du Thilleul, L'Aasistance publique d Paris, 2 vols., Paris, 1904; E. Sellers, The Danish Poor Relief System, London, 1904; K. Singer, Socials Filer sorpe, Munich, 1904; B. K. Gray, Mist. of English Philanthropy, London, 1905 (important); E. W. Capen, Historical Development of the Poor Law of Connecticut, New York, 1905; J. E. Graham, The Law Relating to the Poor, Edinburgh, 1905 (deals with Scotland); E. von Mailer, Die Elendenbrilderschaften. Bin Beitrag zur Geschichte der Fremdenfllraorge im Mittelalter, Leipsie, 1908; F. Appleton, Church Philanthropy in New York, New York, 1907; M. Fluegel, The Humanity, Benevolence and Charity Legislation of the Pentateuch and the Talmud; in Parallel with the Laws of Hammurabi, the Doctrine of Egypt, the Roman Twelve Tables, and modern Codes, Baltimore, 1908; M. Godbey, The Bible and the Problem of Poverty. New York, 1908; E. C. Rayner, Story of the Christian Community, 1686‑1909. A notable Record of Christian Labour in London Workhouses and Lodging Houses, London, 1909; J. J. Walsh, The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries, New York, 1909; R. M. Berry, Germany of the Germans, ib. 1910 (deals with poor laws); Schaff, Christian Church, vol. v., part 2, § 79; the Proceedings of the national, state, and municipal Conferences on Charities and Corrections and the Annual Reports of the boards of charities, etc., of the various states and cities.
On the theory and practise in various countries consult: A. Baron, Le Pauperisme, Paris, 1882; J. Platt, Poverty, London, 1884; C. V. Bohmert, Das Armenwesen in 77 deutschen Stddten, 3 parts, Dresden, 1880‑88; W. Booth, In Darkest England and the Way out, London, 1890; E. G. Balch, Public Assistance of the Poor in France, London, 1893; H. G. Borgesius, Het Vraagstuk der Armerzorging, Amsterdam, 1895; J. A. Hobson, The Problem of the Unemployed. London, 1898; B. Gewin, Arbeidsbeurzen, Utrecht, 1898; W. C. and R. C. Glen, General Orders of the Poor Law Commissioners and the Local Government Board Relating to the Poor Law, London, 1898; E. T. Devine, Practice of Charity, New York, 1901; idem, Essentials of a Relief Policy, New York, 1903; idem, Principles of Relief, ib. 1904; ideas, Misery and its Causes, ib. 1909; C. R. Henderson, Introduction to the Study of the Dependent and Defective Classes and of their Treatment, 2d ed., Boston, 1901; idem, Modern Methods of Charity: the Syeterps of Relief . . in the principal Countries having modern Methods, New York, 1904; T. Mackay, Public Relief of the Poor, London, 1901; H. Albrecht, Handbuch der sozialenWohlfahrtspflege in Deutschland, 2 parts, Berlin, 1902; Beitrdge zur Armenstatistik, Jena, 1902; P. C. J. A. Boeles, Armengoederen en Armenbesturen in Friesland, Leeuwarden, 1902; T. B. Chilcott, Law Relating to the Administration of Charities, London, 1902‑ J. A. Riis, The Battle with the Slum, New York, 1902; J. Sutter, Britain's Next Campaign, London, 1903; R. Hunter, Poverty, New York, 1904; M. Higgs, How to Deal with the Unemployed, London, 1904; J. Ladoff, American Pauperism and the Abolition of Poverty, Chicago, 1904; C. S. Loch, Methods of Social Advance, London, 1904; E. U. Pasini, La Difeaa del Povero, Perugia, 1904; C. F. Rogers, Charitable Relief, London 1904; P. Alden, The Unemployed, London, 1905; Y. E. de Froment, L'Assistance Mgale et la lutte contre Is pauperisme en Angleterre, Paris, 1905; A. Niceforo, Les Classes pauvres, Paris, 1905; W. Reason, Our Industrial Outcasts, London, 1905; A. G. Warner, American Charities, revised ed., Boston, 1908; H. M

483	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	social service
		socialism
Conyngton, How to Help. A Manual of Practical Charity,
London, 1910; W. Cunningham, Christianity and Social
Questions, New York, 1910; C. S. Loch, Charity and Social
Life. A short Study of Religious and Social Thought in
Relation to Charitable Methods and Indautions, London
and New York, 1910; H. F. Ward, Social Ministry; a»
Introduction to the Study and Practice of Social Service,
New York, 1910; J. W. Harper, The Church and Social Betterment, Glasgow, 1910; W. J. Tucker, The Function of the Church in Modern Society, Boston, 1911.
SOCIALISM.
I. Definition.
II. Communism. III. Ancient and Medieval Socialism. IV. Modem Socialism.
1. The Preparntion.
2. The First Period.
I. Definition: The term Socialism, derived from the Latin, socialis, from socius, " a companion," came into general use in 1835. It has passed through many changes of definition. It implies administration in the interests of society as a whole, so as to afford equal individual opportunity. This may be accomplished by the voluntary association of some of the individuals in a community, or of all the persons within a definite region. When extended over a national territory, it has been termed nationalism. As most frequently employed, the term, socialism, denotes control by organized society of land and capital, of industrial production, and of the distribution of the income therefrom. Political socialists ordinarily demand State ownership of land and of the instruments of production. Under the fire of criticism there has been a tendency to abandon this extreme position. The abler socialistic writers show themselves ready to accept experimentation, advancing toward the theoretic goal only so far as may be proved practicable. The platforms of political parties, however, which alone can be accepted as authoritative utterances, have in no respect relinquished the full nationalist program.
II. Communism: The extreme form of socialism is termed Communism (q.v.), which, in strict application, is the ownership in common of all possessions, public control and rearing of children, and the abolition of the marriage tie. In consequence of the universal odium felt toward the communists of Paris because of the atrocities of 1871, the word is now rarely used by socialistic writers. As a working system, communism, even when the right of separate families is respected, has not exhibited elements of permanence. Ancient and modern instances have been short‑lived, showing greatest persistence when cemented by a common religious conviction. The monastic establishments of the Middle Ages, purely communistic in organization, separated the sexes; and similar to these were the Brethren of the Common Life (see CommoN LIFE, BRETHREN of THE). The Libertines (q.v., 3) and the Familists (q.v.) were well‑known communists of the Reformation period. John Ball, the Wycliffite priest, who instigated the Wat Tyler rebellion, was a medieval socialist, claiming that the people had been robbed of their proprietorship in the common land.
III. Ancient and Medieval Socialism: Socialistic features were found in the constitutions of Athens and Sparta, combined with slavery. Of the theol~
3. The Second Period.
In Germany (1 1).
In France, Italy, England, and Russia (§ 2).
In the United States U 3).
VI. Socialism Untried.
	VII. Advantages Claimed.
VIII. The Claims Considered.
	IX. Criticism.
X. Improvements Needed.
V. The Demands of Organised So‑	XI. The Relation of the Church.
	cialists.
retie systems the more noted were Plato's " Republic," Mores Utopia (Louvain, 1516), Campanella's " City of the Sun " (Frankfort, 1623), and James Harrington's Common‑Wealth of Oceans (London, 1656), which last advocated a limited monarchy, having its revenue from public lands.
IV. Modern Socialism: The Socialism of today springs from three national sources: France contributed the doctrine of personal liberty and equality, England demonstrated the value of cooperation, Germany presented the ideal of the socialistic state.
1. The Preparation: The preparation for modern socialism came from the French philosophic literature of the eighteenth century. The chief writers were Voltaire, Rousseau (qq.v.), De Mably, Morelly, De Warville, Boiasel, and Mabeuf. These writers gave direction to the popular unrest of France, and laid the theoretic foundation for a socialistic state marked by liberty, equality, and mediocrity, in which the inefficient, the indolent, and the unfortunate would find provision, and the refinements of civilization would take their chances. It was Jean Pierre Brissot de Warville who wrote La propriktA exclusive eat un vol, which trenchant sentence supplied to Proudhon his famous La propridtk c'est le vol, " proprietorship is robbery." These men aimed at the subversion of the existing system in France, some of them taking part in the Revolution of 1789. Their writings prepared for the work of their successors in the following century. In England during this period Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Contemporaneous with this literary movement was the development of the factory system, the adoption of steam power, and of the machinery at that time invented. The resultant evils called forth the first Peel factory legislation in 1802; and with Robert Owen's report to the parliamentary committee on the poor laws in 1817 began the English contribution to modern socialism. In that report Owen recommended segregating workers in communities of 1,200, where they should live in one building, and work and its products should be in common. Experiments attempted in England and America met with only temporary success.
Modern Socialism may be treated in two periods: the first extending from 1817 to the middle of the century, the second from that time to the present.
8. The First Period: When the Reform Bill of 1832 extended the franchise to the middle classes

socialism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	484
in England, the wage‑earners regarded themselves as betrayed, and there resulted a movement known as Chartism, which demanded universal manhood suffrage. In 1848 the excitement became acute, and the cause was espoused by certain philanthropists, terming themselves Christian Socialists, among whom Frederick Denison Maurice, Charles Kingsley (qq.v.), and Ludlow were the leaders. They encouraged the wage‑earners to form cooperative associations, the value of which approved itself widely; and the movement, merging with that of cooperation, disappeared from public view (see CmusmAN SOCIALIsM). The pioneer in France was Saint Simon (q.v.), whose writings founded socialism on the teachings of Christ, stripped of traditional additions. His noble aim was defeated by the sensual mysticism of his followers. Fourier advocated communities of 1,800 persons, living in a great building a community life with free affinity instead of marriage. Experiments in France and America failed. Louis Blanc favored workshops under State rules, with superintendents elected by the operatives, and equal wages for all. The experiments by the provisional government of 1848, though failures, were not determinative of the value of the scheme. Proudhon opposed the immorality of the earlier socialists and advocated equality of wages and the confiscation of private property. His famous saying derived from De Warville, " Proprietorship is robbery," underlies the present socialist demand for the confiscation of all property employed in production. He expected a high moral development in society, under which government should become unnecessary because of human excellence. The stern repression of the socialists by the government in June, 1848, and the apparent prosperity of the second empire put an end to socialistic agitation until the rise of the present republic. German socialism begins with Johann Karl Rodbertus (18051875), whom many regard as the founder of socalled scientific socialism. He based his doctrine on the assertion that labor is the source and measure of all value and demanded nationalization of land and capital for the purpose of abolishing the commercial crises which deprive men of work. He attacked the individualistic system as productive of such crises, and called for a gradual change without revolution.
S. The Second Period: As with Rodbertus, the activity of other distinguished socialists, overlapping the middle of the century, falls chiefly in the second period. Ferdinand Lassalle advocated a
new political party, devoted to the inGermany. terest of the wage‑earner. He claimed that the wage‑earners received a compensation sufficient to provide merely a bare existence, which statement has been called the " iron law of wages." He argued for productive cooperation by associations aided by State loans. Two names, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, are closely associated as the founders of the revolutionary school of so‑called scientific socialism, which may be dated from the manifesto of the communist party in 1848. This was a somewhat incoherent defense of the abolition of private property, closing with an appeal to the socialists of all nations to
unite. In 1867 the masterpiece of Marx, Da. Kapital, set forth his economic theory of surplus value, which was virtually Lassalle's " iron law of wages," asserting that the wage‑earner in industry received a bare subsistence and that the surplus of his product went to the capitalist. He advocated governmental ownership and control of land, capital, and all productive and distributive industry, remuneration of workers by certificates representing hours of labor, and payment for all workers regardless of quantity and quality solely according to the number of work‑hours. Organized in 1862, the offspring of previous associations, the International Association of Working Men, better known as " The International," held world congresses until 1873. Beginning with the recommendation of cooperative societies, these bodies later demanded nationalization of the means of communication, mines, forests, and land, the abolition of rent, interest, profit, and all remuneration to capital. The International opposed itself to war, but lauded the communists of Paris in 1871 as martyrs to the cause of the wageearners. In the congress of 1872 the Russian anarchists aroused serious strife which resulted in the death of the organization in the following year. In 1889, however, and frequently since then, international congresses have been held, notably one in London in 1896, disturbed by anarchists, who were thereupon excluded. The socialist movement in Germany advanced in two parallel lines, the aim of the one being socialization through the state, and that of the other the establishment of a cooperative system independent of state interference and gradually absorbing all industry. By a fusing of existing parties in 1875 was formed the present Socialistic Working Men's Party, which aims to convert " private property in the means of production into social property," and to conduct all production and distribution under social control.
For some time succeeding the fall of the Paris commune French socialism was under a shadow,
and suffered from differences which . In were reconciled and ended in 1905 by France, the formation of a united party, de‑
Italy,
claring for the transformation " of the and Russia. capitalistic organization of society into
a collectivist or communal organization." In 1892 the socialists of Italy separated from anarchism, but have since suffered from dissension, and have shown their activity chiefly in municipal work, in strikes, and in copperation. After the wane of the Owen and the Christian socialist movements in England, though some Englishmen took part in the International, socialism evidently lost influence among the people. In 1884 two organizations came into existence, the Social Democratic Federation in politics and the Fabian Society in educational activity. The strength of the trade‑unions and the native conservatism of the English workman have hindered the acceptance of socialistic principles. The great dock strike of 1888 aroused a new interest which issued in the organization of the Independent Labor Party. The socialistic vote in parliament presents a steadily increasing influence. In 1908 the conference of the labor party of Great Britain, formerly conserva‑

485	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Sooiaiiam
tive, declared for State control of production. The Russian Socialists, generally known as Anarchists, except in methods differ little from those of other nations. Their chief aim is the abolition of the central despotism and the establishment of free federation of free associations, that is to say, the universal adoption of the Mir or Russian communal village government.
In the United States, after the early community experiments, organized socialism dates from 1868 with the founding of the German Labor Association
which became a section of the Inter8. Ea the national. In 1874 was organized the
United body which became the Socialist Labor
states. Py of North America. In 1897 a rival socialislparty was organized, which, on receiving large accessions from the older party in 1899, took as its title the Socialist Party. In 1908 the Socialist Party polled 420,464 votes.
V. Demands of Organized Socialists: Socialistic parties are agreed on the principle of collective ownership and administration of the factors of production, the means of transportation and communication, and the method of distribution. In regard to the application of the details socialists are widely at variance. Whether all land, all machinery, all wage‑paying shall be controlled by government are matters on which are held diverse views, though the political programs generally demand complete nationalization. While desiring to abolish rent paid to landowners, socialists expect rent to be paid to the State. Interest on loans and dividends on stock are regarded as unearned income which should be abolished. As the State cares for the individual, socialists demand that inheritance be denied, the savings of all passing to the State on their death. The immediate demands of the European socialistic parties call for little more than the freedom and protection enjoyed by the American citizen. The Russian desires the abolition of the central government; the German, of the paternal State; the French desire the State to assume the entire industrial direction. The control of industry by restriction, direction, and publicity, exercised by the state and federal governments as it is administered in this land, inasmuch as it is exercised collectively, is socialism as far as it extends. In the multitudinous duties of the factory inspector, in protective labor laws, in the limitation of the labor of women and children, and in the control of corporations by commission, the American state employs a direction of industry which is socialistic.
VI. Socialism Untried: The socialistic state or cooperative commonwealth of thorough‑going socialism has never proved itself by experiment. What has been tried, has been the socialistic community within the competitive state. A few such communities, founded on strong religious sentiment, have survived a century. The majority, exhibiting a purely economic socialism, have been short‑lived. Whether, therefore, an economic organization, possessing the materials and conducting the production of all economic goods, could be made successful, is a question purely theoretical. Cooperative societies for production and distribution have maintained themselves successfully in
the presence of competition, especially in Belgium and England; but these enjoy the stimulus of competition. The claims made by socialistic writers are, therefore, based merely on conjecture, a condition to be remembered in estimating the advantages claimed for the system.
VII. Advantages Claimed: The chief claims of advantage over the competitive system may be thus stated: (1) The saving of the capital wasted in duplicating productive agencies, as parallel railways and light, telephone and telegraph systems on the same territory, etc. (2) The saving of competitive advertising, trade solicitation, and the like. (3) Scientific adjustment of production to consumption, thus avoiding economic crises. (4) The guaranty of a comfortable living to all men. (5) The abolition of the middle‑man in disposal of goods. (6) The development of unselfishness throughout society. (7) The abolition of litigation concerning property. (8) The termination of trade disputes and strikes.
VIII. The Claims Considered: An examination of these claims reveals their weakness. It is evident that State socialism involves a radical overturning of the economic basis of society. To approve itself to calm judgment, it must be shown not only that State socialism must be more effective than the present system, but also that it would be better than any possible modification of the present system. Over against the above claims, considered in order, may be stated the following: (1) Duplication is not necessarily waste. Parallel railways often prove their value by developing new regions for increased market supply. The operation of the economic law of combination tends to the elimination of unnecessary duplication, while by government regulation unwise duplication may be checked. (2) Under socialism a large amount of advertising would still be necessary to inform the public of the usefulness of State products. Combination and agreement have the tendency to reduce wasteful competitive advertising. All the necessary saving might be had apart from socialism. (3) It has always been to the interest of producers to make a scientific adjustment of production to consumption. Thus far there is no known method sufficient for the task. It remains to be proved that human foresight can prevent economic crises. The socialist claim is sheer assumption. It must be shown in what way and by what wisdom this adjustment can be made, and also that it would be impossible under the individualist system. (4) By discouragement of the captains of industry, demoralization of the most thrifty and skilful workers, and denial of adequate rewards to stimulate invention, socialism would disastrously impair the
productivity of society. All would be approximately on the same level, which would be a condition of general poverty. (5) The present middle‑men would be largely replaced by officials required to manage the distribution of the products. Even under competition there is a tendency to eliminate the middle‑men. The claim remains to be proved.
(6) Far from developing a spirit of unselfishness, socialism, by its denial of just reward to skill and diligence, would produce a spirit of discontent on

ocisiism
ociety of Xary	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	488
the part of the most able in society, who would be tempted to reduce their production to the meager output of the least valuable workers. (7) As personal property would still exist and rights would be established in connection with rentals, there would still be large room for invasion of rights and consequent litigation, especially if the right of gift and of inheritance were maintained. Industrial differences would require judicial adjustment in more instances than under the present system in which there is so much of negotiation between the interested persons. (8) Socialism does not remove the cause or the occasion of strikes, it merely shifts the basis; the contention, instead of being between private or corporate employer and employed, will be between the government and the employed. Complaints that some workers receive an undue proportion of the wealth produced, will doubtless be submitted to arbitration; but strikes would follow that arbitration as frequently as now. It is only on the Marxian basis of time payment regardless of quantity and quality of output that strikes would disappear; and, if that system were established, there soon would be a revolt of the more efficient workers.
I%. Criticism: In addition to these categorical strictures other objections of greater force may be presented: (1) Socialism would largely terminate individual opportunity. The individual would no longer be free to choose that work for which he is best fitted. All would be required to accept what the government indicated. What is unfortunately true of some to‑day, would become the rule for all. (2) The demand for the nationalization of the soil may have some ground of reason in Europe where the toiler is excluded from the land held by great estates. It is foundationless in this country where it is difficult to obtain a sufficient number of persons to till the soil. (3) The doctrine of the increasing misery of the wage‑earners, prominent in the Manifesto of 1848, is still held by some socialists, though abandoned by the more intelligent, who substitute the claim that the difference in the economic comfort of rich and poor is increasing. The latter claim is unsubstantiated, the former demonstrably false. (4) The tyranny of socialism would necessarily result in arrest of the general progress. The advance of civilization has come of individual initiative; socialism removes opportunity by suppressing individual production. Some socialists claim that the industrial phase of government would be conducted by the same men who are now industrial leaders. They fail to show how the most able are to be discovered and advanced to leadership. Under the competitive system the man who has the best machine or method of management passes the less progressive. Under socialism the men who are in control will not look with favor on the inventive person whose success would involve their retirement. Society will thus be robbed of the elements of progress which competition supplies. (5) The claim that the ablest will be the leaders is, however, without foundation. The highest talent can not be enlisted by a system which robs it of its adequate rewards; and, if coerced by stern necessity, will not have the spirit to give its
best work. Furthermore, the structure of the industrial system will be political, not economic. The men in office will be the plausible and the talkative, not the thinkers and organizers. Such men will rigorously exclude from office the men who might achieve for society. (6) This absorption of all power by the political demagogue would be impregnably fortified by the absolute control and censorship of the press by the government which would suppress all external publication. As the government could not publish everything offered, it would be necessary, to have a body to determine what books and what newspaper or magazine articles should be published. All articles and books seeking to expose government corruption would be sternly suppressed, and the one md6od of informing the public would thus be closed to all reformers. Under these conditions the arrest of general progress would be complete. (7) Although the more intelligent socialists, recognizing the share in production of inventive and organizing genius, the grades of skill, the participation of insurance, interest, and provision for replacement, have abandoned the Marxian doctrine of equal payment for all workers, manual and mental, according to the number of work‑hours; nevertheless, the mass of socialists cling to the doctrine and proclaim it as their aim. This would be the robbery of the skilled in favor of the unskilled, robbery of the head‑worker to enrich the hand‑worker, an exploitation as unjust as any wrong of which socialists complain in the present system. (8) Socialists perceive that the institution of the family within the socialistic system threatens the prosperity and permanence of the system, as it constitutes an interest more engrossing than the body politic. This has been the defect in those experiments which have perished. Attack is, therefore, made upon the family by suggesting the separate support of the mother while she cares for her children, the public rearing and care of children, and even free and terminable marriages. Another attack on the family appears in the desire to abolish inheritance, first openly stated in the manifesto of 1848. This strikes at the right and duty of the father to support his children, fully recognized in both Jewish and Christian ethics. In application it would be undisguised legal robbery. (9) The confiscation of land and the factors of production without compensation to the owners, as advocated by the Fabian Society and others, would be robbery by legislation, as would also the repudiation of the national debt demanded by the English Social Democrats. It becomes evident from what precedes that, instead of developing a high brotherly regard for others, socialism exalts greed and indolence and the disposition to profit by the exploitation of others. In a word, socialism claims a right to do that which it condemns in the competitive system.
%. Improvements Needed: It may justly be admitted that improvements are needed and possible in the competitive system. For American industrial society the chief improvements needed may be grouped under three topics: (1) The relation be. tween employer and employed. (2) The condition of the unskilled. (3) The equalization of produe‑

487	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	socialism
Booiety of Irsw'y
tion and consumption. Experiments in meeting
these needs are in progress, some of which promise
as satisfactory adjustment as socialism could effect.
	%I. The Relation of the Church: The Christian
Church has not been in favor with socialists because
in their minds it is associated with oppression, in
Europe with the oppression of the Roman Catholic
Church, in America with the oppression of capital
ists. The Church in America has not hitherto suc
ceeded in disabusing the minds of the masses of
their error, but recent activities and utterances of
various branches of the Church, especially the es
tablishment of labor departments, have been di
rected more efficiently to this end, and have been
attended with marked success. Not a few social
ists are found in the Church in England and Amer
ica. The Christian Socialists in the United States
have formed several organizations for conference
and cooperation; notably the Christian Socialist
Federation which declares for the cooperative com
monwealth. Far more numerous in the Church are
those who see the need of wise measures to modify
the present economic system in the interest of the
least paid, and of the activity of the Church as the
messenger of Christ to persuade all classes to Chris
tian brotherhood, that the change may be peaceful
and permanent. Socialism, stirred by the with
holding of his due from the wage‑earner, attempts
a solution by withholding his due from the eco
nomical and from the skilled. There is needed
something more than a mere economic change;
there is needed the spirit of Christ. It is the mis
sion of the Church to teach men that spirit; and
she must become the most potent agent in accom
plishing that which socialism inadequately plans,
the winning of .the world to live in the spirit of the
Redeemer. 	JAMES CARTER.
Bniroaasrax: Consult the literature under Christian so	cialism, and Communism, especially the works of Noyes, Nordhoff, and Hinds. Also: Morelly Code de la nature, Paris, 1755; F. M. C. Fourier, Tuorie des quatre mouvements, Paris, 1808; idem, Le Nouveau Monde industrial; ib. 1829; C. H. St. Simon, L'Industric, Paris, 1817; idem, L'Orpanisation, ib. 1819; idem, Du systgme industrial, 3 Tols., ib. 1821‑22; idem Le Nouveau Chriatianisme, ib. 1825, Eng. trapsl., The New Christianity, London, 1834; J. J. L. Blanc, Organization du'travail, Paris, 1840, Eng. trsnsl., Organization of Labor, London, 1848; A. Cabet, Voyage en Iearie, Paris, 1840; J. Ruskin, Unto This Last; London, 1862; K. Marx, Dos %apital, Hamburg 1867, new ad., 3 vols., 1906, Eng. transl., Capital, 12th ad., London, 1908; T. Woolsey, Communism and Socialism, New York, 1880; E. Bellamy, Looking Backward, Boston, 1888; idem, Equality, London, 1897; A. Schaefe, The Quintessence of Socialism, ib. 1889; Fabian Society, Essays in Socialism, London, 1890; F. Engels, Socialism, Utopian sad Scientific, f b. 1892; R. T. Ely, Socialism: its Nature. Strength, and Weakness, ib. 1894; J. Jaurbs, Studies in Socialism, ib. 1906; T. Kirkup History of socialism, 3d ed., New York, 1907; idem, An Inquiry into Socialism, 3d ed., ib. 1907; R. C. K. Ensor, Modern Socialism, 2d ed., New York, 1907; H. G. Wells, New Worlds for Old, Edinburgh, 1908; idem, Socialism and the Family, Boston, 1908; P. LeroyBeaulieu, Collectivism, New York, 1908; W. R. Hunter, Socialists, at Work, ib. 1908; The Case against Socialism, New York, 1908• G. M. Bell, Social Service, ib. 1908; M. Hillquit, Socialism in Theory and Practice, ib. 1908; idem, Hist, of Socialism in the United States, new ed., ib. 1910; W. Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis, ib. 1908; E. P. Tenney, Contrasts in Social Progress, ib. 1908; C. B. Thompson, The Churches and the Wage Earners, ib. 1908; W. E. Chadwiek, Social Work, ib. 1909; idem, Social Relationship in the Light of Chrie‑
tianity, London, 1910; A. St. Ledger, Australian Socialism; . . . its Origin and Development, New York, 1909; E. Hammaeher, Das philosophisch‑okonomische System des Marsiamue, Leipsic, 1909; J. Spargo, Socialism, New York, 1909; J. J. Ming, The Morality of Modern Socialism, ib. 1909; T. C. Hall, Social Solutions in the Light of Christian Ethics, 'ib. 1910; Jane T. Stoddart, The New Socialism, New York, 1910; H. Jones, The Working Faith of the Social Reformer, London, 1910; Y. Guyot, Socialistic Papaciea, New York, 1910; W. L. Wilson, The Menace of Socialism, Philadelphia, n. d.
SOCIETE EVAHGELIQUE DE GENEVE. See EVANGELICAL SOCIETY of GENEVA.

SOCIETY OF MARY: 1. Marist Fathers: A religious order founded in 1816 uniting the work, of education with that of missions. The founder was Jean Claude Marie Colin (b. at Saint Bonnet‑leTroncy, in the diocese of Lyons, Aug. 7, 1790; d. at Notre‑Dame‑de‑la‑NeyliSre, in the department of Rh6ne, Feb. 28, 1875), who persuaded his brother and some other's to join in the organization of an order under provisional rules drawn up by him. He received the approbation of Pius VII. in 1818, and the members took up the task of preaching in the neglected parts of the diocese, and in 1829, having greatly increased in numbers, assumed charge of the ecclesiastical seminary of Belley. In 1835 the attention of the Holy See was turned to the South Sea Islands and the need for workers there; the Marists were asked to undertake missions in those regions, and accepted the invitation, upon which Gregory XVI. approved the Society of Mary in the brief Omnium genlium of Apr. 29, 1836, final sanction being given by Pius IX., Feb. 28, 1873. The mother house is at Lyons, but the order has spread until it consists of six provinces, two in France, one in the British Isles, one in the United States, one in New Zealand, and one in Oceania. In the United States the order has an archbishop, 105 priests, 75 novices, 5 lay brothels, 2 training‑houses, 4 colleges, and 18 parishes besides missions. The government is under a superior general, with four assistants, a general procurator, a procurator, spud sanctum sedem, and the first alone is elected for life; the official residence of the general officers is Rome.
2. Society of Mary of Paris: A society founded in 1817 by William Joseph Cha,minade, the primary purpose of which is the salvation of its own members, and then all works of zeal. The formation of the society was stimulated by a desire to strengthen the church after the losses occasioned by the French Revolution, and various sodalities were formed, the culmination of which was the society. under discussion. One of the peculiarities of this organization is the inclusion of both clerical and lay members, bound together by the vows of poverty, celibacy, obedience, and stability in the service of the Virgin, and employed in various works of mercy and service. Since the expulsion of the order from France in 1903, the headquarters are at Nivelles, Belgium, where the superior general resides. The order comprises seven provinces, and has houses in the principal countries of Europe outside Great Britain, also in Africa, China, Japan, the Hawaiian Islands, Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In the last the society settled in 1849, and it reports there 2 normal schools, 4 colleges, 3 high schools,

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	488
and 44 parochial schools, principally in the Middle West.
BIHLIOaaa.PHY: On 1: The ConeNuliona were published at Lyons. 1873, and the Statutes cayilulorum oeneralium in the same place, 1907. Consult: Life or venerable Fr. Colin, St. Louis, 1909; Pi!re Colin, Lyons, 1898; Pi!re Colin, ib. 1900; Mangeret, Lea Oripinea de la for eatholique en Nouvelle‑Zdande, ib. 1892; C. Egremont, L'Annhe de rtpuse 1900, Paris 1901; Baunard, Un sitele de r6pliae de France, it). 1902; Hervier, Lea Mission& marsatea, ib. 1902; Heimbucher, Orden and %onyrepationen, iii. 339‑343.
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. See TRACT SOCIETIES, 111., 2.
SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL IN FOREIGN PARTS. See MlsaloNs To TEE HEATHEN, B, II., 4, § 4.

SOCIRUS, so‑sai'nus, FAUSTUS, SOCINIANS.
1. History. Faustus Socinus (¢ 1). Early Socinian Movement (1 2). The Dispersion (§ 3).
11. Doctrines of the Socinians, or Older Unitarians. Scripture (§ 1). God (§ 2). Creation; Man (§ 3). Christology (¢ 4). Work of Christ (§ 5). Soteriology; the Church; Eschatology (§ 8).
L History: As a radical by‑product of the Reformation appeared the antitrinitarian movement.
_
At first it was represented by such‑ndividuals as
		the Anabaptists Hans Denk, Ludwig
	:. Faustus Haetzer, and Jakob Kautz (qq.v.),
	Socinus. and by Michael Servetus (q.v.) and
		his followers (G. V. Gentile, Georgius
Blandrata; qq.v.), but there was as yet no unity
of organization. To it belonged also Laelius Soci
nus (q.v.); but the founder of the antitrinitarians
as a sect was his nephew, Faustus Socinus (Fausto
Sozzini; b. at Siena 1539; d. at Luclawice, near
Cracow, Mar. 3 ,16004). He was early left an orphan;
and his education was defective. He devoted himself
to the study of law like his relatives, specially
Laelius, by correspondence with whom he derived
anti‑Roman religious and theological instruction.
He lav0i at Lyons,.A59‑82, and at, Zurich, _1502,
where he was absorbed in the study of the literary
fragments of his uncle, and began his literary ac
tivity with Explicatio primte partia prlrni capitis
Evangelii Johannis (Rakow, 1562), a sort of pro
gram of antitrinitarianism. During 1562_74 he,
decked with honors, hell _ official positions at the
court of Francesco de Medici at Florence, and in
dulged in the diversions of the period. At Basel,
1574‑78, he elaborated his, system, originating two
of his most important works: De Jeau Christo
eervatore (Basel, 1594) against the French Reformed
clergyman J. Covet, and De etatu primi hominia
ante lapeum (Rakow, 1610) against F. Pucci of
Florence. He accepted an invitation of Georgina
Blandrata (q.v.) to Transylvania, unsuccessfully
aiding the latter in attempting to dissuade Fran
ciscus Davidis (q.v.) from his non‑adorant views.
The theological turmoil, together with the outbreak
of the pest, caused him to leave Transylvania, 1579,
and proceed to Fp1wd, where the name Socinus had
acquired fame from his uncle's two sojourns (1556
and 1558), and where the Unitarian movement was
gaining in political influence. Here (1579‑1604) he made an earnest effort to unite the divergent parties into one organization. In Cracow, 1579‑‑83, he endeavored in vain ‑t loin with the Polish Brethren, a society__of,,Unltarujns, but was hindered,by his refusal to be rebaptized.
_n commont~ie ~nabag~ta'ats,the Unitarians m.,_
strongly objectetd~ a ~ld_illg,.of po tical,office,
resorting to the civil courts, and military service. Theological differences also existed among Arians on the preexistence of Christ, on chiliasm, and the nonadoration of Christ (see DAv1Dls, FRANcrscus, if 4‑5); but by disputations in synods, by special discussions, and a number of literary works, Socinus finally succeeded in bringing about harmony and the acceptance of his own views. His idea of baptism (see below) prevailed over the Anabaptist at the Synod of Rakow, 1603. In 1583 he left Cracow from fear of the persecution of King Stephen Bathory and settled at Pawlikowice, a village near Cracow. He returned to Cracow, 1585‑87, attending the Synod of Brzesc in ~itl~,ig.158$,. where, by the brilliant success of his theological disputations, he pne_ anently_wufinma bi.tuiluence‑ over the _ TTnitarians. Several times he was ill‑treated; thus, in 1594, by a troop of soldiers, and on Ascension day, 1598, when students of Cracow, incited by Roman priests, threw him out of his sick‑bed, carried him half‑naked through the streets, and inflicted bloody injuries. Only by the mediation of Martin Vadovita, a professor of the university, did he escape, death‑by„drowning. During the assault all the pape;s,_manuscripts,_and books foundzin his
house.‑were‑burned‑on _the.mark~9. He next
lived at Luclawice, 1598‑1604. His works, exe
getical, polemical, and dogmatic, appeared in vols.
L‑ii., Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum, edited by his
grandson, Andreas Wiszowaty (Irenopolis [Amster
dam], 1656 and after); also under the special title,
Fauati Socini Senensie opera omnia. The most im
portant dogmatic works are, PTwlectiones theologic&e
(Rakow, 1609); Christiance relig"is breviwima
institutio per interrogationea et reaponsiones, quam
catechismum ‑Igo vocapt (1608); and Fragmentvm
catwhismi prioris F. L. S., qui periit in Cracovimsi
rem‑ ejus direptione. Tmme_ 'atel ~t4g,death
of So~lnus‑appeared , the _ Racovian !Patgchism„ the
c '1~1,gf..1~01~. The work of revising
the catechism of 1574 was assigned to Socinus and
another Unitarian, Statorius. Both worked inde.
pendently; the Institutio of Socinus was left unfin
ished at his death; and after the death subsequently
of Statorius the work was completed on the basis
of the manuscripts of Socinus by Valentin Schmalz,
Hieronymus Moskorzowaki, and Johann VS1kel
(published in Polish, 1605; larger German ed.,
1608; in Lat., Catechesis ecclesiarum, ed. and en
larged by Moskorzowski and dedicated to James I. of
England, and briefly cited as Catechism= Racovien.
sis, 1609; another Latin ed. with emendations and
additions by Johann Crell and Johann Schlichting,
furnished probably by Wiszowaty and Joachim
Stegman, Jr., Amsterdam, 1665; with much added
matter, 1684; Eng. tranal., by Thomas Rees,
London, 1818). '
Until the death of S~w~,jj
tWa	‑,was in.

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	society
		sooinus
th.p‑,amendencyin Poland. Many small congrega
	tions were composed almost entirely of the nobility
			distinguished by humanistic culture.
		s. Early	The most important society was at
		Socinian	Rakow (55 m. me. of Cracow), a city
	Movement. founded by the Reformed Johannes
			Sieninaki in 1569, which soon became
a colonial center for a free‑thinking spiritual life,
	specially after the accession to_Vocmiamsm of the
younger Sieninski. Its excellent school was at
tended at one time by 1,000 students. Philosophy
and theology were taught; and associated with it
was a publishing‑house transferred from Cracow.
Rakow was also the meeting‑place of the annual
	general synod. The prosperity of Socinianism was
	mainly due to the influence of its great ministers,
	theologians, and scholars, proceeding from its aca
demic center at Rakow. Valentin Schmalz (b. in
Gotha 1572; d. at Rakow 1622) was won to Uni
tarianism while studying at Strasburg, 1591; came
to Poland and was rebaptized; was rector of the
school at Szmigel; became preacher at Lublin,
	1598; and teacher and preacher at Rakow, 1605.
He made many journeys in the interest of Unitarian
ism, and left fifty‑two writings of a vehement po
lemical nature. Johann Volkel (b. at Grimma, 17
m. s.e. of Leipsic; d. 1618) became a Socinian in
1585, after the completion of his studies at Witten
	berg; was rector of the school in Wengrow; and
later preacher in Poland. His chief work, De vera
religions (Rakow, 1630), was a systematic presen
tation of the Socinian doctrine and was authorita
tive. Christoph Ostorodt (b. at Goslar, 40 m. s.e. of
Hanover; d. at Buskow, near Danzig, 1611) studied
at Konigsberg; became rector of the school at
Luchow in Pomerania; entered the Unitarian soci
ety, 1585; fled to Poland and became preacher at
Rakow.	He was strongly Anabaptist, and war
fare, public office, litigation, the oath, and riches
were repugnant to him. His most popular work
was Unterrichtuug von den vornehmsten Hauptpunlo
ten der christlichen Religion (Rakow, 1604). Hier
onymus Moskorzowski (d. 1625) founded the Uni
tarian congregation in the town of Czarkow; and
wrote polemical works beside an " Apology of the
Socinians."	In the following generation Johann
Crell (b. at Hehnersheim, in Franconia, 1590; d.
at Rakow 1631), by his eminent endowments, thor
	ough culture, and tireless energy, takes first rank.
He was educated at Nuremberg and Altdorf; was
converted to Unitarianism partly by Ernst Soner
at Altdorf;	fled to Poland, 1612; became professor
of the Greek language in Rakow, 1613; rector of
the school, 1616; and preacher at Rakow, 1621‑31.
Crell was an extremely prolific writer, producing
commentaries on the New Testament; two books,
Ve uno D_ea_tze~.a.r~arlz.atta,Ck,l.s SOcizian
upon. the orthodox.tnjenhe‑y; and
	Ad librum H. Grotii, quem de satisfactions Christi ad
versus Faustum Socanum Senensem scripsit, responsio.
All the works of Crell are published in Bibliotheca
fratrum Polonorum, vols. iii. and iv. (ut sup.). Jonas
Schlichting	(b. at Bukowice, near Strasburg‑on
the‑Drewenz, 80 m. s.s.e. of Danzig, 1592; d. at
Selchow, near Teltow, 11 m. s.w. of Berlin, 1661)
studied at Rakow and at the University of Altdorf;
became preacher at Rakow; went to Transylvania, 1638, to settle the controversy of the Non‑adorantes, but without success; was outlawed by the diet which burned his confession of faith, 1647; and left Poland, 1658. He left commentaries on most of the books of the New Testament (Bibliotheca, vol. iv.); the Confessio fidei ehristiance (1642), translated into Polish, German, French, and Dutch; and De trinitate, de moralibus Veteris et Novi Testamenti (1637). Johann Ludwig von Wolzogen (b. at Neuhausel or Ersek‑Ujvar, 50 m. n.w. of Budapest, 1599; d. 1661) was a distinguished exegete, and, besides his commentaries, wrote a Compendium religionis Christian& and a severe criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity (Bibliotheca, vols. viii.‑ix.). Samuel Przypkowski (b. 1592; d. in Brandenburg 1670) studied at Altdorf (1614‑16); was compelled to flee from Poland; and wrote Vita Fausti Socini (1636); and a comparison of the Apostles Creed with the symbols of his day. Andreas Wiszowaty (b. 1608; d. at Amsterdam 1678) was a grandson of F. Socinus; educated at Rakow, Leyden, and Amsterdam; pastor of various congregations in Poland; expelled by the edict of 1657; lived at Mannheim, 1661‑66, as pastor of the Socinian exiles; and subsequently at Amsterdam. The most important of his sixty‑two writings was Religao ration.. alis. Stanislaus Lubienik or Lubienicki, the younger (b. at Rakow 1623; d. at Hamburg 1675), was the author of the Historia Reformationis Polonicce (Amsterdam, 1685). Peter Morskowaki was the author of Politia ecclesiustica or Socinian agenda, written at the order of a convention at Dazwie, 1646 (3 books, Leipsic, 1745).
Sn..~ 	d‑>lthe.fimt
	decades. oftt~watla~umbed to
	the.Roman %tlr „reacttgn started under Sigis
	mund III. At the instigationof the Jesuits,* the
	church at Lublin was ,destroyetj~ 1627.
g. The	Under Ladislaus IV., by act of the
	Dispersion. senate at Warsaw (1638), the school at
	Rakow was suppressed, the Socinians
	were deprived of their church and printing‑estab
	lishment, and their preachers and teachers were pro
	scribed. Un_dgF,.(1.¢$‑f>„,e final
	bl,, fell upon .the.reaanutg, JJnitapa, co~rgga
	tions. The Swedish invasion occasioned a respite,
	ant‑some resorted to the party in favor of the
	Swedish king, hoping for relief. In consequence they
	were accused of treason and suffered indescribable
	afflictions. AftetAhe_aLoj, t_he Swedes
	(1638) the Diet of ~tthe confession
	and promotion of "Arianism " on pain _pf death.
	Many migrated to other lands, many joined the
	Roman Catholics, and others remained, secretly pro
	tected by Roman Catholics and Protestants. A new
	edict (1%*_ dtreed a_strjc^,enfprcement of the
	laFff ag in . .he. SQ9iniana. Soon the same fate be
	fell the other Protestants, and the Jesuit reaction
	reached its climax with the massacre of Thorn,
	1724. Soia iauiam secured an influential promoter
	111.ygEruaLSnner.(b, at Nuremberg 1572;
	d. at Altdorf 1612). HejAudiJA.j~_j5g7‑
1598,..whmw‑.pstnrodt‑.au&‑Woki .cwverted
him to_S_Mtndsutam.. As professor of medicine and
physics at Altdorf he clandestinely labored in the

tlooianr	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	490
interest of Socinianism and attracted a great number of Socinian students from Transylvania, Hungary, and Poland. Some time after his death this hearthstone of Socinianism in Altdorf was discovered. Some of the students recanted, others were banished; the Poles were expelled, and the Socinian writings were burned. Meanwhile some Polish exiles found a refuge in Oppeln and Ratibor, Silesia, and in the territory of the duke of Brieg. There, at Kreuzburg, they held two synods, in 1661 and 1663. Also Elector Karl Ludwig of the Palatinate allowed them to settle at Mannheim, but owing to their proselytizing tendencies they were compelled to leave in 1666 and scattered in Holland, Prussia, Silesia, and Brandenburg, forming local congregations. The pastor at Konigawalde was Samuel Crell (b. 1660; d. at Amsterdam 1747), grandson of Johann Crell (ut sup.). Under the pseudonym Artemonius he published a treatise Initium Evangelii Sancti Johanni (Amsterdam, 1726), in which he sought to prove the corruption of the text of the prologue of the Fourth Gospel. He maintained that the ante‑Nicene view of the Trinity differed from the post‑Nicene. He wrote also a dogmatical treatise, based on Rom. v. 12 sqq., Cogitatianes nova de primo et secundo Adamo (Amsterdam, 1700). After his death Unitarianism disappeared from Brandenburg but not from the other territories of the Prussian monarchy. Toward the end of the sixteenth century Socinian congregations had sprung up near Danzig, Buskow, and Straszin. In 1640 Elector Georg Wilhelm, urged by the Prussian estates, enjoined vigilance for the expulsion of the Antitrinitar rians, Socinians, and Photinians. Frederick William of Brandenburg, the " Great Elector," seconded by his deputy in Prussia, Prince Boguslav Radziwil, seeking to make his land an asylum for Protestant refugees, pursued the principle of toleration. Soeinians consequently settled in the districts of Lyck, Rhein, and Johannisburg, without the privilege of owning land. In 1670 the estates secured a rescript for their expulsion. Upon the intercession of the elector and the king of Poland the storm was allayed; but in 1679, 1721, and 1729 the estates repeated their demands under Frederick William I. The Socinians maintained themselves in wretched conditions and in small numbers until the nineteenth century. In the Netherlands antitrinitarian ideas appeared simultaneously with Anabaptist views, and at first frequently combined with them. In 1597 and 1598 Ostorodt and Woidowaki found many adherents in Amsterdam and Leyden. In 1599 the states‑general ordered the burning of the Socinian writings and the expulsion of those two men. Nevertheless, the movement spread so as to call forth appeals for restriction from the synods (1628‑53), until finally the states‑general laid an edict of prohibition upon Socinianism. This was not strictly enforced, however, and many refugees from the contemporaneous Polish repression found asylum in Holland. Among those of special importance were Jeremias Felbinger (b. at Brieg in Silesia, 27 m. s.e. of Breslau, 1616), who was preacher in Sraazin, and lived afterward in Poland, Prussia, and at Amsterdam, 1687. He was Arminian on the doctrine of redemption and taught the resurrection of the
wicked to judgment. Christoph Sand, the younger (b. at Konigsberg Oct. 12, 1644; d. at Amsterdam Nov. 30, 1680), was educated at Konigsberg; went to Amsterdam, 1668; and was author of Bibliotheca antitrinitariorum (Freystadt, 1684). Daniel Zwicker (b. at Danzig 1612; d. at Amsterdam 1678) was compelled to leave his native city, 1643; lived after 1657 in the Netherlands; and wrote Ircnicum Irenicorum (1658), which caused a great sensation. Reason, the correctly interpreted Scriptures, and true tradition are presented as the three fundamental norms. Socinianism in the Netherlands was ultimately absorbed by the Remonstrantp, Anabaptists, and Collegiants (qq.v.).
In Transylvania, Unitarianism spread at the same time as in Poland, owing to the activity of Blandrata (q.v.), alternating between the two countries, and the influence of Franciscus Davidis (q.v.). In 1568, by resolution of the Diet at Thorenburg, the Unitarian confession was recognized, and, toward the end of the reign of Zapolya II., it promised to become the prevailing religion of the country; but the division caused by Davidis' non‑adorantism was used by the Catholic opponents to their advantage. The non‑adorantea were suppressed and excluded (1638) by the Unitarians; at the same time occurred the suppression of the Babbatarian element; but a succeeding period of persecutions reduced the Unitarians themselves during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The German and Polish elements disappeared completely after the eighteenth century, leaving only the Magyar. A theological representative of later Transylvanian Unitarianism was Bishop Sentabrahami (Michael St. Abraham), 1737‑1758, author of a Summa univerete theologio; chriahante secundum Unitarios (Klausenburg, 1787). From 1821 the Unitarianism of Transylvania entered into closer relations with that of England, and from 1834 with that of North America, a step which furthered its material and spiritual promotion. The Unitarians in Transylvania, inclusive of about 1,000 Hungarian Unitarians, may be estimated. at nearly 60,000.
jI, ~~„„UnitAr ona.
Early Socinianism is presented in its main sow.
which are the works o ,AMatuL)cinua, the R&
rnyi&n C&tecbism, and the writin	of the foremost
		SWjW=_theolRgians._until about the
:. Scripture. middle of the s~.v~.,.Gt;B?ri'
		contained in the Bibliotheca Fratrum
Polonorum, vols. iii.‑iv. It	s throughout.to_
the authority of qgdRk~,re, and i&idedly Super‑..
	t alistic. The Christian religion is the way re
v~God for the pursuit of eternal life. The
Mosaic religion was incapable of breaking the. power
of the flesh, since it did not announce the hope of
immortality, but limited itself to the prophecy of
earthly happiness. Christianity is =„&_ted
Mosaism, superseding the ceremonial and juridical
laws, retaining and refining more sharply the eth
ical, and kindling by higher rewards the love of man
to God. Though inspired, the Old T,PL . mpn . His
p_r&~ti~,s,~V„,ttous and of only historical value.
According to Socinus the a9R„m ®ritors	Aa
spi,pdr.„la. the content of t(jgipya,

491	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8ocinvu
~Ad61'..~...!+a ~uw~.v~arJ‑rwwrncs~..r~,~,~...~,~. r ,'ko~.f~‑_
His two criteria for the cnl~suation of the ungenuine and for judging what is of divine content are,_(9.r with _,mason, and (2) moral fieanoe and unlit : The tendency was ever toward a mo_fc..~ic faith.
The doctrine of God is divided into the ideas of the a gjQd,,y_*. The being of God undistinguished from his existence is not considered in the abstract metaphysical sense, but in the concrete relation to the world of finite being,
more positively in relation to man.
s. God. Bejwg, and. 89Ye	ise~ticnl in
	God.‑‑‑‑‑U.w&xaWute (ex se
	ipso) determination of will in the sense of the Sco
	tist Scholasticism (q.v.). His existence, nature, and
	attributes are subjects of positive revelation; there
	fore involved with the proofs of the authority of
	Scripture. With respect to the divine attributes
	the canon holds that they are inseparable in un
derstanding.	Socinianism was occupied mainly
	with that of omniscience. God's, foreknowledge,is
	limitel.totwary, and does not apply to the
	possible; otherwise there would be no human free
	dom. Special attention is given to the attribute of
	divine unity, which coincides with the divine aseity,
	even the conception of God itself. The knowledge
	of the unity of God is necessary for salvation, be
	cause otherwise man would be uncertain as to who
	had revealed to him salvation. It is also profitable
	for salvation to know that God_is only on~„pemon.
	~as.the.,.ts. ~le~toa~,o 7i~*~? q'r
	t~„dW,. The doctrine of the Trinity is represented
	sP .on.,mR_, That the #Io)y,.Spinteis
	anywhere in Scripture called God ia.denied. The
	passages in which Father, Son, and Spirit are repre
	sented, according to orthodoxy, to be coordinate,
	are invalidated. This is followed by the, proof of
1ewR‑t4., the__	hy, : ooii"ju .p0jutiag
out _the jpcog~jgg„ an d i evanit	the dog
	mtio .formula and emphasizing the omission from
	Scripture of such terms as " substance," " person,"
	" etg„rPa„,gugration of thg‑Son," and " pmpxislr
	ence." Thus, thep~mus.vK,~a sought to be
	esfa_blished: " Plurality of persons in on~.vlne,~s‑.
pg	Js ;np,ilzle." The creig,,gt.pE,ptkung is
	chi by the Socinians and there is posited a pre
	existing matter from which God formed the world.
	Ex nihilo according to II Maccabees vii. 28 is iden
	tical with the ex anformi materia (formless matter)
	of Eccles. xi. 17, or the to U WahhnhM 4Gen. i. 2)
which i~g„‑„„t	.„t, to.have
	3. Creation; bb .raProd,. Here appears the dual
Man.	ism that governs the whole system.
	The divine image in man consists es
	sentially in his dominion over nature, including
	mind and reason; from these the likeness to God is
	derived. Man, created mortal, has by nature noth
	ing of immortality, and therefore did not lose this
	virtue by the fall. Man was not created perfect or
	originally endowed with a high measure of wisdom.
	He had a negative or possible free will, not a posi
	tive actual freedom. The fall was due to a weak
	understanding and an inexperienced will, so that
	sensuality blinded the reason and incited to trans
	gression. Inner nature merely asserted itself: yet
Socinianism aimed to conceive sin as an act of freedom, in which it was not altogether consistent. Through sin Adam and his descendants have not lost free choice. In so far as original sin is the denial of this freedom, Socinianism disputes it most emphatically. Original sin as depravity of the choice of the good and as a penalty impending over man contradicts Scripture, which in its admonitions to repentance everywhere presupposes the freedom of man, and the doctrine not less emphatically contradicts reason. Lust and inclination to sin, in which original sin is said to consist, are possible in all but not shown to be in all. Granted that there is such a doom over all, that it is the result of Adam's sin would not follow. If this were so, original sin would cease to be sin; for there is no sin where there is no guilt. Hence there is no original sin as such. Inconsistently, however, the general mortality of the human race is traced to the sin of Adam; after the fall man, mortal by nature, was abandoned to his natural mortality because of the sin of Adam. With this assumption there is connected that of a certain sinful disposition produced by the continuous sinning of all generations. Accordingly, the freedom of man is weakened; but with the aid of God man may appropriate salvation. This divine reenforcement is needed to avoid gross and violent sins, contrary to reason; and those over which reason affords no mastery require specially potent and lofty promises of grace, and these are the promises in Jesus Christ.
	The doctrine of salvation contemplates only a
see~Ct part	been cfiaracterized as ethico
	aristocratic. The Gospel effects a total . change in
‑ the spiritual nature of man. Christ
	4. Chris‑ came, not to restore man to the o g
tology.	inal state before Adam, but to lift him
	to a more exalted one. The Christian
	is more than the truly human. Is then Christ also
	`more than humanfi Socinianism answers that he
w	on. the one side, truly mortal man; on the
	other, mgrs than mer__e man, a man with unusual
	en owments, imbued with immeasurable wisdom,
	and exalted by God to unlimited power and immor
	tality. Christ was bound to be of like nature with
	man, because the goal of religion was immortality
	mediated by his resurrection, and if, on the other
	hand, his advantage above all men was in his divin
	ity, he could not die. The Catechism expressly
teaches that the Scripture denies to~nst e dvine nature,~in 6o_far as t testifies to humanity.
eI re lies the seNAd ereat_‑po%,center,pfrS
'' i9m. Other human beings are called sons of God (Hos. i. 10; Rom. ix. 26). " Only begotten son of God " means " favorite and most beloved " (cf. Heb. xi. 17; Prov. iv. 3). " Equal with God " (John v. 18; Phil. ii. 6) refers to unity of power and work; and the statement " I and my Father are one " (John x. 30) is to be understood in the sense that the disciples are to be in accord as he and the Father are one (John xvii.,11, 22). Against the doctrine of preexistence it is maintained that the " beginning " (John i. 1) is the beginning of the Gospel (ef. xv. 27, xvi. 4). The' creation of the world by the Word meant either the reformation of the human race, or the future eon of immor‑

Socinue	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Socrates		492
tality. °' The Word was made flesh " (i. 14) should
be " was flesh," meaning that he through whom
God revealed his will was subject to all human mis
ery and death. The kenosis (Phil. ii. 6) can not
possibly refer to divine nature. From John iii. 13,
31 and vi. 38, 62, it is concluded that Christ was
caught up into heaven for a season like Paul. Con
trary arguments of mMn am nddecj: (1) Two all‑.
solut$h!		'unNite iii, one
person, because mortality and immortality, variar
bility and invariability are irreconcilable; (2) if.the
union of the two‑naJVM Jb„inseparable,.then,C~lrist
could not	died; (3) the height of absurdity
was the communicatio idiomatum of Lutheran doc
trine. On the other hand, Socinians expressly as
serted that Christ was " more "than all other hu
man beings, superior in endowments but not.. in
nature. He was conceived of a virgin, is perfetly
holy, and has power to reign over all things. Just
as dominion over the earth constitutes in man the
inherent image of God, so the absolute power con
ferred by God upon Christ constitutes his divinity.
In this sense he is truly God (I John v. 20) and is
to be worshiped, next to the Father. Socinus calls
the non‑adorantes non‑Christians, because they have
not Christ.
	The work of Christ in redemption is concentrated
	this rophetc and kindly offices. For the.p_rQpbs~lie
o~e~e 	a 'al'fi W _.~,x the t~ix.~d
dunpg,hie,sojourn in heayen (ut sup.).
g. Work The content of revelation is essen‑
of Christ. tially composed of __ "~receptg ,d
	Qpomises." The Lord's Supper is a
ceremonial precept, supplementing the law of the
Old Testament. Great emphasis is laid upon the
symbolic idea of immersion and the breaking of
bread. The Lord's Supper is taught as a memorial
of Christ's death after the view of Zwingli, and the
term sacrament is spurned. Baptism was depre
cated as not of permanent validity, but only as a
primitive rite of confession for Jewish and pagan
converts. For those born of Christian parents it is
unessential. It is not commanded and not designed
for infants, who are incapable of confession, and
those of Christian parentage are holy by virtue of
descent (I Cor. vii. 14). Among promises, on the
other hand, are (1) eternal life, characteristic of the
New, absent from the Old Testament; (2) the Holy
SpiriLRQt as a nerson.kut_&_power or	e a tlv
		d3.~w_.e.
iAy, manifest visibly in the early Church and in
visibly later as the spirit of revelation and faith.
The essential elemgut in the, prophetic office is the
death oh_ri,~t,. The new revelation was attested
(1) by the sinlessness of Jesus, (2) by his holy life,
and (3) by his miracles and death. The doctrine of
satisfaction is disputed in the manner of Scotist
scholasticism. Christ's death was necessary to attest,
first, the great love of God for human redemption;
and, secondly, the resurrection to eternal life on the
condition of obedience. The kingly _oflice of Christ
consists in the ‑exaltation to the ,right hand of God to
reign, in his stead, power over his enemies, and the
eternal reign and protection of the just, and begins
with the ascension. The high‑priestly office is an
adjunct of the kingly, and means that he will, and
actually does, come to the succqr_Q_f_man, which
is led a tacriftce. Its seat is in he axe., since on
earth Christ is not high priest and has no taber
nacle fit for the high‑priesthood.
The soteriologi9Ldoctrine..§h9,‑Jessentiailly ~!e.f_tGrxn. Presupposing„ hums 4UttQngMy, it
	conceives the divine will as manifest
	6. Soteriol‑ in revelations, to which the human
	ogy; the obedience with divWa_.rforcement
	Church; reapqnds. On.'lustifica~It is taught
Eschatology. that that article of faith iux1?lx
	elements:_ asst to the teaching of
Jesus as true,		t in God through Christ, and obe
dl_ Jeuee to the divine commandments. In effecting
this, faith is justifying and saving. All imputation
is repudiated. The true Church is " the company
of those who hold and profess sound doctrine."
The Church is one with a school of the true knowl
edge of God. In government it is an ecclesiastical
democracy, subject only to Christ the head. The
offices are those of pastor, elders, and deacons, of
whom the first is elected by the synod. Church dis
cipline is strictly insisted upon. Interference by
the state is refused, even in case of heresy. The
Christian is obligated to endure passively all that
the civil power imposes, but active obedience is due
only where there is no conflict with God's Word.
" Rather to suffer than to commit injustice " is prac
tised in private life; fellow church‑members are to
be prosecuted in civil courts only in urgent cases;
and on the same principle military service is re
nounced, except that with weapons one is permitted
to make a feint upon an enemy. Socinus and a
majority of theologians approved of holding civic
office as not in conflict with the law of Christ; but,
in practise, this was impossible in view of the fore
going. In eschatology, the resurrection of. the, flesh
is_lepudiated., The real substance of man or spirit
will be retained, and identity of person clothed in
a spiritual body (I Cor. xv.). T un o lv mdth
the devil and his angels, shall be~ted,_ Thus
the end like the beginning of the Socinian doctrine
is immortality. 		(O. ZScsl,Ext.)

BIBLzooRAm7: On the life and teaching of Socinus consult: J. Crell, BesehrOvinphe van Godt en aijne eypenachappen . Hier is by Ghevoepht F. Socini leven en daden, Rakow, 1850 (?); S. Prnykowski, Vita Fausti Socino, Cracow, 1838, Eng. trawl., The Life of that Incomparable Man Faustua Socinus, London, 1853; G. Ashwell, De Socino et Socinianismo, Oxford, 1880; A. Caloviw, Scripta Antisoeiniana, 3 vols., Ulm, 1884; J. Toulmin, Memoirs of the Life, Character, Sentiments and Writings of F. Socinus, London, 1777; C. F. I11gen, Symbols ad vitam et doctrina Fausti Socini, 3 parts, Leipsic, 1828‑40; E. Tagart, Sketches of the Lives and Characters of the Leading Reformers of the 16th Century, London, 1843; P. Lecler, Fauste Socin. Biographique et crittique, Geneva, 1885; Bayle, Dictionary, v. 168‑180.
	For the history of Socinianism consult: Bibliotheca
Fratrum Polonorum, 6 vols., Amsterdam, 1828; B. Lamy,
Hist. du Socinianiame, Paris, 1723• S. F. Lauterbach,
Ariano‑Socinianismus olim in Polonia, Leipsic, 1725; M.
Maimbourg, The Mist. of Arianism, . . with Account of
the . . . Socinian and Arian Controversies, 2 vols., Lon
don, 1728‑29; F. S. Bock, Hist. Antitrinitariorum, maaime
Socinianorum. 2 vols., K3nigaberg, 1774‑84; T. Lindsey
Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and
Worship from the Reformation, London, 1783; A. Fuller,
The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Bxamined and Com
pared, Edinburgh, 1815; F. Trechsel, Die protestantischen
Antitrinitarier vor Paustus Socinus, 2 parts, Heidelberg,
1839‑44; O. Foek, Der Socinianismus each seiner Stellunp
in der Gvaamrntentwickelung des chriatlichen Geistes, i. 121‑

493	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
263, Kiel, 1847; R. Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography. 3 vols., London, 1850; W. Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. ii., Edinburgh, 1862; E. L. T. Henke, Vorieaunpen aber neuere Kirchenpeschichte, i. 453 eqq•, Halls, 1874; J. Ferenca, Kleiner Unitarserspiepel, Vienna, 1879; J. H. Allen, in American Church History Series, x. 4996, New York, 1894; H. Dalton, Laaciana. Berlin, 1898; W. J. van Doruwen, in ThT, 1898, parts 1 3; J. F. Hurst, Hist. of Rationalism, revised ed., New York, 1901; O. Koniecki, lieachichte der Reformation in Polen, pp. 198‑220, Breslau, 1901; G. Krause, Reformation and Gegenreformation im
. . Polen, Posen, 1901; A. C. McGiffert, Protestant Thought before Kant, pp. 107‑118, New York, 1911; the works on the history of doctrine, e.g., Harnack, Dogma, v.‑vii., especially vii. 119‑167.
SOCINUS, LAELIUS (LELIO SOZZINI): Antitrinitarian, and uncle of Faustus Socinus (q.v.); b. at Siena in 1525; d. at Zurich May 16, 1562. One of the Italian free inquirers, he left Italy about 1544 to escape the Inquisition, and, going to Switzerland, found a home in Zurich. His candid intelligence and pleasant manner were the cause of much homage from the leading German and Swiss Reformers. Later on, though he did not expressly deny the doctrine of the Trinity, suspicion arose against him, and he needed the assistance of Bullinger to appease Calvin, and to turn aide the doubt as to his belief. Thereafter he abstained from controversy, and kept his opinions more to himself. At the time of his visit to Italy in 1560, on the occasion of his father's death, his correspondence brought upon his house the ill repute of heresy, so that the family estate was confiscated to the Inquisition, and he returned to Zurich to spend there the last two years of his life in poverty, and yet in peace and prestige due to the friendship of Sigismund II. of Poland. He published De hwreticis, an lint persequendi . . doctorum virorum . . . sententim (Magdeburg [Basel], 1554); and De sacramentis dissertth do (Freistadt, Holland, 1654).
BiBLtoasAPHy: J. C. F. Hoefer, Nouvelle biographie pbrale, a.v., 46 vols., Paris, 1855‑66; J. H. Allen, in American Church History Series, x. 49‑56, New York, 1894; and the literature under SOCIN08, FAUsTUs.
SOCRATES, sec'ra‑tiz: Greek church historian; b. at Constantinople c. 380.
I. Life: Even in ancient times nothing seems to have been known of the life of Socrates except what was gathered from notices in his " Church History." His birth and education are related in V., xxiv. 9; his teachers were the grammarian Helladius and Ammonius, who came to Constantinople from Alexandria, where they had been heathen priests (V., xvi. 9). A revolt, accompanied by an attack upon the heathen temples, had forced them to flee. This revolt is dated about 390 (cf. she annotations of Reading and Hussey to V., xvi. 1). That Socrates later profited by the teaching of the sophist Troilus, is not proven; no certainty exists as to his precise vocation, although it may be inferred from his work that he was a layman. On the title‑page of his history, he is designated as a scholasticus (lawyer). In later years Socrates traveled and visited among other places Paphlagonia and Cyprus (cf. Hist. ccd., I., xii. 8, II., xxxviii. 30).
IL His " Church History ": Socrates' work on church history was first edited in Greek by R. Stephen, on the basis of Codex Regius 1443 (Paris, 1544); a translation into Latin by Johannes
Christophorson (1612) is important for its various readings. The fundamental edition, however, was
produced by Valesius (Paris, 1668), Period, who used Codex Regius, a Codex Vati‑
Purpose, canus, and a Codex Florentinus, and
Scope. also employed the indirect tradition
of Theodorus Lector (Codex Leonis Alladi). The history covers the years 305‑439, and was finished about 439, in any case during the lifetime of Emperor Theodosius, i.e., before 450 (cf. VIL, xxii. 1; fuller details in Jeep, Quelenuntersuchungen au den grieehwchen Kirchenhwtorikern in New dahrbucher fur Phillologie and Padagogik, xiv. 137 sqq). The purpose of the history is to give a continuation of the work of Eusebius (I., i.). It relates in simple language and without panegyric what the Church has experienced from the days of Constantine to the writer's time. Ecclesiastical dissensions occupy the foreground; for when the Church is at peace there is nothing for the church historian to relate (VII., xlviii. 7). The fact that, besides treating of the Church, the work also deals with Arianism and with political events is defended in the preface to book V. Socrates seems to have owed the impulse to write his work to a certain Theodorus, who is alluded to in the proemium to bk. II. as " a holy man of God " and seems therefore to have been a monk or one of the higher clergy.
The history in its present form is not a first edition. This is shown in the opening of the second book, where Socrates relates that he has thoroughly
revised books I.‑II. He has done this Sources. because in these books he had orig‑
inally followed Rufinus, and in books III.‑VII. he had drawn partly from Rufinus and partly from other sources. Then, from the works of Athanasius and the letters of prominent men of his time, he learned that Rufinus was not trustworthy, and was therefore induced to revise his work, and add the numerous documents scattered through the first two books. That the revision was not confined to these two books, but extended to the following ones, is shown by the erasure of the repetition at the end of the sixth book in the second Florentine manuscript. This passage proves also that the first edition was not oxlly prepared but published. An attempt to state the sources used by Socrates was first made in a thorough manner by Jeep. It was shown that Socrates usually makes express mention of the source of his information. Geppert (see bibliography) offers a systematic analysis of these sources as follows; (1) Rufinus is often transcribed (I., xii., xv., II., i.; etc.), often quoted without acknowledgment from the Greek trandation by Gelasius of Cwsarea; (2) Eusebius, De tits Condantini, cited in I., i., viii., xvi.; etc.; (3) Athanasius, De synodis, cited II., xxxvii.; and above all the Apologia contra Arianos (cf. the preface to book II.); (4) the collections of the acts of the councils by the Macedonian Sabinus, cited I., via., II., xv.; etc.; (5) Eutropius, who is nowhere cited, although the comparison of Socrates II., xv. with Eutropius K., ix. shows the use of this author; (6) the Fasti, to whom Socrates is indebted for his political and semi‑political data. Formally,

Socrates
Soerearea	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	494
Socrates is sometimes in accord with Idatius, some
times with the Chronicon paschale, and occasionally
with Marcellinus Comes. It is surprising that all
the Olympiads are incorrectly stated by two
years; (7) the list of the bishops of Conatanti
nople, Alexandria, Antioch, and probably also of
Rome and Jerusalem. For Constantinople, the
bishops of the Arian and Novatian parties are also
noted. Jeep believes that other sources have been
used, for instance, Philostorgios, Eunapius, Auxa
non, and the letters of Constantine. Hamack and
Geppert conjecture the use of biographies of the
emperors. This is not proven and seems especially
improbable for the time of Constantine, since Soc
rates expressly states in the preface to book V. that
he was unable to obtain data concerning the polit
ical events of that time and observes that hence
forth he would write what he himself saw or what
he had been able to learn from eye‑witnesses. The
composition of the " History " is not seldom me
chanical. Socrates often cites Eusebius and Atha
nasius literally (ii. 37) and it not infrequently hap
pens that he copies his sources almost word for
word. Yet criticism of the sources is not lacking,
as in the fact that recognition of the untrustworthi
ness of Rufinus induced Socrates to rewrite his work.
	Socrates was one of the most celebrated men of
his time, and could fully appreciate Hellenic dis
		cipline, of which he says that Christ
	Author's and his disciples looked upon it as
Limitations neither harmful nor divine, therefore
	and Rela‑ every individual should be allowed to
	tionships. take the stand he pleases, either for or
		against it. Moreover, although the
Holy Scriptures reveal divine dogmas to us and re
vive our piety‑the real life and faith‑nevertheless,
they do not give training in logic, by the aid of
which we must meet the adversaries of the truth;
this, however, is essential, since the enemy is best
combated with his own weapons. Socrates did not
possess real learning; he relates simply, rarely cut
ting the thread of his descriptions by reflections, as,
for instance, in III., vii., xvi. He had also little
interest in mere theology. For him, the principal
factor in Christianity was the doctrine of the Trin
ity, but he did not feel the need of conceiving this
distinctly and intelligently and of formulating it.
He essentially agrees with his citation from Eva
grius' Monachicum (III., vii. 23): " We must bow
down in silence before the unutterable." This in
difference of Socrates to theology, perhaps also an
inborn mildness of temperament, determined his
attitude toward the ecclesiastical disputes of his
time; he was opposed to the use of force against
heretics (VIL, xli., cf. xxix.). He does not judge
harshly even the Arians, although he regarded them
as notorious heretics (I., viii. 1‑2). His attitude
toward the Novatians was especially friendly; he
reproaches Celestine with having persecuted the
Roman Novatians (VII., xi.), and considers seri
ously whether the hard fate that befell John Chrys
ostom was not a punishment for his having des
troyed Novatian churches (VI., xix. 7). He often
alludes to the Novatians specifically (I., x., II.,
xxxviii.; etc.), and is remarkably well informed
regarding their history. These facts have been ex‑
plained by the assertion that Socrates himself was a Novatian, but this is incorrect, at least for the time when he wrote his " History." In V., xx. 1, he speaks of the Novatians in the same way as of the Arians, the Macedonians, and the Eunomians. The personal relations of Socrates with Auxanon, who had been present at the Nicene council and lived up to the time of the younger Theodosius (i. 13; cf. i. 10; Auxanon, whether of the same faith or not, could therefore give valuable information), and, on the other hand, the importance of the Novatian communities in Constantinople, explain his interest in this sect. It is self‑evident, in spite of his good will, that no great work could be expected from a writer like Socrates. He was well qualified to relate personal experiences, but was not able to write history. This was the judgment of Valesius and it is confirmed by the later commentators. His reports are not reliable, and, in cases not a few, wrong. However, the later books, especially the sixth and seventh, contain much valuable information.
(G. LoEscacxic.)
BIHwoanAPHr: Other editions than those mentioned in the text are by G. Rending, Cambridge, 1720, reproduced in MPG, 1xvii.; R. Hussey, Oxford, 1853, reproduced by W. Bright, ib. 1878. Eng. travels. are in Bohn's Rcclosiadical Library, London, 1851, and in NPNP, 2 ser., Vol. ii.
On the life of Socrates consult the introductions to the editions as given in the text and above; Fabricius‑Harles, B>bliotheca Graca, vii. 423 sqq., Hamburg, 1801; Ceillier, Auteure sacr6a, viii. 514‑525; Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, pp. 332‑333, Eng. travel., St. Louis. 1908; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 880881; DCB, iv. 709‑711; %L, xi. 473476. On his work consult the essay of Jeep mentioned in the text, and the introductions in the editions of the text; F. A. Holshausen, De Jontibus, quibue Socrates, Sozomenue, ac Theodordus in acribenda hidoria sacra uei aunt. Gottingen, 1825; J. G. Dowling, introduction to the Critical Study of Ecclesiastical Hiet., pp. 34 sqq., London, 1838; H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 97, Cambridge, 1882; Batiffol, Quodionea Philoetorpiana, Paris, 1891; Rauschen, in Jahrbuch der chriatlichen %irche, 1897, pp. 2 aqq.; F. Geppert, Die Quellen des %irchenhiaWrikera Socrates Scholwticua, Leipsic, 1898.

SOCRATES: Greek philosopher and teacher; b. in Peeania (on the east of Mt. Hymettus, near the modern Liopesi, 8 m. se. of Athens) 469 B.C.; d. at Athens in May or June, 399. As a youth he was a sculptor, but he later devoted his manhood, even till old age, to the assiduous practise of bringing to birth the thoughts and characters of his youthful countrymen, humorously likening his occupation to that of a midwife. In three battles‑‑at Potidaea, at Defium, and at Amphipofis‑he proved himself a brave and efficient citizen‑soldier. At the age of sixty, as a senator‑the only instance in which he accepted office‑he showed his moral and political heroism by withstanding alone the excited passions, and for the time thwarting the perverse and vindictive purpose, of the people in their popular assembly. He also in 406 opposed the illegal disposition of the trial of eight generals by a single vote. At the age of seventy he was accused of corrupting the youth, and not worshiping the gods of his country, tried before the popular dicastery, condemned by a small majority of votes, and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock.
The philosophy of Socrates is not so much a system of doctrines as a spirit of inquiry and a method

495
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Socrates
St»reneen
of search for the truth. That method, the method of question and answer, was so characteristic of Socrates, and at the same time so full of life and power that it was adopted more or less by all his disciples and has ever since been known as the Socratic method. It is seen in its perfection in the " Dialogues " of Plato, which are the idealized conversations of the idealized Socrates. The subjectmatter of the Socratic philosophy is ethics in contradistinction to physics; its aim is practical to the exclusion of barren speculation; and conscious ignorance, modesty, moderation, and pure and high morality are among its most marked characteristics.
The chief good, our being's end and aim, according to the Socratic ethics, is happiness, that wellbeing which results from well‑doing in obedience to the will of God and with the blessing of Heaven. Xenophon and Plato agree in making Socrates teach that he who knows justice is just, and the man who understands virtue is virtuous: in other words, he resolves all virtue into knowledge. But it is plain from both these writers that he used knowledge in a high and comprehensive sense unusual in ethical treatises, but strikingly analogous to that in which it is used in the Scriptures. He makes knowledge identical with wisdom, and ignorance with folly and sin, just as in the Bible piety is wisdom, and sin is folly: the wicked have no knowledge, while the righteous know all things.
Socrates believed in the existence of one supreme Divinity, the creator and disposer of the universe, all‑powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, per‑' fectly wise and just and good. His method of demonstrating the existence of such a being was strictly Baconian, the same argument as Paley used in his Natural Theology. And what Xenophon records of his master of those unwritten laws in the soul of man which execute themselves, and make it impossible for any man to be unjust, or impure, or licentious, without paying the penalty (which proves a greater and better than any human lawgiver), recalls Bishop Butler himself. Socrates believed himself to be under the constant guidance of a divine voice, which always warned him when he was in ‑danger of going or doing wrong, and thus, indirectly, always led him in the right way; and he taught that every man might have the same divine guidance. He held the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the future life as strenuously as Plato did, but without those dreams and chimeras of its preexistence and successive tranamigrations by which the creed of the latter was disfigured. It was the beauty and glory of Socrates' character, that his doctrine of providence and prayer and a future state was the controlling principle of his life, and he believed that death was not an evil, but the highest good and the richest blessing. His teachings, illustrated by a conscientious, unselfish, heroic, missionary life, and sealed by a martyr's death, are the main secret of his power, and these exhibit him in his true relation to Christianity.
D. PERCY GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are the " Memorabilia " and " Sym‑
paeiam of Xenophon Plato's " Apology., •. Sympo
sium, ..Crito ' and • Phaedo," Plutarch's Deg'enw Socratic,
and Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Philosophers." To be
taken into account are the works on the history of philoso‑
phy by H. Ritter, 4 vole., Oxford, 1838‑48; W. A. Butler, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1855; G. H. Lewes, 4 vola., London, 1857; J. B. Mayor, Ancient Philosophy, Cambridge, 1881; A. Schwegler, 3d ed., Freiburg, 1882; W. Windelband, New York, 1893; J. E. Erdmann,vol. i., London, 1892; E. Zeller, 2 vols., 1897; F. Ueberweg, ed. Heinse, 9th ed., Berlin, 1901‑05, Eng. eranal., of earlier edition, vol. i., London, 1875. Consult further: F. Charpentier, La Vie de Socrate, 3d ed., Paris, 1699, Eng. transl., London, 1758; R. Nam, An Essay on the Demon or Divination of Socrates, London, 1782; J. W. Hanne, Socrates ala Genius der Humanit4t, Brunswick, 1841; J. P. Potter, The Religion of Socrates, London, 1831; idem, Characteristics of the Greek Philosophers, Socrates and Plato, ib. 1845; E. M. Goulburn, Socrates, London, 1858; E. Goguel, Aridophane d Socrates, Strasburg, 1859; H. Schmidt, Sokratea, Halle, 1868; A. Garnier, Hiatoire do la morale, Paris, 1885; A: Chaignet, La Vie de Socrate, Paris, 1868; E. Alberti, Sokrates: sin Verauch fiber An naeh den Quellen, GSttingen, 1869; P. Mont6e, La Philosophic de Socrate, Arms, 1869; J. S. Blackie, Four Phase# of Morals, London, 1871; H. E. Manning, The Dmnon of Socrates, London, 1872; A. Fouill6e, La Philosophic de Socrate, 2 vols., Paris, 1874; C. Charaux, L'Ombre de Socrate, Paris, 1878; A. W. Benn, The Greek Philosophers, 2 vols., London, 1882; idem, The Philosophy of Greece, ib. 1898; A. B. Moss, Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus, London, 1885; C. du Prel, Die Myatik der alien Griechen, Leipsic, 1888; F. Dtlmmler, Akademika, Giessen, 1889; R. M. Wenley, Socrates and Christ, London, 1889; A. Wring, Die Lehre des Sokratea ale aocialea Reformayatem, Munich, 1895; R. W. Emerson, Tuw Unpublished Essays, Boston, 1896; A. D. Godley, Socrates and Athenian Society in his Day, London, 1896; E. Pfleiderer, Sokratea, Plato and ihre Scheler, TVbingen, 1896; J. T. Forbes, Socrates, Edinburgh, 1905; E. Lange, Sokmiss, Giltersloh, 1906.
SODEN, HANS KARL HERMANN, FREIHERR VON: German Protestant; b. at Cincinnati, O., Aug. 16, 1852. He was educated at Esslingen, Urach, and the theological institute of Tabingen, and was then curate at Wildbad, near Stuttgart (1875,80), pastor at Dresden‑Striesen (1881‑82), and archdeacon at Chemnitz (1883‑86). Since 1887 he has been pastor of the Jerusalemkirche, Berlin, and in 1889 became privat‑docent for New‑Testament exegesis at the university of the same city, where he has been associate professor since 1893. In theology he belongs to the liberal school, and has written Der Brief des Apostels Paulus do die Philipper (Freiburg, 1889); the volumes on Hebrews, the Epistles of Peter, James, and Jude, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon for the Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (2 vols., 1890‑91); Reisebriefe aus Paldatina (Berlin, 1898); Paldstina and seine Geschichte (Leipsie, 1899); Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer dltesten erreichbaren Textgeatalt (Berlin, 1902 aqq.); Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (1904); and Urchristliche Literaturgeachiehte (1905).

SODOM. See PeLEsTmE, II., 1 10.

SOERENSEN, ANDERS HERMAN VILHELM:
Danish clergyman; b. at Randers (a town of Jutland, 118 m. n.w. of Copenhagen) June 27, 1840. He was graduated from the Randers Latin School (18.58), and from the University of Copenhagen (candidate in theology, 1865); with his wife he conducted in Copenhagen a school for girls, 18651874; in 1869 he was made chaplain at Fr6deriksberg (a suburb of Copenhagen), in 1876 pastor in Taanum‑Homb6k (Viborg), and in 1890 pastor at Husby (Funen), his present charge. He is regarded as Denmark's greatest living authority on foreign

Sohm
Solomon	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	498
missions, and on this subject he is a well‑known
writer and speaker. His writings are characterized
by thoroughness. Notable among his productions
are his articles in the Nordisk Missionstidukrift,
which he has edited since 1899, and in Nordisk
Kirkeleksikon; also Vor Tida Afissionsforoentninger
og Missionsresuuater (1895); and Kina og Missions
rerne (1900). 	John O. EvJNrq.

SOHN, sam, RUDOLF: German Protestant jurist; b. at Restock Oct. 29, 1841. He was educated at the universities of Rostock (LL.D., 1864), Berlin, Heidelberg, and Munich; was privat‑docent in the faculty of law of the University of G&ttingen (1866‑70), and was appointed associate professor in 1870. In the same year be became professor at Freiburg, and from 1872 to 1887 occupied a similar position at Strasburg. Since 1887 he has been professor of German and canon law in the University of Leipsic. His views upon canonistic theory, though unusual and novel, have gained great significance in German theological thought. His writings of theological interest are Dab Verhdltnis van Stoat ured Kirche (Tiibingen, 1873); Kirchengeschiehte im Grundriss (Leipsic, 1888, 14th ed., 1905; Eng. tranal. of 8th ed., Outlines of Church History (London, 1895); Kirchenrecht, vol. i. (1892); Wesen and Ursprung des Katholizismus (1909).

SOBS, ebn, GEORG: German Reformed theologian; b. at R,ossbach, in Upper Hesse, Dec. 31, 1551; d. at Heidelberg not later than Apr. 23, 1589. In 1566 he visited the University of Marburg; went to Wittenberg in 1569; studied first jurisprudence, and then changed to theology, which after 1572 he studied at Marburg. His unusual erudition led to his reception into the teaching corps of the university in 1574; he became professor of Hebrew in 1575. His principal theological adversary was his own disciple, Egidius Hunnius (q.v.). In consequence of the ecclesiastical agitations [in Hesse], he accepted a call to Heidelberg in 1584, but only a brief career of activity was there his portion.
	His dogmatic writings treat mainly of the ques
tions in dispute between Lutherans and Calvinists
(touching the Lord's Supper, Christology, and free
will) and also controvert the Church of Rome. Isis
collective works appeared in 3 vols. (Herbom, 1591
1592; 3d ed., 1609). 	CARL MIRHT.
BraWoaaerHY: J. Calvin's Oratio de vifa d obQu G. Sohn Heidelberg, 1589, is reprinted in the " Works," Vol. i., and is the main source for the life by M. Adam in Vitas eruditorum, pp. 298‑301, Frankfort, 1708; J. Tilemann, Vita profeeaorum . . . in academia Marburpenai, pp. 1291l0, Marburg, 1727 Cf. F W Strieder, Grundlaps zu einer nemiaehen Gdehrten‑ and Schriftatdlerpeschichtr, XV. 109‑112, Cassel, 1808; H. Heppe, Geachichte der hessiachan Generadayuoden 1688‑81, passim, ib. 1847.
SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT (r643). See COvENANTERB, 1 4.

SOLITARY BRETHREN. See CoMMUmsM, II., 5. SOLOMON: Third king of all Israel, second son of David by Bathsheba, and his successor. His dates, according to the old chronology, are 1021‑981, according to Ewald 1025‑986, according to Kamphausen 977‑938. The natural heir to the throne was Adonijah, since his elder brothers, Amnon and
Absalom, had been killed, while Chileab (or Daniel), of whom little mention is made, probably died in early youth (0f. II Sam. iii. 2‑4; I Kings i. 5 sqq.). While, however, it was customary for the succession to go by primogeniture (cf. I Kings ii. 15), the king had the privilege of choosing his successor, and on this the hopes of Solomon were based. Solomon, the fourth of David's sons to be born in Jerusalem (II Sam. v. 14), was brought up by the prophet Nathan, who apparently called him Jedidiah (II Sam. xii. 25). Bathsheba seems to have been the favorite wife of David, and evidently made the end of her ambitions the gaining of the throne for her eldest surviving son. Two factions thus arose at the court of the aged David. Joab and the high priest Abiathar were the partizans of Adonijah; Bathsheba, Nathan, Benaiah, and the second priest Zadok were on the side of Solomon.
On the approach of David's death Adonijah assembled his partizans at the stone of Zoheleth near Jerusalem. The news of this gathering naturally excited the extremest alarm among the adherents of Solomon. At the instigation of Nathan Bathsheba hurried to David, telling the dying king that he had sworn to appoint Solomon his successor, and that Adonijah had already seized the throne (I Kings i. 11 sqq.). David renewed his oath and commanded that Solomon be placed upon the royal mule, anointed king, and proclaimed as the lawful sovereign of Israel. When the acclamations of the new ruler were heard at the atone of Zoheleth, Adonijah fled to the altar, where his life was spared by Solomon.
Before the death of David, however, he announced his last wishes to his successor. These were three: vengeance on Joab for blood guiltiness incurred in the murder of Abner and Amass; rewards to the sons of Barzillai of Gilead for aid rendered David; and death to Shimei for having cursed the king (I Kings ii. 3 sqq.). The foolish ambition of Adonijah brought about his execution, while his partizan Joab was put to death, and the high priest Abiathar was deposed (I Kings ii. 13 sqq.), Joab being replaced by Benaiah and Abiathar by Zadok. The rise of Solomon to the throne has been held by such scholars as Wellhausen, Stade, and Renan to have been the result of a mere palace intrigue of the usual oriental type, while David's will is alleged to be a figment of a subservient courtier anxious to turn the responsibility for the succeeding bloodshed from Solomon to David. For all this there is not the slightest evidence.
On his accession to the throne Solomon sought to protect and to extend the rich heritage of David, who had gained for his realm dimensions which compelled the respect of all the nearer East. On the other hand, it was inevitable that on the death of David recalcitrant vassals and hostile neighbors should make trouble on the boundaries. Thus Hadad, of the royal line of Edom, who had fled to Egypt from David, seized the opportunity to renew hostility, and apparently made his country partially independent of Israel (I Kings xi. 14 aqq.). Again, according to I Kings xi. 23 sqq., there is an allusion to the foundation of the kingdom of Damascus by a daring Syrian general who established

497
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
himself in the city during the reign of Solomon. It is thus evident that while Solomon held the kingdom together, it was not without difficulty or even without some diminution of territory. Possibly, however, Solomon attached less importance to protecting his frontiers than to strengthening Israel within. He built strong fortifications, prepared material of war, and kept his supplies in the best possible condition. Above all, he was successful in introducing the horse for cavalry and chariots.
Solomon seems to have possessed high talents for organization and finance, and his justice became proverbial. The entire land of Israel was divided into twelve administrative districts, each required to pay the expenses of the royal court for a month. There likewise seemed to have been special districts for public works, one of the chief officials of the kingdom being Adoniram, master of the levy. Hand in hand with this organization doubtless went the final absorption of the Canasnites, whom Solomon compelled to share in the levies and taxes of the Israelites. Besides introducing the horse into Israel, Solomon extended his commercial relations to the Sabeans of South Arabia and to Ophir (q.v.).
	Solomon's financial talents seem to have been
exhausted in acquiring vast wealth. He was even
obliged, toward the end of his reign, to pawn twenty
cities, while taxation was so heavy that discontent
appeared in the revolt against his successor. Solo
mon had never learned in the stern school of his
father. He grew up as a rich heir in the splendor of
a royal court, inheriting certain despotic tendencies
and weaknesses, and inclined to prodigality, dis
play, and sensuality. In addition to the fortresses
and the luxurious court, which included 700 wives
and 300 concubines, his palaces and the Temple
(q.v.) required an immense outlay. With the help
of Syrian artists he transformed a large part of the
hill of Zion in the eastern part of Jerusalem into a
sort of city of palaces. Like his riches, the wisdom
of Solomon was proverbial (cf. I Kings iv. 29 sqq.);
3,000 proverbs and more than 1,000 songs were
ascribed to him; and he was said to be the author
of Ps. lxxii. and exxvii., as well as of the book of
Proverbs (q.v.). 	(R. KrrrEL.)
BIBLIOGRAPBY: The sources are I Kings i‑xi and I Chron. six. 22‑II Chron. i.‑ia. Consult further: The works on the history of Israel by Milman, Stanley, F. Newman. Ewald, Stade. KShler. Kiostermann, Cornill, Kittel. McCurdy, Kent, and others named under ARAB or ISRAEL, Hi eTon: op; G. Weil, The Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud, or, Biblical Legends o! the Mussulmans, pp. 200‑248, London, 1848; G. Meiman, Salomon, eon rqgns, sca krita, Paris, 1890; M. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdpe zur semitischen Sapenkunde, pp. 190 sqq., Berlin, 1893; idem, Gesammelts AuJadtze zur Sprach‑ and Sopenkunde, pp. 22 sqq., 187 eqq., ib. 1901; F. Vigouroua, La Bible et lea dkouvertes modernes, iii. 253‑405. 8th ed., Paris, 1898; B. W. Baoon, Solomon in Tradition and Fad, in New World, 1898, pp. 212 sqq.; R. Frirber, Minip Salomon in den Tradition, Vienna, 1902; C. F. Kent. Student's Old Testament, ii. 14‑18, 185199, New York, 1905; G. Beer, Saul, David, Salomo, Tijbingen, IW8; DB iv. 559‑589; EB ii. 2235..,38 iv, 4880‑90; JB, zi. 438‑448; Vigouxoua, Duaionnaire, faro. zav.1382‑9s.
SOLOMON BAR ISAAC. See RAsHi.

SOLOMON, ODES OF: The Odes of Solomon, which, until recently, were, except for certain X.‑32
Sohm
13olomau
fragments and quotations, altogether lost, were commonly connected in the tradition of Christian literature with the Psalms of Solomon (see PBEUDEPIGRAPHA, II., 1). In this grouping of material, the ancient atichometries gave them a place, more or less honorable, among the subcanonical literature. How near they came to actual ecclesiastical acceptance could only be guessed by analogy, from the companion volume to which they were attached. The stichometries, however, gave a rough idea of the compass of the book, from the point of view of a librarian or bookseller, from which it was easy to infer that a lost book of nearly the same compass as the Psalms of Solomon was once in circulation in Christian churches. In the next place, quotations professing to come from the missing book were recovered from two quarters: first, there was a passage relating to the birth of Christ from a virgin, quoted by Lactantius (De div. inat., iv. 12; Eng. tranal., ANF, vii. 110), which he said was from the nineteenth ode of Solomon. Second, there was a series of Odes of Solomon quoted in a Coptic book, a chief monument of Gnostic literature, which goes under the name of Pistis Sophia. These odes and fragments of odes were turned back into Greek and published by Ryle and James at the close of their edition of the Psalms of Solomon.
The book itself, so long lost, was recovered by J. Rendel Harris in a Syrian version, Jan. 4, 1909; it had been reposing along with a number of other Syriac fragments on his bookshelves, apparently for a couple of years or more, the manuscript in question having come from the neighborhood of the Tigris. When the identification was made, it appeared that the manuscript, a late paper one of no extrinsic value, contained both the Odes and the Psalms of Solomon; it was slightly mutilated at the beginning, so that odes one and two and a part of ode three were missing; at the other end the eighteenth of the Psalms of Solomon was gone and part of the seventeenth. The nineteenth ode contained the quotation which Laatantius gives in a Latin translation; all the matter quoted by the Pistis Sophia was also identified, and in addition a part of the first ode was also with some probability detected in the Coptic text. So that, with a very, slight deduction for the imperfection of the manuscript, the complete book was recovered and restored to its place in Christian literature. The forty‑two odes thus recovered are of rare beauty and spirituality; with possibly an exception or two, they come from a single hand, and represent a hitherto unknown department of early Christian literature. They were produced in the latter part of the first century or the early part of the second. The writer was a person of Gentile extraction, who had become attached to a Church of Judeo.Christians, probably in Palestine. He did not, however, accept circumcision or keep the Sabbath, occupying exactly the position which Justin Martyr did on those
points, which he says he learned from an ancient Christian to whom he owed his conversion. So far as can be judged from the hints in the odes (it must be remembered that a Psalter is not the easiest place from which to extract history), he knew Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, but did not know the Synoptic

Solomon
Bon of God	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	498
tradition about him. Whether he knew the Fourth Gospel, with which he has many ideas and expressions in common, is one of the points that are still in debate. He has occasional points of contact with the Pauline epistles, and even more with the Apocalypse, though it is difficult to establish quotations. His real Gospel appears to have been one of the lost Hebrew or Nazarene Gospels, perhaps the same as that of which Jerome found a copy in Tiberias. To this he owed some details in reference to the baptism, and perhaps one or two sayings of Jesus. It is curious that he has no eschatology, and no day of judgment; immortality is not innate, but acquired. On the ethical. side the most important feature is that the book appears to contain the first Christian prohibition of the purchase of slaves.
The church orders and ritual are almost absent; it is not certain that baptism is alluded to, still less are there traces of a Christian eucharist, as commonly (mown. The only reference to the officials are an allusion: (1) to blessed deacons who carry the water of life, (2) to a priesthood in spiritual things which the writer says he possesses, which is carefully defined as not being of a carnal nature, but consisting of truth and purity in the inmost parts.
The writer shows a strong attachment to the Jewish religion on many sides: he has an affection for the sanctuary at Jerusalem, which must be assumed to have fallen before the time when he was writing; he holds fast to the Old Testament, allegorizes (as do all early Christians) the story in Genesis, imitates the Psalms, and makes evangelical doctrine out of Isaiah (e.g., chap. axxv.).
Though there is much that is still uncertain, as to the place, time, and character of the writer, enough is known to place him as a worthy representative of the first or second generation after the apostles; and the new hymns will exert a wide influence upon the thought of the Church.
J. RENDEL HARMS.
B:snroaxsrRT: The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, edited
from the Syrian by J. Rendel Harris, Cambridge, 1909
(editio prinoepe); J. Rendel Harris, An early Christian
Psalter, London, 1909; Bin jadiarh‑chrsatlichesPaaimburh
aus den eraten Tahrhunded. Aue dens Syrieehen iber‑
s" van J. Plemninp, ed. A. Harnack, Leipsic, 1910;
Literarsechea Zentalblatt, 1910, no. 24, cola. 777‑781.
SOLOMON, PSALMS OF. See PsauDzPlaRAraA, 0. T., II., 1.

SOLOMON, WISDOM OF. See APocRyPSA, A, iv., 13.
SON, KONRAD. See SAM.

SOMASCHIARS, so‑mas'ki‑ans ("Regular Clerks of St. Majolus "): One of the most important monastic congregations evoked by the Counter‑Reformation. They derive their name from the Italian village of Somascho (between Milan and Bergamo), where their founder, Girolamo Miani (or Emiliani), wrote the first rule for them. Miani, who was of senatorial rank, was born at Venice in 1481, and, entering the army, was recognized as a brave but dissolute officer. Captured at the storming of Castelnuovo, near Treviso, in 1508, he was led during his imprisonment to repentance for his past career,
and on his liberation (according to many, through the miraculous aid of the Virgin) he devoted himself to asceticism, prayer, and the care of the sick and poor. At Venice he took orders, being ordained

priest in 1518, and manifested the utmost self‑denial and bravery, especially during the famine
and plague of 1528. He now made absolute re
nunciation of his wealth, and, in the habit of a men
dicant friar, gave himself to the care, education,
and conversion of orphans and fallen women. With
in the year he established an orphan asylum in
Venice, which was imitated at Bergamo, Verona,
and Brescia, and in 1532 he opened a home for
fallen women in his native city. In 1532 or 1533
Miani established his congregation for the care of
these institutions and the training of pupils for the
same purpose; and Clement VII. gave him the
mother house at Somascho, where Miani died Feb.
8, 1537, after having established daughter houses
at Pavia and Milan. He was beatified by Benedict
XIV., and canonised in 1761 by Clement XIII., his
day being July 20.
Miani's successor, Angelo Marco Gambarana, secured from Pius V., in 1568, the formal constitution of the congregation under the Augustinian rule, their name being now taken from the church of St. Majolus at Pavia, given them by St. Carlo Borromeo (q.v.). The Somaschians, who were united with the Theatines from 1546 to 1555, and with the French Fathers of Christian Doctrine from 1616 to 1647, exercised deep influence on education through their many colleges, especially the Clementinum, founded at Rome in 1595; while they so increased in numbers that they were divided into the Lombard, Venetian, and Roman provinces, to which was later added the French. The Roman province is now the most important.
The constitutions of the congregation, gradually developed from the autograph draft of the founder, collected by the procurator‑general Antonio Paulino in 1626, and confirmed by Urban VIII., have remained practically unchanged to the present day. They prescribe a habit precisely like that of the other regular clerks, strict simplicity of food and furniture, numerous prayers by day and night, fasts and self‑castigation, and occupation with manual labor, care of the sick and orphans, and teaching.
(O. ZricKLERt.)

Brauoaasmr: The " Life " of the founder is given with commentary in ASB, Feb., ii. 217‑274, Ital. trend. by A. Piegadi Venice, 1885 Other lives are by S. Albani, Milan, 1800; A. Stells, Vice, 1805; P. G. de' Ferrari, ib. 1876; an anonymous one, ib. 1767; F. Caaoia, rb. 1822; C. de Rood‑Borgogno, Rome, 1867; and W. E. Hubert, Mains, 1895. Consult further, on the order: L. Holeteniue, Codex rqpulanan monaeticarun, ed. M. Brockie, iii. 199‑292, Augsburg, 1789; G. Giucci, IconopraJta iatoriea depli ordini relipiosi, vii. 160 sqq., Rote, 1847; E. Gothein, Ipnaa von Loyola and die Gepenrerormation, pp. 193‑198, Halle, 1895; Helyot, Ordres monastiques, iv. 223 eqq.; Heimbucher, Orders and Konprepationen, iii. 275‑278; %L, :d. 488‑487; Ranks, Popes, f. 133‑134.

SON OF GOD: A phrase standing for several different meanings in the New Testament. (1) It refers to the divine origination of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Luke i. 35). (2) In the ethical sense, he is the Son. He is like the Father, perfectly responsive

499	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	801omon
am of God
to him, and thus reflects the Father's will. By rea
son of the fellowship of love, the Father is perfectly
disclosed to him, and the depths of his own inner
life are comprehended by the Father alone (Matt.
xi. 27; John v. 17 21, 30, vii. 16‑18, xii. 44‑50,
xiv. 7‑11). (3) From the ethical oneness with the
Father sprang the consciousness of the messianic or
official sonship‑the social aspect of his conscious
ness (Mark i. 11; cf. the baptismal formula, Matt.
xxviii. 19; Didache, vii.). These two aspects‑the
individual and the social‑may be distinguished but
they can not be sharply separated. The messianic
sonship points backward (I Sam. x. 1; Ps. ii. 7)
and forward (Mark xiv. 61). In him the royal hopes
of Israel are fulfilled; he founds the world‑kingdom
of God (John xvii. 18; cf. Matt. xxviii. 19; John
xx. 21); his universal sovereignty is won through
suffering (Matt. xix. 20‑28). (4) Metaphysical son
ship is also affirmed of him. As Logos he is the only
begotten Son of God (John i. 14, iii. 16, v. 18; Rom.
viii. 32). He is the image of the invisible God, first
born of all creation, mediator of all existence,
through whom all things find their principle and
progressively realize their divine end (I Cor. viii.
6; Col. i. 15‑17; John i. 3, 10; Heb. i. 2‑3). His
pre‑earthly existence was exchanged for humilia
tion and death here below (II Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii.
5‑7; cf. Rom. viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4; and see JEsus
CHRIST, TworoLD STATE OF). Accordingly he was
God's own son, the archetypal son of God; all
others become sons of God through him (John i.
12). Yet all that belongs to him is a gift of God
(Matt. xxviii. 18; John iii. 35, v. 22, xiii. 3; Acts
ii. 36; Phil. ii. 9‑10; Heb. i. 2, ii. 7‑8; cf. also I
Cor. xv. 24‑28).
In historical theology the Son of God as pre‑
END OF VOLUME X.
existent is the second person of the Trinity, con
substantial with the Father, and is described as
only‑begotten, the Word; as incarnate he took upon
him human nature yet without sin; and existed in
two whole, perfect, and distinct natures insepara
bly joined together in one person without conver
sion, composition, or confusion; very God and very
man, one Christ, the only mediator between God
and man (see CHmaToLooy, IV., VIL; MED1eToR).
Ritachl, following Schleiermacher, took the doc
trine of the sonahip of Christ out of metaphysics
and planted it in the field of ethics and the religious
life. As Son, Christ stands to the Father in a rela
tion of incomparable fellowship; his will is identical
with that of the Father in the establishment of the
kingdom of God; moreover, he sustains a unique
relation to the Christian community and to the
world. While for man the Son as pre‑existent is
hidden, yet for God he exists eternally " as he is
revealed to us in temporal limitation." Only for
God himself, however, is the eternal Godhead of the
Son intelligible as an object of the divine mind and
will (A. Ritachl, The Christian Doctrine of iustdfi
cation and Reconciliation, §J 47‑49, New York,
1900). 	C. A. BECBwrTH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is treated best in the works on New‑Testament theology (see under BIBLICAL THEOLOGY), and in those on systematic theology (see under DOGMA, DoaaATTCs). Much of the literature given under CHRIsTOLoor is pertinent, also that under SON OF MAN. L'Onsuit further: K. F. NBegen, Chriatua der Afenachen‑ and Gotteesohn, Gotha, 1869; J. Stalker, Chriatolopy of Jesus, London, 1879; A. Harnack, What is Christianity? ib. 1901; R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, pp. 185 eqq., 211‑215, ib. 1901; W. Ltltgert, Gotten Sohn and Got<ee Geiat, Leipsio, 1905; M. Lepina, Christ and the Gospel; or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia, 1911; DB, iv. 570‑579; DOG, ii. 854‑M; EB, iv. 46W4704.