THE NEW
SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF
RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
Editor‑in‑Chief
SAMUEL MACAULEY JACKSON, D.D., LL.D.
Editor‑in‑Chief
of
Supplementary Volumes
LEFFERTS A. LOETSCHER, Ph.D., D.D.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY
PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
BAKER BOOK HOUSE
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

THE NEW
SCHAFF‑HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA
0R
RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
EDITED BY
SAMUEL MACAULEY JACKSON, D.D., LL.D.

(Editor‑in‑Chief )
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF
CHARLES COI.EBROOK SHERMAN

AND

GEORGE WILLIAM GILMORE, M.A.

(Associate Editors)
AND THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENT EDITORS
CLARENCE AUGUSTINE BECKWITH, D.D.
(Department of Systematic Theology)
HENRY KING CARROLL, LL.D.
(Department of Minor Denominations)
JAMES FRANCIS DRISCOLL, D.D.
(Department of Liturgies and Religions Orders)
JAMES FREDERIC McCURDY, PH.D., LL.D.
(Department of the Old Testament)

HENRY SYLVESTER NASH, D.D.
(Department of the New Testament)

ALBERT HENRY NEWMAN, D.D., LL.D.
(Department of Church History)
FRANK HORACE VIZETELLY, F.S.A.
(Department of Pronunciation and Typography)
VOLUME IV
DRAESEKE ‑ GOA
BAKER BOOK HOUSE
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
1952

EXCLUSIVE AMERICAN PUBLICATION RIGHTS
SECURED BY BAKER BOOK HOUSE FROM FUNK AND WAGNALLS
LITHOPRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY
CUSHING ‑MALLOY, ING'., ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, 1952

EDITORS
SAMUEL MAOAULEy JACKSON, D.D., LL.D.
(EDITOR‑IN‑CHIEF.)
Professor of Church History, New York University
ASSOCIATE EDITORS

CBARLEg COLEBROOK SHERMAN ~ GEORGE WILLIAM GILMOB.E, M.A.
	Editor 1n Biblical Criticism and Theology on "The New Inter‑	New York, Formerly Professor of Biblical History and Lecturer
	national Encyclopedia," New York. 	on Comparative Religion, Bangor Theological Seminary.
DEPARTMENT EDITORS, VOLUME IV
CLARENCE AUGUSTINE BECKWITH, D.D.
(Department of Systematic Theolopu.)
Professor of Systematic Theology, Chicago Theological
Seminary.

HENRY KING CARROLL, LL.D.
(Department of Minor Denominations.)
Formerly Corresponding Secretary of the Board of Foreign
Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New York.
JAMES FRANCIS DRISCOLL, D.D.
(Department of Ldtvkrpics and Religious Orders.)
President of St. Joseph's Seminary, Yonkers, N. Y.
JAMES FREDERICK McCUB.Dy, Ph.D.,
	LL.D.
(Department of the Old Testament.)
Professor of Oriental Languages, University College, Toronto.
HENRY SYLVESTER NASH, D.D.
(Department of the, New Testament.)
Professor of the Literature and Interpretation of the New Tes•
lament, Episcopal Theological School. Cambridge, Mass.
ALBERT HENRY NEWMAN, D.D., LL.D.
(Department of Church History.)
Professor of Church History, Baylor Theological Seminary
(Baylor University). Warn, Tex.
FRANK H03ELAOR vIZETELLy, h.g.a.
(Department of Pronunciation and 7wpographV.)
Managing Editor of the SxexaexD DICxIOxeay. eW.,
New York City.
CONTRIBUTORS AND COLLABORATORS, VOLUME IV
ERNST CHRISTIAN ACBELIg, Th.D.,
Professor of Practical Theology, University of Marburg.
HANS ACHELIg, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Theology, University of Halls.
WILLIAM ADAMSON, D.D.,
Pastor of the Carver Memorial Church, Windermere, England.
WILHELM ALTMANN, Ph.D.,
Director of the Deutsche Musikeammlung, Berlin.
SAXU31L TAXES ANDREWS (t), D.D.,
Late Pastor of the Catholic Apostolic Church. Hartford. Conn.
FERENCZ BALOGH,
Professor of Church History, Reformed Theological Academy.
Debreealn, Hungary.
39DOUARD BA 31 (t),
Late Professor of New. Testament Exegesis, School of Theology.
Geneva.
GEORGE JAMES BAYLES, Ph.D.,
Writer on Civil Church Law.
CLARENCE AUGUSTINE BECKWITH,
D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology, Chicago Theological
Seminary.
JOHANNES BELSHRIX,
Pastor Emeritus, Chrlsttania, Norway.
KARL BENEATH, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Theology, University of BBafgaberg.
IMMANUEL GUSTAV ADOLF BEN
ZINGEB, Ph.D., Th.LiC.,
German Orientalist and Vice•Consul for Holland in Jerusalem.
CARL BERTHEAU, Th.D.,
Pastor of St. Michael's, Hamburg.
BERNHARD BESS, Th.LiC.,
Librarian of the University of Halls.
EMIL BLOESCH (t), Th.D.,
Late Professor of Theology. Bern.
HEINRICH BOEHMER, Ph.D., Th.Lie.,
Professor of Church History, University of Bonn.
AMY GASTON C'AwR.T.~'.g AUGUSTE
BONET‑MAUBY, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History, Independent School of
Divinity, Parts.
GOTTLIEB NATHANAEL BOB WETgCH,
Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Gottingen.
GUSTAV B086E8T, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Retired Pastor, Stuttgart.

FRANTB PEDER WILLIAM BUHL,
Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Oriental Languages, University of Copenhagen.
EARL BURGER (f), Th.D.,
Late Supreme Consistorial Councilor, Munich.
HENRY KING CARROLL, LL.D.,
Formerly Corresponding Secretary of the Methodist Missionary
Society.
	WALTER	CABPARI, Ph.D., Th. Lie.,
University Preacher and Professor of Practical Theology,
		University of Erlangen.
JOHAN ANTERB CEDERBERG, Th.D.,
Provost in St. Michel, Finland.
JACQUES EUGL`NE CHOIBY, Th.D.,
Pastor in Geneva.
PERCIVALE CHUBB,
Director and Teacher in the Ethical Culture School,
New York.
JOSEPH BOURNE CLARKE, D.D.,
Editorial Secretary of the Congregational Home Missionary So
ciety, New York.
JOHN CLIFFORD, D.D., LL.D.,
Minister of Praed Street and Westbourne Park Church, London.
FERDINAND COHRS, Th.Lic.,
Consistorial Councilor, Ilfeld, Germany.
HENRY COWAN, D.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Aberdeen,
Scotland.
AUGUST HERMANN CREMER (t), Th.D.,
Late Professor of Systematic Theology, University of
Greitawald.
FRIEDRICH WILHELM CUNO ( j'), Th.Lic.,
Late Pastor at Eddigehausen, Hanover.
GUSTAF HERMAN DALMAN, Ph.D.,
Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of Leipsic,
and President of the German Evangelical Archeological
Institute, Jerusalem.
SAMUEL MARTIN DEUTSCH, Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Berlin.
FRANZ WILHELM DIBELIUB, Ph.D., Th.D., '
Supreme Consiatortal Councilor, City Superintendent, and
Pastor of the Ereuzkirche, Dresden.
ERNST VON DOBBCHUETZ, Th.D.,
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Strasburg.
PAUL GOTTFRIED DREWB, Th.D.,
Professor of Practical Theology, University of Halls.
JAMES FRANCIS `DRISCOLL, D.D.'
President of St. Joseph's Seminary, Yonkers, N. Y.
EMIL EGLI, Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Zurich.
JACQUES EHNI (f),
Late Pastor in Geneva.
EPHRAIM EMERTON, Ph.D.,
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Harvard University.
EARL ENDERS, Th.D.,
Pastor at Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main.
CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH DAVID ERD
MANN (t), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late Honorary Professor of ('batch History, University of
Breslau.
CONTRIBUTORS AND COLLABORATORS, VOLUME IV
THEODOR FOERSTER (t), Th.D.,
Late Professor of Church History, University of Halle.
FRANK HUGH FOSTER, Ph.D., D.D.,
Professor of History, Olivet College, Mich.
EMIL ALBERT FRIEDBERG, Th.D.,
Dr.Jur.,
Professor of Ecclesiastical, Public, and German Law, University
of Leipsic.
OTTO FRIDOLIN FRITZBCHE ( j'), Ph.D.,
Th.D.,
Late Professor of Theology, University of Zurich.
WILHELM GASS ( j'), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late Professor of Theology, University of Heidelberg.
KARL GELZER,
Pastor in Basel.
WILHELM GERMANN (t), Th.D.,
Late Superintendent In Schleusingen. Prussian Saxony.
CHARLES RIPLEY GILLETT, D.D., L.H.D.,
Registrar, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
JOHN LEWIS GILLIN, Ph.D.,
President of Ashland College, Ashland, Ohio.
GEORGE WILLIAM GILMORE, M.A.,
Former Professor of Biblical History and Lecturer on Com
parative Rellgion, Bangor Theological Seminary.
WALTER GOETZ, Ph.D.,
Professor of History, University of Tubingen.
WILHELM GOETZ, Ph.D.,
Honorary Professor of Geography, Technical High School, and
Professor, Military Academy, Munich.
HERMANN FREIHERR VON DER
GOLTZ (t), Th.D.,
Late Professor of Dogmatics, University of Berlin.
GEORG GRUETZMACHER, Ph.D., Th.Lic.,
Extraordinary Professor of Church History, University of
Heidelberg.
HERMANN GUTHE, Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of Leipaic.
HEINRICH HAHN, Ph.D.,
Formerly Professor of History and German in the Lufaenatadt
Realgymnasium, Berlin.
ADOLF HARNACg, M.D., Ph.D., Th.D.,
Dr.Jur.,
General Director of the Royal Library, Berlin.
ALBERT HAUCK, Ph.D., Th.D., Dr.Jur.,
Professor of Church History, University of Leipsic, Editor‑in
Chief of the Hauck‑Herzog Reaienci/klopiidte.
HERMAN HAUPT, Ph.D.,
Professor and Director of the University Libf'ary, Giessen.
AUGUST WILHELM HEGLER (t), Ph.D.,
Th.D.,
Late Professor of Church History, University of Tiibingen.
CARL FRIEDRICH GEORG HEINRICI,
Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Leipsic.
MAX HEINZE, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Philosophy, University of Leipsic.
ERNST HENKE (t), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late Professor of Theology, University of Marburg.
LUDWIG THEODOR EDGAR HENNECBE,
Ph.D., Th.Lic.,
Pastor in Betbelu, Hanover.

CONTRIBUTORS AND COLLABORATORS, VOLUME IV
JOHANN JAKOB HERZOG (t), Ph.D.,Th.D.,
late Professor of Reformed Theology, University of Erlangen.
PAUL HINBCHILTB (t), Th.D., Dr.Jrir.,
Late Professor of Ecclesiastical Law, University of Berlin.
EARL HOLL, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Berlin.
WILHELM HOLLENBERG (t), Ph.D.,
Late Gymnasial Rector, Bonn.
PAUL IRION,
Pastor Bethel Evangelical Church, Freedom Township, Mich.
FERDINAND FRIEDRICH WILHELM
gATTENBUBCH, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Dogmatics, University of Halls.
PETER GUSTAV BAWERAU, Th.D.,
Conaistorial Councilor, Provost at St. Peter's, and Honorary
Professor, University of Berlin.
DIETRICH H.ERLER (t), Ph.,D.,
Late Head Librarian, wirrcburg.
OTTO BIRN, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Dogmatic% University of Leipaic.
RUDOLF BITTEL, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of Leipslc.
HUGO WILHELM PAUL KLEINERT,
Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Practical Theology,
University of Berlin.
HEINRICH AUGUST KLOSTERXANN,
Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of Kiel.
KARL AUGUST BLVEPFEL (t), Ph.D.,
Late Head Librarian, University of Tubingen.
RUDOLF gOEGEL (t), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late Court Preacher, Berlin.
FRIEDRICH EDUARD KOENIG, Ph.D.,
Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of Bonn.
CHRIBTOPH FRIEDRICH ADOLF BOLE,
Th.D.,
Prelate and Court Preacher, Ludwigsburlr.
THEODOR FRIEDRICH HERMANN
gOLDE, Ph. D., Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Erlangen.
RICHARD SRAETZBCHMAR (t), Th.D.,
Late Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of Mar
burg.
HERMANN GUSTAV EDUARD KRUEGER,
Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Giessen.
ROBERT BUEBEL (t), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Pastoral The
ology, University of Tnbingen.
JOHANNES WILHELM BUNZE, Ph.D.,
Th.D.,
Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology, University of
Greifswald.
KARL LUDWIG LEIMBACH (f), Ph.D.,
Th.Lic.,
Late Provincial councilor for schools, Hanover.
LUDWIG LEMP!rE, Th.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology, Jniversityot Heidelberg.
BRUNO LINDNER, Ph.D.,
Professor of Aryan Languages, University of Leipsic.
THOMAS MARTIN LINDSAY, M.A., D.D.,
Principal United Free Church College, Glasgow.
GEORG LOEBCHE, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, Evangelical Theological Faculty,
Vienna.
FRIEDRICH ARMIN LOOFB, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Halls.
WILHELM PHILIPP FRIEDRICH FER
DINAND LOTZ, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of Erlangen.
AYLMER MAUDE,
Author and Lecturer, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, England.
EDWIN DOAK MEAD,
Author and Lecturer, Boston, Mass.
OTTO MEJER (t), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late President of the Conaistory, Hanover.
PHILIPP MEYER, Th.D.,
Supreme Consiatorial Councilor. Hanover.
GEROLD MEYER DON SNONAU, Ph.D.,
Professor of History, University of Zurich.
CARL THEODOR MIRBT, Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Marburg.
JACOB IBIDOR MOMBERT, D.D.,
Author, Patterson, N. J.
JOHN HENRY MOORE,
Elder and Bishop of the Dunker Church, Editor of The Ooapol
Messenger, Elgin, Ill.
HERMANN MOBAPP, Ph.D.,
Councilor for Schools, Stuttgart.
ERNST FRIEDRICH gARL MUELLER,
Th.D.,
Professor of Reformed Theology, University of Erlangen.
GEORG MUELLER, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Inspector of Schools, Letpsic.
JOSEPH THEOD03EL MUELLER, Th.D.,
Keeper of the Archives in Herrnhut.
HENRY SYLVESTER NASH, D.D.,
Professor of the Literature and Interpretation of the New
Testament, Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
CHRISTOF EBERHARD NESTLE, Ph.D.,
Th.D.,
Professor in the Theological Seminary, Maulbronn,
wurttemberg.
SARI. JOHANNES NEUMANN, Ph.D.,
Professor of Ancient History, University of Strasburg.
ALBERT HENRY NEWMAN, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History, Baylor Theological Seminary,
Waco, Texas.
THEODOR JULIUS NEY, Th.D.,
Supreme Conaistorial Councilor, Speyer, Bavaria.
FREDERICK CHRISTIAN NIELSEN (t),
D.D.,
Late Bishop of Aarhus. Denmark.
FRIEDRICH AUGUST NITZBCH ( t), Ph.D.,
Late Professor of Theology. University of Kiel.
CONRAD YON ORELLI, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and History of Religion,
University of Basel.

CONTRIBUTORS AND COLLABORATORS, VOLUME IV
EDWARDS A,XABA PARK ( j'), D.D.,
Late Professor in Andover Theological Seminary.
EMILY PATERSON,
Secretary of the Egypt Exploration Fund, London.
CARL PFENDER,
Pastor of St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Paris.
JOHANNES PFOTENHAUER,
Pastor in Bruchnacbtereen.
ERWIN PREZTBCHEN, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Pastor at Hirechhorn‑on‑the‑Neckar, Germany.
HERMANN RAHLENBEC$,
Pastor in Cologne.
RUDOLF ROCHOLL (t), Th.D.,
Late Ecclesiastical Councilor, Dfuiseldori.
ROBERT WILLLAX ROGERS, M.A., Ph.D.,
LL.D.,
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, Drew
Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J.
HENDRIX CORNELIS ROGGE (t), Ph.D.,
Late Professor of History, University of Harlem.
HENRY SALLOCH ROWS,
OTTO BEEBA88, Ph.D.,
Educator, Leipsic, Germany.
REINHOLD SEEBERG, Th.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology University of Berlin.
EMIL BEHLING, Dr.Jur.,
Professor of Ecclesiastical and Commercial Law, University of
Erlangen.
CHRI8TL9.AN 6EPP (t), Th.D.,
Late Mennonite Preacher, Leyden.
ISAAC BHARPLE88, LL.D.,
President of Haverford College, Haveriord, Pa.
FRIEDRICH ANTON EVIL BIEFFERT,
Ph.D.,Th.D.,
Professor of Dogmatics and New Testament Exegesis, University
of Bonn.
ALBERT 80CIN (t), Ph.D.,
Late Professor of Oriental Languages, University of Leipeic.
JOHANN LEONHARD 60XMER (t),
Th.Lic.,
Late Dean at Neustadt•an.der‑Afsch, Bavaria.
SAMUEL PETER BPRENG, D.D.,
Editor of The Evangelical Messenger, Cleveland, O.
RUDOLF 6TAEHELIN (t), Th.D.,
Late Professor of Church History, University of Basel.
ANTHONY AMASTABIOU BTAMOULI,
Formerly Member of the Editorial Stall of Atlantis, New York.
GEORG EDUARD STEITZ (t), Th.D.,
Late Pastor, Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main.
ROBERT WALTER STEWART, B.Bc., B.D.,
Glasgow, Scotland.
PHILIPP BTRAUCH, Ph.D.,
	Professor of Church History in Newton Theological Seminary,
	Newton. Mass.
	CARL VICTOR RY88EL (t), Ph.D., Th.D.,
	Late Professor of Theology, University of Zurich.
	EUGFEN BACHBBE, Th.D.,
	Professor of Practical Theology, University of Bonn.
	THEOD03EL SCHAEFER, Th.D.,
	Head of the Deaconess Institute, Altona.
	DAVID SCHLEY SCHAFF, D.D.,
	Professor of Church History, Western Theological Seminary,
	Allegheny, Pa.	Professor of Germanic Languages, University of Halls.
	PHILIP SCHAFF (t), D.D., LL.D.,	ICARL THIEME, Ph.D., Th.D.,
	Late Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary,	Professor of Dogmatics, University of Leipaic.
	New York.	FRIEDRICH AUGUST THEODOR THO.
	CHRI6TOPHT.(tOTTLOBVON$CHEURL(t),	LUCK (t), Th.D.,
	Ph.D., Th.D.,
	Late Professor in Nuremberg.
	REINHOLD BC88ID, Th.Lic.,
	Pastor in Oberholz6elm, warttemberg.
	CARL BCHMIDT (t), Th.D.,
	Late Professor of Theology, University of Strasburg.
	EARL BCHMIDT, Th.D.,
	Pastor at Goldberg, Mecklenburg.
	WILHELX BCHMIDT, Ph.D., Th.D.,
	Professor of Systematic Theology, University of Breslau
	JOHANNES SCHNEIDER,
	Emeritus Pastor. Darmstadt.
	CARL WILHELX SOH03CLL (t), Ph.D.,
	D.D.,
	Late Pastor of the Savoy Church, London.
	THEODOR FRIEDRICH SCHOTT (t),
	Ph.D., Th.D.,
	Late Librarian and Professor of Theology, University of
	Stuttgart.
	JOHANN FRIEDRICH BITTER VON
	SCHULTE, Dr.Jur.,
	Professor of Law, University of Bonn.
	LUDWIG THEODOR SCHULZE, Ph.D.,
	Th.D.,
	Professor of Systematic Theology, University of Rostock.
Late Professor of Theology, University of Halls.
ERNST PETER WILHELX TROELTBCH,
Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology. University of Heidelberg.
PAUL TBCHAC$ERT, Ph.D., Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of GBttingen.
JOHANN GERHARD WILHELX D'HLHORN ( t), Th.D.,
Late Abbot of Lokkum, Germany.
WILHELX VOLCS (f), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, University of
Rostock.
JULIUS AUGUST WAGFENMANN (t),
Late Consistorial Councilor, G6ttiogen.
WILHELX MARSU$ WALTHER, Th.D.,
Professor of Church History, University of Rostock.
JOHANNES WEISS, Th.D.,
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Heidelberg.
AUGUST WILHELM WERNER, Th.D.,
Pastor Primarius, Guben, Prussia.
RUDOLF ZEHNPFUND, Ph.D.,
Minister in Oranieubaum.
OTTO ZOECBLER (t), Ph.D., Th.D.,
Late Professor of church History and Apologetics, University
of Groifswald.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX‑YOLS. I‑IV
The following list of books is supplementary to the bibliographies given at the end of the articles
contained in volumes L‑IV., and brings the literature down to June, 1909. In this list each vocabulary
entry is printed in capital letters.
ALTAR: J. Wright, Some Notable Altars in the Church of England and the American E7riscopal Church, London, 1909.
ANgELM, SAINT, OF CANTERBURY: G. C. Foley, Anselm's Theory of the Atonement, London, 1908.
APHRAATES: P. Sehwen, Untersuchungen fiber den persischen We£sen, Leipsie, 1906.
APOCRYPHA: Wisdom of Solomon in R. V.; wrath Introduction and Notes, by J. A. F. Gregg, Cambridge, 1909.
ARABIA: G. R. Lees; The Witness of the Wilderness, The Bedawin of the Desert: Their Origin, History, Home Life, Strife, Religion and Su‑
18tition, in Their Relation to the Bible, .`ndon, 1909.
ARCHEOLOGY, CHRISTIAN: A. L. Frothingham, Monuments of Christian Rome, London and New York, 1909.
ARK OF THE COVENANT: M. D1bel1U8, Die Lade Jahves. Eine religiansgeschichtliehe Untersuchung, Tiibingen, 1908.
AaSYRIA: H. Winekler, The History of Babylonia and Assyria. Eng. transl. by J. A. Greig, London, 1908. See also BABYLONIA, below.
ATONEMENT: J. Riviere, The Doctrine of Atonement, Vol. i., London, 1909. Also see AN6ELM, above.
ATTERBURY, F.: H. C. Beeching, Francis Afterbury, Bishop of Rochester (166,8‑173.0, London, 1909.
BABCOCK, M. D.: T. J. Stone, Footsteps in a Parish, New York, 1909.
BABYLONIA: See ASSYRIA, above; also: E. Combe, Histoire du eulte de Sin, en Babylonie et en Assyrie, London, 1909.
S. Langdon, Early Sumerian Psalms (Transliteration, Translation, Critical Commentary and Introduction), Leipsic, 1908.
H. de Genouillae, Tabletts sximcriennes arehaiques. Materiaux pour aervir & l'histoire de la societi• sumcrienne, avec transcriptions, traduetion et notes, Paris, 1909.
P. Toseanne, Les Idtsogrammes cuniYiJbrmes. Signer areha'aques, Paris, 1909.
BAPTISM: H. Windiseh, Taufe and Siinde im altesten Christentum bis auf Origenes. Ein Beitray zur altehristlichen Dogmengeachichte, Tiibingen, 1908.
BePTtsms: J. R. Wood and S. Chick, A Manual of the Order and Administration of the Baptist Church, London, 1909.
BAUR, F. C.: G. Fraedrich, F. C. Baur, der Begriinder der Tiibtnger Schule, Goths, 1909.
BIBLE TEXT: F. J. Bonnasieux Les 9vanqiles syncptiques de S. Hilaire de Poitiers, Paris, 1908.
W. Streitberg, Die gotische Bibel. Part , Der gotische Text and seine griechische Vorlage mit Einleitunq Lesarten and Quellenachweisen Bowie den kleaneren Denkmklern als Anhang, Heidelberg, 1908.
BIBLICAL CRITICISM: J. R. Harris, Sidelights on New Testament Research, London, 1909.
W. G. Jordan, Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought; or, the Place of the O. T. Documents in the Life of To‑day, Edinburgh, 1909.
BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION: J. Beet, The New Testament. Its Authorship, Date and Worth, London, 1909.
A. S. Geden, Outlines of Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Edinburgh and New York, 1909.
A. Hatnaek, Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipsie, 1908.
Btcc,	C.: The Spirit of Christ in Common Life: Addresses and Sermons, London and New York, 1909.
BLAURER, A.: Briefwechsel der Bruder Ambrosias
	and Thomas Blaurer 1509‑.48, ed. T. Schiess,
	Vol. i., 1509 June, 1538, Freiburg, 1909.
SONAR, H.: Memorials of Dr. Horatius Sonar, Edinburgh, 1909.
BRAHMANISM: L. de La Vall6e Poussin, Le Vedisme, Paris, 1909.
BUDDHISM: A. J. Edmunds, Buddhist and Christian Gospels.. . Gospel Parallels from Pali Text, London, 1909.
D. Gogerly, Ceylon Buddhism, ed. A. S. Bishop, London, 1909.
Sayings of Buddha, the Iti Vuttaka; a Pali work of the Buddhist Canon; Translation with Introduction and Notes, by J. H. Dloore, New York, 1909.
V. G. Smith, The Edicts of Asoka, privately printed, London, 1909.
BUGENHAGEN, J.: G. Geisenhof, Bibliotheca Bugenhagucna. Bibliographie der Druckschriften des D. J. Bugenhagen, Leipsie, 1908.
Buses, G.: Statement of Reasons for Embracing the Doctrines and Disclosures of Emanuel Swedenborg. With biographical Sketch, New York, 1$98.
CALVIN, J.: W. Wileman, John Calvin: his Life, is Teaching, and his Influence, London, 1908.
A. Bossert, Johann Calvin, Giessen, 1908.
P. Vollmer and others, John Calvin, Theologian Preacher, Educator, Statesman, Philadelphia, Pa., 1909.
A German translation of the first ed. of Calvin's " Institutes " was made by B. Speiss, Wiesbaden, 1887.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX‑VOLUMES I‑IV
CASAS, B. DE LAS: F. A. MaeNutt, Bartholomew de las Cases: his Life, his Apostolate and his TYritings, New York and London, 1909.
CATHARINE, SAINT, of GENOA: F. von Hugel, The Mystical Element of Religion, as Studied in Catherine of Genoa and her riends, 2 vols., London, 1909.
CEMETERIES: Florence E. Blake‑Hedges, The Story of the Catacombs, Cincinnati, 1909.
M. Besnier, Les Cataeombes de ome, Paris, 1909.
CENSORSHIP AND PROHIBITION OF BOORS: F. S. Betten The Roman Index of Forbidden Books, St. Louis, 1909.
CHAPMAN, J. W.: Another Mile; and other Addresses, New York, 1908.
CHINA: A. R. Kelly, The Great Chinese Awakening. Glimpses of China and its People, London, 1909.
COLET, J.: J. H. Lupton, A Life of John Colet, D.D., Dean of St. Paul's and Founder of St. Paul's School, 2d ed., London and New York, 1909.
COLIGNY: C. Merki, L'Amiral de Coligny, 1519‑7Q, Paris, 1909.
COMPARATIVE RELIGION: T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, London, 1909.
L. F'robenius, The Childhood of Man, London, 1909 (on primitive religion).
J. G. Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, 3 vols., London,1909.
CONVERSION: N. H. Marshall, Conversion or flee New Birth, London, 1909.
DIETRICH OF NIEHEIM: W. J. M. Mulder, Dietrich von Nieheim. Zijne opvatting van het cons cilie en zijne kroniek, vols. i.‑ii., Amsterdam, 1907.
DISEASES AND THE HEALING ART: Expository Times, April, 1909, pp. 332‑333 (on the bubonic plague).
DIVINATION: M. C. Baillod, L'Art de la divination, Paris, 1909.
DOGMA, DOGMATICS: B. P. Bowne, Studies in Christianity, Boston, 1909.
J.	Orr, Sidelights on Christian Doctrine, New
	Yor, 1909.
DREAM: A. LoP;inger, Der Traum in der judischen Literatur, Leipsic, 1908.
Du BosE, W. P.: High Priesthood and Sacrifice; an Exposition of . . . Hebrews, New York, 1908.
DUNS SCOTUS: P, blinges, Der angebliche exzessive Realismus ‑ a Duns Scotus, Munster, 1908.
DUNSTAN, SAINT: P. A. and E. Gasquet, The Bosworth Psalter, New York, 1909 (contains an appendix on t: ^ birth date of St. Dunstan).
Durur, B.: II. Dupuy, ih^ Huguenot Bartholomew Dupuy and his Descendants, Beverly, W. Va., 1908.

DI7RIE. J.: K. Brauer, Die Unionstdtigkeit John Duries unter dem Protektorat Cromwells. Lin Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Marburg, 1907.
EASTER: J. Schmid, Die Ose::rfestberechnung in der abendlandischen Kirche vom 1. allgemeinen konzil zu Nicka bis zum Ende viii. Jahrhunderts, St. Louis, 1908.
EASTERN CHURCH: W. F. Adeney, The Greek arid Eastern Churches, New York, 1908.

EDDY, M. B. G.: Mrs. S. W. O'Brien, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy, New Yor, 1908.
EDOM: G. Dalman, Petra and seine Felsheiligtiimer, Leipsic, 1908.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN, THE ELDER: (In) W. Walker, Greatest Men of the Christian Church, Chicago, 1908.
EGYPT: E. Am6lineau, Prolegomenes i2 l'etude de la religion egyptienne. L'ssai su.r la mythologic de l 1gypte, Paris 1908.
E. A. R'. Budge, The Book of the Kings of Egypt, 2 vols., London, 1908‑09.
J.	G. Duncan, The Exploration of Egypt and
	the Old Testament, New York, 1909.
W. M. F. Petrie, Personal Religion in Egypt before Christianity, London, 1909.
ELAGABALU$: O. F: Butler, Studies in the Life of Heliogabalus, New York, 1908.
ELIZABETH OF THURINGIA: A. Huyskens, Quellenstudien zur Geschichte der heiligen Elisabeth, Landgrafin von Thiiringen, Marburg, 1908.

ENGLAND: F. C. Kempson, The Church in Modern England: a Study of the Place in Christendom and the distinctive Mission to the World of the Anglican Communion, New York, 1908.
Dom. F. Cabrol, L'Angleterre chretienne event les Normands, Paris, 1909.

ENGLAND, CHURCH OF: G. R. Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, London, 1908.
W. H. Hutton, The Age of Revolution. Being an Outline of the History of the Church 16/+81816, London, 1908.
W. M. Kennedy, The " Interpretations " of the Bishops and their Influence on Elizabethan Episcopal Policy, New York, 1908.
W. H. Mattock, Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption; being an Examination of the intellectual Position of the Church of England, London, 1909.
M. W. Patterson, History of the Church of England, London, 1909.
ENLIGHTENMENT: C. Kolb, Die Aufklkrung in der Wiirttembergischen Kirche, Stuttgart, 1908.
EPHESUS, COUNCIL OF: G. Fieker, Die Phundagiagiten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ephesinischen Konzils vom Jahre 431, Leipsie, 1908.
ERASMUS: P. S. Allen, Erasmus Selections. Principally from his Epistles; with Life of Erasmus, Oxford, 1908.
Altera colloquia Latina, Adapted from Erasmus,
New York, 1908.
ESTHER: The Book of Esther; Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, with Notes, by P. Haupt, Chicago, 1908.
L. B. Paon, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther, New York, 1908.
ETHICS: E. Westermarck, The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, London, 1908.
T. von Haering, The Ethics of the Christian Life, New York, 1909.
M. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, vol. i., Dublin, 1909.
J. Dewey and J. H. Tufts, Ethics, London, 1909.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX‑VOLUMES I‑IV
EUCHARIST: T. E. Bridgett, A History of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain, London, 1908.
G. Rauschen, Eucharistie and Buassakrament in den ersten sech.s Jahrhunderten der Kirche, Freiburg, 1908.
D. Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, 2 vole., London, 1909.
EVOLUTION: Fifty Years of Darwinism, New York, 1909.
EZEKIEL: J. Hermann, Ezekielstudien, Leipsie, 1908.
EZRA‑NEHEMIAH: G. Klameth, Ezras Leben and Wirken, Vienna, 1908.
G. Jahn, Die Biicher Ezra (A and B) and Nehemya textkritisch and hxstoriach and historiach‑kr£tisch untersucht mit Erklarung der Einschluss, Leyden, 1909.
FEASTS AND FESTIVALS: H. Grimme, Das israelir tische Pfingstfest and der Plejadenkult, Paderborn, 1907.
K. A. H. Kellner, Heortology. A History of the Christian Festivals from their Origin to the Present Day, London, 1909.
FRANCE: A. Debidour, Llgliae eatholique et l'Etat soul la troisi6me republique (1870‑1906), Vol. ii. (1889‑1906), Paris, 1909.
G. Desdevisea du D6zert, Llglise et l'etat en France depuis le concordat jusqu'a rws fours (1801‑1906), 2 vol$., Paris, 1909.
FRANCIS, SAINT, OF Assisi, AND THE FRANCISCAN ORDER: The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi, New York, 1908.
F. Kunz, Der heilige Franz von Assisi, Munich, 1908.
W. M. Bryce, The Scottish Grey Friars, 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1909.
FREEMASONS: W. Begemann, Vorgeschichle and AnfBnge der Freimaurerei in England. i. Such: Die alters englischen Werklogen and Are Sprostlinge, Berlin, 1909.
FRENCH REVOLUTION, RELIGIOUS EFFECTS OF: E. Lafond, La Politique religieuse de la revolution frangaise, Paris, 1908.
P. Pisani, L'Xglise de Paris et la revolution, Vol. i., i789‑ 92, Paris, 1908.
FRIENDS: A. J. Edmunds, Quaker Literature in the Libraries of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 1908.
FRIENDSHIP: H. C. King, The Laws of Friendship ‑Human and Divine, New York, 1909.
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES: R. Seeberg, The Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion, New York, 1908.
GIBSON, AGNES: Marian H. Fishe, My Father's Business; or a brief Sketch of the Life and Works of Agnes Gibson, London, 1909.
GIFFORD LECTURES: H. Drieseh, The Science and Philosophy of the Organism: the Gifford LeoLures for 1907, New York, 1909.
GILDA$ THE WISE: J. Brie], Saint Gildas, abbe de Rhuys, Vannes, 1908.
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
ABBOTT, EDWARD: d. at Boston, Mass., Apr. 5, 1908.
ALLEN, ALEXANDER VIET$ GRISWOLD: d. at Cambridge, Mass., July 1, 1908.
AMBROSE, SAINT: Should be " d. 397 " for " 379."
ANDERSON, WILLIAM FRANKLIN: Elected bishop
1908.
ANDREWS, EDWARD GAYER: d. at Brooklyn, N. Y., Dec. 31, 1907.
APPEL, THEODORE: d. at Lancaster, Pa., Sept. 28, 1907.
ATKINS, JAMES: Elected bishop 1906.
BAENT$CH, BRUNO JOHANNES LEOPOLD: d. at Jena Oct. 27, 1908.

BAILEY, HENRY: d. at Canterbury Dec. 29, 1906.
BARROWS, SAMUEL JUNE: d. at New York City Apr.
21, 1909.
BIGELMAIER, ANDREA: Became professor of church history at Dillingen 190&.

BONNET, ALFRED MAXIMILIEN: b. Nov. 3, 1$41.
BORNHAEU$ER, KARL BERNHARD: Became professor of systematic and practical theology at Marburg 1907.
BROWN, FRANCIS: Became president of Union Theological Seminary 1908.
BLTNRURY, THOMAS: d. at Shandrum Jan. 19. 1907.

Vol. i., p. 17, col. 1, line 26: Read " Kraus " for
« King.'
Vol. i., p. 332, col. 1, line 9: Read " Sennacherib's " for " Sargon's."
Vol. ii., p. 150, col. 1, line 27: Read " 1816 " for " 1886."
Vol. ii., p 330, col. 1, line 9 from bottom: Read " Methodist " for " Congregational."

LIST OF ABBREVIATION'S
Abbreviations in common use or self‑evident are not included here. For additional information con‑
cerning the works listed, see vol. i., pp. viii.‑ag., and the appropriate articles in the body of the work.
	ADB 	..	I A'& Biographic, Leipeio,
			1876 eqg. vol. bas 1907
	Adv .			adroeraua. t
	AJP			American 'rnal o,/ PAiloTopy, Balti
			more, 1880 eqq.
	AJT	..	American Journal of Theology, Chicago.
			1897eq q~
	ARR			Arches ,/nr katholisehes Rirehenrecht,
			Tnnebruak, 18b7‑81, Mains, 1872 eqq.
			Archiv r Littaratu~ and %ire7unps‑
ALHO . . . . . . . , .		den Mitdelalkra, Freiburg, 1886
	eqq
Am . . . . . . . . . . . . .American
			A6harulduntMn der M4neJbner Akademie,
	AMA 		Munich. 1763 q.
			(Aato‑Nicene Fare American edition
	ANF .			JIl by A. Cleveland &ae, 8 vole. and m
			ms ~ ew yorh, ~ix.• ed. Allan
	Apoo			Apocrypha, apocryphal
	Apol .			Apolopw, Apolap!l
	Arab .			Arabio
Aram . . . . . . . . . . . Aramaic
art.. . . . . . . . . . . . . article
Art. $ohmal .....$chmalkald Articles
A3B .. . . . . . . . . . ~ A~° e°m,ed. J. Boflsnd and others, Antwerp, 1843eq
	A3Ef . . . . . . . . Ada mnctorum ordsnsa 3. Benedicti, ed.
			J. Mabillon, 9 vole, Paris, 1888‑1701
	Aeeyr 		Assyrian
A. T. .. . . . . . . . . .Aires Testament, " Old Testament "
	Auge. Con .			Augaburg Confession
A. V . . . .. .. . . . . . Authorized Version (of the English Bible)
	AZ .			A ne Zeitunp Augeburg~ TObingen,
			tuttgart, and Tflbingen, IQ q~ ~
	Baldwin, .			~J. M. dwin. Dictionary PAv
			and PayrJwlopv, 3 vole. m ~ New York,
	Dictionary 		1901‑06
Benainger,	I. Bensinger Hebrdierhe Arehdolopia, 2d
	ArchBOlopie. . . ~ 	ad., Freiburg, 1907
Bertholdt, ~ L. Bertholdt, Hsetorierh‑ICritieehe Ein• Einleitunp .... leiturg • . dos Alter and Neusn Teetamenta, f! vole.. Erlangen, 1812‑19
BFBS ... . .. . . ... British and Foreign Bible Society
B OingripCttia . ....
Bouquet, Reeuait~
Bower, Popes.
BQR...........
, J. Bingham, Oripiaee eeckeiasticar, 10 voles, Lonon, 1708‑22; new ed., O:ford, 1886
M. Bouquet, Recueil des historians des t7autea et de la Franc, continued by various hands, 23 vole., Paris, 1738‑78
Archibald Bower, History of the Popes
. to 1768 ontin	3. H, Cox,
3 vole.; Philadelphia, 1847
Bar Quarterly Reviem. Philadelphia, X887 oIq.
BRO. . . . . . . . . . . . See J&86
Cant. . . . . . . . . . . .Canticl.~, Song of Solomon
	cap .	l.caput, chsptar '
Ceillier, Autewa~ R' Ceilher' Hietoire den autsure aacrEs et
	aaab , 	tiqu°°. 18 vole. in 17, Paris,
Chroa . . . . . . . . . . .CAsonicon, •• Chronicle "
I Chron . . . . . . . . . . T Chronicles
II Chron . . . . . . . .II Chronicles
CIO .. . . . . . . . . . C 1 ~ ~""e'°PRoaum Clraearwn, Berlin,
	CIL .	C"°c^L'atincrun. Berlin,
	CI3	lggl
cod........... cod. D
Corpus ineeriptionum 3emiboarum, Paris,
...codes
..codex Beaoz
cod. Theod . . . . . . . codex Theodosianw Col ... . . . . . . . . . . . >;biatle to the Colossians
	Col., cola. . 	uma, columns
	Con .		Confeaaiones, Confessions
..
,Cf..0 r.. . . . . . . . . . . First Epistle to the Corinthians
II Cor .. . . . . . . . . .8eoond Epistle to the CorjrAthiane
	COT .		8ee Schrader
	CQR .		The Church Quarterly Reaietv, London,
		1875 sqcL.
		Corpus rsTormatorum, begun at Halle,
	CR . 	1834, vol. laaaiz, Berlin and Leipaic,
		190b q.
		~M. Crei~ton A %is= of the Papacy
Creighton,	from the litreat Schism to the Sack of
Papacy . . . . . . Rome, new ed., 8 vole., New York an
		London, 1897
	C3EL .		~C°r7u° °criem4si°sti°°rum Lali
		norum, Vienna, 1887 sqq.
	C3HB	. . . . . . Corpus ee hiato>ua Byaansina;, 49
		vole. Bonn, 1828‑78
Currier. Religious ~ C. W. terrier, History of Religious Orders. Orders . . . . . . . New Yorkr 1898.
D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DeM
t
DACL. . . . . . . . . { F. Cabrol, Dictionnaire d'archkloOia chrb.
		tienne et de tilurpio, Paris, 1903 eqq.
	Dan	. . . . . . . . . . . Daniel
		J. Hastings, Dictionary of fhe Bible, 4
		. . . . . . . . ~ vole. and extra vol., Edinburgh and
		New York, 1898‑1904
		W. Smith and $, Cheetham. Dictionary
	DCA .	~ qfChrixianAntiqustiea,2vole.,London,
		1878‑80
		W. Smith and H. wane, Dictionary of
	DCB . . . . . . . . . .	Christian Biography, 4 vole	Boston,
		1877‑87
J. Haetin$s J. A.13elbie, and J. C. Lambert,
DCO. . . . . . . . . .	A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels 2
vole„ Edinburgh and New York, 1908
1908,
Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . Deuteronomy
De roir. ill. . . . . . . .De roirie ilLuatribus
(
Do Wette‑	W. M. L. de Wette, Zthrbuch der hia
	$ehrader, Bin‑ { t°risdrkrihachen Einkitung is 	die
		l eitunp .	Bibet, vol. i. A. T., ed. E. Schrader, Bar
			0
	DOQ .		. . . . . . SN.8tteabaoh
			L. Stephen and $. Lee. Dictionary o1
	DNB 		National Biopraph~. 83 vole. an
			supplement 3 vole., London, 1888‑1901
Driver, Introduc‑~ $. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature
			the Old Testament, 5th ed., New
	lion		York, 1894
	E			Elohiet
			T. K. Cheyj* and J. 8. Black, Encycto
	EB .	p®dia Biblsc~4 vole	London and
		New Yor~1903
	Bed .		Ecdeaia, t~hnroh '; eerkaiosticw, "so
		olesiaetical "
	Eccles 	...........	Ecclesiastes
	Eaolus .		Eooleaiasticue
ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . edition; adidst~ edited by "
E h . . . . . . . . . . . . E ietle to the
Eppiat . . . . . . . . . . .Eppiatola, Epiatola: Epistle," " E"
Ereoh and Gru‑ J. $. Ereoh and f. G. Gruber, A==
	bar Encyklo‑ ~ Encyklopbdie de, Wisasaachaften and
	pdojis .	ICftnate p®c 1818
E. V . . . . . . . . . . . . English versions (of the Z I.)
Ex .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Exodus
	Esek		Ereldeel
	Jane 	asciculua
Friedrich, RD.. # ~ ~~lsK'~

Fritsache, _v,, `O• F. ~rKtseohe and C. L. W Grimm,
	pdieeAeaHand‑ j EunepeJautar exqpetisches fandbudt au
	both . 	...	don Apocryphois des Altrn Testaments,
			8 parts, LeiP®a, 18b1‑80
Gal . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epistle to the Gdatiane
Game, Series	P. B. Gams, aeries epiacoporum eorJeaias
spiseoporum . . ~ PA.	Regeneburg, 1873, and sup‑
	at		B8
Gee and	~ H.lus of W. Gee	Cku L~omHidory,
		London, 1898
	Gen 	Genesis

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
	Germ 	German
G GA . . . . . . . , , , Gbkingiache Geiehrte Anzeigen, GSttingen, 1824 sqq.
Gibbon, Decline E ' Gibbon, History of the Decline and
a"d	Pall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B.
		Pall 	I Bury, 7 vole. London, 189fr1900
Gk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greek, Grecizec~
C. Gross The Sources and Literature of
Gross, Sources.. Engliah History . . . to 1/,86, London,
			1900
	Hab .			Habakkuk
Haddan and ~A• W• Haddan and W. Stubbs, Councils
Stubbs, Coun‑	and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating
	to Great Britain and Ireland, 3 vole.,
	tits	l Oord ‑78
Refg to 1869 patristic works on heresies or
heretics, Tertullian's De greeacraptione,
H~ • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' w	the Pros haireaeia of ~n~us, the
Panarion of Epiphanius, etc.
Hag . . . . . . . . Haggai
Harduin, Con‑ ~ J. Harduin, Coneiliorum collectio regia
cilia .. .. .. . . . maxima, 12 vole., Paris, 1715
(A. Harnack, History of Dogma . . . . from Harnaek, Dogma j the 3d German edition, 7 vole., Boston,
1	1895‑1900
Harnaek, Litters‑ ( A'~ atur, biaB	u~ Euaebi 	21 vola8tli~3
tar . .. . . . . . . . ~ Le1psic, 1893‑1904
A. Hauck, Kirchengeachichte Deutachla»da, vol. i., Leipsic, 1904; vol. ii., 19110; vol. iii.. 1906; vol. iv., 1903
RealencyklopHdie fUr proteatantiache Theologie and Kirche, founded by J. J. Herzog, 3d ed. by A. Hauck, Leipeic, 189fr1909
Heb .. . . . . . . . . . . . Epistle to the Hebrews
Hebr . . . . . . . . . . . . Hebrew
Hefele,ConciZien‑~ C• J. von Hefele, Conciliengeachichte, con‑
geachichte ... ..	tinned by J. Hergenrother, vole. i.‑vi.,
	viii. ix., Freiburg, 1883‑93
Heimbucher, Or‑ M. Heimbucher, Die Orders and Konpre‑
	den and Kon‑		pationen der katholiachen Kirehe, 2d ed.
	prepationen. . .		3 vole., Paderborn, 1907
Helyot, Ordrea	P. Helyot, Hiatoire des ordrea manaa‑
	monaetiquea	tzques• relipieux et militairea, 8 voles.,
		Paris, 1714‑19; new ed., 1839‑42
Henderson, Doc‑ E, F. Henderson. Select Historical Docu‑
uments . . . . . ~ meets of the Middle Apea, London, 1892
Hist .. . . . . . . . . . . . History, ok 	hiatoria
Hint. eccl. . . . . . . J Hiatoria eccleaiaetica, eccleaid, •' Church History "
Hom . . . . . . . .	Homilies, homiliai, " homily, homilies "
Hos .........
Isa..........
Ital.........
J...........
JA...........
Jaffd, BRG....
Hauck, KD .. .
Hauck‑Herzog,
	RE ..........
....Hoses
. . . . Isaiah
....Italian
....Jahviat (Yahwist)
Journal Aaiatique, Paris, 1822 eqq.
P. Jaff6, Bi6liotheca rerum Germani‑
carum, 6 vole., Berlin, 1884‑73
P. Jaffd, Repeats pontijlcwm Romanorum
Jaff6, Repeafa. . . ~ . ad annum 1198, Berlin, 1551;
		2d ed., Leipsic, 1881‑88
	JAOS . 	~'Iournal of the American Oriental Society,
		New Haven, 1849 sqq.
		Journal of Biblical Literature and Exege
		sis, first appeared as Journal of the
	JBL .	Society of Biblical Literature and Exe
		gesis, Middletown, 1882‑88, then Bos
		ton, 1890sq q
		The Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 vole., New
	JE	......	~ York, 1901‑06
			The combined narrative of the Jahvist
			(Yahwist) and Elohiat
		. Jeremiah
JE ...........
Jer.............
Josephus, Ant.. ; Flavors Josephus, " Antiquities of the Jews "
Josephua, Apion . Flavius Josephua, " Against Apion "
Josephus, Life . . . Life of Flamus Josephus
Joaephus, War . . . Flavius Josephus, " The Jewish War "
	Josh 	Joshua
JPT , . . . , , , . . . ~ Jahrbiicher far protestantiache Theolopie, Leipsic, 1875 sqq
JQR .. .. .... . .; The Jewish Quarterly Review, London, 1888 sqq.
JTS . . . . . . . . . ,; Journal o/ Theological Studies, London, 1899 sqq.
Julian, Ifym‑ )J. Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology, "logy . . . . . . . 1 revised edition, London, 1907.
Jaarboeken voor Wetenachappelijke Theo‑
JWT . . . . . . . . . . logieUtrecht, 1845 sqq.
KA T . . . . . . . . . . . See Schrader
	KB 	See Schrader
	KD 	........	See Friedrich, Hauck, Rettberg
			WeEzer and IVelte'a Kirchenlexikon, 2n1
Kc		,d., by J. Hergenrtither and F, Iisulen,
	t2 vole., Freiburg, 1882‑1903
G. Kriiger, History of Ear
1	ly Christian
Iiriiger, llialoryj Literature ire the First Three Centuries, ll New York, 1897
Krumbacher, f K~ Krumbaeher, Geachichte der byzan
	Geachichte. . . , '~ tiniachen Likeratur, 2d ed., Munich,
		1897
	P. Labbe,, Satrorum conciliorum nova et
Labbe, Concilia		am	coZlectio, 31 vole., Florence
	and Venice, 1759‑98
Lam . . . . . . . . . . . . Lamentations
Lanigan, Eecl. I J' Lanigan Ecclesiastical History of Ire‑
	Hiat 	. 	~'°d to tjte 13th Century. 4 vole., Dub
			lin, 1829
	Lat 		Latin, Latinized
	Leg .			Lepeai Legum
	Lev . . . . . 		. .I,eviticus
Lichtenberger,	a'ce" relipieuaea, 13 vole., Paris. 1877‑
~ F• Lichtenberger, Encycdopedie des aci.‑
	ESR 	1882
Lorenz, DGQ . . ~ O' Lorenz, Deutachlands Geachichtaquel‑
		2en im Mittedalter, 3d ed., Berlin, 1887
	LXX 	The Septuagint
	T Mace 	I Maccabees
	TI Mace 	IT Maccabees
Mai, Nova cot‑~ A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio . . . . . . . . lectio: 10 voles., Rome, 1825‑38
Mal . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malachi
Mann, Popes . . . R~ C. Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Apes, London, 1902 sqq.
G. D. Manei, Sanctorum conciliorum
Manei, Concilia. ~ collectio nova, 31 vole., Florence and
		Venice, 1728
	...........		Matthew
		Monuments Germanize histories, ed. G. H.
		Peru and others, Hanover and Ber
		lin, 1820 sqq. The following abbrevia
		tions are used for the sections and
		subsections of this work: Ant., Ant'~qwi
		fates, ' Antiquities "; Auct, ant., Auc
		forea antiquisaimi, " Oldest Writers "•
		Chron. min., Chronica minors, ` Lesser
		Chronicles ' ; Dip., Diplomats, Di
		plomas, Documents "; Epiat., Epia
		to1ce , " Letters "; Geat. pout. Rom .,
		Geata pontificum Romanorum, " Deeds
		of the Popes of Rome "' Leg., Lepea,
		"Laws"; Lib. de life, Libelli de life
		inter repnum et aacerdotium aa'culorum
		xi et zii conacripti, " Books concerning
		the Strife between the Civil and Eccle‑
"""'	siastical Authorities in the Eleventh
and Twelfth Centuries "'	Nec., Ne
crolopia Germanic, " Necrology	of
Germany "; Poet. Lest, wi	Car.,
	Poetce Latini wi Carolini,	" Latin
	Poets	of the Caroline Time "• Poet.
	Lest. med.	ayui. Poetce Latini medii wi,
	" Latin	Poets of the Middle Agea ;
	Script., Scriptorea, " Writers "	Script.
	rer.	Germ., Scriptorea rerum Cermani
	caruml	" Writers on German Sub
	jects' ;	Script. rer, Langob„ Scriptarea
	rerum	langobardicarum et Italicarum,
	" Writers	on Lombard and Italian
	Subjects ";	Script. rer. Meroro., Scrip
	lorea rerum	Merovingicarum, " Writers
„ „ , . „ „ [ Micah Merovingian Subjects "
H. H, Milman, History of Latin ChrisMihnan, Latin ~ tianity, Including that of the Popes to
Christianity . .		Nicholas V., 8 vole., London,
	1860‑61
	C. Mirbt. Quellen zur Geachichte des Papst‑
tuma and des r<imiachen Katholiciamus,
Tiibingen, 1901
Moeller, Chris‑ J W. Moeller, History of the Chriatiau :ian Church.. Church, 3 vole., London, 1892‑1900
VIPG . .. . . . . .. , J~	P. hfigne, Patrolupiw tarsus completua,
	aeries <;ra'ea., 182 vole.. Paris, 1557‑(ifi
MPL . . . . . . . . . . ~ J. P. Migne, Patrolopi(e tarsus completes,
		aeries Latina, 221 vole., Paris, 1844‑fi4
	MS., MSS 	Manuscript, Manuscripts
Muratori, Scrip‑ 1 L. A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum acriptorea . . . . . . . . . torea, 28 vole., 1723‑51
	Neu ea Archiv der Gesellachaft far iilGerr
deutache Geachichtakunde, 	Hanover.
	1876 sqq.
Nah . . . . . . . . . . . . Nahum
n.d. . .. . . . ... .. .no date of publication
Neander, Chris‑, A• Neander, General History of the Chris‑
	tian Church		' bars Religion and Church, 6 vole., and
		index, Boston, 1872‑81
	Neh 	Nehemiah
Niceron,	hle‑J R. P, Niceron, .lli•moirea pour aervir 'i
	neoires .. 	Z'hiatoire des hommes ilheatrea . , 43
		vole., Pari= 17x9‑‑45
NKZ . . . . . . , _ , ~ Neue kirchliche 7.e<tvcbrifl, Leipsie. 1890 sqq.
Nowack, Arches‑ W. Nowaek, Lehrbuch der hel.rcisclvro
olopie . . . . . . . J Arch&olopie, 2 vole., FreiVurg. 1894
n.p. . . . . .. . . . .. . no place of publication
Matt.
MGH
Mirbt, Queller
NA ......

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
NPNF .......
RSE .......
RTP ........
R. V......
	sac 	I
I Sam....
II Sam....
SBA .......
		The Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, tat
		i series, 14 vols., New York, 1887‑92; 2d
		aeries, 14 vole., New York, 1890‑1900
		New Testament, Novum Teatamentum.
	N. T	. . . . . . . $ Nouveau Testament, Neuea Testament
	Num .. . . . . . . . 	Numbers
	Ob .	Obadiah
	O. $. B	. . . . . . . jOrdo aancti Benedicti, " Order of St.
		Be.edict "
	O. T	Old Testament
	OTJC .	See Smith
	P	. . . . . . . . 	Priestly document
			. JL. Pastor, The History of the Popes from
Pastor, Popes	the Close of the Middle Ages, 8 vole.,
		London, 1891‑1908
	PEA 	. . . . . . I Palms eccleaim Anglicante, ed. J. A. Giles,
		34 vole., London, 1838‑46
	PEF .. . Palestine Exploration Fund
	I Pet 	First Epistle of Peter
	II pet 	Second Epistle of Peter
Pliny, Hiat. na.t ..Puny Hiatoria nalttrnlia
Potthast,
Weia
		TVeD: ~ A' potthast, Bibliotheca hiatorica medii
		tevi. IVegweiaer durch die Geachichta
		werke, Berlin, 1896
	Prov 	Proverbs
	Ps 	Psalms
PSBA. . . . . . . . . . ) Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
			1 Archeology. London, 1880 q.
	W.V., qq.v	. 	. good (quae) vide, " which seed'
	R 		Redactor
Ranks, Popes. . . ~ L• von Ranks, History of the Popes,
			3 vole., London, 1906
	RDM .			Revue des deux mondea, Paris, 1831 sqq.
	RE			See Hauck‑Herzog
Reich, Docu‑ f 1';. Reich, Select Documents Illustrating Mementa . . . . . . . . . j diaroaZ and Modern Hiatory, London, 1905
REJ ... . .... .. .. .Revue des Otudea Juivea, Paris, 1880 sqq.
Rettberg, KD . . . I F' W • Rettberg, Kirchenqeachichte Deutado‑
			lands, 2 vole., GSttingen, 1848‑48
	Rev 	........		Book of Revelation
	RHR . . . . . I Revue de l'hiatoire des religions, Paris,
1880 sqq
Richter, Kirclten‑JA' L. Richter. Lehrburlt des katholiachen
	rechl .		,. and evanpeliachen Kirchenrechta, 8th
		ed. by W. Kahl, Leipaic. 1886
Robinson, Re‑ ( E. Robinson, Biblical Researches in searches, and Palestine, Boston, 1841, and Later Later Re ‑j Biblical Researches in Palestine, 3d ed. searches. . .. ... t of the whole, 3 vole., 1867
Robinson, Euro‑ • J. H. Robinson, Readings in European pears History.. History, 2 vols., Boston. 1904‑06
Robinson and ( J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, DevelopBeard, Modern meat of Modern Europe, 2 vole., Boston,
	Europe 	1907
	Rom 	Epistle to the Romans
		Revue des sciences eccleainatiquea, Arms,
		1860‑74, Amiens,1875 sqq.
		I Revue de theologie et de philoaophie,
		I Lausanne, 1873
. . 		. . . . Revised Version (of the English Bible)
. . . . ...saculum. ' century "
.... . . .I Samuel
.. . . . . .II Samuel
Sitzungaberichte der Berliner Akademie, Berlin, 1882 sqq.
F. '‑Boa Miiller and others, The Sacred
	SBE . . . 	. . . . .	Books of the East, Oxford, 1879 sqq.,
		Vol. xlvui., 1904
		Sacred Books of the Old Testament (" Rain
	•SBOT .	bow Bible ), Leipsic, London, and
		( Baltimore, 1894 sqq.
Schaff, Christian ~ P' Schaff, History oT the Christian Church, Church . . . . . , • vole, i. iv., vi., vii., New York, 1882‑92, vol. v., part 1, by D. S. Schaff, 1907
Schaff, Creeds. . . ~ P' Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vole. New York, 1877‑‑84
	( E. Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and
Schrader, COT. . the Old Testament, 2 vole., London,
		1885‑88
Schrader, KAT ~ E• Schrader, Die Kelinarhriften and dae . AUe Testament, 2 vole.. Berlin, 1902‑03
Schrader, KB... ~ E• Schrader, Keilinachriftliche Bibliolhek, 6 vole., Berlin, 1889‑‑1901
~E. Sehiirer, Gearhichte des jiidiachen Volkes im ZeitalterJesuChriti, 4th ed., 3 vole. Leipsic,1902 sqq.; Eng. transl., 5 vole., New York, 1891
Srniptorea, ' writers'
F. H. A. Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Criticism. 4th ed.. London, 1894
.. Sententim, " Sentence. "
. Sneiefas Jesu. " so,.i,qy ,rf .Jesus "
/.Sitzunpaberirhle der .Tliinchener AkaJ demie Dlunirh. 1R60 sulq.
1 W. H.. Smith, h‑inshi!> and .Marriage in
T Gang Arabia, London, 1903
Schiirer,
Geschichfe...
Script . . . . .. . . . Scrivener,
1 nCrodudion .
.Sent. .. . . . . . . , . S. J. .......... SD1A ........
Smith, Kinship.
Smith,		R. Smith, The Old Testament in the
	Jewish Church, London, 1892
Smith, Prophets.. { W~RE~hih Smith,eProphets a yh London 895 Israel . • . to
Smith, Rel, of) W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites,
	Sem .		1 London, 1894
	S. P. C. K. 	. ) ~S°Kn Society Promotion of Christian
$, p. G. . . . . _ . . . I Society for the Propagation of the Gospel
			in Foreign Parts
	sq	89q		and following.
Strom. . . . . . . . . . ..Stromnta, " Miscellanies "
	e.v			sub voce, or sub verbo
Swete, Indroduc‑ ~ H. B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Tes‑
Sy
tion ..... . . . . . lament in Greek, London, 1900
	.. . . ... . . . . . . . Y$
TB3. . .. ... .. . . .Trinitriac
		arian Bible Society
Thatcher and (O. J. Thatcher and E. H. McNeal, A
	McNeal. Sauruj Source Book for Mediceval History,
	Book . 	. . . ( New York, 1905
	I Thesa .		First Epistle to the Thessalonians
	II Theas .		$econd Epistle to the Thessalonians
	TAT . . . 	. . . . . ~ Tl'e°lootache Tiidachrift, Amsterdam and
		Leyden, 1887 sqq.
Tillemont,	Me‑ L• $• le Nain de Tillemont, Memoirea
	'Wire ......... 	ecdeainatiquea des six premiers
ai&lea, 16 v01e., Paris, 1693‑1712
	I Tim 	......	..	.First Epistle to Timothy
II Tim . . . . . . .... .Second Epistle to Timothy
	Theologiacher Jahreabericht, Leipaic, 1882‑
	TJB .				1887, Freiburg, 1888. Brunswick, 1889‑
1897, Berlin, 1898 sqq.
Theolopiadtea Litteroturblatt, Bonn, 1866
TSBA ........
TU ..........
TZT.........
ZA .........
Zahn, Einlei‑
lung .. ....
TLB .........
TLZ......... Tob..........
IQ ...........
TS...........
sqq.
Theolopiache LiLteraturzeitung, Leipaic. 1876 sqq.
Tobit
Theolopiache Quartalachrift. Tiibingen, 1819aq q.
J. A. Hobinson, Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1891 sqq.
Transactions of the Society of Biblical Arclemology, ondon 1872 sqq.
TSK.... . . . . .. ,; Theo7ogiache Studien urtd Kritiken, Hamburg, 1826 sqq.
(Texts and Unterauchungen zur Geachichte
I	der altchriatlichen Latteratur, ed. O. von
	Gebhardt and A. Harnack, Leipsic,
(	1882 sqq.
I Tiibinger Zeitachrdft fur Theologie, Tii
I bingen, 1838‑40
Ugolini, Thesau‑~ B. Ugolinus, Thesaurus antiquitatum
	rua .	eacrarum. 34 vole., Venice, 1744‑69
	V. T		VetuaTeatamentum,VieuxTeatament, "Old
		Testament "
Wattenbach,	W• Wattenbach, Deutachlanda Geachichte
. ,		llen, 5th ed., 2 vole., Berlin, 1885;
' ~ ~ ed., 1893‑94
Wellhausen,	) J. Wellhausen, Reate ara6iachen Heiden
	Heidenlum .. I fume. Berlin, 1887
Wellhauaen, 	~J• Wellhauaen, Prolegomena zurGeachichle
	Pro7epomena	Israela, 6th ed., Berlin, 1905, Eng.
		transl., Edinburgh, 1885
		Zeitachrift fur Asayriologie, Leipsie,
		1886‑88 Berlin, 1889 sqq.
		T. Zahn, kinleifunp in das Neue Testa
		ment, 3d ed., Leipsie, 1907
Zahn, Kanon ... . ~ T' Zahn, Geachichte des nzuteatamenty
		lichen Kanona, 2 vole., Leipsic, 1888 9
	ZATfV .		~Zeit8chrift fur die altteatamentlirhe TT'is
		aenachaft. Giessen, 1881 sqq.
	ZDAL		1 Zeitachriflfurdeuhxhea.4lterthumurtddeul
		acheLiteratttr, Berlin, 1876sqq,
	ZDbIG .	. . . . . . 1 Zeitachrift der deutachen morpenliindiarhen
		1 Genellachaft, Leipsic, 1847 sqq.
		Zeitarhrift fur deutsche Philologie, Halls,
	ZDP .1869 sqq.
	ZDPV		~Zeitachreft des deutachen Palaatina‑Ver
		ll sins, Leipsic, 1878 sqq.
	Zech		Zechariah
	Zeph .		Zephaniah
		1Zeitschrift fiir die hiatoriache Theolopie,
	ZHT .		jf published successively at I,eipsic,
		Hamburg, and Goths, 1832‑‑75
	ZKG 	jZeitsrhrifl fiir liirchenpesrhichle, Goths,
		1876 sqq
	ZKR . ~ Zeitachrift fiir Kirchenrerht, Berlin, Tii
		bingen, Freiburg, 1861 sqq.
	ZKT	. . . . , , ~ Zeitachrijt fur kalholiacite Theolopie, Inns
		bruck. 1877 sqq
	7.KTV		, . . ~ Zeilachrzft fiir ktrchliche TT'iaaenarhnfl and
		kirrhlirhea Leben. Leipsic, 1880‑R9
ZJNr7.Ty, _ . _ . , . ( Zt'ifachriJt jiir flit' nrut‑tarnrntlirhe IT'is‑
		I aen.~ohnff. (';iesscn. 15>I)O.qq
		IZeitsrhrift fiirl'rotrstantismasv>tdKirrhe.
		1 Erlangen, 1838‑76
		(Zeifschriff fur wisaensehaftlirhe Thenlngie.
	ZTYT		, j' Jena, 185$‑60, Halls. 18ti1‑67, l.eip.ic,
		1868 sqq,
ZPK ...........

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
DRAESEB.E, dr@‑ai'ke, JOHANN HEINWCH BERNHARD: German preacher; b. at Brunswick Jan. 18, 1774; d. at Potsdam Dec. 8, 1849. He studied at the University of Hehnet5dt, where he was influenced by humanitarianism rather than by rationalism, and during this period wrote a drama which was produced at Dresden, while in his Des Heilige auf der Biihne (1817) he defended the representation of sacred subjects on the stage. At the age of twenty‑one he was called as deacon to MSlln, being made preacher three years later, and being appointed pastor of R,atzeburg in 1804. There he published his Predigten . fur denkenie Yerehrer Jesu (5 vole., Liineburg, 1804‑12) and his catechetical Glaube, Liebe and Hoffnung (1813), while his patriotic sermons caused such excitement that he narrowly escaped arrest by French troops. In 1814 he was called to Bremen, and to this period belong his Predigten fiber Deutachlanda Wiedergeburt (3 vole., Liineburg, 1814); PredigtEnttoiirfe fiber freie Texte (2 vole., Bremen, 1815); Ueber die letzten Schicksale unseres Hewn (2 vole., Liineburg, 1816); Ueber frei gew6hlle Abschnitte der heiligen Sehrift (4 vole., 1817‑18); Christus an das Geschlecht dieser Zeit (1819); Gemalde aus der heiLigen Schrift (4 vole., 1821‑28); and Yom Retch (Cotter, Betrachtungen nach der heiligen Sehrift (3 vole., Bremen, 1830). The political tone of his sermons, however, caused many of them to be suppressed by the authorities. His addresses on the kingdom of God, on the other hand, attracted the attention of Frederick William III., and when Weatermaier, bishop of Sa~,ony, died in 1832, Draseke was, appointed to hll the vacancy. As bishop he gained wide popularity by his eloquence, impartiality, and geniality. Avoiding the extremes of rationalism, on the one hand, and Pietism, on the other, he was welcomed as a true Evangelical. The year 1840, however, brought an eventful change, when the assertion of a rationalistic pastor named Sintenia that prayer should not be offered to Christ forced Draseke to take a decided stand. The government checked the episcopal protest, but the rationalistic attacks were pushed so far that Draseke felt that his usefulness was at an end. In 1843 the king permitted him to resign, and he spent the remainder of his life in Potsdam. The only occasion on which he came again before the public was in 1845, when he signed the protest of Sydow, Jones, and others against the Evangeliache Kirehenzeitrng. His Nachgelassene Schriften
IV.‑1
were edited by T. H. T. Draseke (2 vole., Magdeburg, 1850‑51).
The earliest theological position of Draseke was the humanism of Herder on a Pelagian basis, where Christianity was merely the highest product of the human race; but gradually he attained a more positive attitude, and a deeper insight into the depths of the soul. As a preacher he must be reckoned among the foremost of German pulpitorators, rising from restriction to the higher cultivated classes to a more popular and intelligible style which attracted all types of men.
(AUOU6T THOLUCgt.)
Btst.toattArar: His life is in ADB, v. 373 eqq.

DRAGON: A mythical creature, belief in the existence of which is attested by the folk‑lore and literature of nearly all nations, ancient and modern. The creature is usually, but not always, pictured as a modified serpent, with legs and feet terminating in talon‑like claws, and it is generally regarded as hostile to gods and the human species. Its habitat is variously described: in the heaven, where it often is regarded as causing the eclipse of the sun and the moon; on the earth, where it inhabits deserts, mountain recesses, and places nearly or quite inaccessible to man; and the sea, whence it issues to work evil or to receive an offering which alone averts its anger and the destruction consequent upon this (cf. the Greek story of Perseus). As an agent of evil it is sometimes assigned in myths to the guardianship of things precious or under the care of wizards, witches, or wonder‑workers (cf. the Greek story of Medea and the Golden Fleece). By a transformation not usual in the development of religion, it sometimes attains to a position of honor in the religion of the people and becomes beneficent (as in China), and indeed receives worship and honor (cf. Bel and the Dragon, which, though unhistorical, yet attests the possibility of existence of such a cult; see APOCRYPHA, A, IV., 3). Tiamat, the representative of chaos in Babylonian mythology, is perhaps the earliest form in which this belief has gained mention in extant literature; the dragoncharacter of Tiamat hardly admits of question, in spite of the doubts of Baudissin (Hauck‑Herzog, RE, v. 4 sqq.), based largely on the fact that serpentine form was not given to this creature in the monuments‑the character of hostility to the gods is well marked. The existence of belief in dragons in other Semitic realms is easily susceptible of
uu`uy ewctotts 1 cne tettans sad tieGOUtn. '1'hia is 9 large quadrsn‑

DrDrareaso and Ornament, Hebrew	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	Q
proof (cf. Baudissin, ut sup., and the references there given). A similar belief entered the folkand church‑lore of Christians; and just as the heroes and demigods of classic or Teutonic story (Perseus, Siegfried, Beowulf) were credited with combat against, and mastery over dragons, so were heroes of Christian story (St. George, St. Sylvester).
In the Old Testament the Authorized Version translates four Hebrew words by this term, and in the New Testament dragon is the rendering of the Gk. draki3n in Rev. xii., siii. 2, 4, 11, xvi. 13, xx. 2. The four Hebrew words are: (1) the masculine plural tannim (from an assumed singular tan), " howlers," occurring in Job xxa. 29; Ps. xliv. 19; Isa. xiii. 22, xxxiv. 13, xxxv. 7, xliii. 20; Jer. ix, 11, x. 22, xiv. 6, xlix. 33, li. 37; Mic. i. 8, in the A. V. uniformly translated " dragon," but rendered in the R.V. " jackals "; (2) the feminine plural tannoth (Mat. i. 3), from the same singular or an assumed tannah, translated " dragons " in the A.V. and " jackals " in the R. V.; (3) the singular tannim (regarded as a mistake for tannin, see below, which is found in some manuscripts), occurring only in Ezek. xxix. 3, A. V. and R. V. " dragon," and xxxii. 2, A. V. " whale," margin and R. V. " dragon " (possibly meaning the crocodile); (4) the singular tannin., plural tanninim., occurring Deut. xxxii. 33; Neh. ii. 13; Pa. lxxiv. 13, xci. 13, aclviii. 7; Isa. xxvii. 1; Jer. li. 34 The R. V. follows the A. V. in rendering " dragon," except in Ps. lxxiv. 13 and cxlviii. 7, margin, where it has " sea monsters," and Ps. xci. 13, where it has " serpent." This same word is in Gen. i. 21 and Job vii. 12 rendered by A. V. " whale," by R. V. " sea monster "; in Ex. vii. 9, 10, 12 both A. V. and R. V. have " serpent "; in Lam. iv. 3 A. V. has " sea monsters " and R. V. " jackals." The nearly uniform rendering in the A. V. follows closely that of the Septuagint, which translates all cases by drakdn except Gen. i. 21, where ketos, " whale," is found. This rendering doubtless originated in confusion between words from two roots, one of which meant " to howl," and the other probably " to be extended." Modern investigation has revealed this distinction, which is probably accurately reflected in the R. V. There is some question whether " wolf " would not in some passages be more accurate than " jackal." The word is employed metaphorically (e.g., Isa. li. 9), and also with mythological reference (Isa. xxvii. 1, and the passages in the New Testament). Neither of these usages is present in the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon, which is simply a Haggadic story. Job xxvi. 13 is probably a reminiscence of belief in the dragon as an inhabitant of the heavens, while Amos ix. 3 exhibits the belief in the creature as existing in the sea.
GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For s review of the legends centering about the dragon nothing is better than E. S. Hartland, Legend of Perseus, 3 vols., London, 1894‑96. Consult further: P. Lerch, in orient and Occident, i. 4, pp, 751‑754, Gottingen 1862; R', W, von Baudiasin, Semiliache RelxgionarJeachichle, i. 255‑292, Leipsic, 1876; G. A. Barton, in JAOS, xv. 1 (1891), 23‑24; 11. Guwkel, Sch6pfanp and Chaos, pp, 69 sqq., 3_`>0‑323, Gottingen, 1895; Smith, Rel, of Sexn., p. 176; DB, i. 620‑621 ii. 526; EB, i. 11311134, ii. 2305‑06; JE, iv. 84'T‑648: and the later commentaries on the passages cited in the tent.
DRAGOftADES. See HUGUENOTS; NtmES, EDICT OF.
DRAKE, AUGUSTA THEODOSIA (Sister Francis Raphael): English Dominican; b. at Bromley St. Leonard's (a suburb of London), Middlesex, Dec. 28, 1823; d. at Stone (7 m. n.n.w. of Stafford), Staffordshire, Apr. 29, 1894. She was educated privately, and until the age of twenty‑seven was a member of the Church of England. Carried beyond the Tractarian movement, however, she became a convert to the Roman Catholic Church in 1850, and after a residence of six months at Rome, 1851‑52, she was received as a postulant in the Dominican convent at Clifton Oct. 4, 1852. She became a professed at Stone, where the convent had meantime been transferred, in 1856, and from 1872 to 1881 was prioress of the convent. From 1881 until within three weeks of her death she was mother provincial of the Order. She was the author of a large number of books (many of them published anonymously), including The Morality of Tractarianiam (London, 1850); Catholic Legends and Stories (1855); The Life of St. Dominic, with a Sketch of the Dominican Order (1857); The Knights of St. John, with the Battle of Lento arid the Siege of Vienna (1858); Memoir of Sister Mary Philomena Berkeley, Religious of the Third Order of St. Dominic (1860); Christian Schools and Scholars, or Sketches of Education from the Christian Era to the Council of Trent (1867); Life of Mother Margaret Hallahan (1869); The History of St. Catherine of Siena and her Companions (1880); The History of St. Dominic, Founder of the Friar Preachers (1891); Catholic Readers (5 vole., 1891); and The Spirit of the Dominican Order, illustrated from the Lives of its Saints (1896). She translated P. Choearne's Le Rft,6rend Pe're H. D. Lacorttaire de l'ordre des Fr&es prEcheurs, sa vie intime et religieuse (London, 1868), and edited The Autobiography of Archbishop Ullalhorne (1891) and Letters of Archbishop Ullalhorne (1892).

DREAMS: Dreams are commonly considered in all religions a means of revelation. The strange, wonderful, but often lively phenomena of dream life, sundered at the time from conscious knowledge and thought, are accepted as prophetic revelations of divinity to the sleeper. Consequently men endeavor to induce prophetic dreams by sleeping in places supposed to be favorable or by taking potions. Such practises were followed by Egyptians Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans Germans, and many other peoples. But, since the dream pictures were often obscure, there grew up the art of interpreting dreams, while still there was often the acknowledgment that these means were delusive. In the Bible dreams appear as a means by which God speaks to man, warns him of danger, imparts knowledge, gives counsel, and directs for the future. Such dreams of instruction have been known in all times as in the present, for why should not God choose this method of communication with mankind? In the dream the inner life is often more strongly impressed than is possible under ordinary conditions, the consciousness is

8
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
more easily reached than when the pre of thoughts interrupts communication. In Biblical cases the suspicion of deception is excluded partly by the extraordinary divine force of the impression, partly by its appeal to the conscience; on the other hand, the dream is often represented as a vain and empty thing (Job. xx. 8; Pa. lxxiii. 20). Symbolic dreams are also known to the Bible, the meaning of which is not attainable to the worldly‑wise, but only to those to whom God has granted the gift of interpretation. Such dreams came to a Joseph and a Daniel. While many examples confirm the use of the dream as a means of revelation, it is not for the people of God the only means, and it is, besides, used as a medium by which God comes into contact with other than his own people. There were other means of self‑revelation of God, however, especially in the word of the prophets who often received their oracles while in possession of full consciousness. A species of revelation standing midway between these two was the dreamvieion (Job iv. 13‑21). To this class belong the experiences of Solomon (I Kings iii. 5) and Daniel (Dan. vii. i). The prophets generally do not speak of dreams se the source of their inspiration, and the Arabs distinguish between prophetic insight and the dream. Zechariah's vision (Zech. i. 8 aqq.) was not a dream (cf. iv. 1). Jeremiah speaks of the misuse of dreams and disparages them (Jer. xxiii. 25 aqq.) on the ground that they are often the product of the wish of the heart. Deut. xiii. 2 aqq. gives a criterion for the testing of prophetic dreams. The later Jews paid much attention to these phenomena, and the Eesenea seem to have done the same (Joeephus, Ant., XVII. xiii. 3). See DrvnrATlOrr. (C. VON OREI.LL)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Knobel, Prophetiamw der Hebrltar, i. 174 eqq., Breslau, 1837; F. Delitaach, Bibliache Psyenolopie, pp. 233 eqq.. LeiPeia, 1881, Eng. trsnal.. Edinburgh, 1887: W. B. Carpenter, Mental Physiology, London, 1878; F. E. Honig, Offenbarungebegriff des A. T., ii. 9 eqq., 83 eqq., Leipaic, 1882; G. F. Oehler, Tluokpis den d. T., pp. 218 eQq., 743 eqq.: Stuttgart, 1882, Eng. trsnel., New York, 1883; C. von Orelli, A7tteetamenUichs Weisaagunpes, pp. 17‑18, Vienna, 1882, Eng. tranal., Old Testament Prophecy, Edinburgh. 1885; E. Clodd, Myths and Dreams, London, 1886: H. Schultz, ALeteeta• fnenUiche Thsolopia, Gottingen, 1888, Eng. trsnsl., London, 1892; J. W. Reynolds, Natural Hist. of Immortality, pp. 124‑139, ib. 1891; DB, i. 822‑623; EB, i. 1118‑19.

DRELI7YCOURT, drb"Iati"cOr', CHARLES: French Reformed pastor; b. at Sddan July 10, 1595; d. in Paris Nov. 3, 1869. He was educated at Sbdan and Saumur, and was pastor of the Reformed Church of Charenton, near Paris, from 1620 to his death. He was a prolific writer, and two of his works achieved extraordinary success: Consolations de l'Bme ftdb7e contre lee frayeurs de la mort, reprinted, in more than forty editions, as late as Mines, 1819, Eng. tranal.; The Christian's Defence against the Fears of Death (4th ed., London, 1701; 27th ed., Liverpool, 1810; the sale of the translation is said to have been promoted by Defoe's True Relation of the Apparition of one Mrs. Veal the Next Day after her Death to one Mrs. Bargrave at Canterbury the 8th of September, 1706, London, 1706, in which the dead lady recommended Drelincourt'e book. Defoe's work is included in many editions
D u iad Ornament, Hebrew
of the translation). Drelincourt's other important work was Yiaixes charitables ou consolations chrbtiennes pour toutea lea Peraonnes affligEes (5 vole., Charenton, 1689, and often, translated into six languages). In English the work appeared in five small volumes, each devoted to a visit upon a particu4ar class of afflicted persons (London, 1785).
BIBLIOGRAPHY‑ A Memoir is affixed to the ninth and subsequent editions of The Christina's De/sees, London, 171£. Consult E. sad L. Haag, La France proteataats, ed. H. L. Bordier, Paris, 1877‑88 (contains imperfect lief of his writings); Lichtenberger, E$ft, iv. 81‑84.

DRESS AND ORNAMENT, HEBREW.
The Apron or Girdle (11). Charms (17).
The Coat or Cloak ( 4 2).	Earrings and Nose‑rings (4 8).
Women's Attire (4 3).	Ornaments for Read andNeok
The Head‑dress (14).		(19).
Foot‑wear (4 b).	The Hair (4 10).
Signets and Seals (4 8).	The Beard (4 11).
In the Old Testament there is no description of clothing and articles of adornment. The archeologist, therefore, has to rely upon ancient Egyptian and Babylonian‑Assyrian portraiture and observation of present customs. The most ancient article of dress was the apron or girdle (ezor, h, agor, sak), a simple piece of cloth (Jer. xiii. 1) or leather (Il
Kings i. 8) thrown about the loins. ><. The In all periods it was the moat usual Apron or garment in Egypt, though of course
Girdle.	its form was often modified. In
Egyptian pictures it appears also as the dress of the Bedouin; and it has been preserved in the ihr8m worn by pilgrims in Mecca. The Old Testament mentions the girdle as worn by Assyrian warriors (Ian. v. 27; Ezek. xxiii: 15). Among the Israelites the girdle survived as the dress of those consecrated to God (II Kings i. 8; Is&. xx. 2; Jer. xiii. 1 sqq.) and as the vestment of the high priest. As ask it was worn for mourning (see MOURNING Cusxonts; HEBREW), either alone or under another garment (II Kings vi. 30). Otherwise the kttttoneth, or shirt, took the place of the girdle. In Assyrian art this appears as a tight‑fitting undergarment, sometimes reaching only to the knee, sometimes to the ankle. It corresponded to the undergarment of the fellah of to‑day: a rough cotton tunic of s faded blue color, open at the breast, with loose sleeves and a girdle around the hips to hold the garment out of the way in walking or working. Such moat have been the Hebrew klartoneth, though it reached only to the knees. The longer coat, with long sleeves, was especially for women, being unusual for men (Gee. xxxvii. 3; II Sam. xiii. 18). A still finer garment was the sadin, a linen shirt that the well‑to‑do wore under the kuttoneth (Judges xiv. 12; Prov. xxxi. 24; Isa. iii. 23). It was of Cansanitic origin and is mentioned in the Amarna tablets.
The aimla, or overdress, had various fortes. Egyptian representations of Bedouins show it as a loose wrap that leaves one shoulder and both arms free. It was a heavy shawl, such as is still found among Bedouins. The ancient Babylonians wore a similar garment. Among ‑the Hebrews this was probably the mantle of the common people; later it developed into the present shays, the mantle of the fellaha and Bedouin. Thin is a large quadran‑

Dress and Ornament, Hebrew	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
gular piece of rough, heavy woolen material, crudely sewed together so that holes are left for the arms.
	Like the abaye, the simla was not
s. The	worn at work (Matt. xxiv. 18); but it
Coat or	was similarly useful. All kinds of ar
Cloak.	titles could be carried in it, e.g. barley,
	wood, grass, etc. (Ex. xii. 34; Judges
viii. 25; II Kings iv. 39). By day it was a protec
tion against rain and cold, by night it served as bed
and cover (Ex. xxii. 26; Deut. xxiv. 12 sqq.).
No respectable man went without this overdress
(Amos ii. 16; Isa. xx. 2‑3). From this simple
garment was developed the richly ornamented
mantle of well‑to‑do Assyrians and Babylonians,
which reached from the neck to the knees and had
short sleeves. Canaanites of the better classes
wore a strip of heavy fancy‑colored cloth wrapped
around the body several times. This was em
broidered in colors and finished with fringe. The
Israelites, who had a taste for gorgeous colors (Josh.
vii. 21; Judges v. 30; II Sam. i. 24), probably
adopted from the Canaanites certain overgarments
called me'il and addereth. The first was a costly
wrap (I Sam. ii. 19, xviii 4, xxiv. 5, 11), and, ac
cording to the description of the priest's me'il, was
similar to the sleeveless abaye (Ex. xxviii. 31 aqq.;
Josephus, Ant., III. vii. 4). The addereth was an
extra robe worn over the simla (Mic. ii. 8), similar
to the gorgeous Babylonian robe for which the same
name was employed (Josh. vii. 21; Jonah iii. 6).
The leather garment worn by the prophets was
called by the same name because of its width.
A woman's dress evidently differed from that of a man (Deut. xxii. 5), but consisted likewise of simla and kuttoneth. Presumably these garments had sleeves and were longer than those worn by men, were also of finer material, of brighter colors, and more richly ornamented. The sadin, the finer linen underdress, was also worn by women (Isa. iii. 23: Prov. xxxi. 24). Further, mention is made of
the ‑mifpalaafh, a kind of veil or shawl 3. Women's (Ruth iii. 15); and the md'atapha, a
Attire.	wrap of unknown form (Isa. iii. 22).
A very important article of female attire was the veil. The use of the veil by the bride (Gen. xxiv. 65) and in other cases (Gen. xxxviii. 14; Ruth iii. 31 is traceable to the influence of the Ishtar .myth. The veil was the symbol of Ishtar, who, on coming from the underworld, walked out veiled to meet Tammuz, her bridegroom. Otherwise it was not customary for women to go veiled (Gen. xii. 14, xxiv. 15 sqq. ), contrary to present custom in the Orient due to the influence of Islam. The veil of the ordinary woman's wardrobe was a neckcloth. According to ancient statuary, it reached from the forehead, down across the back of the head to the hips or still lower, and was not unlike the neckerchief of the peasant woman in modern Palestine. It is not known how the various kinds of veils mentioned in the Old Testament differed from one another (Gen. xxiv. 65; Cant. iv. 3; Isa. iii. 19 aqq., xlvii. 2). The increasing luxury of women un the matter of dress is shown by the enumeration of the articles of a woman's toilet in Isa. iii. 18‑23.
As regards head‑dress, some representations
show Jews and Syrians bareheaded, others show them wearing merely a band to hold the hair together. This last is still occasionally seen in Arabia. The usual head‑covering of the Bedouin of to‑day is the keffiye, a large square piece of woolen cloth folded diagonally, then thrown over
	4. The	the head in such a way that the loose
Head‑dress. corners of the triangle protect the
		back of the head and neck, while the
other two corners are tied under the chin and then
thrown across the shoulders. A strong wool cord
holds the cloth securely on the head. Hebrew
peasants undoubtedly wore a similar head‑dress.
The better classes, both men and women, wore a
kind of turban, i.e., a cloth wound about the head.
The shape of this varied greatly, depending upon
the way it was adjusted, just as the head‑dress of
to‑day varies in different localities. The turban of
the high priest, the miznelrheth, had a special form
(Ex. xxviii. 40), as did that of the priest, the mig
ba'a or peer (Ex. xxviii. 40, xxxix. 28). The peer
was afterward worn by men and women of the
better classes (Isa. iii. 20; Ezek. xxiv. 17); for in
stance, by the bridegroom on the wedding day
(Isa. lxi. 10). The high conical turbans seen in
pictures of Assyrian kings and priests may be re
garded as good examples of this variety of head
covering.
The use of sandals among the Egyptians became common in the middle kingdom, universal in the new kingdom. On Babylonian and Assyrian monuments even kings appear barefooted. Other representations show sandals with a strap stretched across the foot from the side, and often with a leather strap between the toes and drawn across the foot longitudinally. Later Assyrian soldiers wore a kind of leather boot, made of pieces of leather tied about the foot and reaching above the
g. Foot‑ ankle. By soldiers of to‑day pointed wear. . shoes are worn over the sandals, affording protection to the toes in mountainous districts. , Among the Israelites the common man usually went barefooted, as does the fellah of to‑day, though he sometimes had sandals (Amos ii. 6, viii. 6). These were of leather or wood, with leather straps (Gen. xiv. 23; Isa. v. 27). They were not worn in the house nor in the sanctuary (Ex. iii. 5, xii. 11; Josh. v. 15). The priests performed their duties barefooted. In mourning, also, it was customary to go barefooted (II Sam. xv. 30; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23). Jewelry was much worn in the ancient Orient, as it is to‑day, A cane and a signet‑ring belonged to the equipment of a Babylonian, and were aisual articles.of personal adornment (cf. Herodotus, i. 195, and Strabo, xvi. 746). The cane was often a necessity, as in the case of the shepherd; otherwise it was a valuable weapon. In modern times it is not used se a support in walking‑it ,being too short for that purpose‑but is carried thrown across the shoulder.
The signet‑ring (hotham) , is quite ancient and is supposed to have been worn even by the patriarchs. The impression of such a ring serves in place of the written signature, hence its importance and the universality of its use., At first these rings were not worn on the finger, but were carried on a cord

t;	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dress sad Ornament, Hebrew
tied around the neck (Gen. xxxviii.18), as still is often the case. The Egyptians wore the signet on the
finger (Gen. xli. 42), and later the Is6. Signets raelites wore it on a finger of tile right
sad Seals. hand (Jet. xxii. 24 ). Besides the aignet‑
ring set with a cut stone, the signet took the form of a cylinder. This kind of seal was common in Babylon, and, as excavations have shown, was in use in Palestine. From remotest antiquity Babylonia was distinguished for gem‑cutting, an art which reached there a high degree of excellence shown by the exquisitely carved cylinders that have been preserved. This art was introduced into Syria. A seal‑cylinder found at Taanach shows Babylonian and Egyptian characters, thus betraying its Western origin. It is not known to what extent such things were made in Israel, or whether they were not bought through the Phenicians. At all events, in decorative art and in the manner of execution Babylonian influence was always dominant. The handsomest seal extant by a Hebrew hand is one that was discovered in Megiddo by the excavations of the Deutscher Palastina‑Verein. It is the seal of Shemai, the minister of state (ebed) of Jeroboam IL, made of jasper, oval in form, 3.7 by 2.7 centimeters, and with a splendidly carved lion, resembling closely the lion figures of BabylonianAsayrian art (cf. Mittheilungen, and Nachrichten des deutschen Pal6stina‑Vereins, 1904, pp. 1 aqq.).
A jewel was at the same time an amulet. According to the ancient Oriental view, metals and precious stones belonged to certain gods of the mineral world, and possessed, therefore, a mysterious
magic power. Aside from this, any 7. Charms. trinket that diverts attention from the
wearer to itself still serves as a protection against the evil eye. For this reason every one in the Orient wears an abundance of jewelry. Traces of this superstition are found in the Old Testament. In Isa. iii. 20 a piece of woman's jewelry is designated as an amulet (cf. Gen. xxxv. 4); and it is evident that the ornaments on the camels of the Midianitea were charms (Judges viii. 21). In design and execution the various articles of jewelry resemble Babylonian and Egyptian models.
Earrings were the principal article of jewelry for women (Gen. xxxv. 4), and were sometimes worn by children (,Ex. xxxii. 2). They were also worn hymen, e.g., by the Midianitea (Judges viii. 24 eqq.), and Pliny claims that they were worn by all Orien‑
tals (Pliny, xi. 136). It is impossible 8. Ear‑ to distinguish the various kinds of rings and earrings mentioned; still, the excava‑
Nose‑rings. tions at Gezer, Megiddo, and Taanach
have brought to light several characteristic forms (cf. PEF, Quarterly Statement, 1903, p. 202). Nose‑rings were also quite popular (Gen. xxiv. 22, 47; Isa. iii. 21), finger‑rings were less usual. Finally, the toes were also ornamented with rings.
The forehead and hair were beautified by bands of gold or silver ornaments (Isa. iii. 18); and necklaces of various kinds were worn, also strings of tinge, pearls, small glass cylinders, bone buttons, meted pendants, etc., were worn around the neck.
g. Ornaments for Head and Neck.
Excavations have revealed a great variety of such articles. Particularly popular as amulet and bangle were the scarabs, imitations of
the sacred dot‑beetle which originated in Egypt. They spread all over the Orient; and excavations in the South (e.g., at Gezer) have brought numbers of them to light. Bracelets were
simply pieces of wire bent around the arms, and the ends were not fastened together (Gen. xxiv. 22; Ezek. xvi. 13, xxiii. 42). There were also anklets of corresponding form, to which were sometimes attached small chains (Isa. iii. 18). This kind of jewelry for women is peculiar to the Orient, both ancient and modern.
As to the care of the hair, the custom of shaving the head, wide‑spread in ancient Egypt and still common, was prohibited in Israel (Lev. xix. 27; Deut. xiv. 1) because it often had a religious significance. However, as a sign of mourn‑
lo. The ing this custom, perhaps universal Hair. in the oldest period, was preserved despite the prohibition (Ezek. vii. 18; Amos viii. 10; Mic. i. 16). Priests were commanded to keep their hair cut properly, and not to allow it to grow unrestrained (Ezek. xliv. 20); but no shears were to touch the head of the Nazirite (Num. vi. 18; Judges xiii. 5; I Sam. i. 11). The Egyptian way of dressing the hair with wigs and other artificial accessories was never imitated in anterior Asia. According to ancient Egyptian representations, the Syrian wore his hair rather long. The front hair was brushed. down over the forehead; otherwise the hair was caught up in tufts behind, which stood out from the head. Assyrian monuments show long hair worn in plaits hanging about the neck as the prevailing style, and suggest that the better classes paid much attention to the dressing of the hair and beard. For a woman long hair was essential to beauty (Cant. iv. 1, and often); and a bald head was the greatest affliction (Isa. iii. 24). To let the hair down and allow it to hang in disorder denoted extreme humility (Num. v. 18; cf. Luke vii. 38). The arts employed by women to beautify the hair are derided by Isaiah (Isa. iii. 24).
For the Egyptians a beard was something too repulsive to be allowed, accordingly they kept themselves shaved; but the " barbarians " allowed their beards to grow. In Egyptian pictures the Syrians have round beards, the Bedouins
	r I. The	pointed beards. Assyrian representa
	Beard.	tions testify to the custom of wearing
		a mustache. To cut off any one's
beard was a grave insult (II Sam. x. 4), a humilia
tion to which prisoners of war were subjected (Isa.
vii. 20); and often, in deep mourning, this mutila
tion was self‑inflicted (Isa. xv. 2). To cut out the
corners of the beard was forbidden in Israel, as
being the custom of a strangE cult.
I. BENZIN(3ER.
Biattocawenr: H. Weiss, ICoatiimkunde, part i., Die VBlker
den Oetena, Stuttgart, 1880; B. Ugolini, Thesaurus anM
quitatum eaaarum, vot. xxiz., 34 vols., Venice 1744‑89;
A. T. Hartmann, Die HebrBerin am Putztiaeh and sit
Brain, Amsterdam. 1809; w. M. Thompson, The Land
and the Book, 3 vole., New York, 1880‑88; I. Bensinger,
Hebrdiechs Archdolopie, $ $ 18‑17, Tiibingen, 1907; w.

Drew, Paul Gottfried Droste‑Visoheriag
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Nowaek, HebrBiache ArehSotopis, ¢¢ 20‑21, Freiberg, 1894: H. B. Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, pp. 15b‑178, London, 1894; DB, i. 823‑829: EB, i. 1135 eq9.
DREWS, PAUL GOTTFRIED: German Protestant; b. at Eibenstock (60 m. s.e. of Leipaic) May 8, 1858. He studied at Leipsic and Gbtingen 1878‑‑81, and after being a private tutor became a member of the clergy staff of St. Pauli in Leipsic in 1883. He was pastor at Burkau 1883‑89, and at Dresden 1889‑94. In 1894 he became professor extraordinary of homiletics and atechetics at Jena, in 1901 professor of practical
theology at Giessen, and in 1908 he accepted a call to the University of Halls. He has written Willibald Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation (Leipsic, 1887); Humaniamtis and Reformation (1887); Christus, onset Leben (2 vole., Gtittingen, 1894‑1901); Diapufdtionen. Dr: Martin Lathers in den Jahren 1636 bia 16'6 an.der Uniersilat Wittenberg gehalten (1895); Des kirchliche
Leben der evangelisch‑lutherischen" Landeskirche des Kbnigreicha Sachsen (vol. i. of his Evangeliaehe Kirchenkunde ; Tubingen, 1902); Studien zur Gechichte des Gottesdienstes und des gotteadienstichen Lebens (3 parts, 1902‑06); Die Ordination,
Lehrverpflichtung and Priifung der Ordinanden in Wittenberg 1636 (Giessen, 1904); Der eroartgeliache Geistliche in der deutschett Vergangenheit (Jena, 1905); and Der Einftvss der gesellschafllichen Zut8nde auf daa kirchliche Leben (TUbingen, 1906). He has likewise been a joint editor of the Mottatschrift fiir die kirchliche Praxis since 1901.

DREY, JOHANN SEBASTIAN VON: Roman Catholic; b. at Killingen (near Ellwangen, 45 m. e.n.e. of Stuttgart) Oct. 16, 1777; d. at Tilbingen Feb. 19, 1853. He studied theology at Augsburg, was ordained priest in 1801, and in 1812 was appointed professor of theology at Ellwangen. When this institution was disbanded in 1817 he became professor at Tubingen, holding this position till 1846, when he retired. With his colleagues Gratz, Herbst. and Hirscher he founded the Theologische Qtutrtalachrift in 1819. His principal work was on Christian apologetics (2 vole., Mainz, 1838‑43; 2d ed. enlarged, 3 vole., 1847).

DRISCOLL, JAMES FRANCIS: Roman Catholic; b. at East Poultney, Vt., Sept. 30, 1859. He studied at Montreal College (B.A., Laval University, 1881), the Grand S6minaire, Montreal (1881‑84), the S6minaire St. Sulpice. Paris (18841886; bachelor of theology and canon law, Institut Catholique Paris, 1886), Minerva University, Rome (1886‑88), Universith Reale, Rome (18861888), New York University (1897‑1900), Johns Hopkins University (1901‑02), and the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. (19011902). He was professor of dogmatic theology and Hebrew in the Theological Seminary of Montreal (1889‑96), professor of the same subjects in St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, N. Y. (i896‑99), and of Holy Scripture and Hebrew in the same institution (1899‑1901), professor of Scripture in St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, Md. (1901‑02), sad at the same time professor of Semitic languages in St. Austin's College, Washington, D. C. Since
1902 he has been president and professor of moral theology in St. Joseph's Seminary. He was chairman of the Seminary Board in the annual conference for the promotion of Catholic education in 1905‑‑06. In theological position he is " Roman Catholic, but of liberal progressive views‑frankly welcoming all the reasonably established claims of modern scholarship in the field of science, philosophy, historical and Biblical criticism, etc." He has been editor of The New York Review since 1905.

DRIVER, SAMUEL ROLLES: Church of England; b. at Southampton Oct. 2, 1846. He studied at Winchester College and New College, Oxford (B.A., 1869), where he was fellow 1870‑82 and tutor 1875‑82. Since 1882 he has been regius professor of Hebrew and canon of Christ Church, Oxford. He was a member of the Old Testament Revision Company 1876‑$4, and examining chaplain to the bishop of Southwell 1884‑1904. He has written A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (London, 1874); Isaiah: Life, Times, and Writings which bear his Name (1888); Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford, 1890); Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh. 1891); Sermons on Subjects connected with the Old Testament (London, 1892); Deuterottomy (1895); and Authority and Archaeology, Sacred and Profane (in collaboration with D. G. Hogarth; 1899). He also edited the commentary of Moses ben Shesheth on Jeremiah sad Ezekiel (London, 1871); The Holy Bible, with various Renderings and Readings from the best Authorities (1876); The Fifty‑third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters (in collaboration with A. D. Neubauer; 1877): The Book o f Proverbs attributed to Abraham ibn Ezra (1880); Leviticus, in The Polychrome Bible (2 vole., 1894‑97); The Parallel Psalter (1898); Daniel, Joel, and Amos, in The Cambridge Bible for Schools (Cambridge, 1900‑01); Genesis, in The Westminster Commentaries (London, 1904); Deuteronomy and Joshua, in R. Kittel's BfbliaHebraica (Leipsie, 1905); The Minor Prophets, in TheCenturyBible (London, 1906); The Bookof Job (1906); and TheBookof the Prophet Jeremiah (1906). He likewise collaborated with F. Brown and C. A. Briggs in A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (12 peals, Oxford, 1892‑1905), and was s member of the editorial board of J. Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vole., Edinburgh, 18981904) and of the Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1885 sqq.).

DROSTE‑VI$CHERIftG, drbs't6‑fisher‑ing.
Activity at Munster (¢ 1). Mixed Marriages (§ 2). Archbishop of Cologne (¢ 3). The University of Bonn (¢ 4). Droate‑Viechering'a Downfall (¢ 5).
Clemens August, Freiherr van Droste‑Vischer‑
ing, archbishop of Cologne, was born at Munster Jan. 21, 1773; d. there Oct. 19, 1845. Descended from a strict Roman Catholic family, he was or‑
dained priest in 1798, and in 1810 became coadjutor to the acting bishop of Munster, who was ill and died Sept. 16. Droste‑Viachering was elected his successor, but when Munster came under French rule in the same year the existing diocesan ad‑

7
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dr~. Paul Gottfried
Droste.Visohering
ministration was abolished by Napoleon, DrosteVischering was thrust aside, and the dean of the
	cathedral, Count Spiegel, was appointed
	z. Activity bishop and commissioned to admin
at 	ister the diocese as vicar of the chap‑
Muenster. ter until he should be canonically
instituted. As Droate‑Viachering already occupied this office, and as after the rectoration of Prussian rule in Munster the Napoleonic changes were rescinded, Spiegel ultimately had to yield and in 1815 Droate‑Viachering undertook once more, as vicar of the chapter, the management of the diocese.
Even thus early he stood for principles concerning the relations of Church and State which were quite impracticable in a land where the confessions lived side by side. He was not satisfied with proposing in his publication Ueber die Religionsfreiheit der Katholiken (Munster, 1817) an impossible platform for church politics, but endeavored to put it in practise, and thus came into conflict with the Prussian government, at first on the question of mixed marriages, then by an attempt to cripple the theological faculty in Bonn. In 1819 he instructed the priests to refuse to perform mixed marriages unless the parties should promise to educate their children in the Roman Catholic faith; and he forbade students of theology to follow Georg Hermes (q.v.) from Munster to Bonn, and declared he would ordain no one who attended lectures anywhere without his permission. Soon afterward he laid down his office and lived for the next fifteen years (1820‑35) in strict retirement, devoting himself in the main to the guidance of an organization of Sisters of Charity. Even his consecration as suffragan bishop of Miineter in 1827 did not allure him from the manner of life which had grown dear to him. But he forsook it later under remarkable circumstances; he was elected archbishop of Cologne Dec. 1, 1835, and enthroned May 29, 1836. What this promotion signified and what later brought about his fall can be understood only by knowing the situation in church politics when he took office, especially as regards the treatment of mixed marriages.
In 1741 Benedict XIV. had waived the requirement that the Tridentine form for solemnizing matrimony be absolutely necessary (cf. Mirbt, Quellen, pp. 311‑315). The Prussian General Law of 1794 (Mirbt, Quellen, pp. 329‑330) had ordered that, when the parents belonged to different
confessions, until the completion of z. Mixed the fourteenth year sons should be
Marriages. brought up in the religion of the
father and daughters in the confession of the mother. This paragraph was then suspended for the eastern provinces of the monarchy by a Royal Declaration of 1803 (Mirbt, Quellen, p. 339), because dangerous dissensions had been produced in the families affected; and it was provided that legitimate children should always be instructed in the religion of ~ the father, and that neither husband nor wife should have the right to bind his or her helpmate by agreement to any deviation from this rule. By a Royal Cabinet Order of 1825 (Mirbt, Q:iellen, p. 350) this law was ex‑
tended to the Rhine provinces and Westphalia. At the same time it was forbidden that clergymen should demand from engaged couples of mixed confession a promise about the religious training of their future children. These laws, which affected Protestants as well as Roman Catholics, were, however, evaded by Catholic clergymen who, to be sure, did not demand the aforesaid promise, but, if it was not voluntarily given, refused to perform the ceremony. The complaints which the government received caused it to enter upon negotiations with the archbishop of Cologne (Count Spiegel), and the bishops of Trevea (Joseph von Hommer), Paderboru (Friedrich von Ledebur), and Munster (Caspar von Droste), who showed an obliging spirit but declared that they could take no steps without the permission of the pope. With the consent of the government they therefore applied to Rome. The result of the negotiations carried on there between the Prussian Ambassador Bunsen and Cardinal Capellari was a brief of Pius VIII. dated Mar. 25, 1830 (Mirbt, Quetlen, pp. 350‑353), in which the regulation of Benedict XIV. was extended to the four bishoprics above mentioned, and mixed marriages which had not been performed in the presence of a Catholic priest were recognized as valid; but on the real point in controversy, i.e., the promise about the education of the children, no decision was reached. As this brief, moreover, ordered that Catholic women should be warned against entering upon mixed marriages, and that Catholic priests should be forbidden to give the ecclesiastical benediction to such marriages, the Prussian government was not satisfied with the result. It attempted further direct negotiations with the bishops, and an agreement was closed in Berlin on June 19, 1834, between Bunsen and Count Spiegel, in accordance with which the brief of Pius VIII. should be transmitted to all priests; at the same time there was contemplated a similar set of directions for the general vicariates, concerning the practical treatment of mixed marriages. This instruction (Mirbt, Quellen, pp. 355‑356) provided that all which had not expressly been prohibited in the brief should be held to be permitted, that the promise to educate the children in the religion of the one or the other of the parents should not be insisted on in practise, and that a mixed marriage should be entered upon in the usual solemn form; that is, by benediction, whereas the mere assistentia passiva of the clergyman was limited to special and exceptional cases. This agreement, to which the other bishops consented, was weak in that it had been reached without any cooperation by the Curia, and it had, moreover, merely the value of a personal arrangement; that is, it would be called in question as soon as one of these bishops died. The case arose the very next year; Count Spiegel passed away Aug. 2, 1835.
It was in fulfilment of an express wish of the Prussian government that Droste‑Vischering became Spiegel's successor. It was expected that his mature age, his piety, and his inclination toward charitable work would hold his hierarchal tendencies in equilibrium, and it was hoped to produce

a~a _Q1 oheriaB
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
a favorable sentiment among the Catholic nobility by the appointment of one of its. members. Before
the election Droste‑Viachering was 3. Arch‑ confidentially asked whether as bishop bishop of he would maintain the agreement of Cologne. June, 1834, and would be willing to apply this in a conciliatory way; and not until he expressly assured the government of this in a letter (Mirbt, Quellen, p. 356) did the cathedral chapter receive the communication that the king desired his election. At first he held to the agreement; but in a few months his views underwent a complete transformation. The news of the government's arrangement with Spiegel had penetrated to Rome in spite of all secrecy and had caused the Curia to make energetic protests, which the Prussian ambassador unsuccessfully sought to refute by means of a denial of the agreement, more bold than skilful. Moreover, at that very time Ultramontanism began to enter the Rhine provinces by way of Belgium and at once employed its skill in arousing dissatisfaction. Droste‑Vischering now all at once began to maintain that he had not known of the agreement of 1834 when he made his promise, and that he had given his consent because the minister assured him that it was in harmony with the brief of Pius VI II. The increasing complaints about the procedure of the archbishop at last compelled the minister, Von Altenstein (q.v.), to interfere. The president of the administration at Diisseldorf, Count Stolberg, appeared in Cologne in company with Bunsen, to treat personally with Droate‑Vischering; but the conferences led to no understanding; the archbishop refused absolutely to acknowledge the arrangement of 1834 and declared that he wished to follow it only in so far as it was in accord with the brief.
There now arose a second contest with the government over its procedure against the supporters of Georg Hermes (q.v.). When Droete‑Vischer ing entered upon his office the works of this theologian had already been condemned by Gregory XVI. (Mirbt, Quellen, pp. 357‑358). Although the brief in question had not been laid before the Prussian government and therefore had not received the royal pldcel, the government nevertheless respected the verdict of the pope, and
endeavored to forestall possible difii;. The culties by having the professorapf the
University Roman Catholic faculties notified of Bonn. that it expected that they would avoid everything which might be contrary to the pope's decision. That did not satisfy the archbishop, however, and, since the theological faculty of Bonn was the chief supporter of this tendency, he took measures against this educational institution. He began by exercising against the publications of its professors a criticism and censorship which was beyond his competence. He, moreover, sent a circular to the priests of the city of Bonn who heard confession, ordering them to use their influence so that no one should react the writings of Hermes and that no student should attend lectures disseminating such ideas. He allowed himself to use expressions which threw
suspicion on the professors of theology at Bonn, and he cast doubt upon their orthodoxy. When they offered to prove their soundness he rejected their proposals and he refused to substantiate his charges, but did not withdraw them. The dormitory (Konvikt), which was partly supported by the city, suffered so much from the archbishop's interference that sixty of the seventy inmates left the house; he himself caused the priests' seminary in Cologne to be closed. Finally he went so far as to lay eighteen propositions before the newly consecrated priests for signature, containing among other things the promise to appeal from the decisions of the archbishop to nobody except to the pope. This was a direct attack on the right of the State to take cognizance of appeals concerning the misuse of ecclesiastical power. The above mentioned mission of Count Stolberg was intended to change the mind of the archbishop on this subject also, and an understanding was actually reached in this controversy; but it was not of practical significance, since the negotiations about the more important matter of mixed marriages were a failure.
The government recognized the necessity of decisive action. On receipt of the news that the archbishop was exciting the population of Cologne, there was held in Berlin a council of ministers under the presidency of the king, and on Nov. 20, 1837, Archbishop Droste‑Vischering was arrested and taken to the fortification of Minden.
The impression of this event was ex‑
g. Droste‑ traordinary. On Dec. 10 Gregory Vischering's XVI. pronounced a fulminant allocu‑
Downfall. tion in the presence of the cardinals,
in which he took the side of the deposed archbishop without waiting for reports from Berlin, and declared that the freedom of the Church was violated, the episcopal dignity derided, the rights of the Church trodden under foot. Bunsen, the Prussian ambassador at the Curia, had to be recalled. The Prussian government tried to justify its procedure in the eyes of the public by means of a memorial, and when an answer to this was published in Rome it endeavored to refute it by a second account of the condition of things. The government was also supported by the cathedral chapter of Cologne in so far forth that the latter declared itself ready to continue to conduct affairs; and it succeeded in keeping in check the nobility and clergy who took delight in being in the opposition; at the same time it showed a personal courtesy to the archbishop by permitting him to retire to his ancestral castle of Darfeld. But it was not successful in quieting the excited Catholic Population. Whether it would have had the power to maintain the position which it had taken is hard to say; but, as a matter of fast, after King Frederick William IV. succeeded Frederick William III. in 1840 the government at once changed its course and began a retreat which must be designated as the utter defeat of the State. Although Droste‑Vischering was not allowed to return to Cologne Bishop Von Geissel from Speyer undertaking to administer the archdiocese as coadjutor with the right of succession, he neverthe‑

8
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Droste‑Visohering Druid
less received from the king in reparation of his honor the declaration that the king had never entertained the thought that he had taken a part in machinations of political and revolutionary character. Moreover, the requirements previously made about mixed marriages were allowed to drop, the placet was waived, and in 1841 there was founded in the Prussian Kultusministeriurrt a special Roman Catholic department which lasted down to 1871. Droete‑Viechering spent the rest of his days in Miinater far from public life. In no respect was he an important man, but he possessed great energy and perseverance. Since he aided his Church in winning a great triumph he was praised by G6rres as an Athanasius, but his blustering manner reminds one rather of Epiphanies. CARL MIRBT.
BIBLIOaaAPHY: For the life consult: J. von Gorrea, Athanaaiua, Regensburg, 1837 (a Catholic eulogy; of. J. G. Schlemmer, GOrrea in eeinem Athanaaiua ale Vcrtheidaper du Erzbiachofa von Droste zu Viacherinp. Nuremberg, 1838); C. A. Hess, Die beiden Erzbiachnfe, Leipsie, 1839; P. C. Marheineke, Der Erzbiachof C. A. von Droste zu Viachering ale Friedenatifter, Berlin, 1843; F. A. Meth, in Deutachlanda Episcopal in Lebenabildern, Wiirzburh, 1873. On the Cologne controversy, of fundamental importance for the relations of the Prussian state to the Catholic Church, consult: G. F. H. R.heiawald, Ailpomeinea Repertorium fur die theologiache Literatur, vole. zaii.‑xxxvii., 1838‑42 (lists of contemporary literature); C. C. J. von Bunsen, Aua aeinen Briefer, Leipaic, 1868, Eng. transl., London, 1889; E. Friedberg, Grenun zuriachen Staat and Kirche, Tilbingen, 1872; idem, Grundlapen der preuaaiachen Kirchenpolitik enter Friedrich 4Vilhelm IV., Leipsie, 1882; H. Schmid, Geachichte der katholiachen Kirche Deutachlanda, Munich, 1874; H. von Sybel, Klericale Politik im 19. Jahrhurutert, Bonn, 1874; C. Mirbt, Die preuaaiache Geaandtacha/t am Hofe den Papatea, Leipsic, 1899; H. Briick, Geachichte der katholiachen Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert, vol. ii., Miinater, 1903.
DROZ, dry, FRAN90IS XAVIER JOSEPH:
French moralist and historian; b. at Besanpon
Oct. 31, 1773; d. at Paris Nov. 5, 1850. In 1792
he went to Paris to study law, but on the declara
tion of war joined the volunteer battalion of Doubs,
and served in the army of the Rhine for the next
three years. Obliged by ill health to abandon his
military, career, he obtained the chair of eloquence
in the military, career, Centrale in his native town. In 1803
he removed to Paris, where for a time he held a
position in the pension office; but after 1814 he
devoted himself exclusively to his favorite pursuit
of literature. In 1824 he became a member of the
French Academy, and in 1838 president of the
Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. At first
an epicurean and a sensualist, be became more re
ligious as he grew older. His last work was Pen
sEes sur le Christianisrtxe (Paris, 1844), to which he
added Aveux d'un philosophe Chretien in 1848.
Other works were: De la philosophie morale (Paris,
1823); (Euvres morales (2 vole., 1826); and His
toire du r~gne de Louis XVI. (3 vole., 1839‑42).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. P. Damiron, Easai our L'hiatoire de la philoaophie en France au dix‑neuvieme aitcle, ii. 79 aqq., Paris, 1834; Lichtenberger, ESR, w. 104‑105.

DRUID: A member of an order in Celtic Gaul and Britain, or of a class in Ireland, which in preRoman and pre‑Christian times had charge of religious rites. The subject is most obscure. The early disappearance of the druids in Gaul and
Britain before the advance of Roman. civilization and in Ireland before Christianity, so obliterated traces of them that all information is ultimately derived from the classical writers and from early
Irish hagiological works. The name Name and has been falsely connected with the Sources of Greek drys, " an oak," to which the Knowledge, worship in the oak groves gave fac‑
titious verisimilitude; it is really derived from a Celtic root which bears the idea of magical dealing. The sources of information are on the classical aide: Csesar, De hello Gallico, vi. 13‑20; Tacitus, Annales, xiv. 30, and Historic, iv. 54; Pliny, Hist. rtat., xxx. 4, 13, xxxi. 1; Cicero, De ditrinatione ; Ammianus Mareellinus, Hist., XV. ix. 8, and scattered notices in Suetonius (Claudius, xxv.), Diogenes Laertius, and Diodorua Siculus; from the Irish side the Tripartite Life of Patrick, Adamnan's life of Columba, and a large number of scattered notices mainly, legendary.
Ca'sar's account, which is much the fullest of all which can claim historical value, states that above the mesa of the people in Gaul (who were slaves) were two classes, the nobles and the druids. The latter officiated at public and private sacrifices, expounded religious duties and observances, trained the youth, decided public questions concerning succession, inheritance, crimes, boundaries, and the like. To their decisions submission was required under penalty of interdiction from participation in sacred rites, the severest punishment
conceivable to the people. A yearly Cgesar's meeting of chief druids was held, at
Account. which an arehdruid was selected by
vote. The members of the order were exempt from taxation and from military duty. Because of this they had many students, some of whom remained with them for twenty years, during which they learned a " great number of verses," which were transmitted orally, since sacred things were not committed to writing. They taught the transmigration of souls, the end of the world by fire and water, discussed natural science, astronomy, and the nature of the gods. They officiated at human and other sacrifices and at all religious rites. The human sacrifices were offered sometimes in holocausts, the victims being prisoners of war, criminals, or even voluntary sufferers, and they were burned after being enclosed in huge wicker images. Caesar equates the chief deity with Mercury as the god of culture, and other deities with Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva. He guesses at a British origin for the institution.
Pliny, assigning a Gallic origin, tells of the ceremony of the cutting of the mistletoe (associated by the druids with immortality) and narrates a curious story of the " serpents' egg," an accretion
formed by a mass of writhing serOther Clas‑ pents and cast out of their midst, and
sisal and then caught by a druid before it
	Irish	touched the ground and used for
Accounts. magical purposes. Tacitus asserts
that they deduced auguries from human entrails, and that the groves, particularly of the Isle of Anglesey, were the sites of bloody sacrifices. Ammianus Marcellinus makes three classes

DBraid
of literati among the Gauls, bards, ettbages (students of nature), and druids‑an order like the Pythagoreans. Suetonius asserts that Claudius extinguished the religion in Gaul, and Pliny that Tiberius suppressed the order. Diogenes Laertius (preface to the Philosophoi bioi) makes the druids the originators of philosophy among the Celts, and ascribes to them as the sum of their teaching the triple maxim, " Honor the gods, do no evil, be brave." The Irish hagiology ascribes to the druids great influence, makes their decision precede even that of kings, and, in its later forma, makes them appear as powerful magicians whom Patrick could vanquish only with difficulty, as soothsayers, diviners, protectors of sacred springs, as imposers of sacred duties and taboos, and as cherishing the oak, yew, blackthorn, and mountain ash, with the ivy as a magical herb. The druids appear to have had a tonsure in Ireland which Christians adopted, the form of which was different from the Roman by which it was superseded. The Irish druids were not organized, but were a learned class.
	The impression left by these early accounts is
that the Gallic and British druids were an order
wielding political power, since they influenced the
		choice of magistrates; social power,
	Present	since they decided civil and criminal
Knowledge. causes; and religious power, since they
		controlled sacred rites. They were
rich, masterful, and despotic. The reports of hu
man sacrifices are circumstantial and supported
by the detail of the means of obtaining auguries.
A connection with Greek learning is suggested by
Caesar's mention of the use of Greek characters
for record of matters not religious, though no ar
cheological evidence in support of this is known.
That a part of their knowledge was esoteric is sup
ported by the fact that they were not a numerous
class as compared with the number of their pupils.
The difference between the druidism of Britain
and that of Ireland argues no close, or at least no
continuous connection between the two. The
popular association of the druids with dolmens,
menhira, and cromlechs has at its basis only that
the druids used these places, with no probability
that they erected the monuments.
GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. R. Green, History o/ the English People, vol. i., London, 1892; D. w. Nash. TaLieain, or the Bards and Druids o/ Britain, chap. iii., London, 1858; J. Rhye, Celtic Heathendom, ib. 1888; idem, Celtic Britain, pp. 70‑73, ib. 1904; T. Olden, Church of Ireland, chap. i., ib. 1892; J. von PHug‑Harttung, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1893, pp. 55‑75; Adamnan, Vita S. Columbce, pp. xviii.‑xxiii. et/passim, Oxford, 1894; J. V. Montbarlet, Lee Pierrea et l'hiatoire. Le Druidieme, Paris, 1896; A. Bertrand, La Religion des liauloia; lee Druidea et Is Druidisme, pp. 288 eqq., ib. 1897; G. Dottin, La Bretagne et lea pays ceLtiquea, iv. 288‑295, ib. 1908; P. D. Chantepie de la 3aussaye. Religions‑Geachichte, ii. 572‑574, Tiibingen, 1905; C. Reuel, Lea Relipiona de la Gauls avant Is Chriattanfiame, Paris, 1907.

DRUMMOND, HENRY: 1. Apostle of the Catholic Apostolic Church b. at the Grange, Hampshire (s.w. of London), 1786; d. at Albury (25 m. e.w. of London), Surrey, Feb. 20, 1860. He was educated at Harrow, and studied two years in Christ Church, Oxford, but did not take a degree. From
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
1810 to 1813 he was in Parliament, but failing health compelled him to retire. In 1817 he met Robert Haldane (q.v.) in Geneva and was led by him to support the evangelical Genevan clergy against the Socinian majority, and in 1819 to found the Continental Society, of which he was the mainstay for many years. In 1826 he gathered in his house at Albury a number of clergymen and laymen for a conference upon the prophetic Scriptures. These conferences were continued annually for five years. Out of them came the organization of the Catholic Apostolic Church (q.v.), to the apostolate of which Drummond was called in 1832. The apostles' chapel and chapter‑house at Albury were erected by him. From 1847 till his death he was member of Parliament from bleat Surrey; he was, generally speaking, a Tory of the old school, but was remarkable for the independence of his political position while at the same time he always supported the budget, as a matter of principle, whatever party might be in power. His son‑in‑law Lord Lovaine after his death brought out a collection of his Speeches in Parliament and Some Miscellaneous Pamphlets (2 vole., London, 1860); his lectures inthe churches have also been published, and Abstract Principles of Revealed Religion (London, 1845).
SAMUEL .T. ANDREWS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A memoir is contained in Lord Lovaine's
ed. of his Speeches, ut sup.; Margaret Oliphant, Life o/
Edward Irvine, London, 1885; DNB, avi. 28‑29.
2. Free Church of Scotland; b. at Stirling Aug., 17, 1851; d. at Tunbridge Wells, Kent, Mar. 11, 1897. He studied at Edinburgh University, but left before receiving a degree. In 1870 he began the divinity course of the Free Church at New College, Edinburgh, and also attended the University of Tubingen for a semester in 1873. In 1874‑75 he took an active part in the revival work of Moody and Sankey, but in 1875 returned to New College, and two years later was appointed lecturer in natural science at the Free Church College, Glasgow. He was appointed full professor of theology in 1884, and seven months later was ordained to the ministry of the Free Church. He made a visit to the United States in 1879, and in 1882 again assisted Moody in Great Britain. In 1883 he went to Africa for a scientific exploration of Lakes Nyasa and Tanganyika for the African Lakes Corporation, returning to Scotland in 1884. He visited the American colleges in 1887, and the Australian in 1890, in the interest of student missions, and in 1893 delivered the Lowell lectures in Boston. Being himself a highly educated man and a winning personality and fired by missionary zeal, he had a great influence upon educated people, and especially upon students. He was a true Students' Apostle, and won many of them to a religious life. His writings had an enormous sale. Of them may be mentioned: Natural Law in the Spiritual World (London, 1883); Tropical Africa (1888); The Greatest Thing in the World and other Addresses (1894); The Ascent of Man (Lowell Lectures; 1894); The Ideal Life and other unpublished Addresses (1897); and The New Evangelism and other Papers (1899).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. A. Smith, Life Of Henry DrUm7110f7d, London, 1899; l3. M. Cecil, Pseudo‑Philosophy at the End

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Druid
Drmes
o/ the Ninekenfh Century, vol. i., ib. 1897; R. A. Watson, Goapda of Y6etcrdaV, ib. 1898; T. Hunter Boyd. Henry Drummorul; Some Recollections, ib. 1907.
DRUMMOND, JAMES: Unitarian; b. at Dublin May 14, 1835. He studied at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1855), and Manchester New College, London (1856‑59), and after being assistant minister with William Gaskell at Cross Street Chapel, Manchester, 1859‑69, was appointed professor of New Testament divinity in Manchester New College, which was removed to Oxford in 1889 and called Manchester College in 1893. From 1885 to 1906 he was also principal of the college, but retired from both positions in 1906. He describes himself as a " liberal Christian." He has written Spiritual Religion (sermons; London, 1870); The Jewish Messiah (1877); Introduction to the Study of Theology (1884); Philo Jttdesua, or the Jewish‑Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion (2 vole., 1888); The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatiara Explained and Illustrated (1893); Via, Veritas, Vita. (Hibbert Lectures for 1894; 1894); The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and Philippians (1899); Life and Letters of James Martineau (in collaboration with C. B. Upton; 1902); and The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1904).

DRURY, AUGUSTUS WALDO: United Brethren; b. at Pendleton, Ind., Mar. 2, 1851. He studied at Western College (now Leander Clark College), Toledo, Ia. (B.A., 1872), Union Biblical Seminary, Dayton, O., from which he was graduated in 1877, and the University of Berlin (1886). After being professor of classics in Western College 18721873 and holding various pastorates in his denomination 1873‑80, he was professor of church history in Union Biblical Seminary 1880‑92. Since 1892 he has been professor of systematic theology in the same institution. He has been secretary of the United Brethren Historical Society since 1885, and was a member of the Tri‑church Council (Congregational, United Brethren, and Methodist Protestant) in 1906‑07. In 1891‑92 he was editor of The United Brethren Quarterly Review, and has written The Life of Philip William Otterbein (Dayton, 1884); The Life of Bishop J. J. Glossbrenner (1889); Disciplines of the United Brethren in Christ (1895); Minutes of Annual and General Conferences (1897); and Baptism (1902).
DRURY, JOHN BENJAMIN: Reformed (Dutch); b. at Rhinebeck, N. Y., Aug. 15, 1838; d. at New Brunswick, N. J., Mar. 21,1909. He studied at Rutgers College (B.A., 1858), and the New Brunswick Theological Seminary (1861), supplied the Reformed Church at Davenport, Ia., 1861‑82, was pastor of the First Reformed Church at Ghent, N. Y., 1864‑87. After 1887 he was editor of the Christian Intelligent car. He was president of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America in 1886. In 1883 he was Vedder lecturer in Rutgers College and New Brunswick Theological Seminary. In theology he was a liberal Calvinist. He wrote Hi,.Atorical Sketch of the First Reformed Church of Ghent (Chatham, N. Y., 1876); Historical Sketch of the Reformed (Dutch) Church of Rhinebeck, N. Y.
(1881); and Truths and Untruths of Evolution (Vedder Lectures; New York, 1884).

DRURY, MARION RICHARDSON: United Brethren; b. at Pendleton, Ind., Dec. 27, 1849. He studied at Western College (now Leander Clark College), Toledo, Ia. (B.A.,1872), and was graduated from Union Biblical Seminary, Dayton, O., in 1875. He held pastorates at Toledo, Ia. (1875‑87), and Cedar Rapids, Ia. (1878‑81), and from 1881 to 1897 was associate editor of the Religious Telescope (Dayton, O.). Since 1898 he has been pastor of the First United Brethren Church, Toledo, Ia. In theology he is an orthodox member of his denomination. He has written Pastor's Pocket Record (Dayton, O., 1883); The Otterbein Birthday Book (1887); Handbook for Workers (1888); ‑Pastor's Companion (1894); At Hand (1895); Our Catechism (1897); and Life and Career of Bishop James W. Hatt, D.D. (1902).

DRUSES.
Doctrine of God (¢ 4).
Mohammedan Forerunners of The "Administrators" (¢ 6).
the Drum$ (§ 2). 	Nature of the Soul (16).
Obscurity of the Druee Relig‑ Knowledge ( ¢ 7).
ion (§ 3). 	Ethics end Customs (§ 8)
Druees are the adherents of a composite sect which still exists in Syria, especially in the Lebanon. From their use of the Arabic language the Druaea, who term themselves "Confessors of the Unity (of God)," seem to be a mixture of Syrians and Arabs. Their type, on .the other hand, would indicate that they are descendants of the pre‑Mohammedan Aramaic population. The steady resistance of this liberty‑loving community to the State has aided in the preservation of their religion through the centuries, while they feel, on the other hand, that they form a distinct nation simply because of their religious isolation. ‑By their tenacity, cunning, and valor they have succeeded in resisting all attempts at subjugation, and still form a State within a State. They now number about 100,000, although in recent years political circumstances have led many families to emigrate from Lebanon to the Hauran, where they have settled among the peasants and Bedouins of that region. It is worth noting that there are two Druse villages on Mt. Carmel, and they have a sanctuary there at which they perform a yearly sacrifice.
The origin of the religion is closely connected with the Egyptian Fatimite calif al‑Hakim bi'amri‑Ilah (996‑1021). His chief object was the propagation of the tenets of the sect of the Iamailiyyah, the main source of the doctrines of the Druees, in Egypt, where the people were adherents of orthodox Sunnite Mohammedanism. In
	:. Origin.	1017 a Turk named Darazi, a member
		of the Iamailiyyah, who had come
from the East and had been made a confidant of
al‑Hakim, published a work asserting that the soul
of Adam had passed to Ali, the cousin and son‑in
law of Mohammed. whence it had descended to the
Fatimitea, and thus had come to al‑Hakim. The
heretic barely escaped with his life from the fury
of the people, but the calif aided him to flee to Syria,
where at Wadi al‑Taim, in the southern Lebanon,
Origin (§ 1).

Druses	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	12
ha founded the sect which received its namo from him, duruz being the plural of darazi. Three years later the Persian sectary Hamzah again sought to propagate kindred doctrines in Egypt, but was forced to take refuge in flight with Darazi, whose theological authority he became. A few years later the calif al‑Hakim mysteriously disappeared, and the Druses believe that he is concealed somewhere as the incarnation of the divinity and will appear at the end of time as theMahdi.
In origin the Druses were both political and religious, since they were closely connected with the Shiites, the strict legitimists who upheld the claims of Ali and the first three califs, but rejected the Ommiads and the Abbaseids. These Shiites, especially in Persia, regarded Ali and his descendants, the Imams, as incarnations of the Deity, and held that the soul of an Imam passed immediately at his death into the body of his successor. Since it was politically dangerous to appear s. Moham‑ as an Imam, the theory of a hidden
	medan	Imam was developed, of whom the
Forerunners Mahdi is to be the last. The mis‑
of the sionary activity of the various Shiite Druses. sects included northern Africa, and was accepted by the Fatimite califa. Of these sects the Ismailiyyah and the Karmathians were the most important for the development of the Druees. The Ismailiyyah rose about 765. After the death of the Imam Jaafar a schism was caused by the fact that some accepted his son Musa as the seventh Imam, while others gave this honor to his other son, Ismail. The same period saw a development of the theory that incarnations of the divinity had been sent to earth to bring man nearer to God and to reveal his will. These prophets, who were called "speakers" (nafik), were Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and Mohammed al‑Mahdi, the son of Ismail. These prophets, each of whom marked an advance on the teachings of his predecessors, were aided by a " silent one," who spoke nothing on his own authority, but proclaimed and promulgated the tenets of the " speakers." These "silent ones" are the Imams, so that Seth was the Imam to the prophet Adam, Shem to Noah, Ishmael to Abraham, Aaron to Moses, Peter to Jesus, Ali to Mohammed, and Abdallah ibn Maimun to Mohammed al‑Mahdi, and between each prophet came swen Imams. This entire system of prophets and Imams was accepted, though with modifications, by the Druses. The Abdallah ibn Maimun just mentioned was an adherent of a dualistic sect and used his propaganda of the doctrines of the Ismailiyyah solely to advance his teachings which were a confused mixture of Zoroastrian, Manichean, and Greek concepts. His missionaries were charged to lead suitable adepts of the new faith through various stages (at first seven, and later nine) to his own nihilistic and materialistic point of view, thus alienating them not only from Shiite Mohammedanism, but from all positive religion. Abdallah's propaganda naturally brought upon him the hostility of the authorities, and he was forced to flee to the town of Salamiyyah in Syria. Many adherents were won in Persia and the lands lying along the Euphrates, while on the lower Euphrates
the Karmathians split off from the Ismailiyyah and formed a political party with communistic tenets. The Iamailiyyah also made their way back to Africa before the califate of al‑Hakim bi'amri‑llah, as noted above, and communities of them still exist in Syria.
The doctrines of the Druses mark an advance over the tenets of the Iamailiyyah and the Karmathians, their immediate predecessors, and they regard the teachings of the Ismailiyyah, like Shiitiam and Islam in general, as superseded by their own and even hostile to them. On the other hand, the Mohammedans consider the Druses infidels, and Islamic writings seldom mention them. The difficulty of a clear presentment of the confused doctrines of the Druses is increased by the fact that their religion is esoteric, its adherents being forbidden
3. Obscur‑ to reveal its mysteries to non‑believers ity of the and being required to hide their reDruse ligious books from all. Druses who
	Religion.	have been initiated into the faith sel
		dom become converts to other religions,
and from the uneducated nothing can be learned.
Many dogmas and customs, moreover, which for
merly had a distinct religious meaning, now survive
as unintelligible remnants, especially as the Druses
seldom pursue deep religious studies, and the very
fact that the religion is secret (as it must be on
account of the Mohammedan attitude toward it)
renders it peculiarly liable to the danger of degen
erating into meaningless phrases and ceremonies.
The many‑sided character of their religion makes
it possible for Druses to emphasize the Islamic ele
ments of their faith in conversing with Moham
medans and to follow a similar course with Chris
tians or even with freemasons.
According to the teaching of the Dr~aea, God is one, and the confession of his unity is the first duty of religion. While this coincides with the Koran, their doctrine that God is devoid of all attributes, having neither origin, limitations, definitions, names, or anthropomorphism of any sort, makes them closely akin to the rationalistic Mutazilah. This philosophical concept of God might ¢. Doctrine seem to lead to pantheism, but its
	of God.	principal result was the theory that
		the Deity, in order to approach more
closely to man, has revealed himself in bodily form,
and has accordingly hidden himself in men; al
though man does not thereby become the Divinity.
God ever remains the same, even in these forms
which serve him as a veil, and it is, therefore, the
duty of each one to attain through these manifes
tations a knowledge of God and a proof of his exist
ence. The last of the ten (or nine) incarnations of
the Divinity was the calif al‑Hakim.
The real administrators of the world and the actual preachers or priests for mankind, however, are the " bonds" (hudud), or "revelations" (ayyat), which are also called by many other names. The chief terms are derived from the fact that before the origin of the Druses the Mohammedan sect of the Bataniyyah interpreted every expression of the Koran allegorically and applied it to persons. In the system of the Druses such administrators were primarily abstract ideas which were later regarded as incarnate. The persons in whom they dwelt,

is	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Druses
who have lived at various times under various names, are regarded, however, merely as bearers of the one unchanged idea. The first of these administrators was Will, a figure of perfect purity
g. The created by God from the light which
" Adminis‑ streams from him, and from it all else
	trators."	comes. It is also universal Wisdom,
		from which all truths are an emanation.
Although it is a " speaker," it has appeared at vari
ous times as an Imam, its last incarnation being
Hamzah, who had attended Adam as Shatniel, Noah
as Pythagoras, Abraham as David, and who was
Eleazar, the true Messiah, in the days of Jesus.
When, however, Wisdom saw that he had no equal,
he became proud, and thus was born Darkness, the
author of disobedience in every form. Wisdom
then implored forgiveness, and at his prayer God
created as the second administrator the universal
Soul, who received the knowledge of truth from
Wisdom, to whom she stands in the relation of a
wife, the other administrators deriving their exist
ence from her. The soul has likewise been incar
nate at certain times, as in Enoch and Hermes,
white Hamzah regarded his contemporary Abu
Ibrahim Ismail ibn Muhammad as an incorpora
tion of this principle. The union of Wisdom and
Soul produced the Word (in the Neoplatonic sense),
while Soul's need of assistance against the adversary
resulted in the fourth administrator, the " Pre
ceding," or " Left Wing." On this principle the
writings of the Druses are vague and scanty, al
though it is apparently derived from the allegorism
of the Bataniyyah. The fifth and last adminis
trator, called the " Following," or the " Right
Wing," is important as being identified with the
last noteworthy author of the sect, Abu'1‑Hassan
Ali, surnamed al‑Muktanah or Baha al‑Din, who
established the doctrines of the Druses on a dog
matic basis about 1038.
A subordinate hierarchy must be distinguished from the one just described. On the "Following" are dependent the spiritual leaders of the Druaea, who are called, in decreasing order, Da'i (" missionary "), Ma'dhun (" he to whom it is permitted "), and Mukassir (" breaker," i.e., of the doctrines of other beliefs). These subordinate hierarChs are invariably regarded as men. The five celestial administrators are opposed, furthermore, by five principles of error, who have been incarnate in Mohammed, Ali, and others.
Both the universe and man were created in their present form, so that they are as immutable as God himself. Man is composed of two essentials, wisdom and soul, and of one accident, body. The souls have been created from eternity, but are later than universal Wisdom. The number of souls, like that of men, remains invariable; when a man dies his soul enters another body, generally without remembrance of the past, the souls of
6. Nature unbelievers again becoming infidels of the and the souls of the faithful remainSoul. ing believers. They do not, however, enter the bodies of animals, but are reincarnated in better or worse human forms according to their deeds in their former life. The number of Druses, therefore, neither increases nor
diminishes, but they also believe that in the far thest parts of China coreligionieta live, where the soul of a dead Druse may find its reincarnation. Souls pass through a certain process of purification until the end of time, when al‑Hakim and Hamzah will again appear and when the souls will commingle in the Imam.
True knowledge consists in insight into the nature and dogmas of unitarianism, the cardinal feature of the religion of the Druses. It is divided into five parts, two concerned with nature, especially with the healing of men and animals, and two with religion. The first of the latter is understanding of external religion, or revelation, and was the function of the " speakers," Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. The second religious y. gnowl‑ truth is that each of these " speakers "
	edge.	had an seas (" foundation," a synonym
		for the " silent ones"), who repre
sented the interpretation of revelation. These
" speakers " all typified true religion or the uni
tarianiam of the Drusea, which is also taught in the
Pentateuch, in the Psalms, in the Gospel, and in the
Koran, although these books are a mixture of truth
and falsehood and have been superseded by the
teaching of the Drusea. In their knowledge of
religion the Druses are divided into " initiates "
('ukkdl) and " ignorant " (juhhal), the former
having a much higher rank, and the latter being
denoted by distinctive clothing. There are also
apparently many intermediate grades. The places
of worship of the Druses are situated in lonely spots
outside the villages. The initiates gather there
frequently, but the nature of worship in these
khalwas is unknown. They are often said to rev
erence a calf, which, if true, may representta princi
ple of evil.
In conformity with their doctrine of the immutability of bodies and spirits, the Druses make no religious propaganda whatever. When al‑Hakim returns, however, he will either destroy or subjugate the miabelievera, and will found an earthly kingdom in which his followers will rule in wealth. The time of the coming of this Messianic kingdom is unknown, although signs will herald its approach, one portent being a period when the Druses are in a most pitiable plight and the Christians have gained power over the Mohammedans.
The ethics of the Druses are closely connected with the practise of their faith, but the Mohammedan prescriptions of prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and the like, already allegorized away by the Bataniyyah, are altogether discarded. According to De Sacy, the seven religious duties of the Druses are as follows: to speak the truth; to watch over their mutual safety; to follow the religion
8. Ethicswhich they have professed, and to
and	renounce the faith and worship of
	Customs.	vanity and falsehood; to separate
		themselves from evil spirits and men
of false creed; to confess the unity of God, as it has
existed throughout the centuries; to be content with
the acts of God, whatever they may be; and to sub
mit entirely to the divine guidance in weal and wo.
They are also enjoined to abstain from unlawful
gain, to be dignified, and to refrain from cursing.

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
The use of wine and tobacco is forbidden, at least to the initiates, while grave misdemeanors are punished severely, and even with exclusion from the community. Women are more highly esteemed among them than by the modern Mohammedans, and are usually instructed in reading and religion, although, in conformity with ancient Oriental usage, they are veiled in the presence of strangers.
It is impossible, with the sources thus far known, to give a complete presentment of the religion of the Drueea, nor do they themselves possess a perfect system of all their dogmas, for in the course of centuries many new doctrines have been developed, and others have been forgotten. Although their faith is not without its dark aspects, the Drusea have sought with all their might to preserve their views and customs, and to defend against external influences their consciousness of nationality, which rests upon a foundation of religion.
(A. SocINt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 8. de Saey, ExPoeE do la religion do# Dnuzea. 2 vole.. Paris, 1838; C. Niebuhr, Reiaabeachreibunp, ii. 428 eqq., Copenhagen, 1778; C. H. Churchill, Ten Years' Residence in Lebanon, . . Full Account of the Druse Religion, 4 vole. (vol. iv, is Druses and Maronitu under Turkish Rule), London, 18b3‑‑62; G. W. Chaeaesud, Visits to the Druaes of Lebanon, ib. 1854; Earl of Carnarvon, Recollections of the Drum of Lebanon, ib. 1880: B. H. Cowper,' Sects in Syria, ib. 1880; H. Petermann, Reieen im Orient, i. 375 eqq., Leipeie, 1880; H. Guys. ThEoponie des Drusee, Paris, 1883; idem, La Nation Drusa, &an hietoire, as religion, sea mieura, Marseilles. 1884; R. Doer, Het Islamism Haarlem, 1880; L. Oliphant, Land o/ Gilead, London, 1880; idem, Haifa, or Life in Modern Palestine, ib. 1887; A. MOller, Der Islam im Morpsn. and Abendland, i. 829 eqq., Berlin, 1885; T. Waldemeier, Autobiopraphy: . . Sixteen Yaws in Syria. London, 1888; W. Ewing, Arab and Drusa at Rome, ib. 1907.
DRUSILLA. See HEROD AND ms FAMILY.
DRUSIUS, JOHANNES (Jan van den Dries‑
sche): Orientalist and exegete; b. at Audenarde (Oudenaarde; 14 m. s.s.w. of Ghent), in East Flanders, Tune 28, 1550; d. in Franeker Feb. 12, 1616. He studied Latin and Greek under Peter Dickel at Ghent, and with Cornelius Valerius and Johannes Stadius at Louvain. When his father, Clement van den Drieeache, was proscribed in 1567 as a zealous Protestant and had to flee, the son followed him to London where, among others, his teacher was Antoine Rudolphe Is Chevalier. In 1572 Drusius ‑became professor of Oriental languages at Oxford. After the Peace of Ghent (1576) had enabled him to return home, he filled the like office at Leydeh. In 1585 he accepted a call to Franeker, where he lived as professor of the Hebrew language until his death. His scholarship was recognized wherever unprejudiced judgment was not overcast by theological bias. When a committee was organized in 1596 for the preparation of a new Dutch version of the Bible, Drusius was made a member upon the recommendation of Arminiue and Uytenbogaert; but subsequently the committee was obliged to dissolve. In 1600 Drusius was commissioned by the States General to annotate difficult passages of the Old Testament, to which task he devoted himself with great industry, but had often to hear reproaches of tardy progress. He was also attacked by theologians of other opinions for being a friend of Arminiu.9 and Uytenbogaert.
Even the morality of his family was assailed. Taken all in all, the accusations brought against him by his pupil Sixtinus Amama and others have been shown to be unjust. But in his age of stormy conflicts he passed for an undecided man because, having applied himself with all his might to the advancement of Biblical science, in connection with his investigations he could not admit dogmatic definitions as authoritative. He repeatedly appeals to the " judgment of the Church catholic " against particular churches and ecclesiastical factions, by which he will not suffer himself to be restricted in his scholarly activity. Only a small portion of his notes on the Old Testament appeared in his lifetime; the rest were published by Amama and others, 1617‑36. He also wrote commenfa on the New Testament, containing especially elucidationa from the Talmud and rabbinical sources (Franeker, 1612; 2d ed., 1616). His collective works were issued by Amama (10 vole., Arnheim and Amsterdam, 1622‑36). Lists of Druaius'a numerous writings are to be found in Meureius, Vriemoet, and Nicisron. In the Critico sacra his annotations stand after those of Munster, Fagius, Vatablus, Caetalio, and Clariue; they rank among the moat important in this great compilation.
CARL BERTHEAU.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Coriander, Vito operumque Johannir Drueii . . . dslineatio at tituli, Franeker, 1818; J. Meureiua, Athena' Batavo,•, pp. 252 eqq.. Leyden, 1825; R.. Simon, Hiatoirs critique du V. T., p. 499, Paris, 1880; Nicdron, Mlmoirea, xxii. b7‑78; G. W. Meyer, Guchia5te der SchriJterkldrunD, iii. 413‑414, GSttingen, 1804; F. A. Tholuek, Daa akademiachs Leben du 17. Jahrhundertr, ii. 208, 378. Halls, 1854; L. Diestel, Geachichte du A. T. in der chrisUicheu Kirche, passim, especially pp. 422 sqq., Jens, 1889; ADB, v. 439‑440.

DRUTHMAR, CHRISTIAN: The name assigned to the author of an extensive commentary on Matthew, and two briefer ones on Luke and John. It has recently been shown, however, that the name Druthmar does not occur in the manuscripts, but is based on a statement of Trithemiua (De scnptoribua eccleaiasticis, 280), and therefore must be given up. According to the prologue to the commentary on Matthew, Christian was a monk in the cloister of Stabulaus (the modern Stavelot, 24 m. s.e. of Liege), where he wrote his work on the basis of the lectures which he delivered in the school of the monastery. Sigibert of Gembloux (De acriptoribua ecclesiasticis, 72) states that Christian came from Aquitaine to Gaul, although certain passages in his own writings make plausible the conjecture that his native district was Burgundy. His date can only be conjectured, but his statement that the Bulgarians were in process of conversion to Christianity during his lifetime points approximately to 865. A deacon named Christian is known to have lived at Stavelot in 880, and it is not impossible that he was the exegete. The commentary on Matthew ranks above the average contribution of the ninth century. Though the author drew much from other sources, he did not content himself with mere excerpting, but proceeded with s considerable degree of independence. He was tolerably accurate in his judgment on literal and allegorical exegesis, preferring the former in cases of advantage, yet not disdaining

16	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Drusills
Du Bartan
the latter. The other two commentaries are infe
rior in value, and may have been merely notes for
his lectures. 	(A. HAUCR.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The tditio lorincepe of the Commentary was published Strasburg, 1514; the Commentary on Matthew was published separately by M. Molther at Hagenau, 1530, and in MPL, ovi. Consult E. Diimmler, Utber Christian von Stavelot, in Sitzunpaberichte der Berliner Akadsmie, 1891, p. 935.
DRYANDER, ERNST: German Protestant; b. at Halls Apr. 18, 1843. He studied in Halls and Tiibingen (1860‑64), and, after being assistant pastor at the Berlin Cathedral 1870‑72, was pastor at Torgau 1872‑74 and Bonn 187482, and superintendent and pastor of Trinity Church, Berlin, 1882‑98. From 1890 to 1900 he was superintendent‑general of the Kurmark, and has been chief court preacher since 1898. He was chosen a member of the Evangelical Church Council in 1900, and has been a member of the Prussian Upper House since 1901, and since 1905 canon of Brandenburg. He has written Evangelische Predigten (2 vole., Bonn, 1884‑86); Das Evangelium Marci in Predigten (2 vole., Bremen, 1890‑92); Der erste Brief Johdnnis in Predi~ (1898; Eng. transl. by W. O. E. Oeaterley, London, 1899); and Das Leben des Aloostels Paulus in Predigten (Halls, 1904).
DRYSDALE, ALEXANDER HUTTON: United Free Presbyterian; b. at Bridge of Allan (32 m. n.w. of Edinburgh), Stirlingshire, Scotland, June 3, 1837. He studied at Edinburgh University (M.A., 1858) and the United Presbyterian Theological Hall, Edinburgh, and has been minister of Maisondieu Church, Brechin, ForfaIBhire (1861‑67), Trinity Church, Rochdale, Lancashire (1867‑83), and 3t. George's Church, Morpeth, Northumberlandshire (since 1883). He has been a member of the examining board of the Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England (now Westminster College, Cambridge) since 1885, convener of his denomination since 1898, and was a member of the committee on law and historical documents in preparing the revised edition of the Book of Order in 1905. In theology he is emphatically evangelical, but has no fears of the results of criticism. He has written Exposition of the Epistle to Philemon (London, 1879; new ed., 1906); History of the Presbyterians in England (1889); Early Bible Songs (1890); and A Moderator's Year (sermons and addresses; 1904).
DUALISM: In general, any twofold classification that admits of no intermediate degrees; in philosophy, the theory that the facts of the world are to be explained by two independent and eternally coexistent principles, viz., mind and matter (see DESCARTES, RENE); in theology, the view that there are two mutually hostile forces in the world, one the creator of all things good, both in nature and morals, the other the source of all evil and sin.
It has been claimed that all heathen, or at least all polytheistic, religions are of a dualistic character; but this is true only to a limited extent. To be sure, in polytheistic religions there is always the belief in demons. These are the enemies of man, and appear as the personification of disease, death, and
all natural phenomena harmful to man (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, § 4). However, though they have a certain influence in the world of nature, they are never supposed to influence the moral order of the world, and so are not responsible for moral evil. Hence, such religions can not be called dualistic in the proper sense of the word. Throughout heathendom there is only one religion that can be said to be dualistic, and that is Zoroastrianism (q.v.). According to the teachings of Zoroaster, there are two personal creative forces in the world: (1) Ahura Mazda, the good spirit, the creator of gods and men and all that is beneficent in nature, and the guardian of the moral order of the world; (2) Angry Mainyu, the evil spirit, the creator of demons and all that is injurious in nature, and the source of all evil and sin. He is the enemy of Ahura Mazda and tries to overthrow the moral order by tempting men to sin, and thus making them his allies. This conflict between the two spirits continues till the end of the world; and this dualism extends through the whole of nature. Everything that exists belongs either to the creation of Ahura Mazda or to that of Angry Mainyu; and only man, by reason of a free will, can choose for himself one master rather than the other, though morally he belongs on the side of Ahura Mazda, his creator. It must be added that this dualism is not perfect in the sense that the two powers are equally matched. With his superior wisdom Ahura Mazda has the advantage from the beginning, and is to triumph over his enemy in the end. Then Angry Mainyu, with all that he created, shall be destroyed, and his followers, after they have been purified by a great world‑fire, shall return to their creator. Thus the spirit of goodness reigns supreme in the end, and the dualism is overcome. See GNOSTICISM, § 6.
(B. LINDNER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature of specific forma of dualism will be found under CELIBACY, MANICHEANa, NEW MANICHEANe, ZOROABTRIANIBM. For further treatment consult the works on the hist. of philosophy 'by F. Ueberweg, New York, 1894, J. E. Erdmann, London, 1893, and W. R'indelband, ib. 1893. Also KL, iii. 2092‑96.
DU BARTAS, dii bar"td', GUILLAUME DE SALLUSTE, SEIGREUR: French Protestant; b. at, Montfort, near Auch (42 m. w. of Toulouse), 1544; d. in Paris July, 1590. He served in the Huguenot army under Henry of Navarre and undertook diplomatic missions to Denmark, Scotland, and England. His death was caused by a wound received at the battle of Ivry. As a poet he enjoyed great popularity in the sixteenth century, being regarded by the Protestants as the superior of the famous Ronsard. His poetry has been praised by no less a critic than Goethe. His masterpiece, La Semaine ou la creation du monde, was published in 1578. In six years it passed through thirty editions and was translated into almost every European language (Eng. transl. by J. Sylvester, in Du Bartcas, his Divine Tl'eekes and Workes, London, 1641). In 1584 he published La Seconds semaine, an epic embodying a large part of the history of the Old Testament. The first collected edition of his works appeared in 1611 (2 vole.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. A. Saints‑Beuve, Tableau . . . de In pogais /rangaiaa au %VIe siPcls, 2 mole., Paris, 1838: P.

Dnbbink
Dnchesne
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Bayous. htudea our lea €crivaina de la Reformation, ib.
1841; E. and k Haag, La Franc Protestants, ed. H. L.
Bordier, Paris, 1877‑86; Lichtenberger, ESR, iv. 112‑
114, Paris, 1878; H. M. Baird, Huguenots and Henry of
Navarre, i. 175, New York, 1886.

DUBBIN)ii, GERRIT HElYDRI>L : Reformed (Dutch); b. at Overisel, Mich., Dec. 3, 1866. He was graduated at Hope College, Holland, Mich., in 1892 and Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Mich., in 1895. He was pastor of the Third Reformed Church, Holland, Mich.,1895‑1904, and since 1904 has been professor of didactic and polemic theology in Western Theological Seminary. In theology he is in full sympathy with the symbols of the Reformed Church in America. His literary activity has thus far been confined to contributions to religious and theological papers and journals.

DUBBS, JOSEPH HENRY: Reformed (German); b. at North Whitehall, Pa., Oct. 5,1838. He was graduated at Franklin and Marshall College in 1856, and Mercersburg Theological Seminary in 1859. He was pastor of Zion Reformed Church, Allentown, Pa. (1859‑63), Trinity Reformed Church, Pottstown, Pa. (1863‑71), and Christ Reformed Church, Philadelphia (1871‑75), and from 1875 to 1906 was professor of history and archeology in Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa. He was acting president of his college in 1904, for fifteen years was secretary of its faculty, and since 1889 has been secretary of its board of trustees. Ile was corresponding delegate to the Lutheran General Synod in 1873 and to the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1891, as well as president of the Eastern Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States in 1893. In theology he adheres to the orthodox Christological position of his denomination. He was editor of the Guardian in 1882‑86 and of the Reformed Church Messenger in 1894‑95, and has written Historic Manual of the Reformed Church (Lancaster, 1885); Home Ballads and Metrical Versions (Philadelphia, 1888); Why am 1 Reformed? (1889); History of the Reformed Church (New York, 1895); Leaders of the Reformation (Philadelphia, 1900); The Reformed Church in Pennsylvania (1902); and History of Franklin and Marshall College (Lancaster, 1903).
DU BOIS, WILLIAM EDWARD BURGHARDT:
Protestant Episcopal layman; b. at Great Barrington, Mass., Feb. 23, 1868. He was educated at Fisk University (B.A., 1888), Harvard (Ph.D., 1895), and the University of Berlin, and after being fellow in sociology at Harvard in 18901902 and traveling fellow in 1892‑94, was professor in Wilberforce University (1894‑96), and assistant instructor in sociology in the University of Pennsylvania (1896‑97). Since 1897 he has been professor of economics and history in Atlanta University. He was general secretary of the Niagara Movement from 1905 to 1908, and, while a communicant of the Episcopal Church, interprets " its creed very broadly, so broadly, in fact, that I ought not perhaps to be considered as a member." He has written: Suppressions of the Slave Trade (New York, 1896); The Philadelphia Negro (Philadelphia, 1899); Souls o f Black Folk (Chicago, 1903);
and The Negro in the South (in collaboration with B. T. Washington; Philadelphia, 1907).
DUBOSC, dii"host' (DU BOSC), PIERRE THOMINES: French Protestant preacher; b. at Bayeux (17 m. w.n.w. of Caen) Feb. 21,1623; d. at Rotterdam Jan. 2, 1692. He was educated at Montauban and Saumur, and at the age of twenty‑three became pastor of the Reformed congregation of Caen. He was one of the first preachers of his Church to discard dogmatic sermons in favor of appeals to the imagination and feelings of his hearers, and the majority of addressee contained in his two collections of sermons (2 vole., Rotterdam, 1692; 4 vole., 1701) are practical applications of Biblical facto and concepts. In 1663 he presided over the Synod of Rouen, but having incurred the hostility of the Roman Catholics, he was banished to Chalons, though he was soon allowed to return. In the persecutions which increased in severity after 1665 he rendered valuable aid to his Church by his courage and skill in his negotiations with the court, where he won the favor of Louis XIV. On June 6, 1685, however, a decree of the Parliament of Rouen forbade him to exercise his office in France, and he accordingly went to Holland, where the prince of Orange received him with great honor. His biography, together with a valuable collection of addresses, maxims, and sermons, was published by his
eon‑in‑law, Philippe Legendre, under the title La Vie de Pierre Thomines, sieur du Bose, ministre de Caen (Rotterdam, 1694; enlarged ed., 1716). A series of his sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesiane was translated into English by J. B. Law, together with an introductory essay and a biographical sketch (London, 1853). (C. PFENDER.)
DU BOSE, WILLIAM PORCHER: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Winnaborough, S. C., Apr. 11, 1836. He was educated at the University of Virginia (M.A., 1859), and studied at the Divinity School at Camden, S. C., from 1859 to 1861. He then entered the Confederate Army, first as an adjutant and later as a chaplain, and served throughout the war, after which he was rector of St. John's, Winnaborough, in 1866‑‑67, and of Trinity, Abbeville, S. C., in 1868‑71. Since 1872 he has been connected with the University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn., chaplain in 1872‑83, professor of moral theology and New Testament exegesis after 1372, and dean until his retirement in 1908. He has written Soteriology of the New Testament (New York, 1892; reissue, 1906); The Ecumenical Councils (1896); The Gospel an the Gospels (1906); and The Gospel According to saint Pail (1907).
DUBOURG, dii"bur', ANNE: French Reformer; b. at Riom (17 m. n.e. of Puy‑de‑Dome) c. 1520; d. at Paris Dec. 23, 1559. After pursuing the practise of law, he became, about 1547, professor of civil law in the University of Orleans. In 1557 he was appointed conseiller‑clere to the Parliament of Paris. In his father's house he became acquainted with the doctrines of the Reformation, and at Orleans he had been in close sympathy with the Reformers, and had made a deep study of the Scriptures, the Fathers, and early church history before he embraced the new ideas. In 1558 be be‑

17	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dubbink
Duchemne
gan to frequent the meetings of the Reformed con
gregation in Paris. In the Parliament most of the
younger members inclined toward the Reforma
tion; and of the older members some of the moat
prominent, as the president, Barley, and Sesguier,
were in favor of a mild policy against heretics.
There was, however, in the Parliament a party of
extreme Roman Catholics led by Minard, Le Maia
tre, and St. Andr6, and a conflict was not slow in
arising. In order to arrive at some common policy,
the procurator‑general, Bourdin, convoked a plen
ary assembly of all the divisions of the Parliament,
in Apr., 1559. When it became evident that the
friends of the Reformation were in the majority,
Minard, Le Maiatre, and Bourdin addressed them
selves directly to Henry II. The king appeared
personally in the Parliament at the head of an im
posing escort, and reproached it for lukewarmness in
respect to the extirpation of heresy. Dubourg replied
in a spirit of fearlessness, arguing that, while the heav
iest transgressions against the divine law were allowed
to gt, unpunished, the Parliament did wrong to
depots its energies to the persecution of believers,
who in the midst of the flames called upon the name
of Christ. Personally incensed at this speech,
which he construed as an allusion to his relations
with Diane of Poitiers, Henry ordered the arrest
of Dubourg. Legally, a member of the Parliament
could be judged only by the Parliament itself.
Nevertheli'es, the king appointed a commission of
Dubourg's bitterest opponents to try the case.
Dubourg appealed successively to the archbishops
of Paris, Sane, and Lyons, but the appeals were not
accepted. An appeal to the pope was still possible,
but Dubourg refused to avail himself of it. The
death of Henry IL, July 10,1559, made his situation
still more desperate, as, by the accession of Francis
IL, the Guises came into power. All exertions of
his friends, including Coligny, Condb, and the
Elector‑Palatine Frederick, who wished him to be
released to take a professorship at Heidelberg, were
in vain. Dubourg presented to his judges a con
fession of faith which was a masterly defense of the
Reformation. Then for a moment he wavered, and
under the influence of certain friends presented a
second confession which was ambiguous, and was
considered a surrender by his opponents; but he
soon retracted, and, declaring his first confession
to be the one which he actually believed, brought
his fate upon himself. The verdict was given Dec.
21, and two days afterward he was etrangled‑and
burned. 	(THEODOR SoaoTTt:)
Biaacooswra:: La Vroys Histoire contenant 1'iniqus iugsmart at fauaae proc6dure contre Anus Dubourp, Antwerp, 1561. reprinted in vol. i. of M6nwires do Conddi, London, 1743; A. de la Roohe‑Chsadieu. Hiatoira des persecutions et rnartpra de E'Epliee de Paris, 1667‑80: Lyons, l6M; Bu?ktin de 1'Aia<o;te du proteatantiarna /rancsia, vole. auvi.u:vii.; Lichtenberger, i£SR, iv. 121‑123, Paris, 1878.
DUCK' US. See FRONTON DU Due. 	‑
DU CAftGE, dil editzh, CHARLES DU FRESftE, SIEUR: French historian and lexicographer; b. at Amiene (84 m, n. of Paris) Dec. 18, 1610; d. at Paris Aug. 18,=1688. He was educated at the Jesuit college of his native city; and' studied law at the University of Orl6ane, after which he became treasurer of Amiena. His life was devoted, howiV.‑2
ever, to the study of the Middle Ages, and his first
work was his Histatre de l'empire de Conatantinopla
sane lea empereura frangaia (Paris, 1857). In 1668
the plague which raged in Amiene led him to re
move to Paris, where he spent the remainder of
his life. In considering the importance of the works
of Du Cange it must be borne in mind that the
Renaissance, with its admiration for Greece and
Rome, and the Reformation had little sympathy
with any study of the Middle Ages. Medieval
Latin and the Romance languages had thus far
found no investigator, nor was there any chronol
ogy, numismatics, archeology, paleography, or
geography of that period. His writings, both
printed and unprinted, embrace, on the other hand,
not only the general history of medieval Europe,
but also the history of France and the Byzantine
Empire. His chief works are the Gloasaritrm ad
scnptorea medics et in fcmca Latinitofia (3 vola., 1828;
enlarged edition in 8 vole., 1733‑38; supplement by
P. Carpentier, 4 vole., 1788; and by L. Diefenbach,
Frankfort, 1857, 1887; abridgment with additions
and corrections by J. C. Adelung, 8 vole., Halls,
1772‑84; moat recent edition of the Gloasarium,
including the additions of Carpentier, Adelung, and
others, by L. Favre, 10 vole., Niort, 188387; a con
venient abridgment in one vol. by W. H. Maigne
d'Arnis, Paris, 1868) and the Glosaarium ad scrip
torea media et in fimee Grcscitatis (2 vole., Lyons,
1888). Both these dictionaries are true encyclopedias,
one for Latin Christendom in all its ecclesiastical,
political, and social aspects, and the other for the
Byzantine Empire, to say nothing of their lexico
graphical value. In the preface to the Latin Glos
sarium, moreover, the author gives the history of the
decay of the Latin language and sketches the earli
est developments of French. The last work of
Du Cange, which was not completed until after
his death, was his edition of the Chronicon pds
chale (Paris, 1888). 	(C. PFENTDER.)
Biswoaeerax: L. Faugbre, Eaeai ear la vie et lae ouwapes de Du Canpe, Paris, 1852; H. Hsrdouin, Esaai eur is aria et our ka ouvrapes de . . . Du Canpe, ib. 1849.
DUCEY, THOMAS JAMES: Roman Catholic; b. at Lismore (111 m. s.s.w. of Dublin), County Cork, Ireland, Feb. 4, 1843. He went to the United Staten at the age of five, and was graduated at St. Francis Xavier's College, New York City, in 1884; and at the Provincial Seminary, Troy, N. Y., in 1888. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1888, and in 1889 was attached to the staff of the Church of the Nativity, New York City, where he incurred the opposition of the Tweed ring by his denunciations of municipal corruption. In 1872 he was transferred to St. Michael's in the same city, and in the following year began the active organization of societies for Roman Catholic young men. In 1880 he founded St. Leo's Church. He was assistant chaplain in the City Prison for several years, and is .active in movements against political evil and in philanthropic enterprises.
DITCHESNE, d0"shAn',.LQUIS MARIE oLrMR: French Roman Catholic;' b: at.St. Servan (100 m. n. of Nantes) Sept. 13, 1843. He studied in Paris sad at . Rome from 1873‑ to 1878, visiting Epirus, Theesalyy Macedonia, and Mt. Athos a 1874, and

Du Preens
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
making a tour of Asia Minor in 1876. From 1877 to 1895 he was professor of church history in the Institut Catholique de Paris, .and since the latter year has been director of the French school at Rome. He was also maitre de conferences and later directeur d'6tudes at the tcole des Hautes etudes, Paris, 1885‑95, and in 1888 was elected a member of the Acad6mie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres. He has written De Macario Magnets et aeriptia ejus (Paris, 1877); etude sur le Liber Pontificalis (1877); Memoire sur une mission au Mont Athos (1877; in collaboration with C. Bayet); Vita Sandi Polycarpi, auctore Pionio (1881); Le Liber Poredficalis: Texts, introduction et commentaire (2 vole., 1886‑92); Origines du tulle chrdien (1889; Eng. transl. by M. L. McClure under the title Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, London, 1902); Les Anciens Catalogues oiscopaux de la province de Tours (1890); Fades dpiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule (2 vole., 1894‑99); Autonomies ecclessiastiques (1896); Lea Premiere Temps de 1'aat pontifical (1898); Le Forum chrdien (Rome, 1899); Autonomies eeclEsiastiques; Eglisea soar&& (1904; Eng. tranal., Churches Separated from Rome, New York, 1908).
	DUDITH, dft‑dft' (DUDICH, DUDICS), Aft
DREAS: Hungarian bishop, later a Protestant; b.
at Budapest Feb. 16, 1533; d. at Breslau Feb. 23,
1589. He was educated by his uncle, who was
canon at Breslau, and went to Italy about 1550 to
continue his studies. There he gained the favor
of Cardinal Pole, whom he accompanied on his return
to England after the accession of Queen Mary. He
was an excellent Latin scholar and had meanwhile
been appointed canon at Gran, but in 1558 he again
devoted himself to study in Padua. He was ap
pointed bishop of Tininium (Knin) in Dahnatia by
the emperor Ferdinand, and took part in the Coun
cil of Trent, where, in compliance with the wish of
Ferdinand, he urged that the cup be given to the
laity. Although he did not appear there as an oppo
nent of the celibacy of the clergy, he wrote a Demon
stratio pro libertate conjugii. Being appointed bishop,
first of Fiinfkirehen, and then of Szigeth, he went
to Poland in 1565, where he married a maid of
honor of the queen, and resigned his see, becoming
an adherent of Protestantism. In 1575 he became
so involved in political intrigues to secure the throne
of Poland (then vacant) for Maximilian that his
opponents confiscated his estates and expelled him
from the city. The last ten years of his life were
spent at Breslau. Five orations and a brief biog
raphy of Dudith were published at Offenbach in
1610 by Quirinus Reuter. 	K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the biography by Realer, there is available C. B. Stieff, Verauch einer . . . GaachicAk won Ldxn and Meinungen Andreas Duditha, Breslau, 1758.
DUDLEY, THOMAS UNDERWOOD: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Kentucky; b. at Richmond, Va., Sept. 26, 1837; d. in New York City Jan. 22, 1904. He studied at the University of Virginia (B.A., 1858), where he was professor of Latin and Greek until the outbreak of the Civil War. He then entered the Confederate Army and attained the rank of major. After the close of the war he studied theology at the Virginia Theological
Seminary, Alexandria, Va., from which he was graduated in 1867. He was ordered deacon in 1867 and ordained priest in 1868. He was curate and rector of Christ Church, Baltimore, 1869‑75, and in 1875 was consecrated bishop coadjutor of Kentucky. On the death of Bishop B. B. Smith in 1884 he became diocesan of Kentucky. He wrote A Wise Discrimination the Church's Need (New York, 1881); and Why am 1 a Churchman t (1894).

DUEL. See WAGER OF BATTLE.

DUESTERDIECg, dQ‑"ester‑dike, FRIEDRICH HERMANN CHRISTIAN: German Protestant; b. at Hanover July 14, 1822; d. there Apr. 23, 1906. He studied in GtSttingen and Berlin and was lecturer at Gbttingen 1846‑48, director of studies at the theological seminary at Hanover 1848‑54, pastor at Schwichelt 1854‑58, and director of studies at Loccum 1858‑65. In 1865 he was appointed consistorial councilor at Hanover, and became councilor of the supreme consietory seven years later, while from 1879 until his retirement from active life in 1900 he was general superintendent. He wrote Qua de Ignatianarum epistolarwm anthentia dtiorumque teztuum rations et dignitate hue uaque prolatca aunt sententim (Gottingen, 1843); De rei prophetieee nature ethics (1852); Die tueltliche Bildung des Geistlichen (Hanover, 1873); Die Revision der Luther'schen Bibeliibersetzung (1882); Kritisch‑ezegetisches Handbuch abet die Offenbarung Johannes (G6ttingen); and Inspiration and Kritik der heiligen Sehrift (1896).

DUFF, ALEXANDER: First missionary of the Church of Scotland to India; b. at the farmhouse of Auchnahyle, Moulin (25 m. n.n.w. of Perth), Perthshire, Apr. 25, 1806; d. in Edinburgh Feb. 12, 1878. He studied at the grammar‑school of Perth and the University of St. Andrews under Dr. Chalmers and others, and was licensed and sailed for Calcutta in 1829, lying all his books by shipwreck on the way. He resolved to make an educational institution a leading feature of his work in India, and had the valuable support of an enlightened Hindu for his school in Calcutta, which was conducted on two principles‑first that the Christian Scriptures should be read in every class able to read them, and second that through the English language Western science should be taught, notwithstanding the revolution it must cause in many Hindu notions. Duff prepared various textbooks, including one on Christian ethics and the elements of political economy. His school rapidly became popular and influential. The teaching of English, however, roused opposition among the European residents, including some of the earlier missionaries, and his whole method brought him into conflict with the Hindu College, already established, which aimed to avoid offense to Indian sentiment by maintaining a secularist atmosphere. Duff won the confidence of the governor, Lord William Bentinck, and T. B. Macaulay (afterward Lord Macaulay) added his powerful advocacy to the cause of English education; eventually the neutrality of government guaranteed security for

19	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dudith
		Du Fresno
Christian work as well as for Indian customs.
With growing knowledge of India Duff made his
influence felt in every social movement, and ulti
mately as editor of the Calcutta Review he was one
of the chief unofficial factors in politics and ad
ministration, his advice being listened to with re
spect both by the authorities in India and commis
sions at home.
	Returning to Scotland in ill health in 1834,
Duff made a tour of the country and much increased
the interest in his mission, though met by apathy
at first. His addresses in the General Assembly
were truly eloquent, and he was felt to be the equal
of Chalmers. Attempts were made to keep him
in Scotland, but he returned to India and prosecuted
his work there. At the disruption of the Scottish
Church in 1843, like all other missionaries, he threw
in his lot with the Free Church. As the property
of the mission belonged legally to the Establish
ment, Duff was stripped of everything, but friends
rallied to his support with the result that the
efficiency of the work was immediately doubled.
The storms that were stirred up by the conversions
which took place from time to time were safely
weathered, and the college still remains one of the
leading educational institutions of India. At the
General Assemblies of the Established and the
United Free Churches of Scotland held in May,
1907, steps were taken to unite the two missionary
colleges founded in Calcutta by Dr. Duff. The happy
consummation of this union in the foreign field is
being hailed as the first step toward the final re
union of Scottish Presbyterianism. In 1850 Duff
again returned home, and sought to rouse the Free
Church to new and more energetic efforts in the cause
of missions. He was called in 1851 to the chair of
the General Assembly. He also visited America
in 1854, under the auspices of Mr. George H. Stuart,
of Philadelphia, and made a deep impression both
in Canada and the United States.
	He went back to India, and continued his labors
for some years; but, his health failing, he returred
permanently to Scotland in 1864. Appointed
convener of the' Foreign Missions Committee, he
had the chief management of the foreign work of
the Free Church and has left his mark on its busi
ness details. He showed his catholicity by the
deep interest he took in South African missions,
and especially by the share he had in organizing
the Livingstonia mission on Lake Nyasa&. In
1867 he was appointed first professor of Evangelistic
theology in the Free Church.
	Dr. Duff took an active interest in many im
portant movements of the home Church. He was
an active promoter of the proposed union of the
Free, United Presbyterian, Reformed Presbyterian,
and English Presbyterian churches, which, how
ever, fell through. He was moderator a second
time in 1873. To the end his advice and counte
nance were sought alike by Indian statesmen and
by all manner of religious societies in England
as welt as Scotland. His principal publications
related to the India mission.
		(R. W. STEWART) THODIAS M. LINDSAY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. Consult the biographies of George Smith,
London, 1899; J. Marrat, in Too Standard Bearers in the
East, ib. 1882; Thomas Smith, in Men Worth Remembering, ib. 1883. Further: Lai Behari Day, Recollections of A. Duff, ib. 1879; W. P. Duff, Memorials o/ Alexander Duff, ib. 1890 (by his son).
DUFF, ARCHIBALD: English Congregationalist; b. at Fraserburgh (37 m. n. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenshire, Scotland, Sept. 26, 1845. He studied at McGill University, Montreal (B.A., 1864), Andover Theological Seminary (B.D., 1872), and the universities of Halls (1872‑74) and Giittingen (1874‑75). He was head master of Dunham Academy, Quebec, 1864‑65, professor of mathematics in St. Francis College, Richmond, Quebec, 1865‑67, and assistant master of the high‑school at Montreal 1867‑69. He was Biblical lecturer in the Congregational College, Montreal, 1875‑76, temporary professor of Hebrew in McGill College, 1876‑77, and mathematical lecturer in the same institution 1876‑78. Since 1878 he has been professor of Old Testament theology in the United College (Congregational), Bradford, Yorkshire. He was chairman of the Yorkshire Congregational Union in 1893, and a city councilor of Bradford in 1904‑06. In theology he is an exponent of the strict scientific and historical study of Hebrew religion and Christianity. He was coeditor of the Bibliotheca Sacra in 1874‑94, and has written Old Testament Theology (2 vole., London, 1891‑1900); Hebrew Grammar (1901); Hebrew Theology and Ethics (1902); First and Second Esdras, in The Temple Apocrypha (1903); and Abraham and the Patriarchal Age (1903).

DUFFIELD, GEORGE: Presbyterian; b. at Carlisle, Pa., Sept. 12, 1818; d. at Bloomfield, N. J., July 6, 1888. He was graduated at Yale in 1837, and at Union Theological Seminary in 1840. He held pastorates at Brooklyn, N. Y. (1840‑47), Bloomfield, N. J. (1847‑52), Philadelphia (18521861), Adrian, Mich. (1861‑65), Galesburg, Ill. (18651869), and Saginaw City, Mich. (1869‑74). He was then an Evangelist at Ann Arbor, Mich. (1874‑77), and after a ministry at Lansing, Mich. (1877‑80), retired from active service. He is best known as a writer of hymns, especially the familiar " Stand up, stand up for Jesus."

DUFFIELD, SAMUEL AUGUSTUS WILLOUGHBY: Presbyterian; b. in Brooklyn Sept. 23, 1843; d. at Bloomfield, N. J., May 12, 1887. He was graduated at Yale (1863), and in 1866 was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry. He held pastorates at the Tioga Street Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia (1867‑70), Claremont Presbyterian Church, Jersey City, N. J. (1870‑71), Ann Arbor. Mich. (1871‑74), Eighth Church, Chicago (1874‑76), Central Church, Auburn, N. Y. (1876‑78), Second Church, Altoona, Pa. (1878‑82), and Bloomfield, N. J. (1882‑87). He translated a cento from the De contemptxt mundi of Bernard of Cluny under the title The Heavenly Laud (New York, 1867), and wrote English Hymns: Their Authors and History (1886) and Latin Hymn‑Writers and their Hymns (1889; edited after the author's death by R. E. Thompson). He was the son of George Duffield, and likewise a hymn‑writer.
DU FRESNE, dii fr6n. See Du CA>sra&

D lt~a °t .	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	BO
DU GUST, dii gg (DUGUET), JACQUES JOSEPH: French Oratorian and Jansenist; b. at MontbTieon (234 m. s.s.e. of Paris) Dec. 9, 1849; d. at Paris Oct. 25, 1733. In 1667 he entered the Congregation of the Oratory, where he received his education, and also lectured in the church of St. Roch at Paris on the history and discipline of the Church in various periods, his addresses being printed under the title Conferences eccUsiastiques (2 vole., Cologne, 1742). When the Oratorians were required to sign a condemnation of Jansenism and Cartesianiam in 1686, Du Guet fled to Brussels, and lived for a time with A. Arnauld in the Spanish Netherlands, remaining in constant communication with Paechaeius Queanel and editing his Reflexions morales sur Is Nouveau Testament (8 vole., Paris, 1893‑1700). ‑ His strict adherence to Augustinianism was shown by his Refutation du syst,~mme de Nicole touchant la grdce universelle (1718) and by his repeated protests against the bull Unigenitus, although, on the other hand, he opposed all Jansenistic excesses, especially the cortvulsionnairea. After working for many years in various places of concealment, he returned to Paris, where he spent the remainder of his life. Among his numerous works special mention may be made of the following: Traits de la pri&e publique et des dispositions pour o ffrir lea saints myst&es (1707); ftles pour l'intellir gence des Saintes ‑Ocritures (1716); lettre sur divers sujets de morale et de piet6 (3 vole., 1718; later extended to ten vole.); Explication du mysttre de la passion (2 vole., 1722; extended to 14 vole. in the edition of 1733); Explication de la Genkse (5 vole., 1732); and many interpretations of various books of the Old Testament. His Institution d'un prince (London, 1739) was translated into English in 1740, and an English version of his Traits des priacipea de la foi chrdtienrte (3 vole., Paris, 1736) appeared in 2 vole. at Edinburgh 'in 1755. Du Guet ranked as one of the best Janaenist authors, and was regarded as uniting the logic of Nicole with the grace of Fdnelon.
(C. PFENDER.)
BIHLI06aAPHT: The edition of Du Gust's Institution dun
prince by Goujet, 1739, ut sup., contains a biography.
DU HALDE, dii h>ild', JEAN BAPTISTS: French Jesuit; b. in Paris Feb. 1, 1674; d. there Aug. 18, 1743. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1708, and succeeded Father Legobien as editor of the letters written by the foreign missionaries of the order. He edited vole. ix.‑xxvi., inclusive, and published an excellent r6sum4 of letters from China under the title, Description gdographique, historique . . . de l'empire de la Chine . . . (4 vole., Paris, 1735, Eng. transl., 'The General History of China, 4 vole., London, 1736).

DDHM, duhm, BERNARD LAWARD: German Protestant; b. at Bingum, East Frisia, Holland, Oct. 10, 1847. He studied in Gottingen (Ph.D., 1870), where he was tutor in the theological seminary.,1,871‑72, and privet‑docent for Old Testament theology, 1873‑77‑ From 1877 to 1889 he was associate professor of Old Testament theology in Gottingen, end since 1889 hag been professor of the
same subject at Basel and instructor in Hebrew at the gymnasium of Basel. He has written Pauli apostoli de legs iudicia dijudicata (Gottingen, 1873); Theologre der Propheten (Bonn, 1875); Ueber Ziel and Methods der theologischen Wissenschaft (Basel, 1889); Kosrnologie and Religion (1892); Das Buch Jesa9a iibersetzt and erklitrt (Gottingen, 1892); Das Geheimniss in der Religion (Freiburg, 1890; Die Entstehung des Altert Testaments (1897); Das Bush Hiob iibersetzt (1897); Des Buch Hiob erkltirt (1897); Die Psalmen iiberaetzt (1899); Die Psalmert erkhirt (1899); Des Buch Jeremia. erkhlrt (1901); and Das Buck Jeremia 9lbersetzt (1903).
Di7KHOBORS: A Russian sect, first heard of in the latter half of the eighteenth century, when they attracted attention by their rejection of the Church, the priesthood, and the sacraments. They proclaimed the equality and
Tenets and brotherhood of man. The Czar and Early all his officials, as well as the priests
	History.	and metropolitans, were regarded as
		usurping a power to which they had
no moral right. War and taxation, as well as law
courts and all police regulation, were condemned.
The Bible was mystically interpreted, and not
regarded as having so high an authority as the
" Living Book " (which may be taken to mean
either " the Voice Within " or the ores traditions
taught by the leaders of the sect). Wealth and
commerce were condemned. The laborious, agri
cultural life of a Russian peasant in his village
commune was considered to be the only good life.
None of these ideas was peculiar to the Dukhobors.
They had all previously found expression among
one or other of allied religious groups‑Lollarda,
Husaitea, Moravian Brethren, Mennonites, Ana
baptists, Quakers, or the Eastern Paulicians and
Bogomiles.
The history of the Dukhobora, however, differentiated them from other sects because, after much persecution, in the reign of Alexander I. (1801‑25) they were allowed to come together from all parts of Russia sad form a clan. Their place of settlement was " Milky Waters," near the Sea of Azov. Here they had to face the problem of arranging their practical affairs as a group, under their new conditions. The need of a government to regulate both their civil and religious affairs, as well as to negotiate with the Russian authorities (whom they regarded as the Hebrews in Egypt regarded Pharaoh), was at once urgently felt; and without altering the phraseology of their old anarchist beliefs, or being conscious of inconsistency, they instinctively proceeded to establish, and submit to, one of the moat absolute despotisms on record.
Their first leader at " Milky Waters" was a former non‑commissioned officer named KapoSstin, a man of ability and force of character. He managed the sect‑clan with remarkable
Sapotiatin. success; but he taught that he was a reincarnation of Christ, and that his divine authority would descend to his heirs and successors. His. followers, however, were never, in conversation with officials or other " Gentiles," to acknowledge that they had any earthly leader.

21	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	et
This curious secretiveness, the outcome of much persecution, still remains characteristic of the clan. They systematically throw dust in the eyes of all inquirers as to the nature of their internal government; and this has led to endless confusion and misunderstandings among those who, lacking the real clue to the situation, have attempted to study the sect. KapoGstin established community of property, and maintained that system for many years; but ultimately he terminated it in a manner which left him and his family in control of large communal estates. His immediate successors, his son and grandson, supported by an oligarchy of thirty eldeis, grossly misbehaved and appear to have terrorized their opponents by a series of secret assassinations carried on under the maxim: " Whoso denies his God shall perish by the sword."
In 1841‑44 the Russian Government, after s prolonged investigation into these crimes, banished the sect to the Caucasus. Here they lived quiet,
industrious lives till the death of Peter L. V. Kahnik6va, who had succeeded
Verigin. to power on the death of her husband,
Peter, the great‑grandson of Kapoustin. Thin woman had shown favorto a young man, Peter Verfgin, who belonged to the ruling family, and whom she probably intended to appoint as her successor. However, after a quarrel with him she died suddenly, without having made the appointment, and strife broke out in the sect. The majority acknowledged Peter Verfgin as leader, but an influential minority (including those who had managed affairs under KalmikGva) refused to do so. The Russian authorities, in 1887, banished Verfgin to Archangel for five years, and at the end of that time sent him to Siberia. In exile Verigin became acquainted with Leo Tolatoy'e teaching; and, recognizing in it much that corresponded to the original Dukhobor doctrines, he " advised " (his advice amounting to a command) his followers to rename themselves " The Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood "; further (1) to refuse military service; (2) to divide up their property equally; (3) to cease killing animals for food, and abstain from intoxicants and tobacco; (4) to refrain from sexual relations during their time of tribulation (i.e., during the persecution which arose in connection with his leadership). About this time Tolstoy made the acquaintance of some of Verfgin's adherents; and, being misled by them as to the real state of the case, wrote a series of articles which ignored the fact of Verfgin's theocratic authority, and represented the Dukhobora as an example of a sect of peaceful anarchists, who conducted their affairs without a government of any kind, except that of their own reason and conscience. Vertgin's advice led to a fresh split in the sect. Nearly half his followers, finding his demands too severe, seceded, while the rest accepted them and entered on a campaign of passive resistance against conscription for army‑service.
In 1898 the loyal Verfginite Dukhobors were allowed to migrate to Canada, and, having secured from the Canadian government a pledge that they should be exempt from all forms of conscription,
7,363 of them arrived there in 1899. Verfgin being still in exile, and they being unwilling or unable
without him to decide on what lines The Du‑ the new life should be arranged, great khobors in confusion arose, leading ultimately to
	Canada	a strange pilgrimage which set out to
		meet Verfgin when the news of his
release from Siberia was at last‑ received. After
his arrival in Canada, in 1902, the clan gave the
government less difficulty; but owing to their un
willingness to own allegiance to any one but Verigin,
and their consequent reluctance to become British
subjects, there was still some friction. More than
1,000 Dukhobora have now broken away from
Verfgin's community, and the superstitious rever
ence for him has much decreased. It is only the
more ignorant members, especially some of the
women and children, who still regard him as a
superman.
The Dukhobors are remarkably honest, sober, temperate, and frugal, and they are also generally industrious, well‑mannered, self‑respecting, and hospitable to strangers. Their differences with the Canadian government have all pivoted on the question of Verfgin's leadership, and have been increased by the extraordinary duplicity and mendacity which they never scruple to practise in order to screen their leader from responsibility for the consequences of actions they take at his prompting. Allowance should, however, be made for the difficulties experienced by members of a sect‑clan who had always been accustomed to a communal or semicommunal way of life in which public affairs were managed for them, and who suddenly found themselves in a land of individual enterprise and democratic institutions, the laws and language of which they did not understand.
AYLMER MAUDE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The only full account yet published is by A. Maude, A Peculiar People: the Doukhobora, New York, 1904. Further references are: 8tepaiak, The Russian Peasantry, London, 1894; Christian Martyrdom in Russia, ed. V. Tchertkoff, with chapter by L. Tolatoy, ib. 1897; L. Toletoy, in London Daily Chronicle, Apr. 29, 1898; idem, Essays and Letters, in World's Classics Series, ib. 1903; J. Elkiaton, The Doukhobara, their Hint. in Russia, their Migration to Canada, Philadelphia, 1903 (better on the Canadian episode than in the other part). Materiel is also to be found in: Life . . of William Allen, London, 1847; Life . . . of Stephen Greiletl, ed. $eebohm, ib. 1882; Canadian Magazine, xx (1903), 211 eqq. The fully authoritative work on the sect in Russia will be K. K. Gram, Die rusriaehen 3ektea, voL iii., Leip_ sie, not yet out. Consult also the literature under Roeam.
DULCINO, DULCIIYISTS. See DOLCINO.

DULIA (Latinized form of the Gk. dottleia, "servitude, service "): The name technically applied in Roman Catholic theology to the veneration accorded to the saints and angels, and sharply distinguished (in kind, not alone in degree) from latria (Gk. latrriu), or the worship due to God alone. Hyperdulaa is a somewhat higher degree of veneration paid to the Virgin Mary on account of her intimate relation to God. Dulia, is expressed by external seta of reverence and by invocation, and may be extended, in the former shape at least, to objects closely connected with the saints, such as their garments and other relics and their images, which

DDulnnlin
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
are, however, venerated not for any intrinsic virtue of their own, but only with respect to those whom they represent or with whom they are associated. See SAINTS, VENERATION OF.
DULLES, dul'ez, JOSEPH HEATLY: Presbyterian; b. at Philadelphia, Pa., May 27, 1853. He was educated at Princeton College (B. A.,1873) and Princeton Theolbgical Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1877. After pastoral service at home (1877‑83) and travel and study in Europe (1883‑85), he became librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary (1886). He is a member of the American Historical Association, honorary secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund for New Jersey, an editor of the Princeton Theological Review. In theology he is a conservative. He compiled the general catalogue of Princeton Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, 1894) and James McCosh bibliography (Princeton, 1895), and edited the proceedings of William Henry Green's jubilee as instructor in Princeton Theological Seminary, contributing Professor Green's bibliography (New York, 1896).
DU MOULIN, dii mfi"lan', CHARLES: French jurist; b. in Paris 1500; d. there Dec. 27, 1566. He became an advocate in 1522, but gave up pleading because of a defect of speech. He joined the Reformed congregation in 1542. Later he became famous as a consulting lawyer. In 1551 he published his Commentaire sur l1dit des petites dates to show that Henry II. was right in forbidding the exportation of gold and silver from his kingdom to Rome. The argument was effective, and the pope dropped the question so far as Henry was concerned, but he had the author tried for heresy. This resulted in the flight of Du Moulin; and from this time till his death he was pursued by the Roman Church, being forced to move from one place to another. Finally he returned to Paris, where he was prevailed upon to publish his Conseil sur le fait du Concile de Trente (Lyons, 1564). The book was condemned and Du Moulin was imprisoned; but he was afterward released through the efforts of Jeanne d'Albret.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Brodesu, La Via de Maistre C. Du Moutin, Paris, 1854; Lichtenberger, ESR, iv. 137‑138.
DU MOULIN, PIERRE (Molingens) : Celebrated preacher, professor, organizer, and controversialist of the French Reformed Church; b. at the ch5teau of Buhyin, Normandy (department of Seineet‑Oise), Oct. 18, 1568; d. at Sedan Mar. 10, 1658. His father, Joachim du Moulin, a Protestant preacher, after the Third Religious War took refuge at Buhy, which belonged to the family of Du PlesaisMornay, and Pierre was born in the same room as Philippe du Plessis‑Mornay (q.v.). After St. Bartholomew's Night (Aug. 24, 1572) the family, then settled at Soissona, was again obliged to flee, and, under the protection of the duke of Bouillon, reached Si;dan. Here Pierre began his studies in the academy. In 1588 his father took him to Paris, and, declaring that he could no longer support his son, left with him twelve gulden in his purse. Paris not being safe at the time, Pierre went, to England and spent four years in London, where he ultimately became tutor to the young
	dukes of Rutland. He accompanied his pupils to
	Cambridge and Oxford and heard lectures in theol
	ogy and philosophy from Whitaker and Reynolds.
	His maiden sermon at the Huguenot Church of
	London was a suceesa. In 1592 he went to Hol
	land and became, first, lecturer on ancient lan
	guages, then professor of philosophy and Greek in
	the University of Leyden. He lived in Scaliger's
	house and had Hugo Grotius among his pupils. In
	1598, after dedicating to the hospitable Leyden
	university a Panegyricus Batavice, he returned to
	France, and in December was ordained at Gien,
	where his father was then living. In March, 1599,
	he became minister of the Reformed congregation
	at Charenton, where he remained twenty‑one years,
	faithful in danger and noted for eloquence. Cath
	erine of Bourbon, sister of Henry IV. and wife of
	Duke Henry of Bar (a Roman Catholic), made him
	her chaplain, and he spent two months of each
	year with her at her residence in Lorraine. Per
	haps his greatest celebrity was gained by his con
	troversies both with Roman Catholics and Calvin
	ists. Noteworthy among the former were (1) those
	with Palina‑Cayet (1602), who tried to convert
	Catherine to Roman Catholicism (of. Name de la
	conference verbale et par eserit tenue entre M. P. du
	Moulin et M. Cayet par Archibald Adair, gentilhomme
	ecossais (Geneva, 1625); (2) with De Beaulieu about
	the mass and the doctrine of the Church; (3) with
	the Jesuit P. Coton concerning the teachings and
	morals of the Jesuits (1606‑07); (4) with the priests
	Gontier (1610) and Coeffeteau (1625) on transub
	stantiation (see list of works below). His principal
	controversies with Reformed theologians were (1)
	with D. Tilenus, professor at Sedan, on the ubiqui
	tas corporis Christi; (2) with the Arminians, against
	whom he wrote his Anatome Arminianismi (Ley
	den, 1619); (3) against Amyraut and his school.
	By invitation of James I. of England he went to
	London in 1615, promising his Paris congregation
	to return in three months, and James proposed to
	him to attempt to unite all Protestants. Shortly
	after his return a Jesuit, Arnoux, preached before
	King Louis XIII., maintaining that the Scripture
	passages on which the Calvinist creed was founded
	were wrongly interpreted. In reply Du Moulin
	produced his two most celebrated works, La De
	fense de la religion chretienne and Le Bouclier de la
	foy (Charenton, 1617; Eng. transl. of the latter,
	The Buckler of the Faith; or, A Defense of the Con
	fession o f Faith o f the Reformed Churches in France,
	London, 1620; 3d ed., 1631). This controversy ex
	asperated both parties and Du Moulin had to flee
	to Sedan, where he became pastor, professor, and
	tutor of the young duke of Bouillon. His oldest
	son, Pierre du Moulin (b. at Paris Apr. 24, 1601;
	d. at Canterbury, England, Oct. 10, 1684), lived
	in England, and died as chaplain to Charles II. and
	prebendary of Canterbury. He wrote a number of
	theological tracts.
	The most important of the elder Du Moulin's
numerous writings, not already mentioned, were:
De f erase de la f of catholique contenuz au livre du roi
Jacques I, contre la rePonse de Coejfeteau (La
Rochelle, 1604); APologie pour la Saints Cease du
Seigneur, contre la presence corporelle ou tranasulr

		Dunes
28	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	]Du‑in
stantiation (1607; Eng. transl., London, 1612);
De L'accamplissement des propheties (1612; Eng.
tranel., Oxford, 1613); Copie de la lettre escrite contre
Tilenus aux rrtinistres de France (Paris, 1613);
De la vocation des pasteurs (S€dan, 1618); NouveautE
du papisme oppose d l'antiquite du urai christia
nisme (1627); Abrggts des controverses, tru smnmaire
des errettrs de l'Eglise romaine (1836); Du jugs des
controverses (1630). 	G. BONF.T‑MAURY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Du Moulin's Autobiographic, ed. C. Read, is given in Bulletin de la eoa6t6 d'hiatoire du Proteatantiame franCaia, vii. 170 eqq.; J. Aymon, Tom In synodea natdonaux lea epliaea rEjorrnEea de France, Tae Hague, 1710; A. Vinet, Hiatoire de la predication parmi Us rEformha en France, Paris, 1880; H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, vol. i. psaeim, New York, 1895; P. de Fdliee, Lea Protestants d'autre/oia, vol. i. passim, Paris, 1897.
DUNCAN, JOHN: .Scotch Presbyterian; b. at Aberdeen 1796; d. at Edinburgh Feb. 26, 1870. He was graduated from the University of Aberdeen in 1814, then studied theology at Edinburgh and was licensed to preach in 1825. In 1836 he was ordained to the charge of Milton Church, Glasgow. In 1841 he was appointed the first missionary of the committee of the Church of Scotland for the conversion of the Jews. After spending two years in Budapest he returned to Scotland to become professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages at New College, Edinburgh. He published an edition of E. Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon o f the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1838) and a few lectures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: w. Knight, Colloquia Peripatetiea by the late John Duncan, Edinburgh, 1879; A. M. Stuart, Reeolkctiona of the late John Duncan, ib. 1872; D. Brown, Life of the late John Duncan, ib. 1872; idem, John Dunoan in the Pulpit and at as Communion Table, ib. 1874.
DUNGAL: The name of several ecclesiastics of the early Middle Ages. A Celtic bishop Dungal is mentioned by Alcuin, but is scarcely identical with the monk Dungal of St. Denis, who is never termed a bishop. Thin monk was the author of a number of letters and poems. Of the former the first is dated in 811, the next five during the reign of Charlemagne, the seventh after the death of that monarch, and the eighth either in his reign or in that of Louis the Pious. Dungal is named in only two of the poems, but he has been regarded as the chief author of the poems emanating from St. Denis. His writings show him to have been a man of unusual attainments and a scion of a wealthy Scotch‑Irish family, although on the Continent he lived in needy circumstances. He apparently left hia.home about 784 or 787, since the twelfth St. Denis poem was written at the earliest in the former year, and the second in or shortly after the latter date. Charlemagne valued Dungal's learning highly, and requested him to explain the eclipse of the sun in 810 and to criticize the De substantia nihili et tenebris an sint of Fridugis. Dungal was thus naturally an enthusiastic panegyrist of the emperor.
It is uncertain whether this Dungal was the author of the Reaponsa contra pernersas Claudii sentential, written at the request of Lothair in 827. It seems more probable, however, that this work was composed by a third Dungal, whom Lothair mentions in 825 as a teacher of the school of Pavia,
though so little is known regarding this teacher
that the question can not be decided. Despite
their polemics against Claudius of Turin, the Re
sponses adhere in the main to the Carolingian
theology. A fourth Dungal, of somewhat later
date, was the author of another poem from St.
Denis, while a fifth, who seems to belong to the
eleventh century, presented numerous books to
Bobbio. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Epiatola, ed. E. Dilmmler, are in M(iH, Epiat. ao3c. xiii., iv (1892), 568 sqq.; the Carmina, ed. E. DGynmler, in M(iH, Poetca Latini asoi Caroiini, i (1881), [393 eqq., ii (1884), 884‑8&5: of. wattenbach, D(IQ, i (1893), 153, and Traube. AMA, philosophische Clasae, tea. 332 eqq.
DUNIN, dn'nin, MARTIN VON: Archbishop of Posen and Gneaen; b. at Wat, near Rawa (45 m. s.w. of Warsaw), in Poland, Nov. 11, 1774; d. in Posen Dec. 26, 1842. He was the son of a landed gentleman, and studied at the Collegium Germanicum in Rome. After he had fulfilled various positions as a clergyman he became suffragan bishop to Archbishop Theophilua von Wolicki in Posen tend succeeded him in the archbishopric in 1831. His significance lies in the controversy between the Roman Church and the Prussian government concerning mixed marriages (see DROaTE‑VIaCHF,RING). The usage in Posen was lenient until the appearance of the brief of Pius VIII., dated Mar. 25, 1830 (Mirbt, Qttellen, pp. 350‑353). Dunin wished to enforce this brief in Posen, or to petition the Curia for special directions concerning mixed marriages in his archdiocese. The Prussian government refused both requests. After the allocution of Gregory XVI. on Dec. 10, 1837, relative to DrosteViachering (q.v.) had become known, on his own responsibility Dunin forbade his clergy, under penalty of suspension, to assist at any mixed marriage, unless the education of the children in the Roman faith had previously been promised. He stood by the position taken in his circulars even against the authority of the royal ministerium. Thereupon a suit was brought against him, although he maintained that the case should not come under the cognizance of the civil court, and the clergy refused to give their testimony. On his side there stood the prince bishop of Ermland, Stanislaus von Hatten, and Bishop Sedlag of Kuhn, but not the Prince Bishop Sedhlitzky of Breslau. The sentence of the higher court of appeals in Posen, pronounced in 1839 against the archbishop for exceeding his official power, gave him six months' imprisonment in a fortress and removal from office. For the first punishment the king substituted the requirement that he should stay in Berlin until the controversy was settled. Nevertheless, Dunin left the capital secretly and returned to Posen to resume the functions of his office. On Oct. 8, 1839, he was arrested and brought to the fortress of Kolberg, where he stayed until the king died. Frederick William IV. set him free and even restored him to office after he had modified his obnoxious regulations. The government, however, was not able to secure any recognition of the old milder usage. On the whole, Dunin's actions did not have the same importance as the procedure of Droste‑Vischering, although his cathedral chapter, the diocesan clergy,

I)uaker,	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	84
and the nobility stood manfully by him and the
antithesis of Polish and German national feeling
entered into the contest. 	CARL MIRBT.
BiatsooaepHy: $. F. Jacobson, Debar din pemisehten Ehen in Deutschland and iarbemndera to Preuasen. LeiDai0. 1838; K. G. N. Rintel, Vertaidiyunp des . . Martin non Dunin, wOrsburg, 1839; 1i. Have, Din bsidsn Erabischdfa, pp. 153‑200. 1.eipsio. 1839: F. Pohl, Martin von Dunin, Marienburg, 1843; H. Schmid. (htchichta der kaAwliachsn %ircha Deutachlands, Munich, 1874; H. Brook. Q'eachicAta der kai7wlischen Rirchs Dautaddands, vol. ii., Laipeio, 1903.
DUNKERS (DUIISARDS, TQNBEItS).
	I: History to the Separation	The Division of 1882
	of 1882 and the Main (¢ 8).
	Body or Conservative	II. The Prove Dun
	D u n k e r e since that kere.
Date.		Fundamental Cause of
	Origin in Germany (¢ 1).	Separation (¢ I).
	Emigration to America	Organisation and Pros.
(§ 2).		ent Statue (¢ 2).
	Development 1783‑1882	Doctrine and Practise
(; 3).	(¢ 3).
The Ministry (§ 4).		III. The Old Order Breth
	Creed, Dovernment, and ren.
	Present Condition (§ 6).
The bunkers are a denomination of Christian Reformers which originated in Germany in 1708, and in 1719 and following years emigrated to America. The name is from the German tunlcen, " to dip," signifying their method of baptizing. Among themselves they are known as Brethren. The corporate and official name is German Baptist Brethren. Since 1882 there have been three branches: the Conservative bunkers, Progressive bunkers, and Old Order Brethren. For the Seventh‑day Baptists, German, who were originally a secession from the bunkers, see CoMMuxIs>e, IL, b.
	I. History to the Separation of :88a and the
Main Body or Conservative buskers since that
Date: Prior to 1708 there was a religious awaken
ing in Europe, many earnest and pious people be
lieving that the Lutheran Reformation did not
reproduce the ideal Christianity demanded by
the New Testament Scriptures. This condition
prompted Alexander Mack (b. in Schriesheim‑in
Baden, 6 m. n.n.w. of Heidelberg‑Germany,
1879; d. at Germantown, Pa., Jan. 18, 1735) and
several others of like convictions, residing at
Sohwarzensu in Wittgenstein, Westphalia, to
study the Scriptures independent of all creeds
and to submit themselves wholly to the guid
ance of the Word. Mack was a Calvinist,
and well‑to‑do miller at this time. Knowing of
no religious body, accepting the teaching of the
New Testament as it appealed to them, they agreed
		to enter upon a life of obedience to
	I' ~	the Word as they understood it, form
	Germany,	a society of religious believers, and
		trust the Lord for future developments.
They accepted the Bible as the inspired Word of
God and agreed to recognize the New Testament
as their guide, but to accept new light as it came to
them. Desiring to enter the covenant relation
with Christ, they recognized that they must be
baptized as he directed. This they understood
to be trine immersion for penitent believers only.
There were eight of them with Mack as their leader.
The seven desired their leader to baptise them, but, as he believed he had never been baptized aright himself, he declined to baptize others. It was then decided that one, to be selected by lot, should baptize Mack, and he the rest of them, which was done in 1708 in the river Eder. The eight then organised themselves into a society, chose Mack for their preacher, and commenced active work. The services clustering around the Last Supper became their model for the love‑feast, hence they observed the rite of foot‑washing, followed by an evening meal, and that by the loaf and cup; greeted each other with the kiss of charity; anointed their sick with oil; refused to take oaths or engage in lawsuits; held to the doctrine of non‑resistance; became earnest advocates of plain attire; and refrained from attending places of amusement. Because of their claims of conformity to New Testament ideals, their zeal, and their simplicity, many were drawn to their ranks, and in the course of a few yearn there were hundreds of members, a number of ministers, and several churches in Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, the congregation at Schwarzenau being much the strongest.
Though they were a peaceable and harmless people, persecutions soon arose and scattered and disheartened them, and they began emigrating to America, settling first at Germantown, Pa., where denominational headquarters were established. The first company, headed by Peter Becker, a minister of great piety, came over in 1719. A second and larger company, accompanied by Alexander Mack, landed at Philadelphia in 1729. In the course of a few years the entire membership found its way to the Western world, largely through the instrumentality of William Penn,
8' 31ml‑ who offered the persecutzd of Europe
aratioa cheap lands in Pennsylvania, with per to America. mission to worship God as their conscience dictated. The first congregation in America was organized at Germantown Dec. 25, 1723, with Peter Becker in charge. Several settlements had already been formed in the vicinity of Germantown and Philadelphia, and some meetings held. Mack visited these communities with a view of promoting harmony, encouraging the Brethren, and confirming them in their faith and practise. John Conrad Beieeel, a man of considerable ability and influence, holding mystical views, occasioned much trouble. He became convinced that the seventh day should be observed as the Christian Sabbath, that there should be community of goods, and that the celibate life was most pleasing to the Lord. He secured a considerable following and, notwithstanding Mack's earnest efforts to heal the breach, withdrew with his adherents and established the Ephrata Community (see COMMONIBM, IL, b). Mack died in 1735 and was buried in the Germantown cemetery. The small communities grew into large congregations, and these gave rise to other settlements in Virginia, Maryland, and other parts of Pennsylvania. Christopher Sower (or Saur) established a large printing plant is Germantown, published a weekly paper, printed many books, and brought out the celebrated Sower Bible (see Sowan, CSRI8TOP8E8); he oleo aided in establish‑

25	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Dunkers
ing a high‑school in Germantown, and printed Sunday‑school cards for the use of the Brethren many years before the Sunday‑school was introduced in England by Robert Raikes.
During the Revolutionary War the Dunkers lost severely in property and prestige, but soon after the close of the war they again became active, and settlements were formed in Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and Indians, many of which grew into flourishing church. Until the Civil War they continued to spread, passing into Illinois and west of the Mississippi river. They opposed slavery, were non‑resistant,
S. De‑ and hence took no part whatever in
	oelop‑	the conflict between the contending
1785‑1882. armies' though their sympathies were
		with the North. When peace was
restored the churches on both sides of the Mason
and Dixon line again came together and went for
ward as though there had been no national strife.
Emigration resumed its course, and now they have
churches from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Their
first religious paper, the Gospel Visitor, s small
monthly, was published in 1851. From this small
beginning the publishing interest has grown until
now the main body of the Church owns and controls
a large, finely equipped printing plant at Elgin,
Ill. The Gospel Messenger, a large religious weekly,
is the church organ. There are many other pub
lications, including a paper for young people, a
missionary journal, a full supply of Sunday‑school
literature, and a large printing business is carried
on. The profits from these sources are used in mis
sionary work. Educational interests came to the
front in the seventies, and there are now a number
of educational institutions, extending from Mary
land to California, including schools at Huntingdon
and Elizabethtown, Pa.; Bridgewater and Dale
ville, Va.; Union Bridge, Md.; Canton, O.; North
Manchester, Ind.; Mt. Morris and Chicago, Ill.;
McPherson, Kans.; and Lordsburg, Cal. .Foreign
mission work commenced in 1878, when a mission
in Denmark was opened. There are now church
in Switzerland, France, Sweden, and India. The
most extensive foreign work is done in India,
where twenty‑five American missionaries are in the
field The conference of 1906 appointed the first
missionaries for China.
From the beginning the society depended upon and encouraged the free ministry system. Mack, Booker, and other early ministers received no compensation for their services. This gave rise to a system well adapted to the opening up of missions and founding of churches by emigration.
a. The Of late years many of the congrega‑
Arin‑	tions are supporting their pastors,
	stry,	especially in the cities. Ministers are
		elated by the congregations in which
they hold their membership, each member being
entitled to a vote. The brother receiving the
highest number of votes is declared elected and is
installed in what is known as the first degree, where
he has limited privileges. If be proves faithful
and efficient he is advanced to the second degree,
his duties and privileges being considerably en
larged. The bishops (or elders, as they are generally
called) are chosen from the ministers of the second degree. They are set apart or ordained by the laying on of hands of the elders priding at this ordination, and placed in charge of the churches se needed. There are also deacons, elected in the same way as ministers, whose duty it is to look after the poor and the sick, to visit the members, and to look after the church finances.
The Dunkers have no formal creed aside from the New Testament, but are sided and unified in their work by the minutes of the ‑Annual Meeting, which has convened since about 1742.
6. Creed, To this conference questions involv‑
ciovera‑ ing doctrine, church polity, and went,
	and	methods are brought, and the deci
Present sions made are the rule of the churches.
condition. This general conference is made up of delegates, lay or clerical, from the local congregations, and bishops from the State districts. The latter compose a standing committee, where duty it is to select from their own number the officers for the conference. Only regularly ordained elders can serve on the standing committee, and no one can serve two years in succession. The local churches in each State are grouped into one or more State districts, and each district is entitled to one or more elders or bishops on the standing committee, the number being determined by the membership of the district. Church government is democratic. The Annual Meeting settles disputed points, and each member is expected duly to respect and live up to the conference decisions. The Conservative Dunkers make a specialty of plain dressing and avoid places of amusement unbecoming their profession. Their attire is neat, comfortable, and tidy, and there is a general uniformity about their style that renders them easily recognizable. In this respect they resemble the Quakers, and they are the most radical of temperance people.
The Conservative bunkers now number about 100,000, and are increasing rapidly. Their movement began among the common people, and for generations they were found principally is the rural districts, most of them being industrious and thrifty farmers. They have long been noted for their skill and enterprise in establishing and building up ideal rural communities, with the finest moral, religious, and educational environments. Many of their places of worship, which are large and commodious, are in the country. They meet each Lord's Day for Sunday‑school and preaching services. Once or twice a year they meet, always in the evening, for their love‑feast. On these occasions there is first preaching on self‑examination, followed by the service of foot‑washing, the men and women occupying separate parts of the building; next, they eat together what they call the Lord's Supper, at the close of which they greet each other with the kiss of . charity; then follows the communion of the loaf and cup, unleavened bread being used.
Until 1881‑82 the Dunkers were a united people with one conference. 1a'or some time, however, there had been a growing desire for more advanced steps along educational and missionary lines. There was a demand for more liberty in dress

Dnnkero
Duns 8ootue
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
and a growing disrespect for the decisions of the Annual Meeting. Two radical parties developed and
	became separated from the Church; a
e. The large majority took middle ground,
Divi‑don of and remainedwiththeconference. The
	result was the separate organization of
1882.
	the " Progressive " and " Old Order "
Brethren (see below). Since the separation the
mother Church has made rapid advance. It retsina
all of its fundamental doctrinal and moral principles,
while opening Sunday‑schools, building up colleges,
extending and endowing its mission work, and en
larging its publishing interests. The Conservatives
and Progressives do not affiliate, but the unpleasant
feeling that at first existed has practically subsided.
		J. H. MOORE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are the Minute of the Annual Meeting, 1778‑1876, collected into one volume, Elgin, Ill.; Revised Minutes o/ the Annual Meeting, brought down to 1898, ib. For the history consult: Henry Kurtz, Brethren's Encyclopoadia. Colombians. O.. 1887; M. G. Brumbaugh, Hiat, of the German Baptist Brethren in Europe and America, Elgin, 1899; G. N. Falkenstein, Hint. of the German Baptist Brethren Church, Lancaster, Pa., 1901; H. R. Holsinger, Hint. of the Tunkera and the Brethren Churches, Oakland, Cal., 1901 (important for the later period); J. L. Gitlin, The Dunkera. A Sociological Interpretation, New York, 1908 (gives valuable bibliography). For doctrine consult: A. Mack, Jr., A Plain View of the Rites and Ordinances of the House of God . . , a translation of Kurz and eintdltige Vorateltunp der ttuaeeren abet dock heiLigen Rechten and Ordnungen den Houses Gotten . . . , last ed., Mount Morris, Ill., 1888; R. H. Miller, Doctrine of the Brethren Defended, Indianapolis, 1876.

II. The Progressive bunkers: The ultimate and fundamental cause of the secession of those Dunkera commonly known as " Progressive " from the mother Church was the rapid growth and develop‑
ment of the north‑central division of 1. Funds‑ the United States. As the country
mental increased in population, and new
Cause of
	Sepa‑	means of speedy communication with
	ration.	the world, with all that it implies,
		became available, the former isola
tion of the Dunkera in the wilderness was destroyed.
Traditions and customs of the Church which could
be defended neither by the Bible nor reason fell
into disfavor, and dissatisfaction grew especially
with the dogmatic type of mind characteristic of
many of the older and more ignorant. The neces
sity was felt of bringing the Church as rapidly as
possible into line with the knowledge and culture
of the times. On the other hand, congregations
and individuals isolated from the influences which
affected the more advanced communities were con
trolled by traditional beliefs and usages, and aimed
at uniformity on the basis of tradition all the more
strenuously because they knew of differences which
had grown naturally in widely separated parts of
the Church. Thus the social conditions of the
United States created two radically different tend
encies in the bunker Church; and by 1880 these
tendencies had come into open conflict which re
sulted in the division.
The immediate cause of the separation was sympathy with Henry R. Holsinger, of Berlin, Pa., because of what his friends considered ill treatment by the Annual Meeting of 1882. He was a radical
" Progressive " and was expelled by the Annual
Meeting, charged with speaking and writing dis
respectfully of certain leading members of the Church
and of the	Annual Meeting. Large numbers of
	his sympathizers in many congrega‑
2. Orgasi‑ Lions went out with him, in some
and	places the separation being made by
Present mutual consent, in others the Progress‑
	tatue,	ives being expelled. The work of organ
		izing Progressive congregations went on
rapidly under a committee appointed for the pur
pose by a convention at Ashland, O., in 1882.
Hope of a reconciliation with the Conservatives was
finally dissipated by the failure of the Annual Meet
ing of 1883 to take steps looking to that end, and
the Progressives then formally organized as the
Brethren Church at a convention at Dayton, O.,
in June, 1883, representatives being present from
about fifty congregations. In 1887 State organ
izations were formed and a national Sisters' Society
of Christian Endeavor was organized. ):n 1892 a
denominational Young People's Society was formed,
which later was affiliated with the Christian En
deavor movement. In 1895 the General Mission
Board was organized; it has city missions in Chi
cago, Philadelphia, and Washington. About 1900
a Foreign Missionary Society was organized, which
maintains stations in Montreal, Canada, and Urmia,
Persia. Following the Dayton convention the
college at Ashland, O., was turned over to the
Progressives on condition that they assume its
indebtedness. It now has an endowment of about
$60,000 and in 1905‑I16 had an enrolment of 150
students. The publishing house is at Ashland,
O. In 1895 there were 138 congregations re
ported with a membership of 10,031. In 1905 the
membership was 14,117 in 144 congregations in
eighteen Staten of the Union. The States having
the largest membership are Pennsylvania, 3,357;
Indiana, 3,275; Ohio, 2,443; Virginia, 880; and
Iowa, 841. The church periodical is the Brethren
Evangelist.
In doctrine the Progressive Dunkera differ from the Conservatives in but few points. They hold that the decisions of no conference are
3. Doo‑ binding upon the individual conscience.
trine	Hence, in church polity the Progresa‑
Practise~d	ives are congregational. They differ
.
	from the Conservatives in refusing to
conform to " the order," i.e. the style of dress and
cut of the hair and beard prescribed by the Annual
Meeting. They agree with the Conservatives in
holding the general Evangelical doctrines, sad in
laying less emphasis upon orthodox theology than
upon a pious life. They also hold with the Con
servatives the doctrines (1) of the Lord's Supper
consisting of foot‑washing, the love‑feast, or primi
tive agape, the communion in bread and wine, and
the salutation; (2) of baptism for adults only and
by trine immersion; (3) of non‑resistance of evil,
which includes opposition to war and avoidance of
lawsuits; and (4) of opposition to the taking of any
kind of oath. 	J. L. Gll.rul.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult, besides the works of Holsinger and Gitlin, ut sup., the files of The Progressive Christian, 1878‑83; The Brethren Evangelist, 1883‑date; The Broth‑

2?	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
		Duns Scotus
ran Annual, 1882‑date; Reports of the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting; Classifud Minutes, 1888; and the Revised Minutes.
III. The Old Order Brethren: These are the ultraconservatives who oppose all change and refuse to accept new methods. In 1881 they organized a yearly conference meeting in a barn in Montgomery County, O., following old traditions and customs as far as possible, and have continued as a separate society with no affiliations with either of the other bodies. They publish a monthly, the Vindicator, at Brookville, O., but have no colleges, highschools, Sunday‑schools, or missionary departments. They have no supported ministers. In dress and other ways they are extremely plain. In doctrine they do not differ materially from the mother Church. For alleged Scriptural reasons they object to being numbered, but are estimated to include about 4,000 members, chiefly in the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. J. H. MOORS.

DUNK, RANSOM: Free‑Will Baptist; b. at Bakersfield, Vt., July 7, 1818; d. at Scranton, Pa., Nov. 9, 1900. He was educated at New Hampton, N. H., and in the early part of his life was an Evangelist, chiefly in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan. Later he held a number of pastoral charges, the moat important being at Boston and Hillsdale, Mich. He taught at different times in Hillsdale College, where he was president 1885‑86 and professor of homiletics and head of the theological department after 1888. He wrote Freedom of the Will (Dover, N. H., 1850) and Systematic Theology (in collaboration with J. J. Butler; Boston, 1892).

DUNNE, EDWARD JOSEPH: Roman Catholic bishop of Dallas, Tex.; b. at Tipperary, Ireland, Apr. 23, 1848. He was brought by his parents to Chicago in infancy, and studied at the College of St. Mary's of the Lake, Chicago, St. Francis' Seminary, Milwaukee, and St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore. In 1871 he was ordained to the priesthood, and after being assistant at two Chicago churches was appointed rector o£ All Saints' in the same city in 1875. In 1893 he was consecrated second bishop of Dallas.

DUNNING, ALBERT ELIJAH: Congregationalist; b. at Brookfield, Conn., Jan. 5, 1844. He was graduated at Yale College in 1867, and Andover Theological Seminary in 1870. From 1870 until 1880 he was pastor of the Highland Congregational Church, Boston, and was then general secretary of the Congregational Sunday‑school and Publishing Society until 1889, since which time he has been editor in chief of the Congregationalist. He was a member of the International Sunday‑school Lesson Committee 1884‑1902, and its secretary 1897‑1902. In 1903 he was elected secretary of the department on Sunday‑schools of the Religious Education Association, and was made chairman of the committee on polity for the union of the Congregational, United Brethran, and Methodist Protestant Churches in 1906. He has written The Sunday‑school Library (Boston, 1883); Bible Studies (1888); and Congregationalists in America (1894).
Me Life (¢ 1).
DUNS SCOTUS.
Conception of God (¢ 8).
His Philosophy. The Rela‑	Doctrine of Sin (¢ 7).
	lion of Universals to Par‑	Redemption (¢ 8).
	ticulars (¢ 2).	The Sacramento (§ 9).
His Epistemology (¢ 3).	The Importance of Scotus
The Primacy of the will (¢ 4).	(§ 10).
Revelation and the Church	His works (¢ 11).
	(¢ 5)•
Johannes Duns Scotus (known as Doctor subtilis) was one of the leading scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages; d. at Cologne Nov. 8, 1308. The date of his birth is unknown; the more probable tradition would place it c. 1265, since the other, assigning him an age of only thirty‑four years at death, hardly gives time for the production of such an amount of literary work as we have from him. His birthplace is a matter of controversy. The surname Scotus may indicate either Scotland or Ireland. Cavellua and Waddington assert that he was an Irishman. The best view, however, seems to be that which makes Duns an Englishman. At the end of the Oxford manuscript of his work on the " Sentences " of Peter Lombard there is a note asserting in the most positive and detailed way that he was born " in a certain village of Northumberland called Dunstane." He joined the Franciscan order at Newcastle, and became a r. His Life. member of Merton College, Oxford (whose statutes, moreover, allowed the admission of none but those of English birth). Under the direction of William of Ware (or Varron), he laid the foundation of his comprehensive learning. Outside of philosophy, his writings display a wide acquaintance with mathematics and astronomy, no doubt a result of his Oxford training. Here, too, originated his philosophical writings, and probably also the great commentary on the " Sentences," the so‑called Opus Oxoniense. On Nov. 18, 1304, at the command of the general of his order, he presented himself in Paris for the degree of bachelor, and soon afterward proceeded to that of doctor. Here originated the Quodlibetira and the so‑called RePortatd Parlsiensia, a smaller commentary on the " Sentences," representing the lectures in dogmatic theology which he delivered in Paris. In 1308 he was transferred to Cologne, where he was received with great honors, and lectured in the Franciscan house there for the few months of life that remained to him. The cause of his death is not known. Some later writers speak of apoplexy; others assert that he was buried alive while unconscious, and give harrowing details which are obviously untrustworthy, as they appeared for the first time two centuries after his death.
The philosophy of Scotus was concerned especially with two problems‑‑the relation of universals to particulars, and the theory of knowledge. The position of Scotus is for the most part that of a moderate realism as it was maintained by the Arabs and by Albertue Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. To him universals are by no means " fictions of the intellect "; otherwise there would be no objective essential unities in the world, but only numerical differences between individuals. There must be something real outside ourselves corresponding to the terms; the universal exists both in intellectu

Dun Scotus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	28
and in re.	Since all existence is traced back to
God, it follows that the archetypes of all things
	that are have been from eternity in the
x. His divine mind. This is true also of mat‑
Philosophy. ter, which may be understood not only
The Rela‑ as ens nut nihil but also as ease in potion of tentia. What, then, is the relation of
Universals the universal to the particular? Ao‑
to Particu‑ cording to Thomas, matter is the
	lays.	principle of individuation. Thin Scotus
		denies, even on Thomas's view of
matter as negative. For him individuation is the
work of an entitas positiroa, and consists in a unity
which resists any further division. Now this unity
can not have for its basis anything negative, since
no negative can be opposed to a positive. The
basis is aliquod poaitivum intrinsecum. The signifi
cance of the luecceitas of an object (that which
renders the object capable of being designated as
" this "), or, as he elsewhere calls it, unitaa signata
ut hoc, or individuitas, is that in his view (which
here again is opposed to Thomas's) the purpose
of nature is realized in the particular. As this
purpose is laid down by God, we moat, in accordance
with the divine ordinance, regard the individual
and the particular as a higher form of existence than
the universal.
In his epistemology the generally accepted Aristotelian principles naturally predominate. Knowledge is the product of the joint operation of the soul and some objedum prcesena et hoc in specie intelligibili. Though our knowledge presupposes an impression made on the senses, yet the image they receive does not create the conception; the species intelligibilia inherent in the object excites the action of the mind, which appropriates the species by abstraction. In this process of building up a conception the intellect is the " principal
3. His cause"; only the " occasion " of its
Epistemol‑ activity is furnished by the external
	ogy.	world. The work of the intellect is
		thus to extract universals from par
ticulars. Thin is not to be taken as if it were neces
sary to neglect all concrete sense‑perception in order
to attain the universal; the general moat authen
ticate itself by the concrete. The view of Scotus
is that thought, in the pas of constructing terms,
perceives in the phenomena of sense the universal
which underlies them; and this is in the main the
view of the later realists.
	The primacy of the will is a dominant thought
in all his philosophy. In both Aristotle and Thomas
the will is moved by the intellect, which Thomas
thus places higher than the will, believing that
happiness is to be attained through it and not
through the will. Thin view is strongly combated
by Scotus. All knowledge, according to him, is
		dependent upon the operation of ex‑
4. The ternal things, and man is not free in Primacy of regard to his thought; as distinguished
	the Will.	from the will, thought is natural, and
		subject to " natural necessity." If,
then, thought (or the object which determines the
thought) caused the act of the will, an affirmative
act of the will would be explicable enough, but not
the simultaneous possibility of a negative act, since
a " natural agent " can produce only one effect. The will, therefore, moat be the sole cause of its decisions. If this were not the case, natural actions would not be free, and there would be no room for merit or demerit as applied to the will.
Thin view postulates the possibility of things happening freely and by chance, which is a fact of experience. Scotus does not deny that the intellect cooperates with the will, or that intellectual notions influence every act of the will. He means only that the actual volition is the work of the free will, the intellect playing merely the part of a causa su6serviens. From this proposition he deduces consequences opposed to the Thomiet views. Acts of the will are on a higher plane than acts of the intellect. The fact that it is the will which is attacked by the corruption of sin is an additional demonstration of its primacy; and in like manner happiness is enjoyed primarily not by the understanding but by the will. In a word, the purpose of being is realized by the exercise of free, personal will.
	The theology of Scotus presupposes a revelation,
which teaches man the aim to be sought by his will
and the means of reaching it. These necessary
truths are taught by Scripture, whose credibility is
demonstrated at length, and contained in summary
in the Apostles' Creed, or in the three ancient creeds,
and in addition to these in the authority of the
" authentic Father" , and the "Roman Church."
Since the Church has determined the canon, sub
mission to the authority of Scripture involves sub
		mission to the Church, which " ap‑
	g. Revels‑	proves and authorizes " the Scriptural
	tion sad	books. The decision of the Roman
the Church. Church pronounces a doctrine orthodox
		or heretical. Even when a doctrine
has no other authority or rational foundation, it
must be accepted on the single authority of the
Church. The way is thus paved for the ecclesias
tical positivism of later scholasticism. The whole
body of positive and practical truths offered by
theology is apprehended by faith.
	He reaches his conception of God by endeavoring
to show, from the standpoints of causality, finality,
and eminentia, the necessity of an F.na infinitum,
having no external cause or end and no superior.
Considering God as the Primum e f ficiens and per
se agens, he reaches some useful positive conclusions,
proving at length that this primum a ftiens must
possess intelligence and will. What God wills, he
wills only because he wills it. He does not will
the good because it is good, but good is good be
		cause he wills it. The absolute power
6. Concep‑ of God has theoretically only one tion of God. limit, that of the logically impossible; in practise it is limited, in accordance with what he actually has willed or wills, to a potentia ordinals. The sum of the relations of God to the world may be designated as love, which embraces the entire creation, present and potential. All creation forms a whole, whose individual parts rank according to their relation to their end of being; and thin relation determines the degree of the divine love given to each. As God finds the end of his being in himself, be loves himself first‑teen men,

29	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ihms Scotus
in so far as they are in immediate relation to this end.
The sinleesness of man in Paradise was theoretically only potential, since the will includes the possibility of sinning. The real ainlesanesa of the first man therefore involves a "auperadded gift," the impacted supernatural " habit" of grace, by which alone he was able to subject his lower powers to his higher. Since concupiscence, or the opposition of the flesh to the spirit, belongs to the original nature of man, it can not be the basis of origq. Doctrine final sin, which is rather to be dea‑
	of Sin.	ignated as " the lack of original
		righteousness." Concupiscence is the
natural material of original sin, but only becomes
sin when the frenum cohibens is removed. Scotus
is thus led into the denial of the physical trans
mission of original sin. Just as the will can not
bring about a metamorphosis of the natural con
stitution, so an inherited physical constitution
can not change the will. The redemption of man
from sin stands for Scotus upon quite another
basis. In so far as justitia originalia was imparted
to Adam and his posterity, it was a justitia debits;
and the will of each of his descendants has the
same debt. Physical generation comes into ques
tion only in that by it we are made children of
Adam and placed under the ideal obligation to this
justitia. This doctrine strikes at the root of the
Augustinian theory of original sin; it replaces the
physical transmission of sinful concupiscence by
the ideal obligation of every child of Adam to the
supernatural righteousness originally imparted to
the first man.
In his treatment of redemption, Scotus denies that the merits of Christ are infinite. Their basis is in the obedience rendered by him, which is the act of his human will; and as that will is finite, so the merits acquired by its act must be finite. The eternal divine predestination embraces in itself, as the means to its accomplishment, the meritorious Passion of Christ. The death of Christ acquires its unique value in virtue of the divine will which has ordained this means and purposed to accept it as sufficient for the redemption of humanity. Here comes in the question made familiar by Aneehn‑whether the precise form of the Passion was necessary to redemption; and this 8. Redemp‑ question leads Scotus to a criticism
	tion.	of Anaehn'a theory. He denies the
		absolute necessity of satisfaction,
which was only necessary so far as God willed it,
which he was not bound to do. But even if the
necessity of satisfaction is admitted, it does not
follow that it must be made by God, since it is
not true that a satisfaction exceeding in value
that of all creation moat have been offered. The
value of the redeeming act is not in the thing offered,
but in its acceptance by the divine will. Christ,
seeing the sinfulness of the Jews and their perverted
devotion to the Law, desired "to recall them from
error by his words and deeds." He taught them
the truth, and, in the execution of this task, died
for righteousness, considering his Passion the most
effective means of winning men back to God through
love. So far this doctrine of satisfaction follows
in the main the type represented by Abelard. How Scotus conceived the objective side of the Atonement is seen in another passage, where he says that God would not forgive sin unless something was offered to him which pleased him more than sin displeased him; and this could only be the obedience of a person whom he loved more than he would have loved humanity had it not sinned. This was Christ, in return for whose obedience and love God showed mercy to the human race. The imparting of the grace of God is thus the result of the merits of Christ. By the word grace in the ordinary sense of gratis crea6a Scotus understands the divinely‑imparted " habit " of love, which inclines the human will to meritorious acts. Grace is " a principle cooperating " with the will. With such cooperation, man would have to be supposed capable of performing meritorious acts ex sobs naturalibus, which would be a Pelagian assumption. There moat be a supernatural form imprinting its character upon human action, without forcing it and thus taking away all merit; and through this " habit " not only the single act but the whole man becomes acceptable to God.
Like moat medieval theologians, Scotus considered the imparting of grace as inseparably attached to the sacraments, which are given to men in virtue of the Passion of Christ as the " most perfect meritorious cause of grace." Apart from the general questions as to the nature of sacraments, the moat interesting thing in his treatment is his discussion of the relation between the divine and earthly factors in the sacraments. Since the g. The Sac‑ grace which is imparted to man by a
	raments.	sacrament can only come into being
		through a creative act, and creation
in that sense is impossible to man, it follows that
the gift of grace in the sacrament is the result of
the direct operation of God, not of priestly action.
On their human or external aide, the sacraments
are symbolic acts, which typify the accompanying
divine operation within the soul. But these sym
bols are sure and operative, since God has promised
to accompany their use with the effect which they
symbolize. He thus defines a sacrament as " a
symbol cognizable by the senses, efficaciously signi
fying by divine institution the grace‑ of God or the
effect of God's gracious operation, ordained for the
salvation of man in this life." There can then be no
question of an indwelling of supernatural power
in the sacraments; they are not in themselves
" causes of grace," but can be so called only be
cause the symbols are secure evidences of the cor
responding operations of grace, while God's will is
'I the sole cause of grace, which he creates directly in the soul. This view had already been clearly stated by Bonaventura, and through Scotus it came to dominate the theology of the later Middle Ages.
The historical importance of the general teaching of Scotus can scarcely be overestimated. He brought the scholastic method to its highest point. His brilliant dialectic, his acuteness of insight, the earnestness of his criticism, and the carefulness of his demonstration set as example which has sel‑

Dune Scotus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	30
Du Perron
dom been equaled by his followers.	In his treat
	ment of authority he gave it a different bearing
	from that which it had had with the older scholastics;
	it became a positive ecclesiastical law, from which
	no deviation could be tolerated, and
ro. The	this legal conception of orthodoxy
	Importance marked out the line in which the later
of Scotus. nominalist theology followed.	Ac
	cording to his idea of God, all that is
	must be referred to the absolutely free will of the
	Creator; and the task of learning is therefore not the
	working out of what is rationally necessary but the
	determination of that which is positively ordained
by God.	This is particularly true of theology,
	which, embracing a number of contingent disposi
	tions of God, has to deal with a peculiar range of
facts.	This explains Scotus's feeling for the par
	ticular and the individual, as well as the free skep
	tical spirit in which he approaches tradition. Char
	acterizing God as Will, and finding the essence of
	man's nature also in his Will he naturally empha
	sizes the individual and his freedom in his view of
	humanity. Thus by his sharp criticism of tradi
	tional theories and by his bold creation of new terms
	and combinations, he set forces at work in the
	domain of theology which did much to prepare the
	way for the still more thoroughgoing criticism of
the Reformers.
	His works are best consulted in the relatively
	complete edition of his fellow Franciscan Wadding
	(12 vole., Lyons, 1639), or the new one (26 vole.,
	Paris, 1891‑95), which, however, marks no very
notable advance over Wadding.	The most im
	portant is the great commentary on the " Sen
	tences " known as the Opus Oxoniense (vole.
	viii.‑xxi. of the Paris edition); of
>< i. His	this the Reportata Parisiensia (vole.
Works. xxii.‑xxiv.) is an abridgment.	Of
	the remaining works a large part con
	sists of commentaries on various treatises of Aris
	totle, including the " Physics," " Metaphysics,"
	" Meteorologics," " Refutations," and " Of the
Soul."	His logical works of which the Grammatica
	Speculativa is the most important, are also largely
	based on those of Aristotle and on the Isagoge of
Porphyry.	Others are entitled Theoremata, Dis
	putationes subtilissimte, Conslusiones mettzphysicee
	(whose authenticity is questioned by some), and
	the Qucestiones quodlibetales (vole. xxv.‑xxvi.).
	Of the exegetical and homiletical works mentioned
by Wadding, no trace has yet been found.
	(R. SEEBERQ. )
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best life is in vol. i. of the edition of
	the works by Wadding, ut sup. Consult further: J.
	Muller, Biopraphiachea fiber Duns Scotus, Cologne, 1881;
	K. Werner, Johannes Dune Scotus, Strasburg, 1881;
	DNB, xvi. 216‑220. For the philosophy consult: F. C.
	Baur, Dreieinigkeit and Menachmerdung, vol. ii. passim,
	Tiibingen, 1842; M. Schneid. Die Kdrperlehre den Jo
	hannea Duns Scotus, Mainz, 1879; K. Werner, Die Scho
	lastik den apateren Mittelaiters, vol. i., Vienna, 1881; A.
	Ritsehl, Recht/ertigung and Vers6hnung, i. 73 eqq., Bonn,
	1882; W. Kahl, Der Primal den WiiZena bei Aupuatinue,
	Dune Scotus and Descartes, Strasburg, 1886; R. Seeberg,
	Die Buaslehre den Duns Scotus, in AbhandZungen Ziir Alex
	ander von Oettinpen, pp. 172 sqq., Munich, 1897; idem,
	Lehrbuch der Dogmengeachichte, vol. ii, passim. Leipsie,
	1898; idem, Die Theologie den Johannes Duns Scotus, ib.
	1900; A. H. Ritter, Geachich(e der Philosophic, viii. 354
	sqq., Hamburg, 1834‑53; and the works on the history
of philosophy by F. Ueberweg (i. 452‑457, New York, 1874), J. E. Erdmsnn (vol. i. passim, ib. 1890), and W. Windelband (pp. 311‑344, 384, 394, 420‑423, ib. 1893). An excellent list of works on the subject is furnished in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp. 188‑187, New York, 1905. The treatment by A. Ritsehl is in Eng. tranal:, A Critical History o/ the Christian Doctrine o/ Justification avid Reconciliation, Edinburgh, 1872.

DUNSTAN, SAINT: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. near Glastonbury (5 m. s. of Wells, Somerset) probably in 925; d. at Canterbury May 19, 988. He was of noble family and related to Elphege of Winchester and other bishops. His early education was received from Irish scholars in the abbey of Glastonbury, but his distinguished birth and rich personal endowments led to his being summoned to the court by King Athelstan while still a lad. Stories of his visions and dreams point to some morbid or abnormal nervous condition. His fondness for heathen poetry and study of incantations was made a ground of accusation against him, and, as a consequence, he suffered physical ill treatment and was driven from the court. His kinsman, Bishop Elphege, received him at Winchester and, after a period of reluctance on Dunstan's part, made him a monk.
He now returned to Glastonbury (9427) and devoted himself to the study of the Bible and the Fathers, finding also occupation and amusement in painting, music, and working in metals. Bells, crosses, and many small articles were long shown in Glastonbury as his workmanship. He is said to have adopted an ascetic life and to have built with his own hands a small cell " more like a grave than a human dwelling‑place," which served him as living‑room, oratory, and workshop. He was again summoned to the court by King Edmund, only to be again expelled; but the almost miraculous escape of the king from great danger while hunting softened his mind and led to Dunstan's being recalled and made abbot of Glastonbury (c. 946, at the age of twenty‑one). The buildings were in a ruinous condition, the true monastic life had died out, lay brothers had taken the place of monks, and the crown had seized upon the rights of patronage and the estates. Dunstan's innovations were rather a new foundation than a reformation. With generous support from the king he built up an institution which was more of a school than a Benedictine community, though his companions wore monk's garb. From it went forth archbishops and clergy of all sorts, who founded and ruled monasteries, disseminated Dunstan's teaching, and instructed the young. Glastonbury became the center of a monastic reform in Britain, which culminated in the complete establishment of the Benedictine rule (though not till after Dunstan'a return from Blandigny; see below), carried through by Dunstan himself in milder form, by his followers with more rigor.
After Edmund's murder (946) Dunstan became chief advisor and treasurer of King Edred, who had probably been his playmate at Athelstan's court. The young and physically weak king owed much to Dunstan's wise counsel, and the final suppression of a revolt in Northumbria was largely the work

31	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Duns eootaa
Du Perron
of the energetic minister. Edred promoted Dunstan's plans for monastic reform and wished to make him bishop of Crediton in Devonshire (953), but Dunstan declined because he had not attained the canonical age and wished to remain by the king. A divine revelation is said to have foretold him of the impending sudden death of his royal friend (955), and he interred the body at Winchester with great honor. Dunstan's enemies prevailed with the new king, Edwy, and he fled to Flanders to the monastery of Blandigny, near Ghent. It was here that he gained his full knowledge of the Benedictine rule. A revolt against Edwy followed in England, Dunstan's friends gained the upper hand, and in 957 he was recalled. The young king, Edgar, made him bishop of Worcester the same year, in 959 also bishop of London, and finally archbishop of Canterbury. He was consecrated Oct. 21, 959, and in 960 received the pallium from Pope John XII. in Rome, where his liberality and piety were much praised. As archbishop he filled his suffra,gan sees with his adherents, pushed on the monastic reform, and substituted monks for secular clergy, having in all these measures the support of the king and an influential party. It is said that he founded forty new monasteries and filled them in part with French monks. With other bishops he crowned Edgar at Bath in 973, and with wise statecraft he acted as chief minister during Edgar's successful and orderly reign. In the disorders which followed Edgar's death (975), during which the archbishop crowned more than one king, Dunstan's party finally prevailed. In the last years of his life he returned to his early artistic avocations, and took much interest in church building and in education; his old zeal for religion and charity continued unabated. On the whole he presents the picture of a man of piety, himself eager to learn and anxious to teach others, also of an able statesman. Laws of his time, particularly under Edgar, show a strong sense of justice, and church ordinances bear marks of his mild hand. No genuine literary works of Dunstan's are preserved. He was buried in his church, not at Glastonbury, as asserted later. A cycle of legends and wonders soon grew up about his memory. H. HAHN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for biography are the Vita;, including one by a contemporary priest (signed B), that by Adelard of Ghent (1008‑11 A.D.), and one by Osbern (s contemporary of Lanfranc), are collected in ASB, May, iv. 348‑384, in MPL, exxzvii., cxxzix., clix., and with other documents, ed. W. Stubbs, in Memorials of SG Dunstan, Rolls Series, No. 83, London, 1874. These are supplemented by the Dunstan Saga, ed. G. Vigfusaon, Eng. tranal. by G. W. Daeent, Roils Series, London, 1887‑94. Further sources are indicated in T. D. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue o/ Materials relating to the Hiat., o/ Great Britain, Roils Series, No. 28, i. 2, pp. 594‑B09, ib. 1882. As sources consult also: D. Wilkins, Conciiia Magna. Britannica< . . . 4k8‑1717, 4 vole, London, 1737; Codex diplomaticua a~oi Saxonici, ed. J. M. Kemble, 8 vole., ib. 1539. For more modern treatment consult: Engelhardt, Diasertatio de Dunatano, Erlangen, 1834; W. Robinson, Life of St. Dunstan, London, 1844; W. F. Hook, Lines n/ the Archbishop# of Canterbury, Vol. i., ib. 1880; DNB, xvi. 221‑230.
DUASTER, HENRY: First president of Harvard College; b. probably at Bury (8 m. n.n.w. of Manchester), Lancashire, England, 1609 (said to have been baptized Nov. 26, 1609; cf. The Nation,
lxxxiv., 1907, p. 9); d. at Scituate, Mass., Feb. 27, 1659. After studying at Magdalene College, Cambridge (B.A., 1630; M.A., 1634), he took orders; in 1640 he came to America to escape High‑church tyranny. On Aug. 27 of the same year he was appointed president of Harvard, and held this position till Oct. 24, 1654, when he was forced to resign on account of his antipedobaptist views (see BAPTISTS, IL, 1, § 4). He then removed to Scituate, where he was engaged in the ministry till his death. For the public proclamation regarding infant baptism, which had caused his retirement from Harvard, he was indicted by the grand jury and sentenced to a public admonition; and later he was presented to this body for failure to baptize one of his children. He did much to give standing to Harvard, and was greatly esteemed for his piety and learning. He had a good knowledge of Hebrew, and when Eliot, Welds, and Mather prepared the " Bay Psalm Book " (q.v.) they submitted the work to him for revision.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Chaplin, Life of Henry Dunakr, Boston, 1872; the histories of Harvard by B. Pierce, Cambridge, 1833, J. Quincy, Boston, 1840, and 8. A. Eliot, ib. 1848; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 125126, New York. 1859: DNB, xvi. 231‑232.

DUPANLOUP, dii"pdii"lu', FELIX ANTOINE PHILIBERT: French prelate; b. at St. Fdlis,14 m. n.n.e. of Chambi;ry, Jan. 3, 1802; d, at the Ch$teau Lacombe, near Grenoble, Oct. 11, 1878. He was ordained priest at Paris in 1825. In 1841 he received a professorship at the Sorbonne, in 1849 the bishopric of Orleans, and in 1854 he became s member of the French Academy. As a writer and speaker he was untiring in his efforts in behalf of the Roman Catholic Church and clergy. He belonged to a liberal group, opposing the dogma of papal infallibility, but submitted to the decision of the Vatican Council in 1870. In 1871 he was a deputy to the National Assembly, where he allied himself with the clerical right, and in 1875 he was elected a life‑senator. He sided in Broglie's attempt at a clerical reaction in 1877, establishing a paper, La Defense, in the interest of the movement. Among his numerous writings may be mentioned: Manuel des catechismes (Paris, 1832); De l'Mucation (3 vole., 1850‑62); (Euvres ehoisies (4 vole., 1861); De la haute education intellectuelle (3 vole., 1870).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Lagrange, Vie de Mgr. Dupan7oup, 8 vole., Paris, 1883‑84, Eng tranal., 2 vole.. London, 1885; F. A. P. de Falloux, L'_0vNue d'Ori6ans, Paris, 1879; J. Pougeois, Mgr. DupanZoup, as role publique et prirocsa, see ceuvrea, ib. 1879; C. Hartwig, Die Erzishunpspnasipisn Dupanloupa, Leipaic, 1884
DU PERRON, <lii pa"r8ii' (DUPERROli), JACQUES DAVY: French cardinal and author; b. near Bern Nov. 25,1556; d. at Batignolles (now part of Paris) Sept. 5, 1618. He was the son of Reformed parents, and received a careful education from his father. Presented at the French court at an early age, he gained the favor of Henry Ill., and in his twenty‑fifth year took orders in the Roman Catholic Church. He was an important factor in the conversion of Henry IV., who appointed him Bishop of Evreux in 1591, and it was he who, together with Cardinal d'Ossat, sought and obtained absolution for the king at Rome in

DU	u pin
D P185818‑Xorna'
1595. At this same time the pope consecrated
him to his bishopric, and he thereupon devoted
himself to the conversion of the Reformed. In
1604 Du Perron became cardinal, and two years
later was made Grand Almoner of France and arch
bishop of Sens. 1n 1604 he was invited by Clem
ent VIII. to take part in the conferences of the
Congregatio de auxiliis on Moliniam, and he also
labored for the reconciliation of the pope and the
republic of Venice. He became still more promi
nent at the Synod of Paris in 1812, which con
demned the De ecclesiastics et Politics grotestate of
Edmond Richer, and at the assembly of the Es
tates at Paris in 1614‑16, where he vainly sought
to secure the acceptance of the canons and decrees
of the Council of Trent. His writings were pub
lished at Paris in 1820‑22 in three folio volumes,
the first containing his Traitk sur l'euclaaristie, di
rected primarily against Du Pleeeie‑Monaey; the
second comprising his controversy with James I.
of England, who had asserted that the Anglican
Church formed part of the Church Catholic; and
the third including briefer controversial works and
the articles drawn up for the conversion of the
sister of Henry IV. 	(C. Pasamss.)
BiRuoaasrar: P. Feret. Ls Cardinal Du Par^ Paris,
1877: Psrroniam, Gen"&, 1887.
DU PIN, dil pan' (DUPIIi), LODIS ELLIES: French Roman Catholic priest and historian; b. at Paris June 17, 1657; d. there June 8, 1719. He was a scion of a noble Norman family, and received a thorough education, becoming a doctor of the 3orbonne in 1884. Two years later appeared the first volume of his chief work, the Bibliot)apque unir verselle den auteurs ecclksiaatiques, which brought its author into conflict with the clergy and especially with Boesuet on account of its rationalistic tone. Under the threat of a rigid censorship he retracted his views, but could not save his book from suppression by the Parliament of 1683. It was continued, however, under the new title Nouvelle bt'bliothbque den auEeura ecclEsiastiquea, and in this form reached, with the supplements, sixty‑one octavo volumes (original ed., 58 vole., Paris, 18881704; Eng. transl. by W. Wotton, 17 vole., London, 1893‑1707). Involved in the controversy over the bull Unigenitus and accused of being a Jansenist and a signer of the " Case of Conscience," he was banished to Chatellerault, and although he was permitted to return after a second retraction, he was not allowed to resume his activity as a teacher at the Collisge de France. During the regency he corresponded with William Wake, the archbishop of Canterbury, on the union of the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, and all his papers were accordingly confiscated in Feb., 1719, at the order of Dubois. He likewise took part in the attempt to unite the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches made when Peter the Great visited Paris in 1717.
As a Gallican canonist Du Pin wrote his De antiqtut ecclesiai discipline dissertationes hietorieee (Paris, 1888) and his Traits de la puissance eec1eaiastique et temporelle (1707), the latter a detailed commentary on the four theses of the Gallican clergy. Among his numerous other works special
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG
as
mention may be made of the following: Dissertation praiminaire, ou proUgomknes our la Bible (2 vole., 1899; Eng. transl., 2 vole., London, 16991700); Bibliotlbque univeraelle den historiena (Amsterdam, 1708; Eng. tranal., 2 vole., London, 1709); Histoire de l'6glise en abrOgi (Paris, 1712; Eng. transl., 4 vole., London, 1715‑IB); Mdhode pour 6tudier la Wologie (1718; Eng. transl., London, 1720); and his editions of Optatus (Paris, 1700) and of the writings of Johann Gerson (1703). He wrote with extraordinary ease, skill, and taste, but was lacking in depth. (C. Px~FINDER.)
BiB:.coaewrai: Du Pin's notes upon his life sad writings
ire in the Nouvelle bibliotAtque, mix. 178‑253. Consult: Nicbron, Mbrrwires, ii. 25‑28; L. G. Michaud, Bsopraphis ssniroersslls, vol. ui., 45 vole., Paris, 1843‑86.

DU PLESSfS‑1'IORRAY, dii"plea"sf'‑m8r"nY, PHI
LIPPE.
Early Life and Education (¢ 1). First Public Services, 1889‑77 (¢ 2). Enters Service of Henry of Navarre (¢ 3). Defense of Henry's Claim to the Succession (¢ b). Activities as Governor of 8aumur (¢' b). His Great Polemic (¢ 8). His Influence and Importance (¢ 7).
	Philippe Du Pleesie‑Mornay (called also Philippe
de Mornay, Seigneur du Pleeeis‑Marly, Baron of
La Fort‑sur‑Sbvre), French Protestant states
man, soldier, theologian, and controversialist; b.
at Buhy (Normandy) Nov. 5, 1549; d. at La
Fort‑surSdvre (Poitou) Nov. 11, 1623. He was
destined for the priesthood, and at an early age
was sent to the Roman Catholic college of Lisieux
at Paris in spite of the fact that his mother had been
won over to the practise, though not to the public
acknowledgment, of the Reformed faith. In 1559
the father died, a convert to Protestantism, which
was now openly professed by the widow and her
children. Mornay prosecuted his studies at Paris
for a number of years, then, on the outbreak of the
second war of religion in 1567, he made ready to
join the Huguenot forces under Condo, but was pre
vented from carrying out his intention by a fall
from his horse. A poem on the horrors of civil
		strife, composed at this time and ad‑
:. Early dressed to the Cardinal of Chatillon, Life and gained him the friendship of that Education. prelate, at whose advice he undertook in 1588 a long journey abroad for the purpose of completing his education under the best foreign teachers. Through Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and England he traveled, devoting his time with characteristic seriousness of purpose to linguistic and juridical studies, acquainting himself with political, ecclesiastical, and social life and the great men of the different countries, and preserving the results of his observations is a carefully kept diary.
At Cologne he came into contact with Dutch refugees, whose accounts of Alva's rule stirred the ardent young Protestant to vehement hatred against Roman Catholic Spain and convinced him of the unity of interests between the adherents of the Reformed faith in France and Holland. Two pamphlets addressed to the Dutch people, exhorting them to cast off the Spanish yoke, gained him the attention end friendship of William the Silent. Co.

.		DU Pin
33	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
		Du Plessis‑Mornay
ligny, too, discerned the splendid promise of his talents, and a memorial composed by Du Plesais, urging the expediency of rendering aid to the Dutch provinces, was laid by the great admiral before Charles IX. He narrowly escaped the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and with great difficulty made his
way to England, where he remained
z. First till the end of 1573, acting for a time
Public	as the agent of William the Silent
Services, and the Duke of Alengon and Anjou.
r56g‑77. Summoned by La None to France, he
took part in the unsuccessful Huguenot attempt at Saint Germain in Mar., 1574, was defeated at Nantes, went on a diplomatic mission to Louis of Nassau, and was taken prisoner in the battle of Dormans in Oct., 1575, but escaped recognition and, ransomed for a small sum, took up his residence at Sedan. There he made the acquaintance of Charlotte Arbaleste, a young widow of deeply pious character and an ardent Huguenot, whom he married in Jan., 1576. It was characteristic of her that she requested a literary dissertation as a marriage gilt, and Du Plessis accordingly composed his Discours de la vie et de la morE (Lausanne, 1576; Eng. transl. Discourse of Life anal Death, by Edward Aggas, London, 1577, six later editions).
In the sixth civil war, which broke out in 1577, Du Plessis took little share. La Noue had presented him to Henry of Navarre, who sent him on a mission to England, where he remained for more than a year, composing his Troitk de l'6glise London, 1578; Eng. transl. A Treatise of the Church, by I. Feilde, 1579, 2d ed., 1581). From
1578 to 1583, with the exception of
3. Enters a brief sojourn in England, he rep‑
Service	resented the interests of Henry of
of Henry of Navarre in the Netherlands, residing Navarre. at Antwerp, and, after 1580 at Ghent.
In the latter city he completed an ambitious theological work, the TraitE de la verity de la religion chretienne contre les AthEes, Epicuriens, Payees, Juifs, Mahumedistes, et autres In fedeles (Antwerp, 1581; Eng. transl. A )Forks Concerning the Treumesse o f the Christian Religion, by Sir Philip Sidney and A. Golding, London, 1587,4th ed., 1617). In 1582 he was reoalled to France by the king of Navarre, and from that time dates the friendship between the two that was to last until Henry's conversion to Roman Catholicism. With consummate energy and fine literary talents he became Henry's mouthpiece and public defender. He was his most trusted counselor and a fearless, though respectful, critic where he believed the prince untrue to himself. His presence at court was felt in a general chastening of manners, and a monument of his peculiar part in this friendship was the remarkable essay, Reglement de la fogon de vivre, composed for the king in Jan., 1583. In the differences existing between the heads of the Huguenot party and Henry of Navarre, Du Plessis acted as a mediator. At the Synod of VitrS in May, 1583, suspicion of Henry's ambitions was rife among the delegates, whose views were largely tinged with the spirit of Calvinistic democracy; Du Plessis was instrumental in bringing about the IV‑3
agreement that a number of deputies of the synod should be assigned to the presence of the prince to be consulted on all ecclesiastical affairs. The project of a union of the Protestant churches of Europe which received some discussion at the same synod was very close to his heart, and at the synods of Gap in 1603, La Rochelle in 1607, and Tonneina in 1614 he was an ardent advocate of the scheme, although he achieved not the slightest success.
The death of the Duke of Anjou in June, 1584, brought Henry of Navarre next in succession to the throne, and the health of the childless Henry III. was such as to make his death at any moment a probable event. By the mesa of the French nation the accession of a Protestant king was regarded as out of the question, and the League, in alliance with Spain, entered on a period of
4. Defense renewed activity. In the war of of Henry's pamphlets that ensued, Du Plessis Claim to naturally appeared as the most promi‑
the Suc‑ nent defender of the legitimate claims
	cession.	of Henry of Navarre. With untiring
		energy he pouiid forth a succession
of state documents, letters, instructions, and for
mal argumentations, all expressive of devoted
faith in a prince to whom he looked as the coming
disseminator of Evangelistic teaching throughout
the world. In the war of the Three Henrys which
followed the Edict of Nemours in 1585, Du Plessis
acted as governor of the important fortress of
Montauban and took part in the battle of Contras
(Oct. 20, 1587), Henry's first great victory, and in
the unsuccessful siege of Saint‑Nazaire. At the
political assembly of the Huguenots at La Rochelle
in 1588, he exercised his accustomed function of
mediator between Henry and the Protestant leaders,
and was elected president of the council entrusted
with the management of the affairs of the party
and its representation at court. The assassination
of the Guises at Blois in December of the same year
led to a temporary alliance between Henry III. and
the king of Navarre against the League, negotiated
by Du Plessis, who received the command of the
important city of Saumur, which had been assigned
as a stronghold to the Huguenots. He fought by
the side of Henry of Navarre at Ivry (,March 14,
1590) and was present at the siege of Rouen, in the
course of which he made a journey to England to
solicit the aid of Elizabeth.
The resistance of the League had convinced Henry of Navarre that the crown of France was not to be gained so long as he remained a Protestant, and the problem became one merely of rendering his change of religion as little odious as possible. In the negotiations that preceded the king's abjuration of the Huguenot faith Du Plessis appears as the victim of Henry's double dealing. Fond as he was of theological disputation, he felt convinced that an open debate on the rival merits of the warring confessions, could not but serve to strengthen the king in his hereditary faith, and in this spirit of confidence he negotiated with the representative of the League a treaty by which Henry agreed to place himself under Roman Catholic instruction in order to test the truth of the

Dn Pleads‑Xorasy
Durand	THE NEW S(;gAFF_gERZO(3	34
doctrines of the Church. Too late Du Plessis discovered that his project of a public disputation was not to be realized and that Henry had used him for his own ends. The old friendship between the two was thereby destroyed, and though Du Plessis remained in Henry's service and was concerned in many important affairs of state, he was no longer the spokesman of the king. The loss of royal favor;
however, brought no end to the active
g. Activ‑ career of Du Plesais. As governor of
ities as Saumur he devoted himself to the Governor of strengthening of the fortress and the
Sanmur. improvement of the surrounding dis‑
trict. With hisown means he founded in 1593 the Protestant university of Saumur, which, till its suppression by Louis XIV. in 1685, was the moat important and influential of Protestant theological schools in France. As arbitrator between the Huguenots and the king, he was an especially important figure during the years preceding the promulgation of the edict of Nantes, when the favor shown by Henry IV. to the great Roman Catholic nobles roused among the Huguenots fear of the resumption of persecution. At the assembly of Nantes in 1593 the first steps toward the Edict of Nantes were taken in the formulation of the Huguenot demands. Of greater importance was the Synod of Saints Foy in the following year, where the organization of the Huguenot party was carried out in accordance with the plane formulated by Du Pleesis. Although he took no share in the negotiations leading up to the Edict of Nantes or in the drafting of that document, its provisions must be regarded as largely the result of his long activity in the councils of the king. As the most prominent among Protestant statesmen and theologians Du Plessis received at this time the nickname of the Huguenot Pope.
In July, 1598, Du Plessis published at La Roshells De l'institution, usage et doctrine du saint sacrement dk l'eucharistie en l'eglise aneienne (Eng. transl., The Institution, Usage, and Doctrine of the HoLySttcrament, London, 1600), a work representing many years of labor and comprising in addition to the main attack on the mass, a polemic against other Roman Catholic doctrines. Over 5,000 quotations from the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the medieval theologians constituted a formidable array of evidence and bore testimony to the learning of its
		author. It was regarded not only as
	6. His	a monumental apology for the Re
	Great	formed faith, but as the reply of the
Polemic.	Protestants to the king's conversion.
		The Roman Curia and the Sorbonne
expressed their condemnation of the work and many
rejoinders were published. In 1600 Davy Duperron,
bishop of Evreux, formulated the charge against
Du Plessis that a large proportion of the citations
adduced by him were either entirely false or incor
rectly quoted. Du Plessis thereupon challenged
his critic to a public disputation which occurred in
the presence of the king and his court at Fontaine
bleau on May 4, 1600. Du Plessis, as a matter of
fact, had not made use of the best editions in com
piling his references and was, moreover, unequal
in theological learning and dialectic to his opponent;
but what principally led to the letter's triumph was the disingenuous action of the authorities in allowing Du Plessis a single night for the preparation of his side of the case. Deeply humiliated by the result of the disputation, Du Plessis retired to Saumur, where he busied himself with the recasting
I	of his work, which, sanctioned by a general synod,
	appeared in a second edition at Saumur in 1604.
The death of his only son in 1605 and that of his wife in the following year were severe blows, although they did not draw him away from the sphere of active church politics. After the assassination of Henry IV. (1610), he persevered in his
attitude of loyalty to the royal house y. His In‑ notwithstanding the machinations of
	fluence	the regent Mary de' Medici against the
	and Im‑	Huguenots.	His influence was still
	portance. exerted for peace, and when CondS
		took up arms in 1615, he was suc
cessful in restraining the majority of the Prot
estants from resorting to violence. The court
showed little gratitude. On the outbreak of
the religious war of 1621 Du Plesais, in spite
of his well‑known pacific attitude, was de
prived of his governorship of Saumur. Wounded
in spirit and half‑blind, he retired to his castle of
La Fort‑sur‑Sesvre where he died two years later.
His principal works, in addition to those men
tioned above, were as follows: Lacrimce (Paris,
1606; Eng. transl. by J. Henley, London, 1609),
a threnody on the death of his son; Le mys0re
d'iniquit6, e'est d dire, l'histoire de la petpatttk (Saumur,
1611; Eng. transl., The Mysterie of Iniquitie that is
Historic o f the Ptxpacie, by S. Leonard, London,
1612); and Diseouraet meditations chrOtiennes (3 vole.,
Saumur and La For6t, 1609‑24). His religious
writings show no original contributions in the field
of theology; he was too much the polemist to be
the pioneer. His importance rests rather in the
multifarious activities of his eventful life and in the
high example be set of unselfish and steadfast devo
tion to a cause of the merits of which he was thor
oughly convinced. 	(THEODOft Scao'rrt.)
BIHLIOaRAPHY: The Sources are: D. Licques, Hiatoire de la vie do . . . Phitippa de Mornay, Leyden, 1847; Mbrnoirea et exroepondance . . . do la Fontenelk, vole. i.‑ui., Paris, 1824‑25; earlier collections of M€moirea appeared at La For2t, 1824‑52, sad Amsterdam, 18521853; a complete collection of the letters is a desideratum. The beat account of the life is in E. 3tehelin, Dar UebertritE . . . Heinrich's IV. . . our kalholiachen Kirche, Basel. 1858; for English readers, H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre, New York, 1888, is very valuable and is detailed. Consult also: G, de Ftrliee, Hiat. de prottatante do France, Paris, 1850; E, and A. Haag, La France Protestants, vol. vii. ib. 1857; P. de F€liee, Lea Protestants d'autrefoie, 4 vols., Paris, 18971902. His literary activity is well characterized in A. fiavous, ‑0tudu ZittErairea our lea &aavaina do la Reformation, vol. ii.. Paris, 1841.

DURAND, dU‑randy, OF SAINT POU1tCAIN, par san.
His Life (¢ 1).	His Doctrine of the Sacrs
Independence as a Thinker		ments (§ 5).
	(§ 2).	His Significance as a Teacher
Philosophical Position (§ 3).		(§ 8).
His Theology (§ 4).
Durand of Saint Poul'gain (Durondus de Sancto Porciano), scholastic theologian, bishop of Meaux, was born at Saint Pourpain (85 m. a.w. of Lyons) in

86	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Du p1aWs‑Mornay
		Durand
Auvergne, in the third quarter of the thirteenth cen
tury; d. at Meaux (28 m. e. of Paris) Sept. 10, 1334.
He entered the Dominican order as early as 1303.
In 1312 he was made a licentiate and was called
to Avignon as lector curies and magister S. Palatii,
			and remained there for some time. In
r. His Life. 1317 he was made a bishop, in 1326
			bishop of Meaux. During the last
years of his life he was in opposition to John XXI1.
on account of his teaching of the visio beatified, and
a judicium magistrorum theologise in curia existen
tium declared eleven of his articles objectionable.
Of his writings one only has importance, the com
prehensive commentary on the " Sentences " of
Peter Lombard, which he commenced, according to
his own statement, while a young man and finished
in his old age.	`
		In the controversy between the scientific tend
encies of his time, Durand occupied an independ
ent critical position and adhered to no echool
authority, a position for which he obtained the
name of Doctor resohstisaimus. To be sure, dogmatic
statements which had become authoritative in the
Church are without question authoritative for
him, but he distinguishes clearly between that
which is really an ecclesiastical statement and that
			which is commonly deduced from it,
a. Inde‑	the former, not the latter, being bind
pendence as ing. Besides, the authority of any in
	s Thinker. dividual teacher must yield to good
			contrary reasons. Especially is this
true (as he states with unmistakable reference to
the colleagues of Thomas, who would make him.
the absolutely authoritative theologian of the order,
	Prcaf. lie sent. no. 12) with respect to every modern
teacher, for " every one who dismisses reason for
the sake of human authority falls into beastly
unwisdom." Still more decided is Durand's posi
tion against extra‑ecclesiastical authorities; " it
is no part of natural philosophy to know what
Aristotle or other philosophers thought, but the
truth of the matter is the essential thing; where
fore when Aristotle deviates from the truth of the
matter it is no science to know what Aristotle
	thought, but rather error" (Pro?f, in sent., qu. 1,
no. 6).
		Like all theologians of that time, Durand hoe
his say on the question of universalia. But his
	position is not clear owing to the fact that the
	commentary was composed during a long period,
within which his views underwent development.
Hence Prantl states (p. 292) only that he approaches
to nominalistic views and Baur (Kirchengeschichte
des Mittelaltera, p. 377), that the premises of nom
inalism are found in him. Nevertheless every real
	entity is to him merely individual entity (IL, diet.
3, qu. 3, no. 9). To be sure the general concepts
are not merely nothings, since they designate con
gruities which are found among different things,
but these congruities do not go back to something
really common, therefore: " The unity of suniver
cal in its particulars is not a unity of the thing but
a unity of relationship, just as the entity is an entity
of relationship" (L, dirt. 19, qu. 4, no. 10; cf.
IL, diet. 3, qu. 3, no. 1G). On this account also
the much disputed question concerning the prin‑
eiplum irtdividuationia becomes to him null and' void, because be thinks it a simple matter of fact that every thing real proceeds as such
3. Philo‑ from the individual and is individual
sophical	(IL, diet 3, qu. 3, no. 15). From this
	Position.	point of view Durand must be con
		sidered a nominalist, though this is
not clear everywhere. But on the other hand it
can not be said that the theological views of Durand
are to be traced to his nominalism, or even to his
philosophical views in general, for he does not do it
himself. Only a certain corresponding tendency
in his thinking on both spheres may be admitted.
Durand allows his views to develop everywhere
from a criticism of his predecessors, but this crit
icism, acute as it is, rests so little on firm pervading
principles that a Durandian system can hardly be
spoken of. As a Dominican he started in the first
place from Thomas, but in essential points he freed
himself from Thomism and pursued in many
directions a like path to Scotus, without therefore
becoming a Scotist. For example he does not share
with him the fundamentally important position
of the will before intelligence. On the question
whether theology is to be considered a science; he
deviates much from Thomas asserting with em
phasis that for moat theological statements a scien
tific demonstration is impossible; he does not even
admit with Scotus the possibility of a scientifically
satisfactory refutation of the contrary reasons
(IV., diet. ll, qu. 1, no. 6). Further considerations
lead him to the result that theology is in no respect
a science in the strict sense, but only in the wider
sense, because one may call science a discipline
which rests on true propositions, though not evi
dent to the reasoner. On the whole in Durand may
be perceived a keen apprehension of the distinction
between faith and knowledge. Thomas imagined
that he was able to bridge over the chasm between
both, since faith, so far as it rests on divine authority
appeared to him under the point of view of knowl
edge, and indeed of a knowledge the certainty of
which is greater than that of all knowledge
from natural reason (Summa, p. L, qu. 1, art.
8, ad. 2). Durand, however, says (IL, diet. 23, qu.
7, no. 10) " there are many conditions of knowl
edge and action in us more certain and better
known than faith."
Characteristic of Durand's morally serious but religiously cool mode of consideration is his answer to the question (IV., diet. 1, qu. 7) "whether sin should be more hateful to the believer because it is offensive to God or because it is hurtful to himself." The idea of offense Dei, also that of the wrath of God, is here in substance wholly removed: both are asserted of God only secundum effectum not secvndum dffectum, and by o ffensa Dei must not be understood a displeasure of God in the sinner or the will to punish him, for the expression is nothing more than a metaphorical designation of punishment itself, and originated by trana‑
4. His ferring to God a disposition analogous
	Theology.	to that in which the reproving man
		generally is. The guilt of the sinner is
therefore not in the o ffensa Dei, but in the irregular
conduct of man; such a conduct is against reason,

Durand	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	$g
Durie
whereas the just punishment is not against reason,
	and hence sin is a greater evil and must be hated
more than punishment. This is a way of viewing
	things which comes near to that of Kant, but is
	just as far removed from that of Anselm as from
that of Luther. No less removed from Anselm is
	Durand also with respect to the necessity of re
	demption through the satisfaction by the son of
	God. If Thomas allowed it at least relatively,
	Durand denies in the first place all necessity for
	God to redeem the fallen race, secondly also, if a
	redemption was to take place, the necessity of a
	perfect satisfaction, since God could have refused
	all satisfaction or could have been satisfied with a
lesser one (III., diet. 20, qu. 12). That not all have
	part in the salvation, and that there exists a dif
	ference between the predestined and non‑pre
	destined, must be assumed on the ground of reve
	lation. For a rational argument one may assert
	with Thomas that in this way in the order of the
	universe not only the bonum rtxisericordice but also
	the bonum jvstitice punientis is fully asserted, but
	Durand finds this reason not cogent because the
	punitive justice is only a relative good, in so far as
	it serves as remedy, for " the universe were better
	off without guilt and punitive justice than with
	them; just as nature were better uff without sick
ness and medicine than with them " (L, diet. 41,
	qu. 2, no. 13 ).
Concerning the sacraments Durand adopted the
	already customary number seven, but he went back
	again to the more ancient distinction between sac
	raments in the narrower and wider sense and con
	sidered marriage as a sacrament only in the wider
sense. The doctrine of transubstantiation caused
	him, like many of his contemporaries, great diffi
	culties. His older contemporary and monastic
	colleague, John of Paris, taught a kind of conaubstan
	tiation‑the substances remain after the conse
		crationbut not in proprio supposito
	5. His Doc‑ he was tried on that account but died
	trine of the at Avignon before the trial was ended.
	Sacraments. Durand is more cautious; he remarks
		indeed that the reasons for the doc
	trine are not satisfying, but he also states that the
	assumption that the substance of the elements
	remains would remove many difficulties (IV., dirt.
	11, qu. i, no. 15‑17). Against all these consider
	ations however stands the authority of the Church,
	to which one must be subject. He wishes there
	fore only to oppose a certain form of transubstan
	tiation‑the common one‑according to which a
	complete change of the substances takes place, and
	tries to explain this as conceivable by assuming a
	change of the form of the elements, whereas the
	substance turns into the form of the body of Christ.
	Taking all together the importance of Durand
	may thus be expressed: (i) he is a theologian of a
	strictly ecclesiastico‑conservative tendency, and
		only within these limits of one com
b. His Sig‑ paratively more liberal (2) a somewhat
	nificance as larger freedom was made possible for
s Teacher. him by the separation of the domains
		of faith and knowledge, but even in
	this form he used it in a very moderate manner.
	(3) His talent is predominantly critical,not produc‑
tive; he is stronger in critical	reflection on the
points under discussion than in	the deeper appre
hension of the subjects; (4) the	preceding consid
erations taken together explain why he was unable
to produce an epoch‑making	impression. Such
could have proceeded mainly from the treatment
of the preliminary questions of theology and from
his nominalism, but in both respects he was out
stripped by the boldness of Occam and, as it were,
placed in the shade. (5) Nevertheless his main
work has for a long time enjoyed an authority on
account of the excellences mentioned above and on
account of its dogmatic correctness. Gerson rec
ommended him beside Thomas,	Bonaventura, and
Henry of Ghent, and in the sixteenth century there
still existed at Salamanca a special		chair for Durand.
	B. M. DEUT6CH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The commentary on Peter Lombard has been often printed; the Antwerp edition of 1587 is quoted above. O. Raynaldus, A>fnalea eecteaiaetici., ad, an. 1534, Cologne, 1694‑1727; C. E. du Boulay, Hiatoria ua3veraitatia Pariaieaeia, iv. 954, 8 vole., Paris, 1685‑73; C. Oudin, Commentariua de arriptoribua aecleaiee, vol. iii.. Frankfort, 1722; A. H. Ritter, Geachichte der Philbsophie, viii. 550 sqq., Hamburg, 1845; idem, Die chriatliehe Philosophic, i. 712 sqq., Gbttingen, 1858; A. $t8ck1, Geachichte der Philosophic des Mittelndtera, ii. 978‑988, Mainz, 1885; J. B. Haur4su, De la philosophic acolaetiqae, ii. 411 sqq., Paris, 1850; idem, H%stoire de la philosophic acolaetique, ii. 2, pp. 47 sqq., ib. 1880; C. von Prantl, Geechichte der Logik im Abendlaade, iii. 292 sqq., Leipsic, 1887; K. Werner, Thomas von Aquino, iii. 108 sqq., Regensburg, 1859; idem, Die aomiaalisierende PaychoZopie des api<terea Mittelaltera, Vienna, 1882; idem, Die Scholastik des aptiterea Mittelaltera, vol. ii., ib. 1883; J. E. Erdmann, Hiat. of Philosophy, vol. i., London, 1889; C. Baumker, Beitrttge zur Geachichte der Philosophic des Mittelaltera, 3 vole.. Miinater, 1891‑1901.

DURAND OF TROARR: Roman Catholic abbot of Troarn; b. at Neubourg (13 m. n.w. of Evreux) apparently in the early part of the eleventh century; d. at Troarn (5 m. e. of Caen) Feb. 11, 1088. He entered a monastery in early youth, and in 1059 was appointed abbot of Troarn, an office which he held for the remainder of his life. He is noteworthy for his share in the second eucharistic controversy, his De eorpore et sanguine Christi dating apparently from about 1054. In his opinion the entire controversy centered about the question whether in the Sacrament there was a symbol or a true substance, he himself maintaining the latter teaching as the belief of the entire Catholic Church. His book is noteworthy, as showing the feeling that the attacks of Berengar on the doctrines of Paschasius Radbertus imperiled the truth of Christianity, and as indicating the opposition of the older traditionalistic theologians to any explanation of controverted problems. In conformity with his theory that all difficulties may be solved by the statements of the Church Fathers, a large portion of his work consists of compilations from such predecessors as Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Cassiodorus, Bede, Amalarius, Hincmar, and Fulbert. Noteworthy also are his data concerning the course of the Berengarian controversy from 1050 to 1054. (A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The work of Durand is appended to L.
i	d'Achery's edition of Lanfranc, Paris, 1745, and in MPL,
exlix. Consult: Hiat, litreraira de France, viii. 239; H.
$udendorf, Berengariua Turoneasia, pp. 25 sqq., Goths,

87	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Durand
Dnrie
18b0; C. Warner, Cer)iert won Aurillac, pp. 171 eqq., Vienna. 1878; J. Schnitzer, Bereregur Ton Tours, pp. 328 aqq., Stuttgart. 1892.
DURANDUS, GULIELMII3: French canoniste.
1. Called " Speculator" after his chief work; b. at Puimisson, near B6ziers, 1237; d. in Rome Nov. 1, 1296. Clement IV. made him his auditor‑general, subdeacon, and chaplain; Gregory X., his secretary at the council of Lyons (1274) ; Nicholas III. sent him into the Romagna and to Bologna to receive their homage in his name (1278) ; Martin IV. made him spiritual legate in the Romagna (1281), and in 1283 rector‑general. In 1286 he became bishop of Mends, southern France. His chief book was the Speculum iudiciale [Rome, 1474; latest ed., Frankfort, 1668]. Another useful book was his Rationale divinorum officim‑um, Augsburg, 1470 (IJng. trans]. of the first book, The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments, London, 1906).
2. His nephew succeeded him as bishop of Mendea, Dec. 18, 1296; d. there 1331. His book, De modo celebrandi concwlii et corruptelis in ecclesia reformandia (in Trtactatus illustrium Juris conaulforum, XIII., I. 159 sqq., Venice, 1584), made quite a sensation in the Middle Ages.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. F. von Schulte, l3eachirh;e der Quellen and Literatur lee carwniaclaen Rechla, ii. lbb‑158, Stuttgart, 1877; KL, iv. 45‑48; and preface to the Eng. transl. of the Rationale, 1908.
DURBIR, JOHN PRICE: Methodist Episcopal clergyman; b. near Paris, Bourbon Co., Ky., Oct. 10, 1800; d. in New York Oct. 19, 1876. In 1818 he became an itinerant minister, and later studied at Miami University and Cincinnati College. In 1833 he edited the Christian Advocate and Journal, New York. From 1834 to 1845 he was president of Dickinson College, Penn., and from 1850 to 1872 was secretary of the Methodist Missionary Society. He was an eloquent minister and an excellent administrative officer. His principal works were Observations in Europe (2 vole., New York, 1844), and Observations in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor (2 vole., 1845).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. A. Roche, Life o/ John Pries Durbin. New York, 1889.
DURHAM: A town of northern England (60 m. n.n.e. of York), the seat of an important bishopric of the Church of England. The ecclesiastical foundation there dates from the end of the tenth century, when the monks who were transporting the body of St. Cuthbert (q.v.) to protect it from Danish invaders chose this spot for a permanent abiding‑place and built the first church. After the Norman Conquest Benedictine monks were placid in charge of the shrine, and William I. gave Walcher, the bishop, the temporal power of an Earl of Northumberland. Speaking of the palatine jurisdiction which the bishops of Durham enjoyed without limitation until the reign of Henry VIII., Freeman says that thus " the prelate of Durham became one, and the most important, of the only two English prelates whose worldly franchises invested them with some faint shadow of the sovereign powers enjoyed by the princely churchmen of the Empire." The other prelate referred to is the bishop of Ely (see ELY), who owed his power and influence
to the location of his see among the fens of East England, as the bishop of Durham owed his to the position of his castle and cathedral on the top of a lofty rock,‑‑an almost impregnable natural fortress. Waleher's successor, William of St. Calais, began the construction of the present stately cathedral, the interior of which is regarded as the noblest piece of Norman architecture extant. In 1827 the supposed tomb of St. Cuthbert was opened and the skeleton found there was identified as actually that of the saint. The remains of the Venerable Bede also repose within the cathedral. Among other names associated with Durham is that of Richard de Bury (q.v.), the most learned man of his generation north of the Alps. Cardinal Wolsey lived here during his tenure of the archbishopric of York, and it was his quarrel with Henry VIII. that resulted in the palatinate beginning to lose its power. Among later bishops, the most distinguished names are those of Joseph Butler, author of the Analogy, and the last two, J. B. Lightfoot and B. F. Weatcott. The bishops no longer live in the castle, which is now the seat of Durham University, founded in 1833, corresponding to the " Northern University " projetted in Cromwell's time, but at Bishop's Thorpe. The bishopric was long one of the richest in England, but on the death of Bishop Van Mildert in 1836 the revenue was reduced to £8,000 (now £7,000) a year, the surplus being devoted to the augmentation of a fund for increasing the revenues of the poorer bishops. Although the last vestiges of the palatine authority disappeared at this time, the bishop of Durham still takes precedence immediately after the bishop of London.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. L. Low, Durham. London, 1881 (in Diocesan History Series); idem, Historical Scenes in Durham Cathedral, ib. 1887; the works on the Cathedral of Durham by R. T. Talbot, London. 1893; J. T. Fowler. ib. 1898; and J. E. Bygate, ib. 1899. Consult also the publications of the $urtees Society, and Archa3olopia
liana, Newcastle, 1858 aqq. (journal for the history of Durham).
DURIE (DURY), JOHN: A persistent Scotch advocate of Protestant union; b. in Edinburgh 1596; d. at Cassel Sept. 26, 1689. His father left Scotland because of his opposition to the policy of King James VI., and Durie, having completed his studies in Oxford, accepted the position of minister of the English settlers at Elbing just after Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden captured the city. There he became acquainted with Swedish Lutherans and was thus led in 1628 to a careful study of the differences between the Lutherans and the Reformed with a view to effecting a reconciliation between them. About that time Elbing was visited by the English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, who became interested in Durie's plan and introduced him to Chancellor Oxenstierna. In 1630 Roe sent Durie to England with as indorsement of his project to the moderates among the bishops. In Germany the Lutherans and the Reformed then seemed to be drawing closer together, for at the conference at Leipsic in 1631 (see LEIPBIC, COLLOQUY OF) both denominations were on remarkably friendly terms with each other. It seemed a favorable moment

DDnr~ie
to send Durie to the Continent in the interest of ecclesiastical peace, and he thus began an activity of almost fifty years an an itinerant advocate of union between the Reformed and the Lutherans.
.Until the end of 1633 he traveled through Germany with letters of recommendation from Sir Thomas Roe, an well as from Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury and other bishops and theologians. Gustavus Adolphus received him at Wiirzburg and promised him a letter of recommendation to the Protestant princes of Germany. In 1&33 Durie was recalled to England by the death of Archbishop Abbot, whose successor, Laud, supported him only after he had joined the Anglican Church and had been ordained in it. Aided by the recommendation of Laud and by English ambassadors, Durie labored, beginning with 1634, in Germany and Holland. In 1638 he was expelled from Sweden, but in 1839 he was in Denmark, where his reception wen unfriendly, and in the following year he returned to Germany, associating chiefly with the dukes Augustus and George of Brunswick, who were Calixtine in sympathy.
The troubles in England called him home. From 1641 to 1644 he was an Anglican clergyman in The Hague, but in 1645, when Laud fell, he rejoined the Presbyterians. He labored as their associate in the eventful years 1645‑49, taking part in the drafting of the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Catechism, but refusing to vote in favor of I, the king's death. During Cromwell's protectorate, Durie was a partizan of this powerful pioneer of religious liberty, joined the Independents, and was again sent to the Continent by Cromwell in 1654, though the plan of union was now restricted to the Reformed Churches. He visited Reformed theologiann and statesmen in Switzerland, Germany, and Holland, and returned to England in 1657. Cromwell's death in 1658 and the restoration of 1680 interrupted all his efforts. With no more hope of governmental support of his plans for union, he could continue his work only in private and at his own risk. Despite his advanced age, he left England in 1661 and returned to his task of uniting the Protestant churches and of reconciling the Reformed and the Lutherans. He gained the sympathy of the Landgrave William VI. of Hesse‑Cassel and the Elector Frederick William of Brandenburg, and after the early death of the former his widow, Hedwig Sophia, who ruled almost alone at Cassel from 1663 to 1683, remained Durie's patroness throughout the remainder of his life.
The majority of Lutheran theologians harshly rejected Durie's plane for reunion, especially as they were not clearly defined. At times he emphasized the so‑called fundamental dogmas, but allowed variations in subordinate doctrines and their discussion, while at other timers he urged that an entirely new confession should be formulated. His concept of fundamental doctrines was likewise very vague, since he sometimes defined them as the consensus of modern confessions, yet also classified them according to their teaching concerning God and Christ. The time was not yet ripe for an idea of ouch far‑reaching importance, and thus Durie's life‑work ended in apparent failure. In the dedication of a work on the Apocalypse of John
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
(written in French and published at Frankfort, 1874) to his patroness, the landgravine of Hesse, he wrote: " The chief fruit of my labors is that I see that the misery of the Christians in far greater than the wretchedness of the heathen and other nations; I see the cause of the misery; I see the lack of remedy, and I see the cause of that lack. For myself, I see that I have no other profit than the witness of my conscience."
Peun TacawesEaT.
B:airoaawrar: Among Durie's numerous works were Senten4iee do pacts rationibua inter esanpelicoa, published with declarations of various English bishops in 1834 (separately, 1838; Eng. tranel., 1841); A Summary Diacourae concerning the Work of Peace Ealearaatical (Cambridge, 1841), presented to Sir Thomas Roe in 1839; A Memorial concerning Peace Eccleaiaatical (London, 1841), addressed " to the king of England and the pastors and elders of the Kirk of Scotland meeting at 8t. Andrews "; An Epistolary Discourse (1844). concerning the toleration of independency; A Model o/ Church Government (1847): The Reformer Library Keeper (1860; ed. Ruth Shepard (3rannis, with memoir, Chicago, 1908); An Earnest Plea for Gospel Communion (1854); A Summary Platform of the Heads of a Body of Practical Divinity (1854); Irenicorum tractatuum Prodromua (Amsterdam, 1874). The Reformed Librario‑keeper, or two copies a/ letter concerning the Place and Once of a Librario‑keeper Chicago, 1808.
A list of his controversial works is given in R. Watt. Bsbliotheca Britannica, p. ,324, Edinburgh. 1824, and of his other works in C. M. Pfaff, InJ,roductio do historians theologise Ziterariam, Ttibingen, 1720. The chief account of his life is in C. J. Bensel, Diasertat%o de J. Duro'o, Helmstedt, 1744. Consult further: A. b, Wood, Athena; Oxonisneea, ed. P. Bliss, iii. 888, 981, 1043, iv. 578, 4 vole., London, 1813‑20; C. A. Briggs, Presbyterian Review, Apr. 1887; DNB, xvi. 281‑283: K. Braver, Die Unionattttipkait John Dunes unter den Protektorat Cromwell#, Marburg, 1907.
DURYEA, JOSEPH TUTHILL: Congregationalist; b. at Jamaica, N. Y., Dec. 9, 1832; d. at Boston, Maw., May 17, 1898. He was graduated at the College of New Jersey in 1855 and Princeton Theological Seminary in 1859. He was then pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Troy, N. Y. (18592), Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, New York City (18627), Classon Avenue Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn (1867‑79), Central Congregational Church, Boston, Mass. (1879‑95), and First Reformed Dutch Church Brooklyn (1895‑98). During the Civil War he took an active interest in the work of the Christian and Union commissions, and in the furtherance of their cause visited the army and delivered many addresses throughout the Northern Staten. While at Boston he was professor.of Biblical theology in Andover Theological Seminary for two yearn, of political economy in Boston University for one year, and of philosophy in Wellesley College for eight yearn. He compiled The Presbyterian Hymnal (Philadelphia, 1874); A Vesper Service for the Use of Congregations, Colleges, Schools, and Academies for Sunday Evening Worship (1887); A Morning Service for the Use of Congregations, Colleges, Schools, and Academies for Sunday Morning Worship (1888); and Selections from the Psalms and other Scriptures in the Revised Version for Responsive Reading, in addition to a number of addresses and other occasional writings, mainly of a practical character.
DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH. See REFORMED (DuTas) Clivucay Holserra.

D °
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	y
DUTOIT, dii"tw8', JEAN PHILllFPE: French mystic; b. at Moudon (14 m. n.n.e. of Lausanne), Switzerland, Sept. 27, 1721; d. at Lausanne Jan. 21, 1793. He is usually called Dutoit‑Membrini, after his mother. He studied theology at the academy of Lausanne, but in 1750 he was taken ill and believed that death was near. As he lay on the ground, he had a vision in which he saw his dead father who announced to him his speedy recovery. When he rose, he heard a voice saying: " Thou shalt eat of the flesh of thy Redeemer and drink of his blood." He at once felt the effect of these words, and a few days later he was far on the way to recovery. Shortly afterward Dutoit became acquainted with the writings of Madame Guyon and was soon one of her enthusiastic admirers. He vowed never to marry, and often preached in the churches at Lausanne, where he saw rich results from his discourses, although be could not be persuaded to take a permanent position. In 1759 his health obliged him to request that his name be stricken from the clerical list, and he then devoted himself to an earnest study of the Bible and the Fathers of the Church, especially the mystics. He corresponded with the famous men of his time, and gathered about him at Lausanne a small circle of enthusiasts. Despite the injurious reports circulated concerning him, especially at Geneva, and the suspicion of the government at Bern, his influence steadily increased. After his death a number of his followers, chiefly women, entered the Catholic Church, while others returned to the State Church or joined various sects.
Dutoit's chief works were his Philosophie divine par Keleph ben Nathan (3 vole., Lyons, 1793) and Philosophie chraienrte (4 vole., Lausanne, 1800), a collection of sermons published by his admirers. He also reedited the letters of Madame Guyon, and published a new edition of her works in forty volumes. Dutoit was guided in his labors by two points of view, since he opposed deism, unbelief, fanaticism, and magnetism, and strove to teach an inward and empirical Christianity as contrasted with an external faith based merely on historical belief and a superficial religious life. As in the case of mystics generally, the objective aspect of redemption, though by no means denied, .was overshadowed by subjectivity, sad justification by faith was not fully recognized. Dutoit accordingly disregarded the Moravians, and was equally unsympathetic with the Janseniata and Calvin. He made a laudable effort to establish the efficacy of grace, and avoided the harshness of particularism, although his system contains no satisfactory solution of the problem. He likewise rejected the certainty of the state of grace, coinciding here with Catholic doctrine. His Biblical and Protestant spirit, however, protected him from quietietic ex‑
tremes.	EU(3>~NE CHOW.
B113LIOGELAPHT: J. Chavannes, J. P. Dutoit, as vie, son camct&e et sea docbinea, Lausanne, 1865; A. Vetdeil, Hilt. du canton de Vaud, iii. 128‑128, ib. 1852; H. L. J. Heppe, Geackichte der qaroetiatiachen Myatik, p. blb, Berlin, 1875; Lichtenberger, ESR, iv. 188‑189.
DUTY: The moral obligation to do or omit to do something, also any act or omission which is
perceived to be morally binding. The derivation of the word (due‑qty) shows that a duty was originally thought of as something expected, or an obligation. Similarly, the derivation of the German Pflicht from the Old High German phlegan, plegtan (Modern Germ. pflegen), shows an original connection of the idea with fixed custom or rule. As custom becomes law in an objective respect, so it becomes duty in a subjective respect. The doctrine of duty has formed a chief article of ethics since the earliest times. The Stoics in particular developed with peculiar care the conception of conduct in accordance with duty. They did not get beyond a eudemonistic principle, confined to this world, but still they understood by happiness a life according to nature, which they interpreted as a life in harmony with the divine reason of the universe. Cicero's work De offtciis rests upon that of the Stoic Panaetius. The first book treats of the honestum, the second of the utile and the third of the choice between the two. The same division and manner of treatment was adopted by Ambrose in a work of the same title. Neither of them brings to light a scientific principle and psychological motivation. Both wrote merely for practical purposes, Cicero for his son Marcus, and Ambrose for his young clergymen. However, these two works, with their superficial conceptions and accidental arrangement, formed the standard of ethics until Kant revealed the true essence of duty.
Duty is the form of ethical conduct. This form is conditioned by the law, by the unconditioned demand, " thou shalt," which through mediation by the conscience applies itself to the will of man and binds him to obedience. The consciousness of this obligation is Kant's " categorical imperative "; but Kant considered all morality as a legal fulfilment of duty, thus overlooking the radical nature of evil, which the law can repress but not eradicate. De Wette perceived this gap in Kant's system of morals and tried to bridge it over by adducing the fact of redemption. But it was Schleiermacher who, correcting the exaggeration of Kant, assigned to duty its proper place in ethics. Accordingly, the production or realisation of the highest good is the moral task. Virtue is the moral power used for the performance of this task, and duty gives form to the virtuous moral action. The abnormal development of man under the dominion of sin makes the formula of duty, the law, indispensable, although it must be gradually dispensed with by the subversion of sin and the realization of the highest good.
The law defining duty becomes really moral only by its continual reference to redemption, which, by means of grace, has opened to sinful man the possibility of ethical action. In the conduct of the individual in accordance with duty there is always an additional factor besides the formula of duty as defined by the moral law. This is the " individual court of appeal," this expression being used to denote in a comprehensive sense the individual ethico‑religious feeling and conscience.
In the doctrine of duties casuistry holds still a necessary place, since in practical life it is impossible to reduce moral law to an abstract formula. Ethics

EDUaohar~er de 8anraane
can furnish only the general formulas of duty. Man himself must find his duty by applying the law to his own person, and he must shape his action in accordance with duty by resorting to his own " court of appeal." Since the Christian can perform an ethical act only in union with the Redeemer, and aided by his grace, no distinction can be drawn between religious and moral duties, or between duties toward God, our fellow men, and ourselves. As the Stoics taught, every sin is a sin against God. The proper division is suggested by the fact that we, on the one hand, imitate in our life the moral example of Christ, while, on the other hand, we have to cooperate in the realization of the moral community, the kingdom of God. Thus we may distinguish between duties toward ourselves and duties toward society. The Roman Catholic Church still holds to the so‑called consilia evangelica, i.e., precepts of the Lord, or of the apostles, by means of which man may attain supererogatory merits and elevate himself to a higher plane of morality (see CONSILIA EVANGELICA). But there is nothing so excellent or sublime that it can not be expressed by the form of duty. Duty is the absolute standard of morality. .See ETalcs.
(KARL BUR(3ERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For works covering the subject consult ETHICS.
DU VERGIER (DU VERGER) DE HAURANNE, dij'var"zhy5' de h'o''ran', JEAN (usually called Saint‑Cyran from the monastery of Saint Cyranen‑Brenne in Touraine); French theologian; b. at Bayonne 1581; d. at Paris Oct. 11, 1643. He studied theology at the University of Louvain, where the Church Fathers and Augustine were taught to the partial exclusion of the prevailing scholasticism, and at Paris in 1605 he met Cornelius Jansen (q.v.) with whom he formed an intimate friendship that lasted throughout his life. From 1611 to 1616 they lived in retirement near Bayonne, devoting themselves to patristic studies, but in 1617 Jansen returned to Louvain, and five years
‑ a Du Vergier settled in Paris. The two were, however, in constant correspondence on the subject of the great " reforms " which were stirring in the hearts of both. To Vincent de Paul, whom he sought to win over to his cause, Du Vergier declared that he had seen a great light, and that there was no church nor had there been one for five or six centuries; once it had been a bountiful stream of pure water, but was now a muddy channel. He characterized the Council of Trent as a political assembly, and declared that the first scholastics, together with Thomas Aquinas, had been the cause of great evils. In 1624 he came into conflict with the Jesuits through a book directed against Garasse, a member of the order, and the work was condemned by the Sorbonne at the instigation, the Janseniats claimed, of the Jesuits. A more lasting struggle began in 1631 with the publication of the Opera of a fictitious theologian Petrus Aurelius. This book was generahy ascribed to Du Vergier, although the greater portion of it had been written by his nephew acting under his supervision. The work was based on the conflict which had bin precipitated among Eng‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
40
lish Catholics by the action of the papal vicar, who
had curtailed the rights and privileges of the
religious orders. This especially affected the Jes
uits, who had been the most steadfast cham
pions of the Roman Catholic cause in England since
the reign of Henry VIII., and had consequently
acquired special prerogatives. Aurelius accused
the Jesuits of attempting to set up an invisible
Church with Christ as its head purely for their own
purposes. He repudiated their argument that the
pope was the universal bishop from whom episcopal
power emanated, basing the bishop's authority on
the unction of the Holy Spirit. Against the serv
ices of the monastic orders to whom, as the Jesuits
pointed out the introduction of Christianity into
the British Islands had been due, Aurelius balanced
the English secular clergy, who had cooperated
with their French brethren in combating Pela
gianism which the monks had always fostered.
The Jesuit Sirmond replied to Aurelius, and the
controversy soon included the entire subject of
the secular clergy as opposed to the orders. The
general assembly of the clergy lent its sanction to
the work of Aurelius and caused it to be printed in
1641 and again in 1646; yet ten years later, in the
first heat of the Janaeniat conflict, it pronounced its
condemnation on the book. In 1635 Saint‑Cyran
became confessor to the abbey of Port Royal (q.v.),
and was spiritual director of the group of solitaries,
among whom were the brothers Le Maitre and Lance
lot, who began to gather there after 1636. With
characteristic zeal he preached of the sanctity
of the priestly office and of the grace that should
lie in the confessional and in public preach
ing. The hatred of envious priests roused Riche
lieu against him and on May 14, 1638, he was sent
a prisoner to the donjon of Vincennes. There he
was confined until two months after the cardinal's
death, when he came from his prison a broken man,
whom the power of an untamed spirit alone kept
to his duty until his death some eight months later.
See JANBENISM. 	(C. PFENDER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. R,euchlin, Geachichte von Port Royal, 2 vole., Hamburg, 1839‑44; Mrs. M. A. 9chimmelpenninek, Select Memoirs of Port Royal, 3 vole., London, 1858; C. Beard. Port Royal, i. 113, 121‑173, ib. 1881; Lichtenberger, ESR, xi. 395‑402.

DWIGHT, HENRY OTIS: Congregationalist; b. at Constantinople June 3, 1843. He entered Ohio Wesleyan University, but left at the close of his freshman year to enlist in the United States army at the outbreak of the Civil War. He was promoted adjutant, and was aide‑de‑camp to Major General M. F. Force, and after the close of the war was treasurer of the Northampton (Mass.) Street Railway Company 1866‑67. He was then business agent at Constantinople for the mission of the American Board from 1867 to 1872, and was engaged in editing their Turkish publications from 1872 to 1899. In 1901 he returned to America, and devoted himself to general literary and editorial work. In 1904‑05 he was secretary of the Bureau of Missions in New York City, and in Jan., 1905, was appointed assistant to the secretaries of the American Bible Society and recording secretary in Jan., 1907. He was Constantinople correspondent of the New

41	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Du her er de Hauranne
		Eacharl,
York Tribune 1875‑92, and edited the Report of the Ecumenical Conference on Foreign Missions (New York, 1900). He was editor‑in‑chief of the Encyclopedia of Missions (New York, 1904) and has written Turkish Life in War Time (New York, 1881); Treaty Rights of American Missionaries in Turkey (1893); Constantinople and its Problems (Chicago, 1901); and Blue Book of Missions (New York, 1905‑09, a biennial).
DWIGHT, TIMOTHY: 1. Eighth president of Yale College; b. at Northampton, Mass., May 14, 1752; d. at New Haven, Conn., Jan. 11, 1817. He was graduated at Yale in 1769 and was tutor 17711777. For more than a year he was chaplain in the army during the Revolutionary War. From 1783 to 1795 he was at the head of an academy in Greenfield, Conn., and from 1795 till his death president of Yale, where he exerted an influence decisive for many years in the history of the college. His sermons in the college chapel constituted a system of divinity, and were published under the title Theology Explained and Defended (5 vole., Middletown, Conn., 1818; often reprinted). The work teaches a moderate Calvinism with an avoidance of extreme statements and metaphysical refinements. Besides minor publications he also wrote The Conquest of Cancan, a Poem in Eleven Books (Hartford, 1785); Greenfield Hill, a Poem in Seven Parts (New York, 1794); and Travels in New England and New York (4 vole., New Haven, 1821‑22). The last‑named work is a storehouse of facts, shrewd observations, and quaint comments. President Dwight was the author of the familiar hymn " I love thy kingdom, Lord." F. H. FOSTER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The leading Memoir is by his son, 8ereno Edwards Dwight, in Theology Explained, New York, 1846. Consult also: J. Sparks, Library of American Biography, vol. xiv., Boston, 1855; W. B. Sprague. Annals a/ the Amerimn Pulpit, ii. 152‑185, New York, 1859; M. C. Tyler, Three Men o/ Letters, pp. 89‑127, ib. 1895.
2. Twelfth president of Yale College, grandson of the preceding; b. at Norwich, Conn., Nov. 16, 1828. He was educated at Yale (B.A., 1849), the Yale Divinity School (1850‑53), and the universities of Berlin and Bonn (1856‑58). He was tutor in Greek at Yale from 1851 to 1855 and professor
E: The symbol employed to designate the Elohistic (Ephraimitic) document which, according to the critical school, is one of the components of the Hexateuch (q.v.). See HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, IL, 4.

EACHARD, JOHN: English clergyman and satirist; b. in Suffolk c. 1636; d. at Cambridge July 7, 1697. He studied at Catherine Hall, Cambridge, of which he became Master in 1675. He was created D.D., by royal mandamus in 1675 and was elected vice‑chancellor of the university in 1679
of New Testament Greek in the Divinity School from 1858 to 1886. In the latter year he was elected president, and held this position until 1899. He was a member of the American committee for the revision of the English version of the Bible and for several years was one of the editors of The New Englander. He has written Thoughts of and for the Inner Life (sermons; New York, 1899) and Memories of Yale Life and Men (1903), and prepared the American edition of Meyer's commentary on Romans (New York, 1884), several other Pauline Epistles and on the Epistle to the Hebrews (1885), and the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude (1887), as well as of F. Godet's commentary on the Gospel of John (1886).

DYKES, JAMES OSWALD : English Presbyterian; b. at Port Glasgow (17 m. w.n.w. of Glasgow), Renfrewahire, Scotland, Aug. 14, 1835. He studied at the University of Edinburgh (M.A., 1854), New College, Edinburgh (1855‑58), and the universities of Heidelberg (1856) and Erlangen (1857). He was minister of the Free Church of Scotland, East Kilbride, Lanarkshire, 1859‑61 and assistant minister of Free St. George's, Edinburgh, 1861‑65. He then resigned on account of ill health and spent three years without a charge in Melbourne, Australia, delivering occasional lectures and filling various temporary posts in the Presbyterian Church. After his return to England he was minister of Regent Square Church London, 1869‑88, to 1907 principal and Barbour professor of theology in the College of the Presbyterian Church of England (Westminster College, Cambridge), since emeritus‑principal. He was the chief author of the new creed adopted by the Presbyterian Church of England in 1890. He has written On the Written Word (London, 1868); Beatitudes of the Kingdom (1872); 1 awe of the Kingdom (1873); Relations of the Kingdom (1874); From Jerusalem to Antioch : Sketches of the Primitive Church (1874); Abraham the Friend of God (1877); Daily Prayers for the Household (1881); Sermons (1882); Laws of the Ten Words (1884); The Gospel according to St. Paul: Studies in the Epistle to the Romans (1888); and Plain Words on Great Themes (1892).
and again in 1695. $e published anonymously his famous essay, The Grounds and Decisions of the Contempt of the Clergy arid Religion, inquired into
in a Letter to R. L. (London, 1670), in which he attributed the failure of the clergy to their defective
education. Other works from his pen are, Some Observations upon the Answer to an Enquiry . . . in a second Letter to R. L. (London, 1671), a sequel to the foregoing; Mr. Hobbs, State of Nature . .
(London, 1672); and Some Opinions of Mr. Hobbs (1673). Eachard was master of a light bantering style that was particularly effective in satire, but he

Eadirid Easter
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
did not succeed in serious writing. The beat collected edition of his works was published in London in three volumes, 1774.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Life, by T. Davies, is prefixed to the
Collected Works, ut sup.; DNB, avi. 302‑303.

EADFRID (EADFRITH, EDFRID): Eighth bishop of Lindiafarne, 698 till his death in ?21. He was an ardent disciple of St. Cuthbert (q.v.) and the great aim of his life was to honor his master. He repaired Cuthbert's oratory on Farne Island, and at his solicitation the anonymous life of Cuthbert was written, as well as both of the lives by Beds, the one in prose being dedicated. to Eadfrid and his monks. The so‑called "‑Durham Book" or " Lindiafarne Gospels," a manuscript of Jerome's version of the four Gospels withthe addenda usual in such manuscripts, beautifully written on vellum in half‑uncial letters, now in the British Museum, is believed with good reason to have been originally written and illuminated by Eadfrid. His successor at Lindisfarne, Ethelwald, adorned the work with gold and jewels, and in the tenth century a certain Aldred added an interlinear gloss in the Northumbrian dialect. The manuscript is one of the most beautiful in Europe and testifies to Eadfrid's skill. The Latin text and Aldred's glosses were edited for the Surteea Society by J. Stevenson and G. Waring (4 parts, 1854‑65) and for the Cambridge Press by J. M. Kemble, C. Hardwick, and W. W. Skeat (1858‑78).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are in: 8ymeon of Durham, Hiatoria Dunelmenaia ecdeaix, ed. T. Arnold, Rolls Series, no. 75, vol, i. passim, London, 1879; Bede, Vita CuthZrerti, preface. Consult also DNB, xvi. 300‑307.

EADIE, JOHN: United Presbyterian Church of Scotland; b. at Alva (7 m. n.e. of Stirling), Stirlingahire, May 9, 1810; d. at Glasgow June 3, 1876. He was educated at the University of Glasgow and in the theological seminary of the United Secession Church. He was ordained Sept. 24, 1835, to the pastorate of the Cambridge Street Church, Glasgow, which he retained until, in 1863, he removed with a portion of his people, to form the new Lansdowne Church, of which he was minister until his death. As early as his student days, he showed his leaning to the department of exegesis, in which he achieved his greatest success; and he had so diligently given himself to Biblical study in later years, that, on the death of Dr. John Mitchell, he was elected by the denominational synod (May 5, 1843) to the professorship of Biblical literature in its divinity hall. Such an appointment at that time did not involve the dissolution of the pastoral relationship, and for thirty‑three years Dr. Eadie performed the duties of both pastor and professor, finding in the professorship the great sphere of his life.
As a preacher, his manner was not elegant and his utterance was often indistinct; but his sermons were eminently instructive. He was particularly excellent as an expositor. As a professor he was affable, easy, and natural, and possessed the magnetic influence which kindles enthusiasm. His scholarship was broad and accurate, and was so generally recognized that he was chosen a member of the New Testament revision company. His
commentaries are marked by candor and clearness, as well as by an " evangelical unction " not common in works of the kind.
	Besides contributions to periodicals and ency
clopedic works, he prepared a condensed edition of
Cntden'a concordance (Glasgow, 1840), and com
piled A Biblical Cyclop&,dia (Edinburgh, 1848; new
ed., rewritten, 1869). An Analytic Concordance to
the Holy Scriptures appeared in London, 1856, and
An Ecclesiastical Cyclopwdia in 1861. He pub
lished two volumes of discourses, The Divine Love
(London, 1855) and Paul the Preacher (1859).
Further mention may be made of his biography of
John Kitto (Edinburgh, 1857) and The English
Bible, en External and Critical History o f the Various
English Translations of Scripture, with Remarks on
the Need of Revising the English. New Testament
(2 vole., London, 1876). Scripture Illustrations
from the Domestic Life of the Jews and Other Eastern
Nations appeared posthumously (1877). His fame,
however, recta on his commentaries on the Greek
text of the epistles, viz. Ephesians (London, 1854),
Colossians (1856), Philippians (1859), Galatians
(1869),. and 1 Thessalonians (1877).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: James Brown, Life of John Eadie, London,
1878; DNB, zvi. 307‑309.
EADMER (EDMER): Monk of Canterbury; b. probably c. 1060; d. at Canterbury Jan. 13, 1124 (7). He first appears as the close companion of Anaelm after the latter became archbishop of Canterbury (1093); according to William of Malmeabury, Anselm esteemed him so highly that he never rose from bed without Eadmer's command. After Anaelm's death he continued associated with Archbishop Ralph, and, in 1120, was chosen by king Alexander of Scotland for the archbishopric of St. Andrews, but, owing to the bitter rivalry between Canterbury and the northern see, was never consecrated. Eadmer is one of the beat of early English historians; he avoids trivial details and is uncommonly incredulous for his time concerning alleged miracles; his style is good and approaches classical models. His Historic novorum or " History of his own Times," in six books, extends practically from the Conquest to 1122; it treats especially matters connected with the Church, which he remarks he had been accustomed to note from early childhood, and recounts the deeds of the two archbishops with whom he was connected; it shows strong national feeling and asserts the rights and privileges of the English Church. The beat edition is by M. Rule in the Rolls Series (no. 81, 1884). Besides minor works he wrote lives of Ansehn (ed. Rule in the Rolls Series, ut sup.); Dunstan; Bregwin, archbishop of Canterbury, 759‑783; Oswald, archbishop of York (the last three in Wharton, Anglia sacra, ii., London, 1691), and Wilfrid of York (ed. J. Rains in The Historians of the Church of York, i., Rolls Series, no. 73). His collected works are in MPL, clix. 345 sqq., atld extracts are in MGH, Script., xiii. (188I), 139‑148.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: William of Malmesbury, Gesta pontiRcum
Anglorum, ed. N. E. 8. A. Hamilton, in Rolls Series, No.
52, London, 1870: T. Wright, Biopraphia Brits»nim
Zateraria, Anglo‑Saxon period, ib. 1842; J. Collier, Eat.
Hiat., Yol. n., tb. 1845; P. laveQeY. EParis, 1892:
DNB, xYi. ao9‑alo.

48
I. The Celebration. 1. Names and their Significance. 2. Origin of the Celebration.
Testimony of the Ante‑Nicene Period (§ 1).
Testimony of the Post‑Nicene Period (§ 2).
Conclusions (¢ 3).
I. The Celebration.‑1. Names and Their 6ignificanoe: EASTER, the festival of our Lord's resurrection is, with Christmas, the most joyous festival observed by the Church. The English Easter and the German equivalent Ostern, are derived from the Anglo‑Saxon Ostard. or EQstre, the name of the goddess of spring and the dawn (cf. Skeat's Etymological Dictionary ; Bede, De rations temPortcm, xv.). The French peqvzs and the terms used in the other Romance languages are derived from the Hebrew Pesah, " Passover." In the early Church the term Pascha was used for the festival next preceding Pentecost, whatever it was that that festival commemorated (see PENTECOST). It remains to show whether the term stood only for the festival of the death of Christ, or for both the festivals of the death and resurrection, or for the festival of the resurrection alone. It is certain that if the resurrection of Christ was annually commemorated, the festival of commemoration was called pascha and by no other distinctive term. The word pascha. was at first derived from Gk. paschein, " to suffer " (so Tertullian, adv. Jud.; Irenaeus, Hcrr., iv. 23, etc.). Later the true derivation from the Hebrew pesah was recognized and the meaning diabasis, transitus, " passing over " was given to it (e.g., by Gregory Nazianzen, Sermo xlv., MPL, zxxvi. 636; Augustine, EPist., Iv., MPL, xxxiii. 205). After the year 300 the day of the resurrection was called the " day alone great " by Leo I. (Sermo de resurrections Domini, MPL, liv. 498), " the most royal day of days," by Gregory Nazianzen (MPG, xxxv. 101?); " the festival of festivals," " the happiest of days," and by other designations which show that it was looked upon after that date, if not before, as the most joyous and important festival of the year. John of Damascus has given expression to the devout feelings of the ancient Church in regard to Easter in his resurrection hymn:
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Eadfrid Easter
EASTER.
3. The Day of Celebration.
4. Rites of Celebration.
Prior to 300 A.D. (§ 1).
In the Post‑Nicene Period and Middle Ages ($ 2).
In Modern limes (§ 3).
II. The Paschal Controversies.
The Quartodecimane of Asia Minor (51).
The day of resurrection, earth, tell it out abroad, The Passover of gladness, the pesaover of God.
2. Origin of the Celebration: Two questions present themselves: (1) When did the custom of the yearly commemoration of the resurrection begin? (2) on what day of .the week and what day of the year was the festival celebrated? For the period after the Council of Nica?a (325), the difficulty largely vanishes. The comparatively lengthy statement of Eusebius (Hilt. eccl. V., xxiii.xxv.) does not relieve the difficulty for the anteNicene period, but by its vagueness, growing out of what Eusebius assumes to be known, rather increases the difficulty. If we were in possession of the lost tracts called forth in the third century by the paschal controversies (see below, IL), to which
Documentary Bases and Harmoniatio Calculations (§ 2).
Controversy in the Second Century (¢ 3).
The Nicene Decision as to Date of Celebration (¢ 4). III. The Easter Cycle.
Eusebius makes reference, all uncertainty might be removed.
The only possible allusion in the New Testament to the observance of a Christian Passover, or festival of the death of Christ, is I Cor. v. 7,
1. Testi‑ where " Christ our Passover " is said mony to have been sacrificed for us. That of the the Jewish Christians continued to
N ene keep the Jewish festivals is altogether
period. probable, if not certain, from Paul's habit. On the other hand, Paul seems to disparage the observance of special festivals except the first day of the week (I Cor. xvi. 2). What was the custom of the Gentile Christians 7 Did they also keep the season devoted to the Jewish Passover, putting into it Christian ideas? And if so, did they observe it as a commemoration of the resurrection of Christ as well as of his death and burial? In the literature of the subapoetolic age, (excepting Justin Martyr) there is no reference to a celebration of a yearly festival of the resurrection or paschca. There is no hint of anything of that kind in the Didache. Trypho charged thh Christians with not keeping the Jewish feasts or the Sabbaths; the reply was that Christians did not place any virtue in keeping such festivals (Justin Martyr, TryPho, x.). From Tertullian it seems to be evident that there was a struggle between the Jewish and Gentile elements in the Church over what was included under the feast of the pascha and a struggle within the Gentile portion of the Church as to whether any yearly festivals were to be observed. Tertullian says: if the Apostle set aside all special reverence for days and months and years, why do we celebrate the pascha in the first month of each year? (De jejuniis, xiv., ANF, iv. 112). It is evident from this that the pascha was observed. But that there was a difference in respect to what was included under the term pascha is evident from Ter tullian. In his De orations (viii.) he refers to it as Friday the day of the Lord's death, and in De corona (iii., ANF, iii. 94) he says: " we count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday." Similarly in De baptismo (xix., ANF, iii. 678) he says that they did not fast on the Lord's Day and that the period between the day of the pascha and Pentecost the Christian spent in joy. From this it seems to be apparent that the whole season of the pascha was observed with sadness and grief. So far then it would appear that the pascha observance was a time of grief and it is left uncertain whether the resurrection was observed annually by a special day, or, if observed at ail, whether it was observed separately from the festival of the death of Christ.
The next point of approach is through Eusebiue

Raster	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	44
(Hilt. eccl. V., xxiii.‑xxv., NPNF, 2d ser., i. 241 aqq.). In this famous passage the historian has especially in mind the conflict as to the day of the
week and of the year on which pascha 2. Teed. was to be celebrated. He records that
mony	as early as the middle of the second cen
of the	to , there was dispute over this double
Nioene question, Polycarp of Asia Minor and Period. Anicetua of Rome being at that time
the representatives of the two views. Eusebius further says that the churches in Asia Minor derived their custom of observing the pascha from the Apostle John and Philip. Without doubt Christian elements were incorporated into the celebration. It was not a question of whether a day corresponding to the Passover should be celebrated, but a question of the time at which it was to be celebrated. Further, according to Eusebius, the churches of Asia Minor finished " their fasting on the festival of the Savior's passover." This was the 14th of Nisan. In other parts of the Church, Eusebius goes on to say, it was not their custom " to end it on this day " but, " on no other day than that of the Lord's resurrection." From this it would seem on the surface that in Asia Minor the Churches finished the fasting on the day set apart for the pascha, that is in all probability the day commemorating the crucifixion, and in the rest of the world they carried the fasting over to Sunday. Joy is not mentioned as an element in the celebration in the case either of Asia Minor or of the rest of the world, so that if the resurrection was celebrated at all as a separate feast, Eusebius does not indicate it. We can not think that, if the resurrection was celebrated, fasting and grief entered into its observance, as has been deduced from this statement of Euaebius. (For the fast preceding Easter, see FASTING, IL, §. 3). To this passage of Eusebiua have been added recently passages from the Canons of Hippolytus (TU, vi. 4, pp. 115‑116) and from Aphraatea (ed. Bert, T U, new ser., iii. pp.170‑171). The former speaks of the pascha as a time of fasting and lamentation. Aphraatea also (cf. Bert, in TU, ut sup. p. 83) seems not to have in mind the resurrection when he speaks of the Christian pascha. However, Alexander of Egypt (d. 264, Routh, Religuice Sacra,, iii. 223 sqq.) distinguishes the festivals of the death and of the resurrection.
From these unsatisfactory notices, different views have been deduced. Neander, Hilgenfeld and P. Schaff have held that in the second and third centuries the pascha included the celebration of the resurrection and death of Christ; Steitz and Drews
only the death; while Schiirer, Karl n‑ Moller, and others hold the modified
oln‑	view that it celebrated the completion
eions. of the full work of redemption and not specifically either the death or the resurrection. It must be .lid that the silence of the writers of the ante‑Nicene period, who give such scant notice of the pascha feast, can not safely be interpreted to mean that the resurrection was not celebrated as a distinct part of the pascha festival. The few extant notices, taken by themselves, seem to favor the theory that there was but one festival of the
pascha and that it included the death and the resurrection. Certainly in the fourth century the term pascha stood for both the resurrection and the death of Christ. It was then called " the holy feast, the pascha of our salvation " as by the Council of Antioch 341 (canon i., Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 513); and Athanasius frequently describes the pascha as a feast of joy at which the Lord himself is the festival. It is a festival of redemption (cf. " Festal Letters," ANF, 2d ser., iv. 506‑556). Finally, in the fourth century pascha came to be used in a limited sense for Easter Sunday alone, as by the Councils of Arles 314, Carthage 397, and the First Synod of Toledo 400 (canon xx.). Contemporaneously the whole feast of the pascha was known undet the two names the pascha of the crucifixion and the pascha of the resurrection. They were parts of a single festival.
3. The Day of Celebration: As already indicated, Eusebius states that there was a wide difference in the customs prevalent in Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the year and of the week on which the pascha festival was to be celebrated. The Christians of Asia Minor were called 6,)uartodecimana from their custom of celebrating the pascha invariably on the 14th of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish year and falling in the springtime. The date might fall on Friday or on any of the other days of the week, which fact made no difference in the celebration of the paschal feast. For this reason the day of the resurrection did not always fall on a Sunday. In the churches of the West and also in parts of the East a different custom prevailed. The result of these differences was that different sections of the Church might and did observe the pascha on different dates. Out of this difference grew the Paschal Controversies, so‑called (see IL, below). The Council of Nica'a had for its second object the unification of the date of the Christian pascha, which the Council of Arles (314) had referred to as a moat desirable thing " that the pascha of the Lord should be observed on one day and at one time throughout the world " (cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 205). The decree of Nicwa fixed as Easter Sunday the Sunday immediately following the fourteenth day of the so‑called paschal moon, which happens on or first after the vernal equinox. The vernal equinox invariably falls on Mar. 21. Easter, then, can not occur earlier than Mar. 22, or later than Apr. 25. In the former case the fourteenth day of the moon would coincide with Mar. 21, the day of the veinal equinox. In the latter, the fifteenth day of the moon would happen on Mar. 21, and a whole lunar month would have to intervene before the condition, "the fourteenth day of the moon first after the vernal equinox," was fulfilled; and, as this might be Sunday, Easter Sabbath would not occur till seven more days had elapsed, i.e., Apr. 25.
4. Bites of Celebration: Up to the year 300 notices are very scant. Eusebius states that the pascha was celebrated with mourning, and that church synods (exclusive of those in Asia Minor) ordered that " the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord " should be observed only on the Lord's
. :,.;

46	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Easter
day and that on that day " the clone of the paschal fast " should be observed. The pascha was a time of fasting. " The mystery of the recur
1. Prior rection of the Lord " must refer to
to 300 the Eucharist. Tertullian (Ad uzo‑
	A.D, ram, ii. 4) and others refer to vigils
extending into the night of Saturday or until the
cockcrowing of the Sunday morning (Apostolic
Constitutions, ANF, vii. 447). The chief source
of information is the Didaskalia (xxi., Apostolic
Constitutions, v. 18‑19) which speaks of the fasting
beginning on the Monday of the paschal week and
continuing with growing rigor into Saturday night,
and adds that on Saturday night the whole con
gregation met and engaged in prayer, especially
for the Jews, and in reading from the Scripture.
Sunday was then observed by the meeting to
gather of rich and poor in the love‑feast and the
Eucharist.
After 300 notices of the festivities of Easter are frequent and many sermons on the pascha are preserved in Ambrose, Augustine, and other writers. The day was looked upon as the most joyous festival of the year. The week beginning with Easter Sunday was observed with special religious festivities and each day had its sermon.
2. In the Easter Sunday was called dominica
Post‑	in (ylb2S (nee ALBS CATECHUMENATE,
Nicene	§ 4) or octavo infantium and the
Period Sunday closing Easter week was and
	M ddle	called octavo pasehce or pascha clams
		sum. Ambrose in his sermon on the
		"Mystery of the Pascha " (MPL,
xvii. 695) gives full expression to the joyous feelings
which were involved in Easter. He called the day
the real beginning of the year, the opening of the
months, the new revival of the seeds and the res
toration of the joy interrupted by the cold of
winter. On that day God, as it were, relighta the
sun and given light to the moon. The Easter cele
bration began on Saturday, sometimes as early
as three o'clock in the afternoon, as is stated to
have been the case in Jerusalem by the "Itinerary"
of Silvia (cf. Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xiv. 743). This
Saturday celebration was known as the Easter or
Paschal Vigils. Augustine called this vigil the
" mother of all the sacred vigils" (Sermo ecxix.,
MPL, xxxviii. 1088), and says that even the
heathen kept awake on that night. According to
Lactantiua (De divinis institutionx'hua, VIL, xix.,
ANF, vii. 215) and Jerome (on Matt, xAV. 6, MPL,
xxvi. 184), the Lord was expected to return
at that time. The celebration is referred to by
other authors, in missals, in the codes of Theo
dosius and Justinian and in the acts of coun
cils. The services in the churches consisted of
readings from the Law, the Prophets and the
narratives of the Lord's passion, in the administra
tion of baptism and confirmation, and ended with
the Eucharist. For Spain and Gaul these services
are recorded in the Mozarabic Liturgy (MPL,
Ixxxv.), and in the Gothic missal the Gallic
missal, the Gallic sacramentaryand the Lectionary
of Luxeuil (all in MPL lxxii.). The use of lighted
candles became universal and is attested as the
custom in Rome at least as early as the middle of
the third century. The Canons of Hippolytus (TU, vi. 4, p. 136) say " that on the night of the resurrection no one should sleep and every one should have a light, for on that night the Redeemer made every one free from the darkness of sin and the grave." Augustine bears witness to the custom of lighting and carrying candles. Eusebius says that the whole city of Constantinople was illuminated with wax candles and columns of wax (" Life of Constantine," iv. 22). Gregory Nazianzen (d. 390) and Gregory of Nyasa (d. 395, " Oration on the pascha," xlii.) speak of persons of all ranks carrying tapers and lamps. The custom of the paschal fire was also an early institution and can be traced back to 600 at least as in vogue in France. Alcuin (De diz;inis ofj'rciis, xvi.17,MPL, ci. 1205) and Boniface (d. 752, MPL, lxxxix. 951) definitely refer to it. The new fire was struck from a atone and the tapers and candles lighted from it. Perhaps the custom was drawn from the ceremony of the Romans at the altar of Vests at the opening of the New Year, Mar. 1. The symbolical significance of such an act, as a means of instruction to the people and as an expression of piety for the new light brought into the world by the resurrection is so natural that it is not necessary to fall back upon the old Roman ceremony. In Gaul the custom was also observed, how widely is not known, of placing five pieces of incense in the great paschal candle to symbolize the five wounds of Christ. The codes of Theodosius and Just*nian recognized the joyous character of the day by encouraging the emancipation of slaves and the liberation of minor criminals, and ordering the omission of spectacular entertainments during Easter week. It was also made a time for the presentation of gifts and the distribution of alma. The acts of councils (Orleans, 538, Macon, 581, and others) down through the Middle Ages to the Fourth Lateran (1215) and later councils forbade the Jews to tread the streets or to show themselves out of doors from Maundy Thursday till after Easter, lest the joy of the Christians should be interrupted.
At the present time the religious festivities of Easter time in the Greek and Latin Churches involve the substantial elements in the ancient custom of the day. Elaborate solemn rites are observed on Saturday and until the cockcrowing of Easter morning when the tapers (extinguished on Good Friday) are lighted with the words " The Light of Christ." In the church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem until a few years ago the pious fraud of the " holy fire" was perpetrated by the Greek patriarch who presented from the sacred tomb
	s. In	three times a lighted taper or torch
		which he declared had been lighted
	ern	by a miracle without human interven
Times. tion. The spectators, wrought to
		great excitement, struggled to light
their tapers at the miraculous fire, and then carried
it throughout the Greek world. Often disgraceful
scenes occurred and the intervention of the Turkish
soldiery was required to prevent or check violence.
In the twelfth century Saladin is said by an early
tradition to have witnessed this miracle and acknowl‑

Easter	THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOQ	48
edged its miraculous character (Itinerarium Ricardi I. v. 16, ed. W. Stubbs, London, 1864). Easter is observed throughout the Continent by the various bodies of Protestants. The Church of England has always observed the day and the Protestant Episcopal Church of America follows it. The Puritans abolished all special recognition of the festival. The churches of Scotland as well as the different nonepiscopal branches of the Protestant Church in America are more and more using the day as a means of commemorating the resurrection of the Lord, confirming the faith of men in the hope of the resurrection, and giving expression to the joyous character of the Christian religion.
D. S. Scars.
	II. The Paschal Controversies: While Jewish
Christians for a time celebrated the Jewish Pass
over, the practise of the Church was not uniform
either in the day or in the ideas and customs at
taching to what eventually became the Easter
festival. The Christians of Asia Minor celebrated
		the Jewish Passover on the 14th of
1. The Nisan, sting with it, according to Quarto. some, the commemoration of the de‑
deoimans
of Asia pure of Jesus from his disciples
	Minor.	and the institution of the Lord's Sup
		per. According to others, the day
was celebrated in strict obedience to Jewish law,
without any allusion to Gospel history. A third
view maintains that the Christians of Asia Minor
celebrated on the 14th of Nisan the memory of the
death of Jesus. But the grounds of the contro
veiey must be nought elsewhere. If the sources
are examined without prejudice and without re
gard to criticism of the Gospels, a different result
must necessarily be reached concerning the sig
nificance and import of the celebration. Euse
bius says that it was decided on the basis of numer
ous conferences of bishops that the mystery of
the resurrection of the Lord from the dead should
be celebrated on no other day than on the Lord's
day and on that day the Easter fast should be
broken (Hilt. eccl., V. xxiii. 2, NPNF, 2d aer., i.
241). Hence it is evident that the party who
were opposed in the conferences, who were un
doubtedly the Christians of Asia Minor, must have
celebrated the mystery of the resurrection on the
day on which the fast was broken, and that this
day was not Sunday but the 14th of Nisan, around
which the controversy revolved. This conclusion
is justified by the account of Epiphaniua concern
ing the Quartodecimans (that is, those who com
memorated the Lord's death on the 14th), in which
he relates that fasting and the celebration of the
resurrection took place on the same day. It is
hardly conceivable that a bitter and protracted
controversy should have originated on a mere
matter of fasting; the real reason for the differ
ences lay deeper. The Christians of Asia Minor
appealed to an old apostolic tradition according
to which Jesus rose on the evening of the day of
his death, and the opposition of the Occidentals
was directed mainly against the commemoration of
death and resurrection on the same day.
The Syriac Didascalia makes an attempt to harmonize the tradition of the canonical Gospels and
that of the Christians of Asia Minor. On the morning of Friday Jesus was led before Pilate and crucified on the same day. He suffered six hours, and those are counted as one day. Then there was a darkness, lasting three hours; and that is counted as a night, and further, from the ninth hour till evening three hours,‑another day, and
then followed the night of the Sab‑
8. Doors‑ bath. In the Gospel of Matthew we
meatary read, « Now late on the eabbath day
	Bases as it began to dawn toward the first
and Her‑
monistic day of the week, came Mary MagdaCalenla‑ lane," etc. (Matt. xxviii. 1, R. V.). boas. The calculation is strange, but rte purpose is easily seen. The author believed that Jesus rose on the evening of the Friday on which he suffered death. In order to reconcile this tradition with the other which assumed a resurrection on the third day, he calculated (as above) in such a way that Jesus really rose after two days and two nights although only one day had passed. It is not known whether Friday of every week was celebrated by fasts and the mysteries of resurrection or the 14th of each month or the 14th of Nisan in each year. In the Orient, Sunday was not known as the day of resurrection, and hence there was no weekly celebration of this. day, but in the Occident Wednesday and Friday were regular fast‑days, and .Sunday was celebrated as the day of resurrection. It is doubtful whether the Occident possessed in addition a special day in the year for the commemoration of the death and the resurrection of the Lord.
When Polycarp visited Anicetus in Rome (c. 154), the celebration of Passover was discussed, but no agreement was arrived at. Polycarp appealed to the old age of the tradition in Asia Minor,
Anicetua to the Roman tradition.
	S. Con‑	Neither made concessions, but there
	troversy was no rupture. At the beginning of
		is the c	the paschal controversies, there arose
	Ceatnry. also he heresy of the Montaniats
			who by means of the Egyptian calen
dar designated the seventh of April as the day
of the death of Christ on which they annually
celebrated Passover without regard to the day of
the week and the phase of the moon. This revolu
tionary spirit was opposed by the representatives
of the Church of Asia Minor, especially by Melito
of Sardis and Apollinsris of Hierapolis, but, owing
to his disagreement with the Church of Asia Minor,
Victor of Rome was favorably inclined toward
the Montanists. He attempted to exclude the
churches of the province of Asia from the ortho
dox Church, but Polycarp of Smyrna defended the
old custom so that the measures of Rome could
not be carried out. Most of the bishops took the
part of Polycarp. Even Irenaeue wrote to Victor
in the name of the Gallican bishops, exhorting
him to be moderate. The leaders of the Church
of Palestine, such as Narcissus of Jerusalem, The
ophilus of Caesarea, also the bishops of Pontua and
Gaul, and the Church of Alexandria stood on the
aide of Victor, appealing to the tradition of the
Apostles, while Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia

47	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eater
took the part of Asia Minor. Victor was not sueceesful in subjecting the Asiatics to his views; on the other hand the Church of Asia Minor was not able to influence the Western Church to abandon the celebration of Sunday in favor of an account of the resurrection which was in evident contradiction to the prophecies of the Old Testament, to the tradition of Paul and the acknowledged Gospels, and in favor of a custom that was based merely upon the appeal to traditions which could not claim equal authority with the Gospels and apostles. Clement of Alexandria, as the representative of the view of the churches in Palestine and Alexandria, seems to have influenced the final result of the controversy.
For the following period the more important problem was the calculation of the term of Passover and Easter. In Asia Minor this question was not raised. The Jews strictly insisted that their festival should take place at the time of full moon, but beyond this they attempted no accurate calculation. It was probably in Egypt that the vernal equinox and the next full moon were first taken into consideration as fixed points in the calculation of Easter.
In Rome there developed in the mean time a different calculation of the festival of Easter which,
beside the celebration of Sunday as
4. The the day of resurrection, formed an
Nicene object of dispute between the two Decision as parties. According to a statement of to the Date Tertullian, Easter was celebrated sn‑
ot Cele‑
bration. nually in the first month, i.e., March.
But if Easter is calculated after the full moon which follows the spring equinox, it does not always take place in the month of March. Consequently at the time when Tertullian made this statement (in the beginning of the third century), Easter must have been celebrated in Car thage and in the Occident on an immovable day in the month of March. As Tertullian in another place designates the twenty‑fifth of March as the day of the death of Christ, and as this tradition is very frequently in evidence in the whole Occident, it is to be assumed that in the Occident there began a fast on that date which was broken on the following Sunday in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. At the Council of NICfEa an attempt was made to abolish the differences between the various churches and to introduce the Egyptian ealculation into all provinces. Easter was to be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. But by this decision a uniform regulation of the question was not guaranteed, as is evident from the necessity of reaffirming the decision at the Synod of Antioch in 341. An anti‑Judaistic polemic which is noticeable in the regulation of the question since the third century has undoubtedly influenced to a great extent the final victory of the custom of Palestine and Egypt. In spite of the decision of the councils, the churches of Mesopotamia, Antioch, and Syria adhered to the old custom.
(ERWIN PREVtjCHEN.)
III. The Easter Cycle: This is a determinate series, of years such that in each series Easter
Sunday always recurs in the same sequence on the same day of the month. Such a cycle exists for the Julian calendar and comprises 532 years. Besides this cycle there is another, consisting of eightyfour years, which is mentioned at the close of the third century but which was later superseded by the cycle of 532 years because it was found that the computation was wrong. A lanes cycle of nineteen years is also named and only in this sense can an Easter cycle be connected with the Gregorian calendar.
CARL BERTHEAU.
BrsLIOaaera:: On L: Bingham, Oripinea, XX. v.; J. C. W. Augusti, DenkuH1rdapkeiten, vol. ii., Leipsic, 1818: F. Piper, Geedsiehte des Oaterfeatea, Berlin, 1845; H. Alt, Der chrisUiche Callus, part ii., Berlin, 1850; W. I. Zip, Hiet., Object and Proper Observance of the Holy Season of Lent, New York, 1875; E. Reran, L't'pliae clirbtienne, pp. 445‑451, Paris, 1879; idem, M. Aurlls, pp. 194‑208, ib. 1882, Eng. tranal. of both vole., London, n. d.; F. X. Kraus, Realeneykloplidie der christlichen Alterthfimer, i. 486‑502, Freiburg, 1881; J. H. Hobart, Festivals and Feasts, London, 1887; L. Dueheane, Oripinea du cults ehrltien, pp. 228 eqq., Paris, 1889, Eng. tranel., Christian Worship, pp. 238‑239 et passim, London, 1904; T. Zahn, Geadsiclrte des neutestamentliehen Kanona, i. 180 eqq., Leipeio, 1889; idem, Skizurs one dens Le6en der alter Kirche, chap. vi., ib. 1894; Neander, Christian Church, i. 149, 297‑300 et passim, ii.‑iv, passim; Hefele, Concilisngeschichte, vol. i. pasaiLi, Eng. tranal., vol. i.; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. ZO6‑209; DCB, i. b8B‑b95: DCG, i. 265: E. C. Aehelis. LtArbueh der yraktiecAers Theoio0ie, i. 292 eqq., Leipsic, 1898; G. Rietschel, Lahrbuch der Liduvik, i. 172 eqq., Berlin, 1900.
On IL: C. L. Weitael, Die chrirUiche Paaaa/eier der drei crater Jalirlsunderten, Pforzheim, 1848; A. Hilgenfeld, Dar Paachaatreit der alter Kirche, Halls, 1860; W. F. Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, i. chap i., London, 1880; F. C. Baur. Do* Chriatenthurn der drei crater Jahrhunderfen, pp. 156‑189. Tiibingen, 1883; W. Milligan. The Easter Controversies of Me Second Century in their Relation to as Gospel of St. John, is Contemporary Review, Sept., 1887; J. F. 8. Gordon, Scotichronicon, i. 80‑6b, Glasgow, 1867; E. Scharer, Do controveraiis pascJsal%bua, Leipsic, 1869; idem, in ZHT, 1870, pp. 182 eqq.; L. Dueheane, La Question de la Pdque, in Revue des questions hietoriquee, July, 1880; G. Salmon, Historical Introduction to the N. T., lest. xv., London, 1894; MeGiffert in NPNF, Zd eer., i. 241; Neander, ut cup., i. 297300, ii. 337‑338, iii. 347, 685; Schaff, ut nap.. ii., 209‑220.
On III.: Van der Hagen, Diaasrtationea de cyclic paschalibua, Amsterdam, 1738; L. Ideler, Handbuch der . . . CAronolopie, ii. 191‑298, Berlin, 1826; idem, Lehrbuch der CAronolopde, pp. 345‑379, ib. 1831; B. Krusch, Studien our christLichen mitlelaiterliehers Chronolopie, Leipsic, 1880; H. Grotefend, Zeibsehnunp des deutachsrs Mittsh alters and der Nsuseit, p. 144, Hanover, 1891.
EASTER COMMiTNION: The celebration of the Lord's Supper early became one of the chief of the rites connected with Easter. Those who had become cold and lax in their attention on religious ceremonies felt that they must, on Easter, if at no other time, commune. In the council held in the Lateran in Rome in 1215, that which had become a practise was made an obligation, and the twenty‑first canon of this council reads thus: "Every believer, of either sex, who has come to years of discretion, must at least once a year confess honestly his sins to his own priest and perform the penance which may be enjoined as far as he is able, and at least on Easter solemnly receive the Eucharist, unless his priest out of sufficient grounds has forbidden its reception. Whoever refuses so to do will be excluded from the Church, and on death be refused Christian burial.' Hefele, Concilieregeachelhte, v. 888.

Eastern Church
I. Names, Extent and Branches. II. History.
General Characterization (§ 1).
Three Periods (§ 2).
Intolerance and Persecution (§ 3).
The Schism between East and west (¢ 4).
Points of Difference (§ 5).
I. Names, Extent, and Branches: Various names are used to designate the great division of Christendom which is considered in this article. The full official title is " the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church " (J dyfa op>g6dogos, KaSoRcrc~ 5rroaroicKtj avarolsKfj €KO.r)aia). The Roman Church claims all these titles, except " Oriental," for which it substitutes " Roman," and claims them exclusively. The name " Eastern (or Oriental) Church " designates its origin and geographical territory. The " Orthodox Church " expresses its close adherence to the ecumenical system of doctrine and discipline as settled by the seven ecumenical councils before the separation from the Western or Latin Church. On this title the chief stress is laid, and it is celebrated on a special day called " Orthodoxy Sunday," in the beginning of Lent, when a dramatic repreaelftation of the old ecumenical councils is given in the churches, and anathemas are pronounced on all heresies. The common designation " Greek Church " is not strictly correct, but indicates the national origin of the church and the language in which most of its creeds, liturgies, canons, and theological and ascetic literature are composed, and its worship mainly conducted.
The Eastern Church embraces the Greek, and the Russian and other Slavonic nationalities. It has its seat in Eastern Europe‑‑chiefly in Turkey, Servia, Rumania, Greece, Russia, and some parts of Austria‑and in Western Asia. Bulgaria was long a bone of contention between Constantinople and Rome and one of the causes of separation, but is now an independent branch of the " Orthodox" Church, ruled by an exarch (see BULGARIA; BUIr GARIANS, CONVERSION OF THE). In Western Europe and America there are congregations of merchants and immigrants or connected with embassies (for America, see below, IV.). The total number of adherents of the Eastern Church is about 100,000,000, of whom 85,000,000 belong to tile Russian Church. The Eastern Church thus ranks thirc'. among the three great divisions of Christendom, the Roman Catholic Church being credited with 230,000,000 adherents, and the Protestant Churches with 140,000,000.
The Eastern Church is divided into at least fifteen branches or parts, each independent of the other. The first rank is held by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE; PATRIARCH). Then follow (2) Alexandria (see ALEXANDRIA, PATRIARCHATE OF); (3) Antioch; (4j Jerusalem (see JERUSALEM, PATRIARCHATE OF); (5) Cyprus (which was recognized as a bishopric by the Council of Ephesus in 431 and includes 160,000 Greek Catholics), (6) Russia (q.v.), (7) Karlovita (the metropolitan see of the Hungarian Serviane); (8) Montenegro (q.v.), (9) the archbishop‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
EASTERN CHURCH.
Relations to Protestant Churches
	(¢ g)•
III. Doctrine, Polity, and Liturgy. Creed (4 I). Theology ($ 2). Government (¢ 3). Worship and Ritual (§ 4). Liturgy of the Lord's Supper (¢ b).
48
Saints, Relics, and Images. Language of Worship (§ 8). Monks and Clergy (5 7). Religious Life (¢ 8). The Greek Canon (§ 9). Missions (§ 10).
IV. The Eastern Church in America.
ric of Sinai (independent since 1782); (10) Greece (independent of Constantinople since 1852; see GREECE); (11) the metropolitan see of Hermannstadt (for the Rumanians in Hungary); (12) the exarchate of Bulgaria (since 1870; see BULGARIA); (13) the metropolitan see of Czernowitz (for Bukowine and Dalmatia, including the Ruthenians and other Cisleithanians); (14) Servia (since 1879; see SERVIA); (15) Rumania (since 1885; Bee RUMANIA). The Georgian Church has been absorbed by the Russian. The Church of Bosnia and Herzegovina (q.v.), with three independent metropolitans, has a loose relation to the ecumenical patriarch. Constantinople, the city of the first Christian emperor, is still the natural center of the whole Eastern Church and may again become, in Christian hands, for the Eastern world what Gregory Nazianzen described it to be in the fourth century, " the eye of the world, the strongest by sea and land, the bond of union between East and West, to which the moat distant extremes from all aides come together, and to which they look up as to a common center and emporium of the faith."
II. History: The Eastern Church has no continuous history like the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. It has long periods of monotony and stagnation, and is isolated from the main current
of progressive Christendom. Yet this i. Gfeneral Church represents the oldest tradition Charao= in Christendom, and for several cen‑

tics.
turies was the chief bearer of our religion. It still occupies the sacred territory of primitive Christianity, and claims moat of the Apostolic sees, as Jerusalem, Antioch, and the churches founded by Paul and John in Asia Minor and Greece. All the Apostles, with the exception of Peter and Paul, labored and died in the East. From the old Greeks the Church inherited the language and certain national traits of character, while it incorporated also much of Jewish and Oriental piety. It produced the first Christian literature, apologies of the Christian faith, refutations of heresies, commentaries on the Bible, sermons, homilies, and ascetic treatises. The great majority of the early Fathers, and at least some of the Apostles, used the Creek language. Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysoatom, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Cyril of Alexandria, the first Christian emperors beginning with Constantine the Great, together with a host of martyrs and confessors, belong to the Greek communion. It elaborated the ecumenical dogmas of the Trinity and Christology, and ruled the first seven ecumenical councils, which were all held in Constantinople or its immediate neighborhood
I (Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus). The palmy period

49	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	mastera Chasoh
of the Eastern Church during the first five centuries will ever claim the grateful respect of the whole Christian world; and its great teachers still live in their writings far beyond the confines, nay, even more outside of its communion, as the books of Moses and the Prophets are more studied and better understood among Christians than among Jews, for whom they wrote. But the Church has never materially progressed beyond the standpoint occupied in the fifth and sixth centuries. It has no proper middle age, and no Reformation, like Western Christendom. It influences the Churches of the West to‑day chiefly through the Nicene and other creeds, its hymns made known by J. M. Neale and others, and the writings and examples of its great theologians, preachers, commentators, and historians of the first five centuries.
Three periods may be distinguished in the history of the Eastern Church: (1) The Classical or Productive period, the first five or six centuries, has just been characterized. The last great theologian of the East is John of Damascus (d. before 754), who summed up the scattered results of the labors of the preceding Fathers into a tolerably complete system of theology; but he is an isolated phenomenon. The process of degeneracy and stagnation
had already set in; and the former 2. Three life and vigor gave way to idle epecu‑
Period°. latione, distracting controversies, dead
formalism, and traditionalism. (2) The Byzantine period, corresponding to the Middle Ages of the Latin Church, extends from the rise of Mohammedanism to the fall of Constantinople (650‑1453). Here are found the gradual separation from the West and from all progressive movements; dependence on the imperial court at Constantinople; continuation of a certain literary activity; philological and Biblical studies in slavish dependence on the Fathers; commentaries of CEcumenius (c. 990), Theophylact (d. after 1107), Euthymius Zigabenus (d. after 1118); large literary collections, classical and Christian, of Photius (c. 890), Balsamon, Zonaras, Suidae, and Simeon Metaphraetee; the liturgical works of Maximus, Sophronius, Simeon of Thessalonica; the Byzantine historians; the iconoclastic controversy (726‑842; see InsAass AND IMAGE WORSHIP, II); inroads and conquests of Mohammedanism (from 630) in Syria, Persia, Egypt, North Africa; temporary suspension of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem; finally, the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, and the extinction of the Greek Empire (1453), which led to the immigration of Greek scholars (Chatcondylas, Chrysoloras, Gemietoe Plethon, Michael Apostolius, Theodore Gaza, George of Trebizond, and others) to the West, the revival of letters, the study of the Greek Testament, and prepared the way for the Reformation. During this period of decline in its original home, the Greek Church made a great conquest in the conversion of the Slavonians (the Bulgarians and Russians) in the ninth and tenth centuries, while the Latin Church was converting the Celtic and Teutonic races.
(3) The Modern period may be dated from the downfall of the Greek Empire (1453). It presents in Asia stagnation and slavery under the rule of the IV.‑4
Turks but great tenacity and independence as to all internal affairs; in Europe, rapid external growth through the rising power of Russia, with some reforms in manners and customs and the introduction of Western culture, protests against Romanizing and evangelical movements, the orthodox confession of Petrus Mogilas (1642), the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), the Russian Church, the patriarchate of Moscow, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon (d. 1681) and of the Czar Peter the Great (d. 172b), the reaction of the Old Believers (Reakolniki), the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg (since 1721), the New Greek Church in Hellaa (since 1833), with prospects for the future, depending chiefly on Russia.
In the history of the Eastern Church there have been no organized bloody tribunals of orthodoxy like the Spanish Inquisition, no sys$' Intol°r' tematic and long‑continued pereecu‑
anoe and Lions like the crusades against the
Per°°cn‑ Waldenses, Alb nses, and Huguenots,
tion.	and no massacre of St. Bartholomew. But the Greek Church of old mercilessly expelled and exiled Avian, Nestorian, Eutychian, and other heretics, and persecuted the Paulicians (835). For centuries none of the Oriental Churches except the Russian has been in a position to exercise jurisdiction over heretics and dissenters, being themselves only tolerated by the Turkish or Egyptian governments. Modern Russia has enforced severe measures against the Stundiste and other dissenting bodies and has withheld from Lutherans in the Baltic provinces certain privileges (such as exemption from military service) sacredly promised by the Czar. Secession from the national orthodox Church is rigidly prohibited. No one can be converted in Russia from one religion or sect to another, except to the national orthodox Church; and all the children of mixed marriages, where one parent belongs to it must be baptized and educated in it. The spirit of fanatical intolerance has manifested itself recently in the atrocious persecution of the Jews as it did earlier in 1881; but it would be unfair to hold the Eastern Church responsible for these excesses.
No two Churches are so much alike in their creed, polity and cultus, as the Greek and Roman; and yet no two are such irreconcilable
4. The rivals, perhaps for the very reason of
Sohism	their affinity. They agree much more
Ikut ~a than either agrees with any Protee‑
Wsst. tant Church. They were never organically united. They differed from the beginning in nationality, language, and genius, as the ancient Greeks differed from the Romans; yet they grew up together, and stood shoulder to i shoulder in the ancient conflict with paganism and heresy. They cooperated in the early ecumenical councils, and adopted their doctrinal and ritual I decisions. But the removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople by Diocletian and Constantine, the development of the papal monarchy in the West, and the establishment of a Western empire in connection with it, laid the foundation of a schism which has never been healed. The i controversy culminated in the rivalry between the ~ patriarch of Constantinople and the pope of Rome.

Eastern Church	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOO 	50
The bishop of Constantinople was recognized by the Council of Constantinople in 381 and a place was given him by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 " next after" the bishop of Rome. Leo I. (440461) protested against the growing assumption of power by the Conatantinopolitan bishop, who as early as 500 used the title " ecumenical patriarch." From 484 to 519 the relations between the two bishops were much strained over the Henoticon of Zeno, which sought to soften the Chalcedonian Christological formula (see MONOPHYBITEB). The controversy over their relative authority reached an acute stage under Photiua and Nicholas I. (qq.v.) who each excommunicated the other (869 and 879). When Ignatius was deposed from the patriarchate of Constantinople and the layman Photius put in ‑his place (857), the latter appealed to Rome for s decision against the Ignatian party. Nicholas sent s commission to investigate and refused to recognize Photius, who then retorted in a famous encyclical letter charging the Roman Church with heresy for the unauthorized insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed (see FILIOQuE CONTROVERSY) and with various corrupt practises. In 1054 the controversy was renewed under the patriarch Michael Caerularius (q.v.), whom Pope Leo IX. excommunicated as guilty of nine heresies, and it became irreparable through the Venetian conquest of Constantinople (1204) and the establishment of a Latin empire there (12041), a Latin patriarch of Constantinople and rival Latin bishops in other Eastern sees by Innocent III. and other popes. Vain attempts at reunion were made from time to time, especially at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439). The latter was attended by the patriarch and the Byzantine emperor, but its compromise formula was rejected in the East as treason to the orthodox faith (see FERRARA‑FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF). With the fall of Constantinople (1453) the political motive for seeking a union with the West ceased. ‑ In 1870 the Vatican Council intensified the chief cause of separation by declaring papal absolutism and papal infallibility an article of faith. Leo XIII. in the bull Prceclara gratulationis of June 20, 1894, directed " to all princes and peoples," expressed the hope of a reunion of Christendom (cf. A. Harnack, Reden wnd Aufsatze, ii., Giessen, 1906, 295 sqq.). The patriarch Anthimos II. replied, Oct. 11, 1895, charging the Roman Church with innovations, such as the filioque, the doctrines of the immaculate conception and papal infallibility, baptism by sprinkling, purgatory, etc.
The points in which the Greek Church differs from the Roman are the following: the single procession of the Holy Spirit (against
	6. Points the fdioqxce), which is as far as the
of 	Council of Constantinople in 381 wept;
once.	the aqunlity of the five patriarchs.	and the rejection of the papacy as an

antichristian innovation and usurpation; the right of the lower clergy (priests and deacons) to marry (though only once); communion in both kinds; trine immersion the only valid form of baptism; the use of the vernacular languages in worship; a number of minor ceremonies, as the use of com‑
mon or leavened bread in the Eucharist, infant communion, the repetition of holy unction (euX0acov) in sickness, etc.
On the fruitless negotiations for union between the Lutheran and the Greek Church, and the
e. Bela ‑ Anglican and the Greek and Russian dons Churches, cf. Schaff, Creeds, i. 50 aqq.
to Protes‑ and 74 sqq. The Reformation of the tant sixteenth century had no effect upon
	Churches. the Oriental Church. The reform
		movement of Cyril Lucar (q.v.) who,
as patriarch of Constantinople, attempted to in
graft Calvinism upon the old trunk, failed com
pletely: he was strangled to death, and his body
thrown into the Bosphorus (1638); and his doc
trines were condemned by synods in 1638, 1643,
and 1672 (cf. Schaff, Creeds, i. 54 eqq.). In recent
times, however, German universities are often fre
quented by Russian and Greek students; and the
works of German scholars have exerted some
modifying influence. The Old Catholic movement
was followed with interest; and the Old Catholic
conferences in Bonn (1874 and 1875) were attended
by several dignitaries from Greece and Russia.
There has been also considerable intercourse be
tween Greek and Anglican bishops. The Greek
Church is not so strongly committed against Prot
estantism as the Roman, and may therefore learn
something from it. [Yet converts to Protestantism
from the Roman Catholic Church have been far
more numerous than from the Greek Church, and
the thought of Roman Catholicism has been influ
enced by Protestantism far more than the thought
of Greek Catholicism. 	A. H. N.]
	IM Doctrine, Polity, and Liturgy: The Eastern
Church holds fast to the decrees and canons of the
seven ecumenical councils (see COUNCILS AND
SYNODS, § 3). Its proper creed is that adopted at
Nicaea in 325, enlarged at Constantinople 381, and
indoraed at Chalcedon 451, ~w‑i~th‑out the Latin ~l
(Bee CON6TANTINOPOLITAN (REED). Th18 CreeO la the basis of all Greek catechisms and t
	1. Creed.	systems of theology, and a regular
		part of worship. Th Greeks have
never ac aaw_1e4=d_aLJQ=_thLA ostl I
oam ‑9r"
whier e of Western origin, n
	hic is of Western origin, nor the Athanasigg
			and is
likewise of Western origin. Besides this ecumenical
creed, the astern	r~lree
subord1*a&tLg2JnWpjws, which define her position
aQf~ 	namely:
ga a Romanism and Protestantism
(1) The " rthodoxfQnf_Mion " Of EeA;~saMorilsa_
(q.v.), metropolitan of Kief 	,„g„e&JP^h
exposition of the Nicene Creed , the Lord's Prayer and the beatitudes, and the decalogue; (2) the " Confession of Dositheos or~.l~sasea~f.t13a

qvnod of 1 . Lpl m " t167~1; and (3) the "~fatchim " of Philaret,	metropolitan of Mos
cow, a~Ete,d lby tHgvEr R	Svt>~ of~tt~•=.~‑
d published in all the languages of Russia. (For text of these creeds and confessions, cf. Schaff, Creeds, ii. 273‑542; and J. Michalcescu, see bibliography below.) [Mention should also be made of the work of Gennadius II. of Constantinople and of Metrophanea Kritopulus (qq.v.), the former of whom wrote s brief document in

61	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eastern Church
twenty articles, and the latter a confession in
twenty‑three chapters (given in full	by Michal
cescu). 	A. H. N.]
The doctrinal system of the Eastern Church is, upon the whole, more simple and less developed than that of the Roman, though in some respects m2‑s~b .~ and metanhvaical. The onl '
~r.+~ri~l rlj~•„...	+ °~. ^
2. The‑	roc i	the Halv Snit (see
01097‑		The Greek
	Church holds to the leading principles,
	but rejects many of the consequences or results
of Roman Catholicism. t adh	+.h~y
	~f the ~rPn1r Fat~ho.~,~n 1~nh~n of ‑ ona
an 'the succeeding seholasti	•1.enloev,~nf
	napp~mPn mhn n m ~+~‑.man as _iom_
•°mt~,	tea..	‑x 	magi.
The Eastern theology remains rigidly in the fragmentary state of the old councils. ThP
to tthe	a ±Wn fil2lied _ prptee4t
further progress both m lid	and
'tg'es`5if" it' agba't7on, ~ well as fait
the venerable '	he (''~r„reek theolo"
is in on t e anetrinP •nf f'	and of Shriat,
	but very de ec~ive on the doctrine of man and the
order of s	ThP Fad van t ;n+.. all .._*° ^f
	t ~eo O ,r.al ,s‑~nd C; ria?nln®ira.ltbtleties,, especially
~nn~the~lo 	ip~,.~?$‑
	e	w~ic found little or no response in the
		eat; bn~„,t it ,innnrr?d .thr• ~,~p~py~pies,
the deve 	gLent o the A ustinian and later
van li .stet .hPnln , It took the most intense w°t m +h, =i+FP,.pnnP Iwtwt~•n m" anrl hU&nstasis the hO~Ttt~o0~i
	(1 h^~??^~^~^n	.hP rala+.inn°
o	;i"the n 	of the
a er,'£he eternal ggWAt a eternal ~~or~~! !.i +1,uGtniri +ho T vi_ rilhoxvc_ t a ,nla+,.,.. ni_thA two natllre9 in C
the a ~'~.M2^aad~suotw~ but W88 g~, ~Tinnalv tmnhlorl
	ues~ about predestination, vicarious
M .‑Man	and imputation, conver
	sion and regeneration, faith and good works,
	merit and demerit, vital union with Christ, and
	cognate doctrines, which absorbed the attention
a..,‑ Christ~„ndom. The	use for this
	difference must a sought in the re~v‑aa'ling~gt~a
	ph sical, rhet "cal and o~b e i ~ of the
	•ch,‑m rited p partly from Asia,
party from Greece‑as distinct from the practical,
logical, and subjective tendency of the Western
Churches, which 6 derived from the Roman and
the Teutonic nationalities. The difference is,~,y~
d as early as the Nicene~Cr®dy~with i
r~y~Gal te~+.~n" as G~mnare~w`ltl~th~. i~.,°..~T ~QiL~ W~at~1P°.:~. which origi_ hated in the West, and is very little used in the East.
The Greek Church is a patriarchal oligarchy, in distinction from the papal monarchy. The epie‑
copal hierarchy is retained, the pa‑
s.
G°°'	pacy rejected. Centralization is un
rn‑	known in the East. The patriarchs of
meat.	Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem, are equal in rights, though the first
has a primacy of honor. The czar of Russia,
however, exercises a sort of general protectorate,
and may be regarded as a rival to the pope of
Rome, but has no authority in matters of doctrine, and can make no organic changes. The Eastern hierarchy resembles the Jewish type. The Greek priest within the veil of the sanctuary is concealed from the eyes of the people; but in social respects he is nearer the people than the Roman priest. He is allowed, and even compelled, to marry once, but forbidden to marry twice. Celibacy is confined to bishops and monks. Absolution is given only in the form of a prayer, " May the Lord absolve thee," instead of the positive form, " I absolve thee." The confessional exists, but in a milder form, with less influence and abuse, than in Romanism. The laity are more independent; and the Russian czar, like the Byzantine emperor of old, is the head of the Church in his dominion. The unction of confirmation is made to symbolize the royal priesthood of every believer. The monastic orders, though including many clergy, are not clerical institutions as the Latin orders have been since the thirteenth century. The community of Mhos (q.v.) is a lay corporation with chaplains.
The administration of the churches as developed in the Byzantine Empire is most complicated, and involves, besides the regular clergy, an army of higher and lower ecclesiastical officers, from the first administrator of the church property (d ,afyas oixov6#os), the superintendent of the sacristy (d oKev*Aag), the chancellor or keeper of ecclesiastical archives (d xapro~'vXag), down to the cleaners of the lamps (oi Aaairadbpeoi), and the bearer of the images of saints (d ,Qaaray6pios). These half‑clerical officers are divided into two groups, ‑one on the right, the other on the left: each is subdivided into three classes, and each class has again five persons. Leo Allatius and Heineccius enumerate fifteen officials of the right group, and even more of the left. But many of these offices have either ceased altogether, or retain only a nominal existence.
In worship and ritual the Eastern Church is much like the Roman Catholic, with the celebration of the sacrifice of the mass as its center, with an equal and even greater neglect of the sermon, 4. Worship and is addressed more to the senses and
and imagination than to the intellect and the heart. It is strongly Oriental, unintelligibly symbolical and mystical, and excessively ritualistic. The Greeks reject organs, musical instruments, and sculpture, and make less use of the fine arts in 'their churches than the Roman Catholics; but they have even a more complicated system of ceremonies, with gorgeous display, semibarbaric pomp, and endless changes of sacerdotal dress, crossings, gestures, genuflexions, proetrations, washings, processions, which so absorb the attention of the senses, that there is little room left for the intellectual and spiritual worship. They use the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, which is an abridgment of that of St. Basil, yet very lengthy, and contains, with many old and venerable prayers (one of the finest is incorporated in the Anglican liturgy under the name of Chrysostom), later additions from different sources to an excess of liturgical refinement.
The most characteristic features of Greek wor

Eastern Ohuroh
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ship, as distinct from the Roman, are the three‑	sacred place) of every room, in the street, over
fold immersion in baptism, with the repudiation	gateways, in offices, taverns, steamers, railway and
of any other mode as essentially invalid; the si‑	telegraph stations, and is carried in the knapsack of
multaneous performance of the act of confirmation	every soldier, not as a work of art, but as an err
and the act of baptism which in the West have	blew, a means of instruction, an aid to devotion.
been separated; the anointing with oil in cases	The vernacular languages are used in worship
of dangerous illness, which Rome has changed	the Greek in Turkey and Greece, the Slavonic in
into extreme unction of the dying; infant tom‑	Russia; but they have to a considerable extent
munion, which the Latin Church has not only	become unintelligible to the people. The old
abandoned, but forbidden; the communion in	Slavonic differs from the modern Russian about
two kinds; the use of leavened bread in the Eu‑	as much as Chaucer's English from our English.
charist; the standing and . eastward posture in	The Oriental sects hold to their native dialects,
prayer; the stricter separation of the sexes‑ the	the Syriac, Armenian, etc. The old Greek calendar,
use of the screen or veil before the altar; and the	which is thirteen days behind the new style intro
withdrawal of the performance of the mysteries	doted by Gregory XIII., is still retained.
(sacraments) from the eyes of the people.		Christian life has the same general features as in
	The form which the Greek Church developed	the Roman Catholic Church. The mass of the
for the celebration of the Lord's Supper is en‑			people are contented with an ordinary
tirely different from that developed	7 ~d k°	alit	th	nks ~m at a
6• Liturgy by the Roman Catholic Church. It is	f	The
	of the symbolical throughout. Not only
	Lord's does one of the antiphonal choirs
	snvpei'. which perform during the act rep
resent in some mystical way the cherubim, but
the whole act is, in its every feature, a symbol
ical representation of the passion. Five loaves are
laid on the altar, each stamped with the sign of the
cross and the inscription,,, Jesus Christ conquers."
The officiating priest selects one of them for the sacri
ficial lamb; and with a symbolical reference to the
soldier who pierced the side of Jesus with a spear, so
that blood and water flowed from the wound, he
cute the loaf, by thrusting the holy lance‑a knife
in the form of a lance‑into it, while at the same
time the deacon pours the wine and the water into
the cup. Under somber dirges the elements are
then carried in a solemn procession, headed with
many lighted candles and much incenee•burning,
through the whole church, and back again to the
altar, where they are deposited, like the body of
Christ in the tomb. A curtain is lowered before
the altar; and, unseen by the congregation, the
elements are consecrated while the choir is chanting
the Lord's Prayer. When the curtain is drawn, the
altar represents the tomb from which Christ has
risen; and, while the choir sings a hymn of praise,
the elements are presented to the communicants
without any special formula of distribution. The
consecrated bread is broken into the consecrated
wine and both elements are given together in a
spoon. Greek writers on liturgy claim that this
custom (known as dntinction) dates back to the
time of Chryeoetom. It never gained foothold in
the Western Church, and was forbidden as unscrip‑ _
tural by Pope Julius I. (337‑3b2).
	The worship of saints, relics, flat images, and
the cross is carried as far as, or even farther than,
		in the Roman Church; but statues,
	e. Saints, bag‑reliefs, and crucifixes are forbidden.
Relics, and In Russia especially the veneration
	Lnag8°~ for pictures of the Virgin Mary and
	Language the saints is carried to the utmost
	Worship. extent, and takes the place of the
		Protestant veneration for the Bible.
The holy picture (icon) with ,the lamp burning
before it is found and worshiped in the corner (the
while	aim
• °	mor y,	e mo clergy.higher degree o ascetic Piety
.
monastic system has not developed into great orders, as in the West. There are three classes of monks, the cenobites (KOCVO/3caKOl), who live together in a monastery ruled by an archimandrite who is often a bishop (apxcuavdpirw, iyo;,pevos); the anchorets (avaxmpvraf), who live in a cell apart from the other monks, or among the laity; and the ascetes (aowaf), or hermits. The monks usually follow the rule of St. Basil; some, the rule of St. Anthony. The bishops are taken from the monks. Important monasteries are at Jerusalem, Mount Athos (q.v.), Mount Sinai (where the celebrated Sinaitic manuscript of the Bible was kept for centuries), and Mar Saba near the Dead Sea. The Greek monks as a rule are more ignorant and superstitious than the Roman Catholic, and the same may be said of the clergy, many of whom are merely mechanical functionaries.
Religious life is supposed to originate in baptismal regeneration, and to be nourished chiefly by the sacraments. Prayer, fasting, and char‑
s. 8°lig. itable deeds are the principal mani‑
	ians Life.	festations of piety. The observance
		of the Ten Commandments is strictly
enjoined in all the catechisms. The Greeks and
Russians are very religious in outward observ
ances and devotions, but knave little of what Protes
tants mean by subjective experiential piety, and
personal direct communion of the soul with the
Savior. The Greek Christians surpass their Mo
hammedan neighbors in chastity, but are behind
them in honesty. What St. Paul says of the Cre
tans (Titus i. 12) is still characteristic of the race,
of course with honorable exceptions. In Russia
there is the same divorce between religion and
morality. The towns are adorned with churches
and convents. Every public event is celebrated
by the building of a church. Every house has an
altar and sacred pictures; every child his guardian
angel and baptismal cross. A Russian fasts every
Wednesday and Friday, prays early and late,
regularly attends mass, confesses his sins, pays
devout respect to sacred places and things, makes
pilgrimages to the tombs and shrines of saints,
and has the phrase Slaroa Bogs I (" Glory to God l ")
continually on his lips.

68	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eastern Church
Concerning the extent of, he canon of the Scriptures, the Eastern Church is not quite consistent, and stands midway between the Ro‑
9. The ‑‑ and the Protestant view concern‑
	r°°k	ing the Jewish Apocrypha. The Sep
		tuagint is used, which includes the
Apocrypha. The Orthodox Confession repeat
edly quotes the Apocrypha as authority and
the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) mentions several
Apocryphal books (The Wisdom of Solomon,
Judith, Tobit, the History of Bel and the
Dragon, the History of Susanna, the Maccabees,
and the Wisdom of Sirachj as parts of the Holy
Scriptures. On the other hand, Metrophanes enu
merates only twenty‑two books of the Old Testa
ment (according to the division of Joaephus; see
CANON OF SCRIPTURE, I, 4, J 3), and eleven books
of the New Testament (counting fourteen Epis
tles of Paul, the two Epistles of Peter, and the three
of John as each one book), and then speaks of the
Jewish Apocrypha as not being received by the
Church among the canonical and authentic books,
and hence not to be used in proof of dogmas. The
" Longer Catechism " of Phitaret likewise enumerates
only twenty‑two books of the Old Testament, but
twenty‑seven books of the New, and says that
" the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach and certain
other books " are ignored in the list of the books
of the Old Testament, " because they do not exist
in the Hebrew." The use of the Apocryphal books
is justified because " they have been appointed by
the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are pre
paring for admission into the Church."
The circulation of the Scriptures among the laity is not encouraged, and certain portions, especially of the Old Testament, are declared to be unfit for general use. But the Greek Church has never prohibited the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue; and the Orthodox Church of Russia has always had a popular version of the Bible, first in the old Slavic, and now in modern Russian. The printing and circulating of the Bible in the Russian language and within the Orthodox Greek Church is under the exclusive control of the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg. See BIBLE VExsIOxs, XVI.
The Eastern Church has spread, through Russian influence, in Siberia, the Aleutian Islands, and wherever the civil and military power
10. leis‑ of the Czar has prepared the way;
	stone,	but, apart from the aid of govern
		ment, it has little or no missionary
spirit, and is content to keep its own. Its greatest
mission‑work was the conversion of Russia; and
this was effected, not so much by preaching as by
the marriage of a Byzantine princess and the des
potic order of the ruler Vladimir (see Russre). In
the midst of the Mohammedan East the Greek
populations remain like islands in the barren sea;
and the Bedouin tribes have wandered for twelve
centuries round the Greek convent of Mount
Sinai, probably without one instance of conver
sion to the creed of men whom they yet acknowl
edge with almost religious veneration as beings
from a higher world.
(PHILIP ScsnrAht) D. S. $osArp.
IV. The Eastern Church is America: The
Greek Orthodox Church in present United States territory dates from 1794, when nine Russian missionaries arrived at. St. Paul on Kadiak Island, Alaska, led by Archimandrite Joasaph Bogoloff. There the first Russian church and school in America were erected. In 1798 an episcopal see was founded and Joasaph was consecrated at Irkutsk in Siberia to be the first bishop of Kadiak, Kamchatka, and America. In 1840 four churches and eight chapels in Russian America were consolidated into an independent diocese and Ivan Veniaminof, who had labored in Alaska as missionary and priest with self‑sacrificing zees sad marked success since 1823, was made bishop with the name of Innocent. He provided an Aleutian alphabet and grammar, translated the Gospels, a catechism, and ‑other religious literature into the Aleutian tongue and the language of the Koloshes, living in the vicinity of Sitka, built the cathedral in Sitka, and established a seminary there, where many of the priests and readers now officiating is Alaska have received their education. His influence with the natives was great. In 1855 he removed to Siberia and became archbishop of Kamchatka in 1858. He was made metropolitan of Moscow after the death of Philaret (1867), and died, greatly revered throughout Russia, in 1879. Yakof Netzvetof, a halfbreed priest, translated Veniatninof's version of the Gospels and catechism into the Atkha language. After the cession of Russian America to the United States, the bishop of Alaska undertook the oversight of all Slav Orthodox communities in the country, and in 1872 under Bishop John, the episcopal residence was transferred from Sitka to San Francisco. After the death of Bishop Nestor, who was drowned while traveling in performance of his episcopal duties in 1882, the mission of the Russian Church was governed by the ecclesiastical Consistory of San Francisco until 1888, when Bishop Vladimir arrived from Russia. His successors have been Nicholas (189198), Tikhon (1898‑1907), and the present Archbishop Platon.
The increase of Greek Orthodox communities in the United States has been particularly great since 1888 owing to the immigration of Austrian Slavonisne. There are at present 152 churches and chapels in the United Staten, Alaska, and Canada under the jurisdiction of the Synod of Russia, with one archbishop (since 1905) residing in New York, two bishops‑‑one for Alaska residing at Sitka, the other (since 1904) for Orthodox Syrians residing in Brooklyn,‑and an administrator for the Servians. There are seventy‑five priests, a seminary at Minneapolis, and 46,000 registered parishioners. An official organ is published in New York in Russian and English. A religious paper formerly published in Chicago in Servian has been discontinued. The Russian cathedral in New York City was dedicated in 1902. In 1906 Archbishop Tikhon introduced Sunday evening services in English in 'thie church. Bishop Innocent of Alaska also favors the substitution of English for the Slavonic service for the Orthodox natives of his jurisdiction.
Orthodox congregations in the United States for those of Syrian nationality date from 1895, when the Russian Bishop Nicholas brought with

Easters Church
Eber
him the Very Rev. Archimandrite Raphael Hawaweeny and founded a church for Orthodox Syrians in New York City. In 1899 the congregation acquired permanent quarters in Brooklyn. In 1904 the patriarch of Antioch elevated Raphael to the rank of bishop and he was consecrated by the Russian bishops Tikhon and Innocent, his consecration being the first in the United States of a bishop of the Eastern Church. There are ten churches under his jurisdiction and the membership of his flock is about 45,000.
The first Orthodox church for those of Greek nationality was founded in New Orleans, where many Greek merchants were engaged in the cotton trade. The second was founded in Chicago in 1872, when Greeks and Slavs united in calling a Greek priest from Russia. This church, after an interval, was reestablished in 1891, and in the same year another was opened in New York City, and a fourth in Boston with a priest of Syrian nationality. The Church of Lowell, Mass., a city having a large Greek population, dates from 1895. The total number of Orthodox churches for those of Greek descent, under the jurisdiction either of the Synod of Greece or of the Greek patriarch at Constantinople at present exceeds thirty. A religious paper is published in Greek at Milwaukee. In 1905 and again in 1907 a bill was introduced in the Greek parliament at Athens for the despatch of one of the prelates of Greece as a resident bishop for the Greeks in the United States. The bill, however, failed to pass, perhaps because the existence in the United States of bishops of the Greek Church owing allegiance to two different autonomous synods‑t hose of Russia and Greece‑would be anticanonical. It has been suggested that, besides the Russian and Syrian bishops, a Greek and a Servian bishop be appointed; an independent synod for the United States and Canada can then be formed and the bishops can elect their own metropolitan.
The total number of Greek Orthodox inhabitants of the United States, Alaska, and Canada is believed to exceed 300,000. The growth of the churches has been due in no small degree to a tendency on the part of Austrian and Hungarian Uniates who have emigrated to America to separate from Rome and return to the Eastern Orthodox confession. One reason for this tendency is the effort of the Roman Church to deprive the Uniates in America of their married priests. A. A. STAMODLI.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief sources for the earlier history are the first seven councils, the writings of the Greek Fathers, especially of Athanseius, Chryeoetom. John of Damascus, and Photius. For a conspectus of the literature of the Church, consult Krumbacher, Geachichte. On the general history consult: J. M, Neale, Hint, of the Holy Eastern Church, London, 1850; J. M. Heineccius, Abbildung der alters and neuen priechiachen Kirche. 3 vole., Leipsic, 1711; M. Le Quien, Orions Chrixtianue, 3 viols., Paris, 1740; A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the Eastern Church, London, 1861, new issue, 1908; A. Leroy‑Beaulieu, L'Empire des tears et lea Busses, Vol. iii., La Religion, Paris, 1889; A. H. Hors Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church, London, 1899; idem, Student's Hiat. of the Greek Church, ib. 1902; K. Beth, Die orientaliache Chriatenheit der Mittelmeerl8ndtr, Berlin, 1902; J. Pargoire, L'todiae Byzantine. 527‑Sb7. Paris, 1905; A. Forteacue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London, 1905 (by a Roman Catholic); F. G. Cole, Mother of AU Churches; a brief and comyrehenaive Handbook of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church,
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
64
ib. 1908; the histories of the Councils by Harduin, Manei, and Hefele; the Church Histories of Hergenr5ther‑Kirsch, Funk. Hefele‑KntiPPfier, and K. MOller.
On the great schism and the attempts to heal it coneult: G. B. Howard, The Schism between as Oriental and Western Churches, London, 1892; Leo Allatius, De eccleeim occadentalia et orientalia perpetua conaenaione. Cologne, 1848: C. Will, Acts et aeripta . . de controvers%ia ucleaiw Groom et Latina, Marburg, 1881; A. Pichler, Geaehichte der kirchlirhen TrennurW awiachen dem Oraent urul Occident. 2 vole., Munich, 1864‑6b: J. Hergenrdther, Photiua, 3 vole., Regensburg, 1887‑69; R. Baxmann. Die Politile der Papate, 2 vole., Elberfeld, 1888‑89; L. Ducheane, Autonomea etiquusa: 4pliaea aEpmrEea, Paris. 1898; Eng. tranal., Churches Separated from Rome, New York, 1908; L. Brehier, Le Schisms oriental du xi. aQcTe, ib. 1899; W. Norden, Daa PaPattum and Byzanz, Berlin, 1903.
For the formalized eymbolica of the Church consult: Schaff, Creeds, vole. i.‑ii.; E. J. Kimmel, Monuments fidero eccleaice orientadis, 2 vole., Jena, 1850; J. B. Pitra, Juria eccleaiaeticfi Gro:corum hiatoria et monuments, 2 vole., Rome, 1864‑‑68; w. Gala, Symlwlik der priech4achan Kirche, Berlin, 1872; F. Kattenbueeh, Lehrbuch der verpdeichenden Confeeaionakunde, vol. i., Freiburg, 1892; E. F. K. Miiller, Symbodik, pp. 195‑242, Leipsic, 1898; N. Milan, Daa Kirchenrecht der marpealandiachen Kirche, Zara, 1897; Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, Erg. transl. by P. Lodvill, London, 1898; Acts end Decrees of the Synod of Jeruaadem, . . 16796, Eng. tranal, by J. N. W. B. Robertson, London, 1899; F. Loofa, Symbolik, i. 2, pp. 109‑189, Tiibingen, 1902; J. Michalceacu, Die Bekenntniaae and die wichtdgaten Glaubenazeupniaae der priahiachorientaliachen Kirche, Leipsic, 1904 (contains the statements of the first seven councils, and the confessions of Gennadius, Mogilae, Dositheus etc.). The Longer Catechism of Philaret, issued by authority of the Holy Synod of 8t. Petersburg, 1839, is used in the churches and schools of the Russian empire, and is the beat modern exposition of the doctrine of the Eastern Church.
On the liturgies consult: H. A. Daniel, Codex diturpicus ecclea'em univeraalis, vol. iv., Leipsic, 1853; J. Goar, EuchoZopaum, give rituals Greecum, Paris, 1847; E. Renaudot, Liturpiarum orientalium colleeEio, 2 vole., Pane, 1718, Eng. transl., Collection of the Principal Liturgies .
Used by the Greeks . . . of the Oriental Church, Dublin, 1822; J. King, Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, London, 1872; The Offices of the Oriental Church, with Historical Introduction, ed. N. Bjerring, New York, 1884; Synopsis, or Spiritual Collection of the Daily Prayers, Liturgy, . . . of !he Greek Orthodox Church of the East, travel, and ed. Katherine Lady Lechmere, London (1890); C. E. Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, ed. F. E. Brightman, vol. i., Oxford, 1896; A. Btaerk, Der Taufritua in der praechisch‑ruaaiaehen Kirrhe, Freiburg, 1903.
On the more modern history and that of the different branches mush material is found in the Revue de l'orient chrMen, vole, i. eqq., 1898 sqq.: in Echoa d'oraerat, vole. i.‑vi.; and in the Revue internationade de UeSolopie, vole. iii.iv.. Bern, 1895‑98. Consult further: J. J. I. von DSllinger. Ruche and Kircheu, pp. 158 eqq.. Munich, 1881; Eng. tranal., The Church and the Churches, London, 1882; idem, Ueber die Wfedereinigunp der chriaUichen Kirchen, ib. 1888; L. Boiaeard, L'kgdias de Ruesie, 2 vole., Paris, 1887; A. d'Avril, La Bulparie chr€tienne, Paris, 1892; idem, Lea >;pdiaea autonomes et autorkphalea ib. 1895; idem, La Serbie chr5tientte, ib. 1897; H. Gelzer, Gefbtliches and WelUichea aua dam titrkiachen orient, Leipsic, 1900; O. HObner, Statiatische TabeUe aUer Larder, Frankfort, 1901: D. Kyriakos, Geachichte der orienfaliachen Kirchen, 1/,68‑1898, Leipsic, 1902; M. G. Dampier, Hiat. of the Orthodox Church in Austria‑Hungary, London, 1905. Material of value will be found also in D. M. Wallaoe, Russia, New York, 1905.
Special topics are treated in: A. de f3tourdaa, Conaid5rationa cur la doctrine et Z'eaprit de Z'kplisa orthodoxe, Paris, 1816; K. P. Pobedonoezew, StreiEfrapen der Gepenwart, Berlin, 1897: K. Boll, Enthusiarmua and Bung, walt beim priechiachen MdnrhNum, Leipaic. 1898: P. Meyer, Die theolopiache Litleratur der priech%arhen Kirche im IB. Jahrhundert, ib. 1899; A. 8ohmidtke, Dae Kdoaterdand des Athos, ib. 1903; B. Pick, Hymns sad Poetry of the Eastern Churh, New York, 1908.

66	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~~ rn Church
EATON, ARTHUR WENTWORTH HAMILTON:
Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Kentville, Nova
Scotia, Dec. 10, 1849. He was educated at Har
vard College (A.B., 1880), and was ordered dea
con in 1884 and ordained priest in the following
year. After being rector of St. Andrew's, Chestnut
Hill, Mass. (1885‑86), he spent two years in Europe,
and since 1888 has been head of the department
of English literature in the Cutler School, New
York City. In theology he is a Broad‑churchman
of the Maurice and Phillips Brooks type. He has
written The Heart of the Creeds; Historical Relig
ion in the Light of Modern Thought (New York,
1888); Acadian Legends toad lyrica (1889); The
Church of England in Nova Scotia and the Tory
Clergy o f the Revolution (1891); Tales o f a Garrison
Town (in collaboration with C. L. Betts; 1892);
Acadian Ballads (New York, 1905); and Poems
of the Christian Year (1905). He has also edited
several works of English literature.
EBED JESU, f'bed jf'sa: Nestorian theologian; b. in Mesopotamia about the middle of the thirteenth century; d. at Nisibis, in Armenia, Nov., 1318. He became bishop of Sinjar (60 m. w. of Mogul) about 1285, and in 1291 metropolitan of Nisibis. His importance is principally of a literary character, since he is regarded as the last great writer of the Nestoriana. The most important of his works is the metrical " Catalogue " of Syriac authors, in which in four books he treats of the writings of the Old and the New Testament, of translations from the Greek into Syriac, and of works originally written in Syriac, especially Neetorian productions. Other works of note are " The Pearl," a dogmatic work, in five parts; the Nomocanon, a collection of the canons of synods; and Paradises Eden, a collection of poems. Other works have been lost.
	The name is frequent among the Syrians, and is
pronounced by them Abdisho or Odisho. A mar
tyr of this name is referred to in H. Feige's Ge
schichte des Mar Abhdiso (Kiel, 1889), while a
bishop of the name, a convert to Romaniam, was
present at the last session of the Council of Trent
and is pictured at the entrance to the Sistine
Chapel at Rome (cf. G. E. Khayyath, Sywi orien
tales, p. 124, Rome, 1870). 	E. NEBTLE.
Bisr4oaserar: The " Catalogue " was edited by Abraham Ecchellenais, Rome, 1853; by J. 8. Aeeemsn, with Latin trawl. and commentary, in Bsbliothsca orierualia, iii. 1, pp. 1‑382, Rome, 1728; an Eng. transl. appears in Appendix A of G. P. Badger's Nattorians and their Ritual, ii. 381379, London, 1852, which contains also a fraud. of " The Pearl," ii. 380 eqq.; " The Pearl " is also in A. Mai, Scriptorum roelerum nova coltectio, ii. 317 eqq., 10 vole., Rome, 1826‑38, where (pp. 189 eqq.) will be found also the Nomocanon. The poems were edited by H. Giemondi at Beirut, 1888 (cf. N6ldeke in ZDM(#, 1889, aliii. 875, and Zingerle, in the same, 1875, xxiz 498). Consult: W. Wright, A Short Mist. of Syriac Literature, pp. 285 eqq.. London, 1894; & Duval, La Ltd*ature ayriaqus, Paris, 1000.
EBEL, 5'bel, JOHANN WIZHELM: German preacher; b. at Passenheim (75 m. s.s.e. of KSnigaberg), East Prussia, Mar. 4, 1784; d. at Hoheneck, near Ludvpigsburg (9 m. n. of Stuttgart), Wiirttemberg, Aug.18,1861. After his graduation at KSnigeberg, he became acquainted with Johann Heinrich
SchSnherr (q.v.), and espoused his views of relative dualism. His pronounced evangelical views, and eloquent advocacy of practical Christianity, were distasteful to the rationalistic and dead orthodox clergy of the province, who tried, from the beginning of his ministerial career at Hermadorf (1807‑09), to awe him into submission, and, upon his removal to Konigaberg as preacher and teacher (1810), resented his growing popularity by charging him with heresy. The charge, however, was dismissed as unfounded, while Ebel was chosen preacher of the Old Town Church at KiSnigaberg, the largest in the city, in 1816, and filled that high position until his deprivation in 1842.
	1n 1826 a ministerial reacript, directed against
mysticism, Pietism, and separatism, was eagerly
seized by Schiin, the provincial governor, an un
christian and unprincipled man, and other oppo
nents of Ebel and Heinrich Diestel, his brother
minister and friend, as an opportunity for the
trumped‑up charge of having founded a sect which
held secret meetings and advocated tenets of peril
ous and immoral tendency. The coneistory decided
the cane against the accused, and, in 1835, arbi
trarily and illegally suspended them ab officio. On
appeal the action of the conaistory was canceled,
but Ebel, though acquitted of the charge of hav
ing founded a sect, was not reinstated, on the
alleged ground of neglect of duty. The prosecu
tion, originating in theological hatred, took place
at a time when the judicial process is Prussia was
still private. To‑day it would be impossible to
bring such a case to the cognizance of a jury.
After his deprivation, Ebel lived at Griinefeld
(1842‑48), at Meran in the Tyrol (1,848‑50), and at
Hoheneck (1850‑fi1). 	J. I. MOMBERT.
Brnrrooawray: The moat important of the works of Ebel are: Die Weiehtit von Oben, K6nigsberg, 1823; Oedtihliche Ertielsunp, Hamburg, 1825; Die apoatotiache Predipt id zt%tgemdat, Hamburg, 1835; Die Treat. KSnigsberg, 1835; Veratand and Vernunft (in company with G. H. Diestel), Leipeio, 1837; ZtugnitaderWahrheit (by the same), ib. 1838; Orundziige der Erkenntnitt der Wahrheit, ib. 1852; Die PhiloeopAie der he6lipen Urkundt des Chraaknthume, Stuttgart, 1854‑58. For his life consult: J. I. Mombert, Faith Victorious, being an Account of the Life and Labours and of the Times of J. Ebel, London, 1882; H. wagener, Ueber J. W. Ebel, Ludwigsburg, 1881. Consult also: E. Hahnenfeld, Die religiose Btwepung zu Konigsberg, Braunsberg, 1868; E. Ksnita, Aupkldrunp nach AclenqutZttn fiber den FC6nipaberger (1886‑l,,8), Rtlipionaproaeu, Basel, 1882; Bibliotheea Sacra, vol. avi., 1889.

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

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
a reditu ex Babylonico ezilio argue ad ultimum excidium Hierosolymce (Wittenberg, 1548), and with Kasper Peucer he prepared his V ocabula rei nummaria . . vohicrum et pistrium appellationea (1b49). His most famous work is his Calendarium histortcum (1550), written in collaboration with Melanchthon and containing a reformed calendar of the saints with a historical calendar.
	Eber's firm attitude during the Schmalkald War
of 1548‑47 won him the admiration of his colleagues,
and on June 21, 1557, he succeeded Johann
Forster as professor of the Old Testament and
preacher at the Schlosekirche. He accompanied
Mehtnchthon to the Colloquy of Worms and acted
as secretary, but returned from Worms at Christmas,
and succeeded Bugenhagen as municipal preacher
and general superintendent of the electoral circuit,
Sept. 4, .1558. When Melanchthon died in 1560, his
course of lectures was completed by Eber, who, as
professor of the Old Testament, was invited by the
Elector August to revise the Vulgate of the Old Tes
tament for the BtTilia Gernxanico‑Latina (1565). He
was obliged, however, to complete his work in a year
and a half, and he was little pleased with his results.
As a preacher he is best known by two volumes
published after his death by his pupils, the Evan
geliorum dominicalium explicatip (ed. J. Cellarius,
Frankfort, 1576) and the Kateehiamusluredigten
(ed. T. Feureliue, Nuremberg, 1b77). His most
bitter struggles were connected with the controver
sies on the nature of the Eucharist. Like Melanch
thon, he rejected the ubiquitarianism of Brenz, and
frequently approximated the Calvinistic view.
Peucer later said in reproach of him that he had
been convinced of the truth of the Swiss doctrine
as early as 1561, but had suddenly become an
opponent of the crypto‑Calvinists of Wittenberg
after the Dresden conference of Mar. 25, 1561. It
is indisputable that on that occasion he advocated
a confession which harked back to the Wittenberg
Concordia, and henceforth taught a modified Lu
theranism which he regarded as the true interpre
tation of the Augsburg Confession, defending his
views in his Vom heiligen Sakrament des Letba and
Bluta unsers Herrn Jean Christi (Wittenberg, 1582),
although his course contented neither the Lutherans
nor the Reformed. Eber is also famous as an au
thor of hymns, of which the best‑known are Herr
Jesu Christ, taahr'r Mensch urtd Gott (" Lord Jesus
Christ, true Man and God") and Wenn uwr in
h8chaten NSthen sein (" When in the hour of utmost
need "). 	(G. KwwERnu.)

BrBrrllaSApBy: Sources of value for s life are in CR.iii.,	i:., and in J. Voigt, Briehaachsal der barflhmteakn (iekhrten mit Hsraop Albroc7K pp. 234 eqq., Kbnipberg, 1841. Consult also: C. H. Sixt. Dr. Paul E6ar, Heidelberg, 1843; idem, Paul Ebsr. Ein Stuck Witlsnbxpar Lebena, Anebsc6, 1857; T. Preeael, in Lcban and ausgawdAlte Sdvrifkn der Yaw . . . der lutheriaehan Kirche, vol. viii., Elberfeld, 1882; G. Buchwald, Paul Eber, Leipaio, 1897; J. W. Richard. Philip Melaudttrwn, passim, New York, 1898; Julian, Hymndopy, 318, 9.
EBERHARD, 8'ber‑hard, OF BE‑TERM: French grammarian sad theologian; b. at Bbtbune (20 m. s.w. of Lille); flourished between 1100 and 1200. Of his life almost nothing is known, except that he was the author of two important works.
The first of these is his Grcecismus de figuris et octo loartibus orationis, a poem of more than 2,000 verses, treating of rhetoric, prosody, grammar, and syntax, the whole without any logical arrangement. It was first edited by J. H. Metulinua (Paris, 1487). As a theologian Eberhard distinguished himself by his Liber antihceresis, in which he assailed the Cathari, then numerous in Flanders. Thin work is important as a source for the teachings of this sect. It was first edited by J. Gretser in his Tries acriptorum contra Waldenses (Ingolstadt, 1814), and contains two appendices, one a catalogue of older heresies, drawn from the Origines of Isidore of Seville, and the other a polemic against the Jews. A number of unimportant treatises, including the Labarintus, a poem on poetry, rhetoric, and grammar, are erroneously ascribed to this Eberhard.
(C. ScsnsinTt.)
Bn;rtasasre:: Sources of information are indicated in U. Chevalier, Repertoire des sources hiatoriquee du moyen dpe, Paris, 1883. Consult J. A. Fabneme, Biblmtheca Latina, ii. 218, Hamburg, 1734; Hiatoira.littErnira de la
France, xpii. 129.
EBERLIN, JOHAftN: One of the most important popular writers of the time of the Reformation; b. at Gilnzburg (30 m. w.n.w. of Augsburg), Bavaria, c. 1485; d. at Wertheim (20 m. w. of Wiirzburg), Baden, c. 1530. His youth is obscure. He was already priest of the diocese of Augsburg when he was matriculated at Basel in 1489. Here he became master of arts, and later entered the monastery of the Franciscans at Heilbronn. In the second decade of the sixteenth century he entered the monastery of Tiibingen, developing a remarkable activity as a preacher in the town and its neighborhood, where he became involved in disputes with the theologians of the University of Tiibingen. Subsequently he went to Ulm and in 1520 seems to have been in the monastery of the Franciscans at Freiburg in the Breisgau where he became acquainted with Luther's works, which he studied with great zeal. The result of his studies showed itself in his Lent‑sermons, preached in Ulm after his return to that city, as a consequence of which he was persecuted and compelled to leave (1521). At this time he conceived the plan of writing a cycle of popular works under the title Funfzehn Bundesgenoasen, in which fifteen prominent people should give utterance to the wrongs of the nation, one after the other expressing his opinion in a special treatise. The work appeared at Basel, 1521, and shows the influence of Luther. Eberlin's propositions of reform were moat radical; his main attacks were directed against monastic affairs, but he touches almost every question of ecclesiastical, religious and social life. In the later Bundesgetwsaen Eberlin was influenced by the radical tendencies of Carlstadt, and his ideas undoubtedly contributed to the revolutionary tendencies of the lower classes which found expression in the Peasants' War. Eberlin shows himself in this work a popular writer of the first rank, original and striking in his way of treating matters in popular and blunt language. Friend and foe testify to the great sensation caused by this collection of treatises. In the mean time Eberlin had gone north. After a short stay at Leipaic he went to Wittenberg

67	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eb sites
where like many older men he became a student at the University (1522). Under the immediate influence of Luther and Mehwchthon his radicalism sobered down, as appears from his treatise Vom Misbrauch christlieleer Freiheit (1522) and from later writings in which he recalled not a few of his former demands. In 1523 he visited the South and preached at Basel, Rheinfelden, Rottenburgon‑the‑Neckar and Ulm, returning before the close of the year to Wittenberg. In the spring of 1524 he went to Erfurt where he received a position as preacher, but lost it in the following year in the disturbances caused by the Peasants' War. Afterward he found a permanent position as first preacher of Count George II. of Wertheim, which he held until his death. Besides the works mentioned Eberlin wrote a famous tract entitled Mich toundert, dass kein Geld im Lands iat in which he tried to show the causes of impoverishment and advocated honest and dignified labor, and Wie sick sin Diener Gotten Worts in all seirtem Thun halter soil . .
(1525), a kind of pastoral theology highly esteemed
by August Hermann Francke. 	(T. KOLDE.)
.BIBLIOGRAPHY: Selected writings of Eberlin, ed. L. Enders, are in Neudrucke deutschsr Litemtururerkt, roe. 139‑141, Halle,1898. Consult: B. Riggenbach, J. Eberiin . . . and esin Refmmpropromm, TObingen, 1874 (d. W. $ohum,; in GOA, 1875, pp. 801‑802); M. R,adlkofer, J. Eberlin . . . and . . . Hans Jacob Wshs, NStdlingen, 1887.

EBERSDORF BIBLE. See BIHLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE SumuAlum, 1., 13.

EBIOlYITES : The name applied first to Christians in general, then to Jewish Christians, and finally to heretical Jewish Christians. To Jewish Christians this name was given because they were generally poor (Hebr. ebyon, ebyonim); and this poverty, especially characteristic of the Christians of Jerusalem evoked from the pagan world for the whole sect the contemptuous appellation "the poor" (cf. Minucius Felix, Odaviua, xxxvi.). Subsequently its application was limited to Jewish
Christians (Origen, Contra Celaum, ii. ~1).
When a portion of the Jewish Church became separate and heretical, the designation marked this division ex‑
clusively. In the fourth century Epiphanius, Jerome and Theodoret used it of a separate party within the Jewish Church distinct from the Nazarenes. Many of the fathers derived the term from a supposed founder of the sect called Ebion (Hip. polytus, Phidoaophoumeno., vii. 34; Tertullian, Her., xxxiii.; De carne Christi, xiv.; Epip6anius, Hair., xxx. 1), said to have lived at Pella after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The sources for the history of Ebioniam, or of Jewish Christianity, are very meager. Neither the New Testament nor the extracanonical literature know of any writings coming directly from them. The notices in the early fathers are confused; those in later fathers like Epiphaniua and Jerome belong to too late a time to justify inferences as to an earlier existence. Several of the fathers give a picture of the Jewish Christians of their times as it was presented to them and according to their subjective interests.
The doctrine,( position in Jewish Christianity was
Early
Use of the Name.
not each as to produce different sects. A stronger contrast existed only between ordinary Jewish Christianity and syncretistic Gnostic Christianity, while the former divides into a milder and a stricter party. In the New Testament three groups Three are apparent. The heretics of the Groups Epistle to the Colossians prefigure
	Mentioned	Gnostic Jewish Christians; the Chris
or Implied. tians called Ebionitea by Epiphaniua
		appear . in the New Testament as
those who observed the Mosaic law, but did not
make it binding upon Gentile Christians. Besides
these there were the Pharisaic Jewish Christians,
who insisted upon the observance of the Mosaic
law and of circumcision by all, and rejected Paul as
a false apostle. Both the latter parties were known
to Justin (Trypho, xlvii.). Between the time of
Justin and Irena;us the complete separation of
Jewish Christianity moat have been consummated.
Irena'us described the Ebionitea as Jewish Christians
who insisted upon the observance of the whole
Jewish law, rejected Paul as a heretic and used only
the Gospel of Matthew. Their teaching agreed
with that of Cerinthus and Carpocratea, denying the
virgin‑birth, and regarding Jesus as a mere man.
While the importance of observance of the Jewish law was diminishing, the Chriatological question became crucial. To regard Christ as mere man was considered specifically Ebionitie. Origen (Contra Celsum, v. 81) distinguished between Chriatol‑ two branches of Ebionitea, those who ogy the denied and those who accepted the Distin‑ miraculous birth, but says of both guishing that they rejected the epistles of Paul
	Doctrine.	(Contra Cetaum, i. 85). Those two
		groups of Ebionitea dwelling in the
neighborhood of the Dead Sea had little influence
upon the nascent Catholic Church. The case was
different with the third group, the syncretistic Gnos
tic Jewish Christians, whom alone Epiphaniua calls
Ebionitea, though he knew other parties related to
them. Those Ebionitea represented a syncretistic
Judaism which combined theosophie speculation
with ascetic tendencies. Heathenish elements de
rived from Asiatic religions were combined with
Jewish monotheism; the Old Testament became
an object of criticism and parts were eliminated,
angelic powers played a great part. That type of
Judaism, in absorbing Christian elements, became
a syncretistic Jewish Christianity. Jesus was only
a man upon whom descended the Holy Spirit in
the form of a dove at his baptism, whereby he
became a prophet. Circumcision and daily ablu
tions were regarded important; sacrifices were re
jected; and the Old Testament was acknowledged
only in part. Christianity was a purified Moeaism;
Paul was opposed and rejected. See ELKEBAITE9.
(G. UaLaoxxt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are indicated is the text is the writings of Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Epiphanies, 13eeesippus, and Origen. Collections of sources more or less complete and of later literature are made in A. $chliemann, Din Cknuntinen, pp. 382‑622, Hamburg, 1844; A. ltitaehl, Die EntateAunp der alhkafholiaclien Xirche, pp. 162 sqq., Bonn, 1867; A. Hilgenfeld, Novum Teetamentum extra canonem. Leipeie, 1888. Consult: J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, Dissertation iii., London, 1890; G. Uhlhorn, Die Homilies and Raopnitioru» du

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Clemens Romanua, pp. 383 eqq.. Gettingen, 1854; D. Chwoleohn, Die Saabiar and der Saabaamue. 2 vole., 8t. Petersburg, 1858; A. Hilgenfeld. Judenthum and Juderr chrieteathum, Leipeic, 1888; T. Zahn, Kano., II. ii. 824 eqq., ib. 1891; Harnack. Li. I. i. 825 eqq.; Neander, Christian Church, i. 344‑384 et passim; Schaff,
Christian Church, ii. 428‑432; DCB, ii. 24‑28.'
	EBNER, 6b'ner, CHRISTINA: Prioress of En
gelthal, near Nuremberg; b. at Nuremberg Mar.
28, 1277; d. at Engelthal Dec. 27, 1358. She was
the daughter of a Nuremberg patrician. In 1289
she entered the convent of Engelthad, whence
the fame of her holiness spread as early as 1297;
in 1345 she became prioress. She lived for many
years an ascetic life and had visions and inner
experiences which have been preserved in her own
records and those of her confessor, the Dominican
Conrad von Fiisaen. In her biographies of deceased
sisters she introduces a circle of God‑seeking women
who had been filled with the spirit of mysticism.
Christina's spiritual memoirs relate the events
of the time and thus offer material useful for the
historian. She also wrote on earthquakes and the
Black Death (1348). The last days of her life were
enlivened by a visit of Henry of Nbrdlingen (1351),
whose congenial thought and feeling confirmed her
inner life. Her memoirs are written in noble and
at times poetical language and show a woman
deeply in earnest and of fine taste and education.
		(PHILIPP STaAUCa. )
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. W. S. Lochner , Leben and Geaehiehte der Christina Ebner%n, Nuremberg. 1872; K. BchrSder, Der Nonne von Enpelthat Btichiein Yon der Genaden Ueberiaat, TQbingen, 1871; R. A. Vaughan, Hours With the Mystics, i. 223‑224, 8th ed., London [1905].

EBNER, MARGARETA: Fourteenth century mystic; b. at Donauwbrth (25 m. n. of Augsburg) c. 1291; d. at the convent of Maria Medingen near Dillingen (23 m. n.w. of Augsburg) June 20, 1351. She is not related to Christina Ebner, but descended from a patrician family at Donauworth and entered the monastery of Dominican nuns at Maria Medingen. On account of a lingering disease she retired from 1312 to 1315 more and more into herself and soon experienced supposed proofs of divine grace, but her life received its decisive tendency only in 1332 by her intercourse with Henry of Ndrdlingen (q.v.). In her diaries she has related the story of her sufferings and visions, and of her spiritual intercourse with Henry of Nordlingen. Her style lacks variety and a higher flight of thought. Like Christina, she touches historical events of the time. She was highly respected, not only in Medingen, but men like Tauter sought her acquaintance and entered into correspondence with her. (PHILIPP Sm>;AUCaJ
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. 8trauch, Marpareta EMier and HeinrirA von Ndrdlinpen, Tabingen, 1882; W. Prager, Geachirhte der deuteehen Myadik, ii. 247‑261, 289‑274, 277‑308, Leipaic, 1881; R. A. Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, i. 218, 8th ed„ London [1906j.
EBO (EBBO): Archbishop of Reims and bishop of Hildesheim; b. on a Frankish crown estate east of the Rhine toward the end of the eighth century; d. at Hildesheim Mar. 20, 851. His father was a serf, but he was educated in Charlemagne's court school and became the youthful friend of the subsequent Emperor Louis, who elevated him in 816 to
58
the archbishopric of Reims. In 823 he led a great Frankish mission to Denmark, and was appointed by the Pope apostolic legate in the North. From Sleswick, where he first gained a firm footing, he penetrated heathendom, liberated many Christian captives from slavery, founded a cloister in Holstein, and thus paved the way for Denmark's transition to Christianity. In the partizanships and contentions about the throne which subsequently disordered the Empire, he took sides with the opponents of the Emperor Louis, interested himself in the tatter's humiliation, and was rewarded therefor by Lothair with the opulent abbey of St. Vedast in Arran. When Louis proved victorious, Ebo was dispossessed of all his offices and honors at the Synod of Diedenhofen in 835, and was kept under guard as prisoner of state in the abbey of Fulda. Only after Louis' death did he regain his freedom and return to Reims. Soon after, being banished again by Charles the Bald, he fled to Italy, till Louis the German recalled him and rewarded him with the bishopric of Hildesheim. Here he still wrought for a short time in peace. Two small writings are attributed to Ebo: Indiculum de ministris Remertsis ecclesice, and Apologia archiepiscopi Remensis cum ejusdem ad gentes sePtentrionales legations (Bouquet, Reeueil, vi. 254 sqq., vii. 277 sqq.). He has been suggested as the possible author or instigator of the Pseudo‑Isidorian decretals (q.v.). A. WERNER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Flodoard, Hint. Remenaie eccleaia3, ii. 1920, ed. G. Waltz, in MOB, Script., riii (1881), 487 eqq.; A. Simeon, Jahrbilcher lea frttnkiechen Reichs, vol. i.. Leipeic, 1874; G. Dehio, Geachichte des Erzbiatume Hamburg‑Bremen, Berlin, 1877; H. Sehr6ra, Hinkmar, Frer burg, 1884; E. Dammler, Geechsehts du oat/r8nkiachen Reicha, Leipaio, 1887; Hauck, KD. ii. passim; RL, iv. 92‑94.
EBRARD OF BETHUNE. See EBERHARD.
EBRARD, 6'brart, JOHANN HEINRICH AUGUST.
Student Life and Early Lectures (1 1). Professor at Zurich and Erlangen (¢ 2). Councilor of the Coneiatory ($ 3). The New Catechism and Hymn‑book (§ 4). Victory of Ebrard's Opponents (§ b). His Return to Erlangen (§ 8). Estimate of his Work (§ 7).
	This Reformed theologian was born at Erlan
gen Jan. 18, 1818; d. there July 23, 1888. His
father came of a family of French refugees and was
preacher of the French Reformed Church in Er
langen. At an early age August revealed extraor
		dinary endowments and vivacity of
z. Student mind. He attended the gymnasium
	Life and of his native city, and began the study
	Early of theology at the university in 1835
	Lectures under Olshausen, Hbfling, Krafft,
		Hofmann and Harless. His great
mental vivacity induced him to study almost all
branches of human science and art, not, however,
neglecting the pleasures and attractions of the
student life. From 1838 to 1839 he studied at
Berlin, where he was especially attracted by the
philosopher Steffens. He also heard Hengsten
berg, Neander, Twesten, Marheineke, Strauss,
Ritter, Trendelenburg and others. After his ex
amination in 1839 he accepted a position as pri‑

69	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~i~
vats tutor and subsequently established himself in the philosophical faculty at Erlangen, lecturing in 1842 on the relation of philosophy to theology. In the same year he went over to the theological faculty and lectured on the Old and the New Testament and on the Reformation in Switzerland. At the same time he wrote a comprehensive work on the criticism of the history of the Gospels (Frankfort, 1842; Eng. travel. from the 2d ed., The Gospel History, Edinburgh, 1863) which made his name famous and put him in the front rank of opponents of D. F. Strauss. In 1844 he accepted a call to the University of z. Professor Zurich where he defended positive at Zurich and Biblical Christianity against the
and	radicalism of Strauss, and founded a
	Erlangen. weekly paper for that purpose, Die
	Zukunft der Kirche, which, however,
	was discontinued in 1847. His lectures were suc
	cessful, but his relations with his radical colleagues
	and the educational authorities became so strained
	that he returned to Erlangen in 1847 after an inde
	pendent chair for Reformed theology had been
	established. His native soil seemed to develop
	his many‑sided powers into full maturity. He de
	voted himself to his lectures, attracting large cir
	cles of students, and treating chiefly
	3. Council‑ of dogmatics, but also of the Old and
or of the	the New Testament and practical the
Consistory. ology.	He founded the Reformierte
	KirchenzPitung and took an active
	part in all movements of the ecclesiastical and
	political life, in home missions and charitable work.
	From this stimulating work he was suddenly called
	away by an appointment as councilor of the con
aistory and chief preacher in Speyer (1853).
Ebrard considered it now his task to restore for the Church of the Palatinate the old Presbyterian government, which had been overthrown in 1848 " by a democratic subversion and by an ecclesiastical ochlocracy," and to give this Church a catechism and hymn‑book in accordance with its faith. The question of the catechism was brought up at the general synod of 1853, and Ebrard succeeded in replacing the old catechism of 1818 q. The New by a compilation of the Heidelberg Catechism catechism and the smaller catechism and Hymn‑ of Luther and in establishing the
	book.	Augustana variaaa of 1540 as the con
		fession of the Church in the Palat
inate. The constitution of the Church was also
discussed at the synod. The aristocratic consti
tution of 1818 was restored, but it was conceded
to the liberals that the number of the secular mem
bers of the diocesan synods should be made nearly
equal to the number of pastors. The introduction
of a new hymn‑book, however, was much more
difficult to effect. The opposition in the Church
proceeded chiefly from the old rationalists. The
people, who were filled with the liberal ideas of
1848, connected the introduction of the new or
thodox hymn‑book with hierarchiam, but the gen
eral synod of 1857 took the part of the consistory
and decided that the book should be accepted.
The presbyteries, however, were not forced to ac
cept it until another synod, to be held in 1861,
should fix a definite time at which the introduction should be obligatory. Moat of the congregations accepted the new hymn‑book and peace might have ensued if the conaiatory had not committed the serious mistake of ordering the introduction of the book into all schools.
In this the liberal opposition found opportunity to incite the people against the supposed violence to conscience. Meetings were held and petitions were sent to the government, the ministry and the king, but the king did not think as yet of a
retreat, considering the resolutions of g. Victory the general synods and consistoriea as of Ebrard's binding. The final victory of the Opponent. opposition was achieved by the legal
expositions of Umbacheiden, a democratic jurist, in his treatise Kirchengesetz and Kirchengevxelt in der bayerischen Pfalz (Munich, 1860). He showed that the mode of election instituted at the general synod of 1857 was illegal, that the government of the State had no power to sanction a changed constitution, and that therefore the democratic order of 1848 was still in force. Thereupon the ministry retreated and King Max issued a rescript in 1861 ordering the conaistory to reestablish at the coming general synod the democratic order of election with an equal representation of the ecclesiastical and secular elements and the presbyteries and to permit the introduction of the new hymn‑book only where the majority of the congregation gave consent.
Ebrard remained true to his convictions, and thus had to resign his position in 1861. He was
forty‑three years old and had spent 6. His Re‑ the beat part of his life in a vain
turn to cause. He returned to Erlangen and
Erlangen. resumed his lectures, in 1862 in the
presbyterial hall of the French Reformed congregation and after 1863 at the university, in his activity manifesting the spirit of his former years and retaining his vivacity, sociability, and many‑aidedness until the end of his life. In theology he devoted himself to historical studies and somewhat later gathered material for an extensive work on Apologetics (2 parts, Guteraloh, 1874‑75; Eng. travel., 3 vols., Edinburgh, 18861887). In 1875 he undertook the French Reformed pastorate. From 1876 :p 1886 he was also president of the moderamen of the Reformed synod, continuing all the while his lectures and literary work. Ebrard's scientific labor was de‑
voted first to the defense of the funq. Estimate damental facts of history and next
	of his	to the eternal truths of Christianity.
	Work.	The mastery of almost all sciences
		revealed in his Apologelik is aston
ishing. His convictions centered in the Reformed
Church, but he was not so narrow‑minded as to
deny the importance of Evangelical Christianity
in general. His theology and devotional life may
be characterized as a happy mean between ortho
doxy sad Pietism. His study of history saved
him from a superficial radicalism and made him
emphasize the peculiarities of the Reformed
Church, especially in its organization and wor
ship. In spite of his marked industry and the

Eoohellensls, Abraham
Eaolesiaetes
fertility of his thought and writings, Ebrard made little impress upon the study of theology. While his many‑aided activity had no creative effect in any individual sphere, the beneficent influences which proceeded from his engaging personality are immeasurable.
His works not already mentioned include Daa Dogma mm heiligen Abendmahl and seiner Geachichte (2 vole., Frankfort, 1845‑46); Christliche Dog»wtik (2 vols., Ktinigaberg, 18b1); Vorlesungen caber praktisehe Theologie (1854); Das Buck Hiob als poetisches Kunsttuerk iiberaetzt und erklart (Landau, 1858); Handbuch der chrisUichen Rirehen‑ and Deschichte (4 vole., Erlangen, l8gb‑66); Die iroschottische Miasionskirche des sechsten, siebenten, and aehten Jahrhundxrts (Giitersloh, 1873); Bonifatiua (1882). He edited and completed Olahaueen's commentary by writing on the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and the Epistles of John, published many sermons, and, under various pseudonyms, issued a long series of Christian belletrietic productions.
(E. F. KARL MtYztER.)
BIHLrOaRAPHY: The first part of his autobiography. Lebena' j9><runpen, in junpen Jahrsn, was published at GVtersloh, 1888; the rest of it, in M3., remains unPrinted. Consult: P. Behalf, Germany, Its Uniroersities, Theology, and Religion, pp. 389‑397. New York, 1857; G. A. ficertsaaini, in BeilaDe scar AUperwinea RirchenaaiCunp, no. 219‑220, 1888.
ECCHELLENSIS, ABRAHAIlI. See Aslte>;ear Eccarrr.Errsis.
ECCLESIASTES.
The Contents (§ 1). Who is the " Preacher "Y ($ 2). The Date (¢ 3). Egypt the Place of Composition (¢ 4). The Author's Viewpoint (§ b).
	Ecclesiastes (Heb. Koheleth) is the title of the
book which in the English Bible stands between
Proverbs and the Song of Songs. A prologue, i.
2‑11, and an epilogue, xii. 9‑14, enclose the body
of the book, and in both Koheleth "The Preacher"
is spoken of in the third person. The prologue
gives the theme of the composition: All is vanity;
man has no abiding profit from his toil; there is
nothing new under the sun. The key‑note is
struck in i. 2, " all is vanity," and the book proper
		ends with the same note (xii. 8). In
	z. The i. 12 the Preacher, in the first person,
	Contents begins his proof of the fruitlessness of
		all man's striving, and presents in the
first section, i. 12‑ii. 23, the results of his collected
experience as king in Jerusalem. Striving after
wisdom, enjoyment, possessions, contented activ
ity, he found unsatisfying, and the results insecure.
This, however, is not the consequence of chance,
but is the ordering of God which stands fast (ii.
24‑iii. 22). Fear of God and moderation are the
duties of man. The next section, iv.‑vi., contains
a series of observations and statements, the result
of experience, which supplement and emphasize
what precedes. The best rule of living is, accord
ing to the next division, vii. 1‑ix. 10, to get out
of life the moat enjoyment possible. For although
wisdom is beat, yet the riddle of life is that re
wards are proportionate neither to wisdom nor
virtue. The last section, ix. 11‑xii. 8, commends
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
80
a prudential morality and grasping of present opportunities. The epilogue adds some words on the Preacher's wisdom, on wisdom‑literature in general, and the conclusion: Fear God and keep his commandments.
Who is the person whose " I " appears so often in the book? In i. 2, vii. 27, and xii. 8 he is called Koheleth ; in i. 12 he gives himself this name and identifies himself with a wise, rich, brilliant king over Israel in Jerusalem who, according to the conception of the author, can be no other than Solomon. Of the many meanings of the word Koheleth proposed only two call for serious conaideraLion: (1) The word is a participial form with feminine ending but masculine meaning such as is found in late Hebrew (Poahereth, Ezra ii. 57; Sophereth, Neh. vii. 57), taken to mean " he who calls the assembly together " (and
a. Who harangues). (2) The feminine sense
	is the	of the ending is retained and some
"Preacher"? personified being (expressed in Greek
		as Ha ekklftiazousa, " she who har
angue „) is represented as speaking. This can
be no other than ,Hokhma, " Wisdom," but a
specialized wisdom which deals with practicalities,
with the art of living (of. Prov. i. 21, viii. 1‑3,
ix. 3; Is. xl. 9). Herself timeless, in the days of
Solomon (whore person was more or less in the
writer's eye) she had begun to make observations,
which she had continued through the centuries
only to find ceaseless repetition characterizing the
issue of events up to the time of the writing of the
Book.
All data,‑the historical references, the linguistic character, marking it as at the transition from the use of Hebrew to that of Mishnaic Aramaic, and the general tone of the work‑compel the placing of the book at the end of the period when Hebrew was used. 'To secure a more exact dating than this is difficult. The view of Grastz that the book belongs to the time of Herod the
3. The Great involves a series of impoenibil‑
	Date.	ities and contradictions. Nor is the
		assignment by Jewish tradition to the
" Men of Hezekiah " or to Solomon himself any
more defensible. A more definite datum seems
to be furnished in the fact that the Wisdom of
Solomon stands to this book in a relation of hos
tility (of. Wisd. of Sol. ii. 1‑5, iii. 2‑3 with Eccles.
ix. 2, 5, 10, viii. 8, i. 11, etc., and Wisd. of Sol. ii. 6‑9
with Eccles. ix. 7‑9, iii. 22, v. 17). If the Wisdom
of Solomon can be placed about 100 B.C., that
furnishes the date than which >~oheleth can not
be later. Whether the book of Sirach, the date
of which does not go back of 200 B.C., implies the
prior existence of Ecclesiastes can not with cer
tainty be decided. The parallels between the two
do not prove the dependence of Sirach, though it
does seem possible that in Ecclus. xi. 11, xiv. 18,
xxi. 12 the influence of Eccles. i. 2 can be dis
cerned; similarly in the parallels Eccles. ix. 11 and
Ecclus. xi. 12‑13, the latter seems the younger.
%oheleth gives no sign that its author had shared
in the awakening of patriotism and zeal for the
national religion which the Maccabean rising in
spired. The atmosphere of the book is that of the

81	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eoohellends, Abraham
		Eoolesisstes
Wisdom literature, cosmopolitan rather than na
tional. The limits of data °^e 430‑200 B.c. The
age of Nehemiah exhibits many characteristics
which fit the ‑datoric situation presented by $o
heleth. On tile other hand the philosophy of the
book shows Greek influence in its terminology and
its agreement with Stoic and Epicurean thought.
In iii. 11, v.18 the word yaphe occurs in the exact
sense of the philosophic kalon; in iii. 12 "to do
good " has the meaning of the Greek eu Prattein ;
and these data involve a time when the Greek fer
ment had had time to work. On the other hand,
the niceties and fine distinctions of the two schools
of thought find no echo, only the commonplaces
and superficialities of the Greek are reproduced.
Not even the allegory in chap. xii. makes against
this conclusion, since the thought is clearly con
veyed in an Egyptian piece of poetry found in the
tomb of Neferhotep (Records of the Past, vi. 129,
cf. the " Festal Dirge," idem, iv. 117‑118).
		This, as well as many other items, speaks for
the writing of the book in Egypt. For its compo
sition in Jerusalem only one passage speaks (v. 1).
The frequent mention (v. 8, viii. 2‑5, x. 4‑7, ll3
20) of the nearness of the king's house suite Egypt,
since in the times in which the book falls no king
resided in Jerusalem. Residence near the sea is
			implied in xi. 1, reminding one of
		4. Egypt Alexandria, at the time the royal city,
	the Place and the seat of a great Jewish settle
		of Com‑	went. The expression " king in Je
	poaition.	rusalem " is peculiar to this book
			in the Old Testament; thoroughly
Egyptian is the designation of the grave as the
" everlasting house " (xii. 5 " long home "). The
time and the place are indicated as that of the
Ptolemies and their court, and before the oppres
sion of the Jews under Ptolemy IV. Philopator;
or between 320 and 217 B.c., and at Alexandria
	(cf. viii. 2, 8, with Josephua, Ant., XII. i. 1). The
coldness with which the author seta forth the
worthlessness of wealth as an end for which to
strive, the persistence with which he endures a
mode of life which he would not choose and wishes
to forget, the intensity with which he seta forth
the humiliation to man from his zeal for knowl
edge in the face of the ordering and ]imitations of
fate, all speak for such a setting.
		It is entirely comprehensible from these expres
sions how the newer exegesis comes to call the
book " Skepticism's Song of Songs." But such a
	conception is a mistaken one. Beneath the ques
tioning of the book .lie strong religious convictions,
			the assurance that God Almighty
		5. The	rules the world. He is the creator
		Author's	(vii. 29, xii. 1), he is lord of life and
	Viewpoint. the beatower of life on man (viii. 8,
			15), he has allotted to man the quest
and its toil (i. 13, iii. 10, 18, viii. 17), so that entire
existence, vanity as it is, must be accepted as of
God's ordering (ii. 26), though in the labor and
the quest of life he grants joy to man (ii. 24, v. 18,
vii. 18). How tragic it is that though the con
	ception of eternity is in man's heart (iii. 11), yet
	its depths he can not fathom (vii. 23‑24, viii. 17
	ix. 1)1 The purpose of God was to plant in the
heart of man the fear of God (iii. 14, vii. 18), for God is the judge of compliance with the laws he has established (iii. 17, viii. 8,8). Things ethically good in the world are life (ix. 4‑5), wisdom, companionship (iv. 7‑12), success, and enjoyment of labor and its results (ii. 24, iii. 1‑2, 22, ix. 7‑8). Since issues are uncertain, the more urgent is the duty of constant striving (ix. 10, xi. 1‑6). So that the sum to which a fading Judaism reduced the wealth of the prophetical faith is the certainty of one eternal God, creator and ruler of the world, and the certainty of his judgment. The method of reaching this conclusion is to put thesis and antithesis together so that the mean stands out from the very juxtaposition (iv. ", v. 7‑S, vii. 16‑18). Yet this method of composition gave rise to the earlier suppositions that this juxtaposition of contradictory theses pointed to a discussion between two persons, or to an anthology, or to a mistake of the binder (or copyist). Similarly, the moat opposite views of the teaching of the book have been held‑that it involves the consequences of a sheer yet somewhat spiritual skepticism, and that it is a book of consolation.
	It is not surprising therefore that its position in
the canon should have been questioned, for ex
ample, in the debate in the first century between
the schools of Hillel and Gamalie]. The integrity
of the book is rightly questioned so far as the
epilogue is concerned. But the remark of Graetz
that xii. 11 aqq. refer not to this book but to the
entire third division of the canon, and its corollary,
that Ecclesiastes stood at the end of the Old Tes
tament, are both in error. Indeed Graetz thinks
that the entire epilogue was affixed by the Synod
at Jabneh, c. 90 A.D., a conclusion demonstrably
wrong. The book was read by the Jews at the
Feast of Booths. 	(P. I;LE1N)SRT.)

BrnLraa$wpa.r: For literature on Ecclesiastes consult: A. Palm, Die Qohekhlrakratur, Mannheim, 1888, and the work of C. H. H. Wright, below. On the text, $. Euringer, Der Maaeorahtext lea Kohekth, Leipai0. 1890. ‑English translations are found in moat of the commentaries; special and noteworthy are those by [N. Higgins], London, 1778, and P. Haupt, ib. 1905, both metrical. The Commentaries are very numerous, the beet are: J. H. van der Palm, Leyden, 1784; F. Hitsig, Leipeic, 1847; E. W. Hengetenberg, Berlin, 1859, Eng, travel., Edinburgh, 1889; C. Bridges, London, 1880; C. D. Ginsburg, ib. 1881 (noteworthy); M. Stuart, Andover, 1882 (philological): L. Young. Philadelphia, 1888; J. N. Coleman, Edinburgh, 1887; H. Greets, Leipaic, 1871; T. P. Dale, London, 1873; W. H. B. Proby, ib. 1874; T. H. Leale, ib. 1877 (homiletical); E. H. Plumptre, Cambridge, 1881; E. Renan, Paris, 1882; G. G. Bradley, Oxford, 1885, new ed., 1898: T. C. Finlsyeon, Meditationa. and Maxims of %hekN, London, 1887; W. Volek, Munich, 1889; M. J. Boileau, Paris, 1892; J. Strong, New York,' 1893; C. Siegfried, GSttingen, 1898; G. Wildeboer, Ttibingen, 1898; A. W. Streams, London, 1899; A. von Soho!:, Leipsic, 1901; J. F. Genung, Boston, 1904; G. A. Burton, New York, 1908.
The works cited under BIBLICAL Iarrnonvcrrox, I. generally treat of the book, especially Driver, Introdgdiqn. pp. 438‑449. On questions of this nature consult: A. H. bicNeile, Introduction to Ecclesiastes, New York, 1904 (the beat); J. $. Bloch, Ursprung and Entekhunpesei6 lea Bathes Kohekt, Bamberg, 1872; A Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes, London, 1880; C. H. H. Wright, Book of Kohekth . . . in Relation to Modern Criticism sad . . . Pessimism, ib. 1883; T. K. Cheyne, Job sad Solomon, pp. 199‑285, New York, 1889; P. Menzel, Dar pricchiaehe EinRuea auf Prediper, Halle, 1880.

	62
EooledastiEooiedoioy
s	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
	on the similarity to Omar Khayyam: J. F. Genang,	and civil government, marriage, the family, educa
	Ecctra and Omar Khayyam , Boston. 1901; A.	tion, and wealth. A fourth division of phenomena
	Buchanan, Essence of Ecclesiastes in Metre o1 Omar Khan‑	embraces the various functions of ecclesiastical or
	yam, London, 1904. On the history of interpretation!
	8. Schiffer, Dos Buck Cohelefh each Talmud and Mu3rasch,	ganizatloIls, while a fifth includes what may be
	Leipsic, leas; M. ni. xaliech, path and God, London,	defined as ecclesiastical concepts or ideals which
1880. Consult also: DB, i. 837‑842; BB, ii. 1165‑84.		cello as motives for action and association.
	ECCLESIASTICUS. See A>'ocxzrae, A, IV., 12.		The analysis of association and cooperation for
ECCLESIOLOGY.		the purposes of religion shows the following more or
Definition and Methods (; 1).					less permanent forms: the religious
Ecclesiological Phenomena (5 2>.		3. Forms of society, the Church proper or the body
Forms of association (4 3).		Association. having the highest spiritual objects,
Tyres of Polity (J 4).					the civil incorporation, whether aggre
Ecclesiasticat Functions (5 6).		gate or sole, which is often found in connection with
Forces of Integration (¢ 8).
Forces of Disintegration (17).		the religious society or the Church, and finally the
Ecclesiastical Geography, (¢ s).		grouping of local religious bodies into organized
	Ecclesiology is the science dealing with the eccle‑	general associations, usually styled denominations.
	siastical institutions of human society. It is a social	Of the forms of local association it may be noted
	and not a theological science. If soci‑	generally that they do not always coexist, but often
	r. Defini‑ ology be defined as the general science	occur separately. The temporary assembly or con
	tion and of human relations, ecclesiology is that	gregation occurs without other form of association.
	Methods. branch of sociology which deals with	The religious society exists by itself in cases where
	so much of social phenomena as results	there is no separate body of communicant members
	directly from religious motives. The subject‑matter	or those having higher privilege and no civil incor
	of this science then embraces all ecclesiastical phe‑	poration has been effected. A church body existing
	nomena objective on the surface of society. It does	alone may be seen in the community of a convent or
	not deal with theological dogma and creeds except	monastery. A religious corporation may be seen
	in so far as religious faith and enthusiasm are seen	without connection with a local. religious society or
to be the motives of ecclesiastical action.	The	church when constituted of the trustees of a fund
	science deals with non‑Christian as well as Christian	devoted to the purposes of religion. It may be
	institutions among all races and nations. Ecclesi‑	further noted of the forms of ecclesiastical asaocia
	ology being a distinctly social science, the methods	tion that they are found as a rule in some combina
	of analysis, comparison, and generalization are those	tion among the peoples of Western civilization. All
	common to all the social sciences. As in the case of	of these forms of association are at times constituent
	political science, the current institutions are an‑	parts of a local religious body, while the civil cor
	alyzed, while the past is studied for origins and	poration is most frequently lacking. Generally the
	earlier forms. From the view‑point of social science	local religious bodies of all denominations present
	ecclesiastical history is the ecclesiology of past ages	these forms of association, although in varying pro
of human society.		portions and with different functions. The Church
	The primary social phenomena with which eccleai‑	proper or spiritual body is the form of association
	ology deals are individual speech and action for the	that is usually found within the congregation and
	purposes of religion. Such speech and	also within the religious society. It is the only form
	s. Ecclesio‑ action are possible on the surface of	of association for the purposes of religion for which
logical	society only because ecclesiastical ef‑	a special divine sanction is claimed. From the
	Phenomena. forts have the sanction of the physic‑	standpoint of the State it is the body having the
	ally dominant institution of society,	highest interests to be protected, to whose welfare
	i.e., the State, and its representative, civil govern‑	the other ecclesiastical bodies are to contribute.
	went. Without such sanction speech and action		The analysis of the forms of ecclesiastical aesocia
	for the purposes of religion must of necessity be	tion does not end with the limited and local forms
secret and beneath the surface of society.	The				of association, but extends to the com
	observation of speech and action for the purposes		4. Types of binations of these local bodies into
	of religion leads at once to the existing relation			Polity,	groups scattered over large territories,
	between Church and State, since the Church can not				some even coextensive with national
	be one of the visible social institutions without the	domains. In this larger association for the purposes
	express or implied sanction of the State (see CHURCH	of religion the unit for combination among the
	AND STATE. Secondary ecclesiological phenomena	several forms of local association is the Church or
	found are association and cooperation for the pur‑	spiritual body, and the analysis proceeds from the
	poses of religion. Such association may be tem‑	local to the territorial association by ascertaining
	porary only, as is the case with assemblies or con‑	what relation, if any, exists between the local bodies
	gregations,, or it may be permanent and take the	and all other ecclesiastical bodies. The results of
	form of organization. Such organization may as‑	such a larger analysis may be summarized as fol
	sume the form of an artificial legal personality	lows: First, there are found local church bodies
	provided for by the State, viz., the civil corporation	which, in the management of both their internal
	for the purposes of religion. A third division of	and external affairs, are autonomous and acknowl
	ecclesiologieal phenomena embraces the existing	edge and sustain no discernible relation with similar
	relations which the ecclesiastical institutions of	local church bodies other than that which may result
	society bear to its other institutions, viz., the State	from a general identity of purpose. Second, there

83	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eoolesiastioa
		Eooleeiology
are found other local church bodies that do sustain
a common relation. Such bodies are associated by
yielding to a varying extent obedience to the juris
diction of more general bodies or aeries of bodies.
There are found to be two divisions of this second
class. First, among some local church bodies of this
second class the general authority or aeries of
authorities have as a dominant characteristic of
their jurisdiction the right to act in a judicial capac
ity in cases to which the subordinate local bodies
or individual members of such bodies are parties.
Second, among others of this second class the general
authorities or series of authorities have as a domi
nant characteristic of their jurisdiction the right to
administer a body of law which has been accepted
by the local organizations. There are, therefore,
three general forms or types of ecclesiastical associa
tion in modern society, and these are known as
polities. There are (1) the congregational polity,
with local church bodies showing every degree of
actual autonomy (see CONGREGATIONALISTS, IV.);
(2) the synodical or presbyterial polity, in which
church administration is lodged in a graded series
of courts with both original and appellate jurisdic
tion (see PRESBYTERIANS); and (3) the episcopal
polity, in which the function of administration is
vested in an individual (see BISHOP; EPISCOPACY).
While there are many variations of these general
forms of ecclesiastical organization, there does not
occur among civilized people any variation sufii
ciently radical to constitute a fourth type. Such an
analysis is the only safe means of securing a scientific
classification of existing denominations according to
their type of polity. This classification rests upon
the actual facts of organization and not upon titles,
which are often misleading. The large number of
religious denominationsof Western civilization alone
present almost every conceivable variety of ecclesi
astical organization. Yet they are susceptible of
scientific classification on the basis here outlined,
and may, of course, be further subdivided and clas
sified according to their peculiarities.
	A fourth division of the subject‑matter of ecclesi
ology deals with the functions which ecclesiastical
			bodies perform. As in the case of
	g. Ecclesi‑ political institutions, the primary fune
		astical	tion is that of legislation, the making
	Functions. of the internal law of the organization.
			Such law is either, organic, fundamen
tal, or constitutional, or it is in the nature of statutes
or by‑laws and therefore more easily amended. The
rule prevails throughout the countries of Western
civilization that ecclesiastical bodies may not enact
law containing provisions contrary to the law of
the land, and that the fundamental principles of
the civil law to the extent that they define and
protect civil and property rights will by the civil
courts be read into any body of church law. The
second ecclesiastical function is that of administra
tion. The problems that arise in the course of
ecclesiastical administration call for the exercise of
the third function, that of adjudication or the judi
cial application of law to specific cases. The normal
supplement of the function of adjudication is that
of discipline (see CHURCH D1aCIPLINE), by which the
penalty for the violation of ecclesiastical law is
enforced. The exercise of this function of discipline seems to be weakening in many ecclesiastical bodies, but, on the other hand, it should be remembered that the sphere of ecclesiastical discipline has in modern civilization been greatly restricted by civil law. The two remaining functions of ecclesiastical organizations are those of propaganda and mission. Propaganda is the conscious and systematic spread of faith and principles, while the mission, which naturally supplements propaganda, is the function of reproducing the ecclesiastical organization from which emanated the particular propaganda. Ecclesiologiata are inclined to look upon the rigor with which these functions are performed as being to a certain extent a measure of the vitality of the body. Different organizations vary greatly as to the relative values of these functions and as to the energy with which they are to be exercised. In the simplest and moat completely autonomous bodies there is a concentration of these functions in a single organ, while among bodies having more complex polities there is a distribution of powers and frequently a highly developed machinery.
Up to this point has been outlined what may be called static ecclesiology. There is, however, a field which may be defined as that of dy6. Forces of namic eccleaiology. Here the subjectIntegration. matter comprises the social and economic environments of ecclesiastical bodies and the moral forces at work tending to change the spirit and the structure of such bodies. Ecclesiastical institutions are, from the standpoint of the social sciences, aggregations of living social organism and subject to a certain extent to the laws of social development. They are seen to have forces of. original impetus, to have their periods of development, and frequently their periods of decay and dissolution. A natural division of such social and moral forces is into those working for the integration of ecclesiastical bodies, and those working for their disintegration. The same force under differing conditions works in opposite directions. The dominant forces working for the integration of ecclesiastical bodies are the influences of education and of material wealth, energy in propaganda and mission, and, perhaps more potent than these, certain ecclesiastical concepts or ideals such as those of the historical continuity of the Church and those of ecclesiastical adaptation. The dominant forces working for the disintegration of ecclesiastical bodies are the lack of education, the lack of missionary energy, the lack of material wealth, such ecclesiastical concepts or ideals as those of isolation and alienation, and the tendency to heresy and its normal result, schism. While the tendency to schism is the moat obvious of all disintegrating forces, it is probably not as fundamental as certain concepts which require explanation in order to a due appreciation of their influence. Among the forces operating for continuous ecclesiastical integration are the concepts of adaptation and of the historical continuity of the Church. The ideal of ecclesiastical adaptation results from the desire on the part of members of religious bodies to have their organization keep in complete touch with all the normal features of its social environment. Under the in‑

Eoolesiology Eck
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
fluence of such a concept the form or type of ecclesiastical organization is regarded as more or less immaterial. What is sought is a perfect adaptation of ecclesiastical organization and functions to what are believed to be the needs of the time and the community. Closely allied to such an ideal is often found the belief that human society has the capacity for its own regeneration; consequently it is better to hold that religious institutions are to be regarded as the result of such efforts than that the Church is a unique organization among men, having a special divine sanction and charged with a supernatural mission. The integrating force of such a concept lies in its capacity for cooperation and in the emphasis which it places upon went in matters of faith while minimizing the differences. The concept of the historical continuity of the Church is based upon a belief that there is one normal organization, that this normal organization has been realized in part, and that if the right spirit prevails, preventing all heresy and schism, this normal organization is revealed. It is further believed by those holding this concept that a substantial continuity of all the essential features of this normal organization has been maintained in all the past ages and will be maintained until the end of human society. Such concepts are not confined to the members of what are commonly known as the historic churches, although there it is more common. Such concepts admit of successive changes in what are regarded as the non‑essential features of polity due to the changing conditions of social and political environment. But such changes are regarded as incidental and as revealing in an ever‑widening range those essential features which shall in the providence of God persist until the end of time. The Church with such an ideal would not antagonize the existing order of society, but it would perpetuate those features of its polity which it deems essential to its character as a true Church. Certain facts should be noted of these ecclesiastical ideals. First, that they are held with varying degrees of intelligence and devotion; Second, they are widely distributed, no organization or denomination having a monopoly of any of them; third, all of them concepts serve as stimuli to the members of a single organization; and, fourth, the different ecclesiastical bodies vary greatly as to their consciousness of the operation of there concepts as motives of action.
Concepts or ideals of ecclesiastical isolation and alienation are found to be exercising a profound influence among certain organizations. Such concepts appear to develop from a religious conviction which frequently assumes the form of, a belief that certain persona are called of God out of the mass of human society to be constituted and recognized as a peculiar people to lead a life apart from the life of the community in which they
7. Forces have their habitation. Such a concept
of D18‑ provides for the least possible interintegration. course between the members of the religious body and those who differ with them in matters religious. Among certain of the Christian bodies this concept derives its inspiration from the history of the Hebrews and from a feeling that theirs is a similar case, they being called out of
a corrupt society to lead a peculiarly religious life. Among other bodies ecclesiastical alienation develops from a desire on the part of a body of individuals to lead a certain mode of life and to practise such moral and economic effects as celibacy or community of goods, while the normal nodal environment is regarded as unfavorable for such a development. In many cases where such concepts prevail those holding them decline to recognize the normal obligations resting upon members of society for the maintenance of civil government and other social institutions. Such ecclesiastical alienation usually operateabyreatrictingmisaionaryeffort. Deliberate alienation moat not be confused with the physical isolation in which many religious bodies find themselves.
In addition to the qualitative analysis of ecclesiastical institutions here outlined, the science of
ecclesiology provides also for a quan‑
8. )EccleSi‑ titstive analysis for which the material
		astical	is largely statistical. Denominational
	Geography. statistics are generally deficient, and
			only a few countries of Western civili
zation furnish reliable governmental statistics of
ecclesiastical organizations. The use of such statis
tics has three objects: to determine the amount of
	ecclesiastical association among a given population;
to determine the racial elements of church‑member
	ship; and to determine the territorial distribution of
	denominational strength. This may be called ec
	clesiastical geography.	The racial simplicity or
	complexity of the membership of a religious body
is often found to have a profound influence upon
the development of the organization. AS in bodies
	political, church racial elements are often the source
of weakness and the cause of delayed integration,
	especially where diversity of language is a serious
obstacle. Such a diversity, however, is a test, and
affords a training in the capacity of assimilation.
	Religious bodies as a rule originate in a homogeneous
	people, but systematic missionary effort has brought
into the membership of all the stronger and more
active denominations the moat diverse racial
elements. Closely allied to thin topic is that of the
	geography of the Church. The systematic charting
of ecclesiastical organizations is of recent origin.
It is now being developed on every scale, from the
population of a single city to that of a continent.
It has been brought to the aid of the churches
in the planning of missionary enterprises of all
dimensions. It has been found useful in revealing
the physical and social environment of churches,
and , it throws much light on their history and
state of development.	See CHURCH, THE CHRIB
TIAx; CHURCH Arm STATE; and Ponrr>', ECCLE
BIASTICAL. ~ 		GEORGE JAMES BAYLEB.
	ECK, JOHANN.
Education. Teacher at Ingoletadt (¢ 1).
Disputations with Luther and Carlstadt (¢ 2).
Attacks on Luther and Melanchthon (¢ 3). Papal Emissary and Inquisitor (¢ 4). Zwingli and his Followers ($ b). Peace Overtures ($ 8).
Johann Eck (properly Johann Maier or Mayr) the German Roman Catholic controversialist, was born at
Eck (now Egg, near Memmingen, 43 m. s. of Augsburg), Swabia, Nov.13,1486; d. at Ingoletadt Feb. 13, 15,43. At the age of twelve he entered the

86	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eck eeiolog9
University of Heidelberg, which he left in the following year for Tubingen. After taking his master's degree in 1501, he began the study of theology under Johann Jakob Lempp, and studied the elements of Hebrew and political economy with Konrad Summenhart. He left Tiibingen in 1501 on account of the plague and after a year at Cologne
finally settled at Freiburg‑im‑Breis‑
r. Educe‑ gau, at first as a student of theology
	ties.	and law and later as a successful
Teacher teacher. In 1508 he entered the
at Ingot‑ priesthood and two years later ob‑
	stadt.	tained his doctorate in theology. At
		Freiburg in 1506 he published his
first work, Ludiera logi.ces ezercita‑menta and also
proved himself a brilliant and subtle orator,
although obsessed by an untamable controversial
spirit and unrestrained powers of invective. At
odds with his colleagues, he was glad to accept a
call to a theological chair at Ingolatadt in Nov.,
1510, receiving at the same time the honors and
income of a canon at Eichstadt. In 1512 he be
came prochancellor at the university and from
that time until his death he was in complete con
trol of the destinies of Ingolstadt, on which he
impressed the character of ultracatholicism which
made it a bulwark of the ancient faith in Germany.
His wide knowledge found expression in numerous
writings. In the theological field he produced his
Chrysopassus (Augsburg, 1514), in which he de
veloped a Semi‑Pelagian theory of predestina
tion, while he obtained some fame as commenta
tor on the Summulm of Peter of Spain and on
Aristotle's De co'lo and De anima. As a political
economist he defended interest, despite the oppo
sition of the bishop of Eichstadt.
As early as the spring of 1517 Eck had entered into friendly relations with Luther, who had regarded him as in harmony with his own views, but this illusion was short‑lived. In his Obelisci Eck attacked Luther's theses, which had been sent
him by Scheurl, and accused him of
z. Dispute‑ promoting the heresy of the Bohemian boas with Brethren and of fostering. anarchy
Luther and within the Church. Luther replied in Carlstadt. his Asterisci adversxes obeliseos Eccii,
while Carlstadt defended Luther's views of indulgences and engaged in a violent controversy with Eck. A mutual desire for a public disputation led to a compact between Eck and Luther by which the former pledged himself to meet Carlstadt in debate at Erfurt or Leipsic, on condition that Luther abstain from all participation in the discussion. In Dec., 1518, Eck published the twelve theses which he was prepared to uphold against Carlstadt, but since they were aimed at Luther rather than at the ostensible opponent, Luther addressed an open letter to Carlstadt, in which he declared himself ready to meet Eck in debate.
	The	disputation between Eck and Carlstadt
began at Leipsic June 27, 1519. In the first four
sessions Eck maintained the thesis that free will
is the active agent in the creation of good works,
but he was compelled by his opponent to modify
his position so as to concede that the grace of God
		IV.‑5
and free will work in harmony toward the common end. Carlstadt then proceeded to prove that good works are to be ascribed to the agency of God alone, whereupon Eck yielded so far as to admit that free will is passive in the beginning of conversion, although he maintained that in course of time it enters into its rights; so that while the entirety of good works originates in God, their accomplishment is not entirely the work of God. Despite the fact that Eck was thus virtually forced to abandon his position, he succeeded, through his good memory and his dialectic skill, in confusing the heavy‑witted Carlstadt and carried off the nominal victory. He was far less successful against Luther, who, as Eck himself confessed, was his superior in memory, acumen, and learning. After a disputation lasting twenty‑three days (July 427), Eck was greeted as victor by the theologians of the University of Leipaic, who overwhelmed him with honors and sent him away with gifts. The impression produced by Eck upon his auditors during that momentous time may be best learned from the account of the humanist Peter of Moselle, who described him as tall, stout, and squarely built. His voice was full and rolling, and of an admirable quality for an actor, or even for a public crier, while the sum total of his features would seem to argue the butcher or the professional soldier rather than the theologian. As far as his intellectual gifts were concerned, he had a wonderful memory, which, if supplemented by other talents in like proportion, would have made him a marvel, but he lacked swiftness of apprehension and deep insight, so that his masses of arguments and citations were indiscriminate, and he was filled with an inconceivable impudence though he had the cleverness to conceal it.
Soon after his return to Ingolstadt,, Eck attempted to persuade Elector Frederick of Saxony to have Luther's works burned in public, and during the year 1519 he published no leas than eight writings against the new movement. He failed, however, to obtain a condemnatory decision from the universities appointed to pronounce on the outcome of the Leipsic disputation. Erfurt returned the proceedings of the meeting to the Saxon duke without signifying its approval, while Paris, after repeated urging, gave an ambiguous decision limited to " the doctrine of Luther so far as investigated." Eck's only followers were the aged heretic‑hunter Hoogstraten and Emaer of Leipaic, together with the allied authorities of the universities of Cologne and Louvain. Luther returned Eck's assaults with more than equal
3. Attacks vehemence and about this time Me‑
	on Luther	lanchthon wrote (Ecolampadius that
	and Me‑	at Leipsic he had first become dis
	lanchthon.	tinctly aware of the difference be
		tween true Christian theology and the
scholasticism of the Aristotelian doctors: In: his
Excusatio (Wittenberg? 1519?) Eck, irritated all the
more because early in the year he had induced
Erasmus to caution the young theological' student
against precipitating himself into the religious con
flict, retorted that Melanchthon knew nothing of the
ology. In his reply to the Excustci3o, Melanchthon

Eck
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
proved that he was thoroughly versed in theology, and Eck fared still worse in October of the same year, when he sought to aid Emser by a virulent tirade against Luther. Two biting satires, one by O;colampadius and the other by Pirkheimer, stung him to a fury which would be satisfied with nothing less than the public burning of the entire literature in the market‑place at Ingolstadt, an act from which he was restrained by his colleague Reuchlin.
Eck was far more highly esteemed as the dauntless champion of the true faith at Rome than in Germany. In Jan., 1520, he visited Italy at the invitation of Leo X., to whom he presented his latest work De primate Petri adversvs Ltedderum (Ingolstadt, 1520) for which he was rewarded with the nomination to the office of papal prothonotary' although his efforts to urge the Curia to decisive action against Luther were unsuccessful for some time. On June 16, however, appeared the fateful bull Exurge Domine, in which forty‑one propositions of Luther were condemned as heretical or erroneous. Entrusted with the publication of the bull in Germany, Eck returned home, only to find how rapidly Luther had gained favor. At Meissen, Brandenburg, and Merseburg he succeeded in giving the papal measure due official publicity, but
at Leipsic he was the object of the ¢. Papal ridicule of the student body and was
Emissary compelled to flee by night to Frei‑
and In‑ berg, where he was again prevented
quisitor. from proclaiming the bull. At Er‑
furt the students tore the instrument down and threw it into the water, while in I other places the papal decree was subjected to still greater insults. At Vienna its publication encountered grave difficulties, and Eck had good cause to set up a votive tablet to his patron saint upon his safe return to Ingolstadt, although even there only the authority of the papal mandate made the publication of the bull possible. This last humiliation was due, in great measure, to the fact that he had availed himself of the permission to pronounce the papal censure on prominent followers of the new movement besides Luther, and had thus made his office a means of personal revenge. Eck's letter to Charles V., written in Feb., 1521, seems to have had little effect upon the proceedings at the Diet of Worms.
Wealth and power were included in the aspirations of Eck. He appropriated the revenues of his pariah of Gunzburg, while he relegated its duties to a vicar. Twice he visited Rome as a diplomatic representative of the Bavarian court to obtain sanction for the establishment of a court of inquisition against the Lutheran teachings at Ingolstadt. The firatof these journeys, late in the autumn of 1521, was fruitless on account of the death of Leo X., but his second journey in 1523 was successful. With great insight and courage he showed the Curia the true condition of affairs in Germany and pictured the general incapacity of the representatives of the Church in that country. Of the many heresy trials in which Eck was the prime mover during this period it is sufficient to mention here that of Leonhard Kaser, whose history was published by Luther.
	In addition to his inquisitorial duties, every
year witnessed the publication of one or more
writings against iconoclasm and in defense of the
doctrines of the mass, purgatory, and auricular
confession. His Enchiridion locorum communium
adversvs Znutherum et alios hostes ecclesite (Landshut,
1525) went through forty‑six editions before 1576.
As its title indicates, it was directed primarily
		against Melanchthon's Loci,, although it
g. Zwiagli also concerned itself to some extent
and his with the teachings of Zwingli. Eck Followers. offered to refute Zwingli's " heresies " in a public disputation (Aug. 13, 1524), and appeared at Baden, only 12 m. n.w. of Zurich, but in the hands of the bitterest partizans of the Roman Church, and from May 21 until June 18, 1526, the debate went on. Zwingli was not present, but supported his friends who were there by constant suggestions. The affair ended decidedly in favor of Eck, who induced the authorities to enter on a course of active persecution of Zwingli and his followers (see BADEN [1M AARGAU], CorrFERENCE OF). The effect of his victory at Baden was dissipated, however, at the Disputation of Bern (Jan., 1528), where the propositions advanced by the Reformers were debated in the absence of Eck, and Bern, Basel, and other places were definitely won for the Reformation (see BERN, DlsPUTATION OF). At the Diet of Augsburg Eck played the leading part among theologians on the Roman Catholic aide.
	While still at Ingolstadt Eck drafted for the
use of the emperor a list of 404 heretical prop
ositions from the writings of the Reformers, and
collaborated with more than twenty Catholic
theologians in writing the conf utatio Pond fecia, in
which the Catholic refutation of the Protestants
		was embodied. His efforts at peace,
	6. Peace in which his readiness to meet the
	Overtures. Reformers half‑way shows him to have
		been sincere, failed, however, on ac
count of the hatred and contempt with which he
was regarded by the Protestant theologians. He
renewed his efforts at Worms in Jan., 1541, and
succeeded in impressing Melanchthon as being
quite prepared to give his assent to the main
principles of Protestantism. After the meeting
at Regensburg in the spring and summer of the
same year, on the other hand, be exerted himself
to prevent any compromise between the two theol
ogies. The last important phase of his activity was
his conflict with Butzer, whom he attacked on ac
count of the attitude assumed by the latter in his
edition of the transactions of the Conference of
Regensburg.(q.v.). Special mention should be made,
among Eck's many writings, of his German trans
lation of the Bible (the New Testament a revision
of H. Eraser's rendering) which was first published
at Ingolstadt in 1537. 	(C. ENDERS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Wiedemann, Dr. Johann Eck, R.egenabutg. 1885; J Greying, J. Eck als junger Gelehrter, Miinater, 1908. The subject is treated in more or less detail in all works on the Church history of the period, in the accounts of the life of Luther, Melanchthon, CEnolampadius, Osiander, and Zwingli (see the literature under those articles). Consult particularly Schaff, Christian Church, vi. 188 eqq.; Mueller, Christian Church, yol. m.; Cambridge Modern History, yol, ii., New York, 1804.

		Eck	‑
87	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eckhart
I. Life.
Various Appointments (§ 1).
Heresy Charges (§ 2). II. Eckhart as Author, Schoolman, Mystic, and Preacher.
His Works (§ 1).
Meister Eckhart, as he is generally called, Dominican and mystic, was a man almost forgotten after the middle of the fifteenth century until Franz von Baader in the first half of the nineteenth century revived his memory. Since then he has been highly praised. But Denifle again passed a somewhat derogatory judgment upon him on the basis of newly discovered Latin writings; inasmuch as Denifle has published but a small part of these writings his opinion can not be too implicitly accepted. This article will attempt merely to give accredited facts and indicate the present state of the questions.
I. Life: The long controverted question concerning the locality of Eckhart's origin has been settled by Denifle. who states that he was born at Hochheim, a village 8 miles north of Goths. The year of his birth was probably 1260, and he joined the Dominicans at Erfurt. The lighter studies he no doubt followed at Cologne. Later he was prior at Erfurt and provincial of Thuringia.
r. Various In 1300 he was sent to Paris to lecture Appoint‑ and take the academical degrees, and
	meats.	remained there till 1303. In the latter
		year he returned to Erfurt, and was
made provincial for Saxony, a province which
reached at that time from the Netherlands to
Livonia. Complaints made against him and the
provincial of Teutonia at the general chapter held
in Paris in 1306 concerning irregularities among the
ternaries, must have been trivial, because the gen
eral, Aymeric, appointed him in the following year
his vicar‑general for Bohemia with full power to set
the demoralized monasteries there in order. In
1311 Eckhart was appointed by the general chapter
of Naples as teacher at Paris. Then follows a long
period of which it is known only that he spent part
of the time at Strasburg (cf. Urkundenbuch. der
Stadt Strassburg, iii. 236). A passage in a chronicle
of the year 1320, extant in manuscript (cf. Preger,
i. 352‑399), speaks of a prior Eckhart at Frankfort
who was suspected of heresy, and some have re
ferred this to Meister Eckhart; but it is highly
improbable that a man under suspicion of heresy
would have been appointed teacher in one of the
most famous schools of the order.
Eckhart next appears as teacher at Cologne, and the archbishop, Hermann von Virneburg, accused him of heresy before the pope. But
	z. Heresy	Nicholas of Strasburg (q.v.), to whom
	Charges.	the pope had given the temporary
		charge of the Dominican monasteries
in Germany, exonerated him. The archbishop,
however, pressed his charges against Eckhart and
against Nicholas before his own court. The former
now denied the competency of the archiepiscopal
inquisition and demanded litterce dimissorice (aioos
toli) for an appeal to the pope (cf. the document in
Preger, i. 471; more accurately in ALKG, ii.
ECKHART.
Schoolman and Mystic (§ 2).
As a Preacher (§ 3). III. System.
His Fundamental View of Deity (§ 1).
The Trinitarian Process (§ 2).
God in Creation (§ 3).
The Relation of the Soul to God
($ 4). Sin and Redemption (§ 5).
The Place of Christ (§ B). Eckhart's Ethics (§ 7).
627 sqq.). On Feb. 13, 1327, he stated in his protest, which was read publicly, that he had always detested everything wrong, and should anything of the kind be found In his writings, he now retracts. Of the further progress of the case there is no information, except that John XXII. issued a bull (In agro dominico), Mar. 27, 1329, in which a series of statements from Eckhart is characterized as heretical, another as suspected of heresy (the bull is given complete in ALKG, ii. 636‑640). At the close it is stated that Eckhart recanted before his death everything which he had falsely taught, by subjecting himself and his writings to the decision of the apostolic see. By this is no doubt meant the statement of Feb. 13, 1327; and it may be inferred that Eckhart's death, concerning which no information exists, took‑ place shortly after that event. In 1328 the general chapter of the order at Toulouse decided to proceed against preachers who " endeavor to preach subtle things which not only do (not) advance morals, but easily lead the people into error." Eckhart's disciples were admonished to be more cautious, but nevertheless they cherished the memory of their master.
II. Eckhart as Author, Schoohaaa, Mystic, and Preacher: For centuries none of Eckhart's writings were known except a number of sermons, found in the old editions of Tauler's sermons, published by Kachelouen (Leipaic, 1498) and by Adam
Petri (Basel, 1521 and 1520. In
r. His 1857 Franz Pfeiffer in the second
Works.	volume of his Deutsche Mystiker
(Stuttgart), which is wholly devoted to Eckhart, added considerable .manuscript material. Pfeiffer was followed by others, especially Franz Joetes, Meister Eckhart and seine Jiinger, ungedrz<ckte Texts zur Geschichte der deutschen Mystik (Cotlectanea Frz3urgensia, iv., Freiburg, 1895). But some pieces are of doubtful genuineness, and the tradition concerning others is very unsatisfactory. It was a great surprise when in 1880 and 1886 H. Denifle discovered at Erfurt'and Cues two manuscripts with Latin works of Eckhart, the existence of which Nicholas of Cuss. and Trittenheim had indeed mentioned, but which had since then been considered lost. There can be no doubt as to their genuineness, but thus far only the (comparatively extensive) specimens which Denifle had published (in ALKG, ii.) are known. The extant writings appear to be only parts of a very large work, the Opus tripartitum, which, to judge from the prologue in the first part treated of more than 1,000 propositions, in the second part debated a number of special questions, and in the third part, first expounded Biblical texts (opus aermonunx) and afterward explained the books of the Bible in their order with special reference to the important passages. Entirely unknown at present are the contents of the more important manuscript of Cues,

Eckhart
especially the exposition of the Gospel of John, which may contain information on many things.
	Some deductions, however, can be made. In
the first place, it appears that Eckhart was a true
scholastic, who reflected upon and treated all the
numerous questions which interested scholasticism
in general. That there existed an opposition in
principle between mysticism and scholasticism
is in his case out of the question, because at that
		time it did not exist at all, as was
z. School‑ long ago proved by Engelhardt (Rir
man and chard von St. Victor and Johannes Ruys‑
	Mystic.	broek, Erlangen, 1838, preface). As a
		scholastic, as far as sentences and
elegance of description are concerned, Eckhart
seems to be inferior to Thomas Aquinas, whom he
follows for the most part. For the rest it is worthy
of notice that the sphere of subjects, which espe
cially engaged Eckhart's mind, is limited in his
Latin writings. His thoughts are concentrated on
the divine being in its unity and trinity; on the
relation between God and the creature, especially
between God and the human soul; on the nature
of the soul; on regeneration and union with God,
to which he recurs again and again. But these
objects are the very ones with which mysticism
especially used to concern itself. Even as a scho
lastic Eckhart shows a predominant leaningtoward
mysticism. Eckhart's sermons are primarily for
monks or nuns, and, indeed, according to Denifle
(ALKG, ii. 641, fi52), the German sermon of the
Dominicans in general originated from the care
of the nunneries. But when the sermon was deliv
ered in the church, other hearers were not ex
cluded, and Eckhart sometimes refers to them
(Pfeiffer, 287, 26). Indeed, his sermons presuppose
a religiously educated and interested congregation.
It is possible that no preacher ever propounded to his hearers more lofty and profound speculations on the Deity and the world, on the soul and its life. But he does it not for the sake of ostentation nor because of mere pleasure in these speculations, but because he is convinced that thus he will best serve his hearers. He knew that not all could follow him (Pfeiffer, 209, 29; 242, 35), and such he exhorted to piety (310, 1; 498, 18).
3. As a For him these thoughts were most
	Preacher.	intimately connected with his spiri
		tual life and they are therefore expressed
with a fervor and ardor which could not fail to im
press the more intelligent of his hearers. He is
convinced that the thoughts which he presents
are found in the Scripture in which he has more
faith than in himself (4, 17). The present custom
of taking a text for the sermon did not restrict him
and in accordance with the use of his time he selects
only a phrase, a " word " from a larger section.
This mode of exposition is such that he can easily
deduce any thought from any text. To us his
method appears like an incredible abuse of Holy
Writ, but Eckhart practised it in good faith; he
followed the custom of his time, and no one took
offense. On the other hand Eckhart is truly great
in the way and manner in which he gave form and
expression to his thoughts. This is clearly to be
seen in spite of the faults of the copies, to which
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
must be ascribed the disproportion of the execution and the want of connection. One might say that truth and purity of sentiment, to which he everywhere attaches the greatest value, also shapes his sermon. He avoids all tinsel, every artificial adornment. He speaks in an artless, pleasing and touching manner. Powerful seriousness and humor are at his command. He often uses parables, but briefly, without detail, and this brevity he also applies where the narrative elements prevail (13, 25; 108; 168, 12; 285, 24). While he often enlivens his discourse by introducing thesis and antithesis, his manner is truly German, his sentences are devoid of the influence of Latin phraseology. Not a few passages of his sermons have a beauty of language which to this day makes them worthy of commendation as models of German style.
III. System: As has already been stated it is impossible to give at present a final decision on Eckhart's world of ideas. Nevertheless an attempt may be made to delineate his fundamental thoughts, based upon the material at hand. The great need of man is that his soul be united with God; for this a knowledge of God and his relation to the world, a knowledge of the soul z. His Fun‑ and the way which it must go, are
damental necessary. Eckhart does not doubt
View of that such knowledge is given in the
	Deity.	traditional faith of the Church, but
		it is not sufficient for one who is longing
for salvation. He must attain to it with his own
understanding. Eckhart accordingly does not move
and live in ecclesiastical tradition after the man
ner of Bernard of Clairvaux or Hugo of St. Victor;
in his thinking on the highest questions he is inde
pendent and in this way he arrives at views which
do not harmonize with the teaching of the Church,
without, however, as far as can be seen, being con
scious of any opposition. The last and highest
object of thinking is the Deity, i.e. the divine entity
as distinguished from the persons, yet Eckhart
often uses " God " in the sense of " Deity," where
his thought does not call for accurate definitions
(but cf., on the other hand, 180, 14; 181, 7). The
Deity is absolute being without distinction of place
or manner (ALKG, ii. 439‑440). No predicate de
rived fromfinitebeingisapplicabletotheDeity; but
this is therefore not mere negation or emptiness.
Rather is finite being, as such, negation; and the
Deity, as the negation of finite being, is the negation
of negation, i.e. the absolute fulness of being (322,
13; 539, 10‑27). Dionysius wrongly states: God
is not, he is rather a nonentity. When in other
passages (82, 26; 182, 31; 500, 27) Eckhart himself
designates God as non‑existent, he only means that
he has none of the characteristics of finite existence.
The same apparent contradiction is found, where
Eckhart on the one hand calls God absolute being,
and on the other denies that he is a being (319, 4;
659, 1); but he reconciles the two views (268‑2fi9).
The same is the case with occasional seemingly
paradoxical expressions, e.g. that God is not good,
etc. (269, 18; 318, 35‑319, 3). The essential
elements of finite things are present in God, but in
an exalted degree and in a manner that can not be
comprehended by man (322, 20; 540, 2‑7).

89	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eckhart
The absolute, unqualified being of the Deity Eckhart also calls unnatured nature. This unnatured nature, however, manifests itself in the natured nature, the three persona. The Trinity is the self‑revelation of the Deity (540, 31; 390,12‑22). In it God comprises himself. Accordingly, Eckhart attributes to the Father a sort of genesis; only the Deity is absolutely without any progression and reposes everlastingly in itself. The Father was made through himself (534, 17). This self‑revelation of God Eckhart designates as a cognition, a speaking, or a demeanor. The Father perceives the wkole fulness of the Deity (6,8); or, what is the same, he speaks a single word, which comprises everything (76, 25). He procreates s. The the Son (284, 12); for the Father is Trinitarian father only through the Son. The
	Process.	Son, however, is in everything like
		the Father, only that he procreates
not (337, 3). The essence of the Father is also
that of the Son, and the essence in both is no other
than that of the Deity. From the pleasure and love
which both have for each other springs the Holy
Ghost (497, 26). Eckhart leaves no doubt that
the entire trinitarian process must not be con
ceived of as a temporal one, but as a process ex
tending throughout eternity (154, 10). Preger
thought that Eckhart's distinction between Deity
and God should be interpreted as a distinction be
tween potentiality and actuality. To this inter
pretation Denifle (ALKG, ii. 453 sqq.) has strongly
objected and cited Eckhart's Latin writings, in
which he, with Thomas Aquinas and others, desig
nates God as actus purazs, thus excluding all poten
tiality. Denifle is right, in that Eckhart does not
consciously and deliberately make any such dis
tinction; but it can not be denied that his concep
tion leads to it. Especially significant is Eckhart's
explanation in 175, 7 sqq. where he tries to illus
trate the relation between the fatherhood as it is
determined in the Deity and the paternity of the
person of the Father by the relation between the
maternity peculiar to the Virgin as such, and the
maternity which she acquires by bearing. But
this is exactly the relation of potentiality and ac
tuality (cf. also the peculiar passage 193, 33). It
must be admitted that Eckhart here expresses
two views which can not be harmonized with one
another, though the second is not fully developed.
Eckhart had a wealth of ingenious ideas, but he was
unable to systematize them.
	The self‑manifestation of God in the Trinity is
followed by his manifestation in his creatures.
Everything in them that is truly real is God's
eternal being; but God's being does not manifest
itself thus in its entire fulness (101, 34; 173, 26;
503, 26). In this antithesis may be expressed the
relation of Eckhart's philosophy to pantheism, both
as regards similarities and differences. Accord
		ing to Eckhart God's creatures have
3. God in not, as Thomas Aquinas held, merely
	Creation.	ideal preexistence in God, i.e. their
		conceptual essence (essentia, quidditos)
coming from the divine intelligence, but their ex
istence (esse) being foreign to the divine being.
Rather is the true being of the creatures immanent
in the divine being. On the other hand, every peculiarity distinguishing creatures from each other is something negative; and in this sense it is said that the creatures are a mere nothing. Should God withdraw from his creatures his being, they would disappear as the shadow on the wall disappears when the wall is removed (31, 2). This perishable being is the creature confined within the limits of space and time (87, 49). On the other hand, every creature, considered according to its true entity, is eternal. It is obvious that this necessarily involves a modification of the idea of creation. Even Augustine and the Schoolmen felt this difficulty. While they did not, like Eckhart connect the existence of the world with the being of God they did consider it unallowable to attribute to God any temporary activity. Albert the Great tried to avoid the difficulty with the sentence, " God created all things from eternity, but things were not created from eternity "; but this is more easily said than conceived. According to the bull of 1329 (p. 2), Eckhart asserted that " it may be conceded that the world was from eternity." It is impossible here to investigate this view further; but reference must be made to the close relation into which Eckhart brings the process of the Trinity and the genesis, or progress, of the world, both of the real and the ideal world (76, 52; 254, 16; 284, 12; cf. Com. in Genes., ALKG, ii. 553, 13‑17).
The unqualified Deity, the Trinity (birth of the Son or of the Eternal Word), and the creation of the world are to him three immediate moments, which follow each other in conceptual, not temporal sequence. All creatures have part in the divine essence; but this is true of the soul in a higher degree. In the irrational creature there is something of God; but in the soul God is divine (230, 26; 231, 4). Though God speaks his word in all creatures, only rational creatures can preserve it (479, 19). In other words, in the soul, where he has his resting‑place, God is subjective, while in the rest of creation he is merely objective. The
soul is an image of God, in so far as 4. The Re‑ its chief powers, memory, reason, and lation of will, answer to the divine persons the Soul (319, 1). This accords with the view to God. of Augustine. Just as there is the
absolute Deity, which is superior to the persons of the Godhead, so in the soul there is something that is superior to its own powers. This is the innermost background of the soul, which Eckhart frequently calls a " spark," or " little spark." In its real nature this basis of the soul is one with the Deity (66, 2). When Eckhart sometimes speaks of it as uncreated (286, 16; 311, 6), and then again as created, this does not involve a contradiction. While, on the one hand, it rests eternally in the Deity, on the other it entered into the temporal existence of the soul, i.e. was made or created through grace. But it is not in this original unity with God that the soul finds its perfection and bliss. As it has a subjective being, it must turn to God, in order that the essential principle implanted in it may be truly realized. It is not enough that it was made by God; God must come and be in it. But this has taken place without

Eckhart Ecstasy
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
hindrance only in the human soul of Christ (67, 12). For all other souls sin is an obstacle.
But wherein does sin consist? Not in the finitenesa, which is never removed from the soul (387, 3; 500, 11), but in the direction of the will toward the finite and its pleasure therein (476, 19; 674, 17). The possibility of sin, however, is based in finiteness, taken together with the free will of the creature. If it is the destiny of the soul to be the resting‑place of God, then the direction of the will toward the finite makes this impossible; and it is this that constitutes sin. Redemption, therefore,
can take place only when the creature Sin and makes room in his soul for the work Redemption. of God; and the condition for that is
	the turning away from the finite.
For God is ever ready to work in the soul, pro
vided he is not hindered and the soul is sus
ceptible to his influence (27, 25; 283, 23; 33, 29;
479, 31). The inner separation from everything
casual, sensual, earthly and the yielding to the work
of God in the heart, that is the seclusion or tran
quillity of which Eckhart speaks again and again.
For him this is the basis of all piety. But what is it
that God accomplishes in the soul? This can be
stated in a word: the birth of the son. As the
soul is an image of the Deity, if it is to fulfil its des
tiny, then that process by which the deity develops
into the three persona must take place in it. The
father procreates in the soul the son (44, 28; 175,
15‑20; 479, 10; 13, 12). This takes place during
the life of the soul in time; and, too, not merely at
a particular moment, but rather continuously
and repeatedly. This is not merely a copy or
analogon of that inner divine process, but is in
truth that very process itself, by which it becomes,
through grace, what the Son of God is by nature
(433, 32; 382, 7; 377, 17). From this view of
Eckhart's follow a number of the most striking
statements in which the soul is made to share in
the attributes and works of God, including the
creation (119, 28‑40; 267, 4; 283, 37‑284, 7).
However, according to Eckhart, a complete fusion
of the soul with the Deity never takes place (387, 3).
He also opposes the doctrine of Apocatastaeis (65,
20; 402, 34; 470, 22).
According to Eckhart sin is not the real cause of the incarnation (591, 34). God wished rather to receive the nature of things through grace in time just as he had them by nature in eternity in himself
(574, 34). Just as a man occupies a 6. The central position in the world, since he
Place of leads all creatures back to God, so
Christ.	Christ stands in the center of humanity
(180, 7; 390, 37.) The same thought is found in Maximus the Confessor and Erigena, but whence did Eckhart get it? Even at the creation of the first man Christ was already the end in view (250, 23); and now after the fact of sin, Christ stands likewise in the center of redemption. After the fall all creatures worked together to produce a man who should restore the harmony (497, 11). This took place when Mary resigned herself so completely to the divine word that the eternal word could assume human nature in her. However, this temporal birth of the son is again included
70
in his eternal birth as a moment of the same (391, 20). And now God is to be born in us. In his human life Jesus becomes a pattern for man; and in all that he did and experienced, above all in his passion and death there is an overwhelming power that draws man to God (218‑219) and brings about in us that which first took place in Christ, who alone is the way to the father (241, 17).
Whatever one may think of Eckhart's philosophical and dogmatic speculations, his ethical view, at any rate, is of rare purity and sublimity. The inner position of man, the disposition of the heart,
		is for him the main thing (56, 39.; 297,
7. Eck‑	11; 444, 8; 560, 43) and with him
hart's	this is not a result of reflection. One
	Ethics.	feels that it comes from the core of his
		personality; and no doubt this was
the principal reason for the deep impression his
sermons made. He speaks little of church ceremo
nies. For him outward penances have only a limited
value. That man inwardly turn to God and be
led by him, that is the main purpose of Eckhart's
exhortations. Let no one think because this or
that great saint has done and suffered many things,
that he should imitate him. God gives to each
his task, and leaves every one on his way (560 sqq.
177, 26‑35). No one can express the fact more
definitely than does Eckhart, that it is not works
that justify man, but that man must first be righteous
in order to do righteous works. Nor does he recom
mend that one flee from the world, but flee from
oneself, from selfishness, and self‑will. Otherwise
one finds as little peace in the cell as outside of it.
Though he sees in suffering the most effective and
most valuable means of inner purification, still he
does not mean that one should seek sufferings of his
own choosing, but only bear patiently whatever
God imposes. He recognizes that it is natural
for one to be affected either pleasantly or unpleas
antly by the various sense‑impressions; but in the
innermost depths of the soul one must hold fast to
God and allow himself to be moved by nothing
(52, 1; 427, 22). It need hardly be added that he
regards highly works of charity. Even supreme
rapture should not prevent one from rendering a
service to the poor. It is noteworthy that, in the
ninth sermon, he puts Martha higher than Mary,
though by a strange misinterpretation of the text.
While Mary enjoyed only the sweetness of the Lord,
being yet a learner, Martha had passed this stage.
She stood firm in the substance, and no work hin
dered her, but every work helped her to blessedness.
	Future investigations will presumably make pos
sible a more accurate estimate of the importance
of Eckhart; but it is hardly possible that they will'
overthrow the verdict of Suso and Tauter concern
ing him. 	S. M. DEUTSCH.

BIHLIOORAPHY: J. Trittenheim, De acrviptordvua eccleaiae
	ticis, ch. 537, Basel, 1494; Franz von Baader, Werke,
	Leipsio, 1851‑60, cf. Index; K. Schmidt, Meister Eckart
	in TSIf, xi (1839), 683 eqq.; H. Martensen, Meister
	Eckart, Hamburg, 1842; F. Pfeiffer, Deutsche Mystiker,
	Vol. ii., Meister Eckart, Stuttgart, 1857; Max Miiller,
	Theoeophie oiler Peycholopiaehe Religion, pp. 503‑518,
	Leipaie, 1859; C. Greith, Die deutsche Myatik irn Pre
	diperorde», Freiburg, 1881; J. Bach, Meister Eckhart, der
	Vater der deutachen Speculation, Vienna, 1884; W. Preger,
	Bin neuar Traktat Meister Eckarte, in ZHT, ,1844, 1B3‑

71	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eokhsrt
Ecstasy
204; A. Lesson, Meister Eckart der Mystiksr, Berlin, 1888 (still important); W. Preger, Meister Eckart and die Inquisition, Munich, 1868; A. Jundt, Easai our to myatieisme ap€culatif de Maitre Eckhart, Strasburg, 1871 (to be consulted with Laseon); W. Preger, Geaehichte der deutachen Myatik im Miftedalter, i. 309‑458. Leipsic. 1874 (to be used with caution); A. Jundt, Hiataire du pantleeieme populaire au moyen dge, pp. 57‑93, Paris, 1875; M. Rider, in W. Waekernagel'a Altdeutache Prediptan and Gebete. PP. 398‑429. Basel, 1878; R. Ullmann, Reformers be/ore the Reformation, ii. 23‑31, Edinburgh, 1877; R. C. Eucken, Geachiehte der Philoaophiachen Term4nolopie, pp. 118‑122, Leipeie, 1879; H. Denifle, Meister Eckarta lateinische 3chritten and die Grundanachauunp seiner Lehre in ALFCG, ii (1888), 41715, and supplement, 81840; idem, Des cuaaniache Exemplar Tateinischer Schri/ten Eckarta, ib. 67378; idem, Die Heimat Meister art@, ib. v (1889), 349‑384; R. A. Vaughan, Hours oath the Mystics, pp. 188‑213, 8th ed., London, n.d.; Neander, limn Church, v. 393‑39i.
ECKHART THE YOUNGER. See MxsTIClans.
ECLECTICISM (from Gk. eklegein, "together"): A term applied to a system of philosophy or theology that strives to incorporate the truth of all systems, or to the method by which such a synthesis is made. In philosophy the best example of eclecticism is found in the Neoplatoniam of the Alexandrine School, while among modern eclectics Leibnitz and Cousin may be mentioned. Since an eclectic system is necessarily a loose piece of mosaic work, rather than an organized body of original thought, the term in philosophy has come to be one of reproach. In theology eclecticism first appeared at Alexandria,. Typical examples of eclectics are Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Synesius, who drew from classical and pagan, as well as from Christian sources.
	ECSTASY: A state of mental exaltation in
which the patient is supposed to be in intimate
communion with the divine. The term connotes a
large variety of phenomena., real or pretended,
natural or evoked, which occur in connection with
religious practises. The external phenomena may
take either of two characters, intense vigor of
physical action in which more than normal en
durance or strength is shown, or a passivity which
may reach the extreme of catalepsy. Not infre
quently the second condition succeeds the first.
During both stages the patient is insensible to pain,
and often maims or wounds himself or performs
feats ‑at other times impossible to him. The con
		dition includes the prophetic frenzy
	General (mania, see DIVINATION) of the Greek
	Character‑ Pythia and of the early Hebrew and
	istics. heathen seers, the exaltation of the
		Mohammedan dervishes, the absorbed
condition of Hindu devotees, and in its extreme
development takes the form of catalepsy. It may
be an unpremeditated result of strong emotion, or it
may be induced. In the latter case, among both
primitive and developed peoples, it is sought with
out intent to deceive or defraud, being prized as an
especial mark of Deity's favor. It is affected by the
shamans, medicine men, and wizards of such tribes
as the Tasmanians, Karens, Zulus, Patagoniana,
Hawaiians and North American Indians, especially
when engaged in divination; and also by the lay
members of such tribes during their religious exer
cises. One of the six systems of Hindu philosophy
has as its direct object the attainment of this condition. In Christian lands it is often an accompaniment of the religious excitement attending revivals and camp‑meetings. When induced by direct effort, t ke chief means are the religious dance or music, or the two combined; but among more advanced peoples solitary contemplation or physical discipline are also used.
The phenomena of ecstasy have left marked traces upon Old and New Testament conceptions, especially in connection with prophecy, and its manifestations are often indicated by the use of the phrase " and the spirit of the Lord [Yahweh] came upon him." In the Old Testament the passage which best describes the condition is Num. xxiv., in which the staring eye (cf. verses 3, 15 R. V. maegin) and the epileptic or cataleptic fall (verse 16) tally closely with the manifestations elsewhere observed. Balsam's oracles are pictured as delivered while
he was in the ecstatic state, in accordBiblical ante with the usual phase of prophecy
Examples. in primitive religion. Gideon is repre‑
sented as coming into this condition (Judges vi. 34), so also Jephthah (Judges xi. 29) and Samson (Judges xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14), in all these cases the results being much like those of the " berserker rage " of the early Norsemen. The ecstatic condition appears to have been normal to the prophetic gilds of the period of the Judges and the early kingdom, and for the first time in I Sam. x. 510, xix. 20‑24 the contagiousness of the condition comes to light, in the case of Saul. Not to be overlooked here is the accompaniment of music and dancing which, with the character of the ensuing phenomena, makes the diagnosis certain. The Baal‑prophets in I Kings xviii. 26‑28, exhibit characteristic features of the frenzy of ecstasy. The prophecy of Elisha recorded in II Kings iii. 1419 was given under conditions like that of Balsam, induced by music. That " madness " was ascribed to the prophets as a class (II Kings ix. 11) shows what were the characteristic methods of prophecy at that time. Possibly the " chirping and muttering " of Isa. viii. 19 refers to the utterances of ecstasy. The phenomena, of the New Testament at Pentecost (Acts ii. 4), the case of Stephen (Acts vii. 55‑58), and of Paul (Acts ix. 3 aqq.; II Cor. xii. 1‑4) are psyc~h~ologically explicable as caste of ecstasy. See INSPIRATION, § 1.
In post‑Biblical times the high estimate of the value of the ecstatic state continued. The Neoplatonic school of philosophy, following Plato himself, placed a high value upon the condition, and Plotinus and Porphyry laid emphasis upon its worth. The Montanistic theory of prophecy necessitated the entire passivity of the prophet in ecstasy.
Mohammed's visions are to be exPost‑ plained from this standpoint, and it is Biblical to be noted in his case that epileptic
	Cases.	symptoms, now regarded by psy
		chologists as a predisposing cause,
were manifested from his childhood. The trans
missibility of this affection was manifested on a
large scale in the Tarantism and Dancing Mania, of
the Middle Ages (See DANCER) which involved a
large area of Central Europe and thousands of euf‑

Ecstasy
Edelmsnn
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ferers. That the visions of many of the saints, such
as those of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Theresa, are
traceable to this cause is highly probable. Bohme
claimed the gift. Bonaventura's Itinerarium men
ds in Deum aims to mark the steps by which the
soul comes in ecstasy into the presence of God.
The story of Joan of Arc, with its details of phe
nomena which seemed to the times to savor of
witchcraft, becomes intelligible with ecstasy as the
key to the mystery. The unrestrained actions mani
fested at periods of revival, especially in colored
communities, reveal both the effects of abnormal
excitement on individuals and the communicability
to large numbers of this psychological affection.
It is noticeable that the frequency of the affection
diminishes before the advance of culture, that the
educated are less liable to its attacks, and that
emotional peoples and individuals are the most
exposed. 	GEO. W. GILMORE.
Originally the word " ecstasy " signified the passage of the soul from the body, involving as a complementary conception its absorption into the Godhead. A further Greek term employed to express the state is enthousiasmus, and it implies the possession of man by deity. Early Christian literature uses several terms to carry the idea, such as theophoros (Ignatius, Epist. to Ephesians, ix. 2), entheos (idem, Epist. to Tralliana, viii. 2), pneumatophoros (Hernias, Mandates, xi. 16). The word " enthusiasm " received a bad sense at the
General	time of the Reformation, as when
	Review.	Luther spoke of the papacy as " a
		vain enthusiasm "and when he called
Zwingli an enthusiast, and the same term is applied
in documents of the Reformation to heretics (G.
Arnold, Kirchen‑ and Ketzerhistorie, part ii., index,
and xvi. 357). The phenomena of ecstatic enthu
siasm were not uncommon in the later Jewish
period, continued from the time of the New Testa
ment, were frequent in the second century, but
fell into discredit through the excesses of Montan
ism. The ecstatic state is discussed by early wri
ters, such as Miltiades, Tertullian, and Augustine.
The last‑named defines it as " an alienation of the
mind from the bodily senses, so that the spirit of
man being taken possession of by the divine spirit
is free for taking and receiving visions " (MPL, xl.
129); he was influenced by Neoplatonism in his at
titude toward it. Dionysius the Areopagite goes
so far as to speak of ecstasy on the part of God
(MPG, iii. 712A). The development of monasti
cism gives frequent examples of the phenomenon.
Tendencies of the same sort appear in modern Rus
sian sects and in the monastic orders of the Eastern
Church. The history of the saints and of heretics
affords frequent instances of persons affected by the
tendency who see visions and work wonders. The
Reformers were firmly opposed to the " fanati
cism " which, they claimed, was exhibited among
the Anabaptists, Mennonites, and other sects. The
exhibitions continued in the later Roman Catholic
Church, e.g., Marie Alacoque, and among Protes
tants, in the case of the Camisards. Although the
eighteenth century was especially unsympathetic
toward any type of irrationalism in religion, Goethe
defended " enthusiasm," and Karat discussed the
72
subject, while Wieland doubted whether the strict philosophical attitude could be justified (Hempel's ed. of his " Works," xXXll. 369 eqq.). The reviews of the subject by Herder and Lessing reached a rather unfavorable conclusion (Herder's " Works," xx. 277 sqq.; Lessing's " Works," ed. Lachmann, xvi. 293 sqq.). The romantic movement of the nineteenth century was rather more favorable, especially in the discussions of about 1830‑40. Examples were seen in the frequent Madonna visions and stigmatizations in the Roman Catholic Church. Among Protestants they were connected with the movements of Pietism and Methodism of the last two centuries, and the record is maintained at the present in accounts of visions of Christ, in speaking with tongues, and in religious healing of disease.
	The internal working of God's spirit in the indi
vidual soul is a certainty, however it may be inter
preted in terms of objective reality. It may take
the position of historic revelation, but in its influ
ence on the development of the Christian Church
it may be distinguished as a kind of secondary rev
elation. To distinguish between the sound and
the unsound in even the derived form is impossible
where the emotional and practical sides of religion
are concerned. The tendency in modern times is
to take an unfavorable view and to label all types
of enthusiasm as fanaticism. Modern enthusiasm
reveals itself in five particulars: the insistence upon
the necessity for new revelations, in a belief in pre
dictive powers, in methods of Christian healing as
by the laying on of hands and prayer, in ascetic
methods of attaining sanctification, and in mille
narian views. 	(KARL Txl>;M>.)
Bat:ooanrar: P. Goerres, Die christliche Myatik, Munich,
	1838‑42; M. Perty, Die myati,aW a Eracheinungen der
	menachlichen Natur, Leipaic, 1884; J. H. Fichte, Pay
	choiopie, pp. b88‑655, ib. 1884; F. Delitzsch, Biblical
	Psychology, PP. 354‑368, 418‑433, Edinburgh, 1887;
	A. Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 86, Lon
	don, 1871; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, i. 123, 438, ii.
	130‑131, 410, Boston, 1874; Charbonnier de Batty, Les
	Maladies lea mystiques, Paris, 1875; H. Schultz, Old
	Testament Theology, i. 254, 274 aqq., Edinburgh 1892•
	w. Walther, Daa Zeugma lea heiliyen Geiates ranch Luther
	and each moderner Schw&rmerei, Leipeic, 1899; T. Ache
	lie, Die Ekataae in ihrer kulturellen Bedeutung, Berlin, 1902;
	C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, $§ b, 7, New York,
1902; w. James, Varieties of Religious Experience, Lon‑
don, 1902; E. Muriaibr, Lea Maladies du sentiment relipieuz, pp. 7‑72, Paris, 1903; P. Beck, Die Ekatase. Bin Beetrap zur Paycholopie and V blkerkunde, Bad 6achea, 1908.
ECTENE, ec'ten‑i or ‑6 (late Gk. ektene [cache], "earnest prayer"; cf. proseuche ektenes, " prayer without ceasing," Acts xii. 5): A prayer in the form of a litany which occurs in the liturgy and other public functions of the Eastern Church. It consists of a varying number of short petitions said by the deacon, to which the choir or congregation respond with Kyrie eleison, or in the supplicatory one with " Grant us, O Lord." All forms end with a request for the intercession of the Virgin and all the saints, followed by an ascription of praise to the Holy Trinity.
ECUADOR: South American republic, so called because it is crossed by the equator; area about 120,000 sq. m.; population about 1,400,000, of which 700,000 are Indians, 500,000 of Spanish descent, and 200,000 negroes and of mixed blood;

73	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ecstasy
Edelmann
there are only 100,000 pure whites in the country. The established religion is Roman Catholicism, which is recognized by the constitution of the republic, to the exclusion of every other confession. However, toleration is shown to foreigners of other confessions; but these, few in number, have never founded an independent congregation. The Church is organized into the archbishopric of Quito (bishopric 1545, archbishopric' since 1848), the six bishoprics of Cuenca (1786), Guayaquil (1837), Ibarra (1862), Loja (1866), Porto Vecchio (1871), and Riobamba (1863), and an apoatolical vicariate at Nopo. The entire territory is divided into 350 parishes, in which are also the cloisters of ten different orders of monks and eleven orders of nuns. The relations of Church to State are regulated by the concordat of 1862, as changed in 1881, which also regulates the receipts of the Church in the several provinces. In general, education, though nominally compulsory, is neglected. Besides a fair number of elementary schools there are nine national colleges, five girls' schools conducted by nuns, a number of seminaries of the clergy, and an old and unimportant university at Quito, with branches at Cuenca and Guayaquil. The Indians in the east, among whom many missions were established by the Jesuits, also by the Franciscans, prior to the separation of South America from Spain, have been allowed to relapse completely into their original state of barbarity. Their religion is fetishism of the crudest variety.
WILHELDI GOETZ.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the country: T. C. Dawson, The South. American. Republics, part 2, New York, 1904; A. Simeon, Travels in the Wilds of Ecuador, London, 1887; T. Wolf, Geopraphfa y geoldgia del Ecuador, Leipsic, 1892; W. Sievers, Amerika, ib. 1893. On the relations of the Church of Rome: El Concordato i la eapoaicion del concejo cantonal de Guayaquil, Guayaquil, 1863 (Concordat between Pius IX. and President Moreno); Nueva version del concordato de 1862 . . . entre . . . Lean XIII. y el presidents . . del Ecuador, Quito, 1882. Consult also J. Lee, Religious Liberty in South America with Special Reference to Recent Legislation in Pens, Ecuador and Bolivia, Cincinnati, 1907.

EDDY, MARY BAKER GLOVER: Founder of " Christian Science "; b. at Bow, near Concord, N. H., July 16, 1821. Her maiden name was Mary Ambrose Morse Baker; she is of Scotch‑English extraction, and numbers among her ancestors a member of the Provincial Congress and soldiers in the war of the Revolution. She received her education at an academy at Tilton, N. H., and from private tutors. Her first church connection was with the Congregational Church at Tilton, which she joined July 26, 1838. She married George Washington Glover, a bricklayer, in Dec., 1843, and went with him to his home in Wilmington, S. C., where she was left a widow in June, 1844, and returned to New Hampshire soon after, where her only child, George Washington Glover, was born in Sept. of the same year. In 1853 she married Daniel Patterson (d. 1896), a dentist, from whom she obtained a divorce in 1873 on the ground of desertion. From childhood she had been weakly in constitution and subject at times to violent hysteria, and in 1862 she came into touch with Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (d. Jan. 16, 1866), a healer who after va‑
rious experiments believed that he had discovered in mental control the secret of Christ's power of healing, and had spoken of his system as " Science of health (and happiness)," " Science of Christ," and once or twice as " Christian Science." She believed herself healed, and after 1864 began to practise his system on herself and others, then to give instruction in the methods of treatment to others. The first attempt at an organization to embody her principles was made at Lynn in 1875. She was married to Asa Gilbert Eddy Jan. 1, 1877 (d. 1888). The Church of Christ, Scientist, later known as the " mother church," was organized by her in Boston in 1879. She also founded the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, which received its charter in 1881, and in 1883 established the Christian Science Journal. For the wide‑spread denomination founded by her see SCIENCE, CHRISTIAN. She has written Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures (the text‑book of her system; many subsequent editions; Boston, 1875); Christian Healing (1886); People's Idea of God (1886); Unity of Good (1891); Rudimental Divine Science (1891); No and Yes (1891); Retrospection and. Introspection (1892); Manual (1895); Miscellaneous Writings (1896); Christ and Christmas (1897); Pulpit and Press (1898); Christian Science versus Pantheism (1898); Message to the Mother Church (1900); Our Leader's Message (1901); and Truth versus Error (1905).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Brisbane, Mary Baker G. Eddy, Boston, 1908.

EDDY, RICHARD: Universalist; b. at Providence, R. L, June 21, 1828; d. at Gloucester, Mass., Aug. 16, 1906. He was graduated at Clinton Theological Seminary, Clinton, N. Y., in 1849, became chaplain of the Sixtieth New York State Volunteers 1861‑63, and was lecturer on the history of Universalism at Tuft's College 1882‑83 and on the dogmatic history of Universalism at the same institution in 1902 and at St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y., in 1906. In theology he based his belief in universal salvation on the will, purpose, and pleasure of God and the mission of Christ, as well as on his acceptance of the doctrine of the remedial character of punishment and the ever‑enduring freedom of the human will. He edited the Universalist Quarterly Review 1888‑‑94 and the Universalist Register (the year‑book of the denomination) after 1888, and wrote The History of the Sixtieth Regiment New York State Volunteers (Philadelphia, 1864); History of Universalism in America (2 vols., Boston, 1883‑85); Alcohol in History (New York, 1888); Alcohol in Society (1890); Universalism in Gloucester, Mass. (Gloucester, Mass., 1894); History of Universalism (1894); and Life of Thomas J. Sawyer (Boston, 1904).

EDELMARN, 6'del‑mdn, JOHANN CHRISTIAN: German rationalist; b. at Weisaenfels (20 m. s.w. of Leipsic) July 9, 1698; d. at Berlin Feb. 15, 1767. In 1720 he began the study of theology at Kiel, but even before his examination at Eisenach in 1724 he had secretly determined to renounce the ministry. His personal experiences among Roman Catholics and Pietists enlarged his views but turned him more and more from Christianity. Wherever he went

Eden
Edersheim
he antagonized those whom he had hoped to win,
and he successively abandoned the Moravians, the
mystic separatists of Berleburg, and the Huguenot
Inspired at Homburghausen, finally living as an
individualistic separatist. His interpretation of the
Johannine " The Word was God" as " God is
reason " made his way clear before him. Hence
forth, financially aided by his friends, he began to
write in propaganda of his convictions, his works
including Moses mit aufgedecktem Angesicht (Berle
burg, 1740); Die G6ttlichkeit der Vernunft (1741);
Die Begierde each der verniinftigen lautern Milch
(Hachenburg, 1744); Glaubensbekenntnis (Neuwied,
1746), and Das Evangelium St. Harenberga (Altona,
1748). Edehnann met with opposition everywhere,
until Frederic II. allowed him to live at Berlin on
condition that he publish nothing more. He ac
cordingly engaged in private literary work, which
he continued until his death. Denying the validity
of the Bible as a source of religious knowledge,
Edelmann sought to base religion on nature and
human thought, claiming that the world is a copy
of the supramundane deity. This divinity 'is not
actually transcendental, but the " living God is
simply the uninterrupted existence and essence of
all things themselves." He regarded all positive
religions as imperfect forms of man's concept of
his relation to the universe and consequently to
God. 	PAUL TSCHACKERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Edelinann's autobiography was edited by C. R. W. Mom, Berlin, 1849. Consult: K. Guden, Johann Christian Edelmanu, Hanover, 1870; J. H. Pratje, Hietoriaelte Nachrichten von J. C. Ed.,.. . . Leben, Hamburg, 1755; F. MnokebergReimmrue and Edelmaun, ib. 1867; B. Bauer, Einftuea des engliadun Qud.kertuma au/ die deuteche %ultw, Berlin. 1878: ADB, v. 839‑640.
EDEN: According to Gen. ii. 8, Eden was the country where God " planted a garden," in which he placed the man" whom he had formed." It is therefore called the garden of God (Ezek. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 8, 9) or the garden of Yahweh (Isa. xi. 3), and is
		the very symbol of peace, for in it all
	The De‑	animals which God had created lived
	scription	on terms of friendship (Gen. ii. 19 sqq. )
is Genesis.	and the two human beings enjoyed
uninterrupted communion with God (ii. 16, 22, iii. 8 sqq.). The garden was luxuriously furnished with vegetation (ii. 9), of which the figtree (iii. 7), the " tree of life," and the " tree of knowledge of good and evil " find special mention. It was man's duty to dress and keep the garden (ii. 15); here he named the animals (ii. 20), and here the woman was fashioned out of his " rib " (or " side," ii. 21, 22). Upon the pair, living in this felicity, was put but one prohibition, that they should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (ii. 17). Through the serpent's guile the woman was led to disobey this command (iii. 1‑5) and the man yielded to her temptation and also ate of the fruit (iii. 6). Deprived by this act of their first innocence, they made for themselves aprons of fig leaves, and hid themselves from God (iii. 7, 8). Thereupon God cursed the serpent, but promised future victory for the human race,‑the so‑called protevangelium (iii. 15). But man was punished by being driven from the garden,
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
74
that he might not eat of the tree of life and so live forever (iii. 22). At the east of the garden God placed the cherubim and a flaming sword, turning every way by its own motion, to keep the road to the tree of life (iii. 24).
Stories of an early period of innocence and happiness in the history of the human race are found among other peoples than the Hebrews. In India
and Persia‑stories with marked super Other ficial resemblances to the Genesis
Similar	narrative have been found. When the
Stories.	Assyrian and Babylonian literature
first began to be accessible many hoped that it would afford still closer parallels, as it ultimately did to the creation and flood narratives of Genesis. This hope was quickened by the discovery of a small cylinder seal, now in the British Museum, upon which were cut the figures of a male and female on opposite sides of a tree, with hands stretched toward it, while behind the female is art upright snake. But closer examination makes it doubtful whether this has any relationship to the Biblical temptation. The figures are clothed, and the male figure is certainly intended to represent s god, as it is provided with horns, and the female is quite probably intended to represent a goddess. What the serpent may mean is doubtful, though Jensen suggests it may represent a guardian. The meaning of the scene is likely to remain doubtful until the discovery of some written explanation of it in Babylonian mythology. The Babylonian legend of Adapa has been compared with the Biblical story, but the resemblance is not close. Adapa is the son of the god Ea, from whom he had received wisdom but not everlasting life. Adapa, who is a sort of half divine being, lives at Eridu as a local wise man, and priest of Ea's temple, to which it is his care to supply bread and water. While fishing one day in the Persian Gulf his boat was overturned by the south wind, whose wings Adapa at once broke in anger, so that for seven days it was not able to blow. Summoned before the god Anu to answer for this misdeed, Adapa was warned by Ea that Anu would offer him water of death and bread of death, both of which he must decline. Anu, however, relented and offered him bread of life and water of life, which Adapa declined and so missed his chance of eternal life.
The writer of the story of Eden evidently intended to convey a definite and exact idea of its location. He has described and named its rivers, and told what lands lay contiguous to them, and has even given the characteristics of these lands. But, explicit as he is, the identification of his details is
so difficult that no consensus of opinion Attempts has been reached, nor does any seem
to Locate to be in prospect. It would be almost
Eden.	safe to say that the views of the loca‑
tion of Eden are as numerous as the scholars who have investigated the problem. The earlier attempts at a solution may be passed by, as not conforming to geographical conditions as recent investigations have made them known; and the more or less eccentric views which would find the Biblical Paradise in Atlantis, Lemuria, or

76	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eden
Lderahefm
the North Pole, need only be mentioned. The
	suggestions which have found moat approval in
	modern times are the following: (1) Eden was in
	the Far East. This view identifies the Pison with
	the Indus or Ganges, and Gihon with the Nile.
	The theory has several different forma, and in most
	of them can be regarded only as holding that Eden
was in Utopia, the Land of the Golden Nowhere,
	for by no possibility can the Nile and the Indus
	or Ga4ea ever have been derived from one head.
	Some of the adherents of this view look upon the
	Genesis accounts as based upon ignorance of geo
	graphical facts or as wholly ideal. Delitzach and
	Dillmann may be cited as the chief names in sup
	port of this hypothesis. The formersays: " The in
	spiration of the Biblical writers did not, in matters
	of natural knowledge, raise them above the level of
	their age; it need, therefore, cause no surprise if the
	Biblical representation of Paradise bears marks of
	the imperfect geographical knowledge of the an
	cients." (2) Eden was near Eridu in southern
	Babylonia. This view based partly on the investi
	gations of Eduard Glaser has been propounded
	and supported with ingenuity and learning by Fritz
	Hommel. He identifies the rivers Pison, Gihon,
	and Hiddekel with three wadies in northern Arabia,
	named respectively the Wa3y Dawasir, the Wady
	Rumma and the Wady Sirhan. But these are dry
	valleys and not rivers, and the identification is in
	other respects not easily reconciled with the Genesis
	statements. (3) Eden was in northern Babylonia
	near the city of Babylon. This location was first
	suggested by Friedrich Delitzach in 1881. Ac
	cording to him Eden was the whole plain of Baby
	lonia, and Paradise was located where the Tigris
	and Euphrates most nearly approach each other.
	The river Pison is the great canal Palla,kopae,
	running west and south of the Euphrates (Assyrian
	pisanu=river bed) and the Gihon with the canal
	Shatt al‑Nil, which rune east from the Euphrates
	from Babylon and rejoins it near Ur. On the
	whole this theory seems best to meet the conditions
	laid down in Genesis, but its acceptance among
	scholars has not been general. (4) Quite recently
	the view advocated by Gunkel that the original
	Eden was in heaven and the rivers are represented
	by the Milky Way and its four arms has found
	support among certain scholars. Upon this theory
	the earthly Eden is but a reflection and so may
	have been located in several places by different
	peoples, as for example in Babylonia, or Arabia.
	See ADAM, II. 	ROBERT W. ROGERS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature up to 1892 is in O. ZSCkler, Bibliache and kircherehiatoriache Studien, v. 3 sqq., Munich, 1893, sad in moat of the commentaries on Genesis. Consult: Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag dae Paradieat Leipsic, 1881 (a book of wide reputation); F. Spiegel, Eraniache Alterthumakunde, i. 473 sqq., 522 sqq., ib. 1871• W. Baudissin, Studien our aemitiachen Aelipionepeechichte, ii. 189‑190, ib. 1875; E. Glaser, Skizze der C3eachichte . . Arabiena, ii. 323 sqq., 341 sqq., Berlin, 1890; P. Jensen, Koemologie, Strasburg, 1890; idem, in Keilinachriftliche Bibliothek, vi. 1, Berlin, 1900; C. H. Toy, in JBL, x (1891), 1‑19; It. Nestle, Marginalien and Materialen, pp. 4‑6, Tiibingen, 1893; A. H. $ayee, "Higher Criticism' and the Monuments, pp. 95 sqq., London, 1894; A. Dillmann on Genesis in Kurzgefaaatea exepetiaches Handbuch, Leipsic, 1892, Eng. tranal., 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1897; F. Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, London,
1897; H. Gunkel, on Genesis in Handkommentar zum Alter Testament, Giittingen, 1901; E. C. Worcester, (ieneaie in the Light of Modem Knowledge, pp. 148‑258, New York, 1901; Schrader, KAT, pp. 520‑530; DB, i. 843844; EB, iii. 3569‑3583; JE, v. 38‑39.
EDEN, GEORGE RODNEY: Church of England bishop of Wakefield; b. at Sunderland (14 m. n.e. of Durham), Durham county, England, Sept. 9, 1853. He studied at Pembroke College, Cambridge (B.A., 1878), and became honorary fellow in 1903. He was ordered deacon in 1878 and ordained priest in 1879, and was assistant master of Aysgarth School, Yorkshire, 18?8‑79, domestic chaplain to Bishop Lightfoot of Durham 1879‑83, and chaplain to Bishop Lightfoot and vicar of Auckland 1883‑90. In 1890 he was consecrated bishop auffragan of Dover. He was also rural dean of Auckland from 1887 to 1890, and archdeacon and canon of Canterbury, as well as chaplain of the Cirque Ports, from 1892 to 1897. He was select preacher at Cambridge in 1886, 1890, 1892, and 1894, and at Oxford in 1899‑1900. In 1897 he was translated to the see of Wakefield. In theology he has sympathy for many varieties of opinion‑High, Broad, and Low Church‑within the Church in so far as they are compatible with loyalty to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
EDERSHEIM, 6'dera‑haim, ALFRED: Biblical scholar; b. at Vienna, Mar. 7, 1825; d. at Merton, France, Mar. 16, 1889. He was of Jewish parentage, and received his earliest education in a gymnasium of his native city and in the talmttd torah attached to a Viennese Synagogue. In 1841 he continued his studies at the University of Vienna, but left it before taking his degree on account of the financial reverses of his father. Going to Pesth as a teacher of languages, he came under the influence of John Duncan, a Scotch Presbyterian chaplain to workmen engaged in constructing a bridge over the Danube, and was converted to Christianity. Ederaheim accompanied Duncan on his return to Scotland and studied theology at New College, Edinburgh, and at the University of Berlin. In 1846 he was ordained to the ministry of the Presbyterian Church. He was for a year a missionary to the Jews at Jassy, Rumania, and on his return to Scotland, after preaching for a time in Aberdeen, was installed at the Free Church, Old Aberdeen, in 1849. In 1861 failing health forced him to resign and the Church of St. Andrew was built for him at Torquay. In 1872 his health again obliged him to retire, and for four years he lived quietly at Bournemouth. In 1875 he took orders in the Church of England, and was curate of the Abbey Church, Christchurch, Hants, for a year, and from 1876 to 1882 vicar of Lodera, Dorsetahire, besides being Warburtonian Lecturer at Lincoln's Inn 1880‑84. In 1882 he resigned his living and removed to Oxford. He was select preacher to the University 1884‑85 and Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint 1886‑88 and 1888‑90. His works include History of the Jewish Nation after the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (Edinburgh, 1856); The Temple
Its Ministry and Services at the Time of Jesus Christ (London, 1874); Bible History (7 vole., 1876‑87); Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (1876):

Bdeesa
Edmund
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
The Life and Times of Jesus the. Messiah (2 vole.,
1883; condensation in one volume, 1890), his greatest work; and Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah (Warburton Lectures for 18801884, 1885); Tohurua‑Vohu, " Without form and Void." A Collection of fragmentary Thoughts and Criticisms. Ed. with a Memoir, by Ella Ederaheim (1890).
EDESSA: An important city of Northern Mesopotamia. It is located on the Daisan, an eastern tributary of the Euphrates, nearly midway between Diarbekir and Aleppo on the straight line which joins them, in 37° 21' n. let., and 39° 6' e. long. The Targum of pseudo‑Jonatliau, Jerome, and Ephraem Syrua wrongly identified the city with the Erech of Gen. x. 10, and this may be reflected in the Arabic tradition which connects the place with the death of Abraham, after whom the principal mosque of the city is called. The early name is unknown. The city came into historical prominence as a part of the Greek empire in the time of Seleucus, who possibly renamed it after the Macedonian Edema, though an etymological suggestion is that Edessa is a corruption of the Syriac Hadttha, " New City." By the Greeks it was also called Callirrhoe (doubtless from its fountain), whence carne the Syrian name Urhoi, the Arabic el‑Roha, and the Turkish Urfa.
Edessa remained theoretically a city of the Seleucid kingdom till 138 s.c., when it became the capital of the Oerohenic (Chosroenic) kingdom founded by Oarhoea (Orhoi bar‑Khevy o), among whose successors was Abgar (q.v.), famous for the alleged correspondence with our Lord (Eusebiua, Hilt. eccl., L, xxiii. aqq.). It was plundered by Trajan's general Lucius Quietus, 116 A.D., and the kingdom was made tributary to the Romans, though its independence was restored by Hadrian, probably the following year. In 217 its autonomy was ended by Caracalla, and a Roman colony was established there. During the next century it suffered severely in the ware between Romans and Persians, and it was visited by Julian, who proposed to distribute the wealth of the native Christians and churches among his soldiers. In 609 the Persians were in possession, and in 641 the Mohammedans took it. It was captured in the crusade under Godfrey of Bouillon in 1097 and remained in Christian hands till 1144, when it again became a Moslem possession. In 1234 it belonged to the Byzantinea, Tamerlane took it in 1393, and the Turks in 1637.
The city was early a seat of Christianity, and an untrustworthy tradition attributes the introduction of the religion to Thaddeus (see Junns) or to Addai, alleged to be one of the Seventy sent by Thomas the Apostle (see ABGAR, and cf. Acts Thaddtei, ArocRYPHA, B, IL, 12). This Syrian tradition makes Addai the first bishop, and his immediate successors Aggaeus and Barsimaeus. The first Christian church built there is said to have been destroyed by a flood in 202 A.D., which testifies to the early establishment of Christianity there. In the third century it was the seat of a bishop, and in the fourth was a city of monasteries as well. as the chief seat of Syrian Christian learning with its famous schools whence issued a long line of famous scholars.
Ephraem Syrus made it his home, and Sozomen (Hist. eccl., vi. 18) affirms that in the time of Valens (363‑378) most of the inhabitants were Christians. The type of Christianity seems to have changed from orthodox to Arian and later to Nestorian. Under Diocletian it appears to have been the scene of many martyrdoms, and under Sapor II. of Persia the Christians there suffered severe persecutions. It is still the seat of an Armenian archbishop, and it gives the name to a titular°Roman Catholic archbishopric. Its present population is estimated at between 30,000 and 50,000, nearly all Mohammedans, with about 2,000 Armenian Christians and about 500 Jews.
GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The basal source for the early history is the Chronscou Edeasenum, ed. I. Guidi, m Syriac and Latin, 1903, also in J. $. Aaseman, Bibliofheca oneutalis, i. 388417, Rome, 1719; consult also T. L. Bayer, Hilt. Osr)wena et Edeeaerea ex nummis illuatrata, $t. Petersburg, 1734. The Christian sources are indicated m the text m the ecclesiastical histories of Euaebius, I. iii. eqq., $ozomen, iii. 14, 18, and Socrates, iv. 18. Consult further: L. J. Tixeront, Les Origines de Nglise d 1desse, Paris, 1888; A. Buffs, La Ugende d'Abpar et lea origirAea de l'bpliae d'LEdease, Geneva, 1893; F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, chap. i, London, 1904.
EDIFICATION (Gk., oikodom'e, "building up," oikodomein, ekoikodomein, " to build up "): In a metaphorical sense a term peculiar to Christianity, occurring in the New Testament, in Matt. xvi. 18; Acts ix. 31, xx. 32; I Pet. ii. 5; Jude 20, and especially in Paul. The notion goes back to the conception of the congregation (Eph. ii. 21‑22; I Cor. iii. 9, 16) and the individual Christian (I Cor. vi. 19; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 17) as the " temple of God "; but it transcends the literal significance of the word in so far as the subject in whom the edification takes place receives his origin through edification in the literal sense, but in the metaphysical sense is already in existence before the edification (so in I Pet. ii. 5). Pagans are not " built up " to a congregation of Christ, nor do individual Christians by their union " build up " the congregation, but the existing congregation of Christ is " built up " into the congregation of Christ, a member of the congregation into a member of the congregation of Christ, by edification the congregation and the individual Christian becomes that which it (or he) already is. By faith in Christ the congregation like the individual Christian has entered into the status perfectionis; more than the congregation of Christ it can not become as the individual Christian can not become more than a child of God. But the task is to become perfectly that which they are, and to realize fully the principle of the new life: the activity by which this is accomplished is " edification."
According to Matt. xvi. 18 Christ is the subject, and Christians as a whole are the object of the " edification" ; according to Eph. iv. 16 Christians as a whole and according to Rom. xiv. 19 the individual congregation are the subject and object of the " edification; " according to I Cor. xiv. 4, " he that prophesieth," according to Eph. iv. 29 every Christian in every word is the subject and the congregation the object, of the "edification"; according to Rom. xv. (I These. v. 11; I Cor. xiv. 17) the

qq	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Edens&
Edmund
individual is to " edify " the individual; according to I Cor. xiv. 4, " he that speaketh in a tongue"' " edifieth " himself (only). But whether the congregation edifies itself, or an individual the congregation, or another individual, or himself, the supreme subject of ell " edification " is Christ the Lord, who exercises his edifying activity through his Gospel, through the gifts of his Spirit, through the new life (especially through love, I Cor. viii. 1), which he has awakened and preserves in his congregation. Christ himself leads his congregation and its individual members unto perfection.
E. C. ACHELIS.
EDMUND (EADMUND), SAINT, OF CANTERBURY (EDMUND RICH): Archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Abingdon (7 m. s. of Oxford), Berkshire, c. 1175; d. at Soisy‑en‑Brie (75 m. s.e. of Paris), France, Nov. 16, 1240 or 1242. He studied at the universities of Oxford and Paris and became a teacher about 1200, or a little earlier. For six years he lectured on mathematics and dialectics, apparently dividing his time between Oxford and Paris, and winning distinction for his part in introducing the study of Aristotle. Through the influence of a pious mother he had led from boyhood a life of singular self‑denial and austerity; and it is not surprising to find him tiring of secular subjects and ready to go over to theology. Though for some time he resisted the change, he finally entered upon his new career between 1205 and 1210. He received ordination, took a doctorate in divinity, and soon won fame as a lecturer on theology and as an extemporaneous preacher. After expounding the " Lord's Law " for a number of years, Edmund became disgusted with scholasticism and gave up his chair at Oxford. Some time between 1219 and 1222 he was appointed treasurer of Salisbury Cathedral, and held this position for eleven years, during which time he also engaged in preaching. In 1227, at the bidding of Innocent III., he preached the sixth crusade through a large part of England.
In 1233 came the news of his appointment, by Gregory IX., to the archbishopric of Canterbury. The chapter had already made three selections which the pope had declined to confirm, and Edmund's name had been proposed as a compromise by Gregory, perhaps on account of his work for the crusade, and he was consecrated Apr. 2, 1234. Before his consecration he allied himself with the national party, whose object was to make the kingdom independent, maintain the Great Charter and exclude foreigners from civil and ecclesiastical office, and in the name of his fellow bishops he admonished Henry III. at Westminster, Feb. 2, 1234, to take warning of his father, King John. A week after his consecration he again appeared before the king with the barons and bishops, this time threatening his sovereign with excommunication, if he refused to dismiss his councilors, particularly Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester. This threat was sufficient. The objectionable favorites were dismissed; and soon the archbishop was sent to Wales to negotiate peace with Prince Llewellyn.
In 1237, in order to destroy the authority of Edmund, Henry induced the pope to send Cardinal Otto as legate to England. Through numerous
disputes with bishops and monks, not to speak of the rupture with the king, and the excommunication of Simon de Montfort and his bride, Edmund had already made his position a difficult one. As the champion of the national Church against the claims of Rome he now found himself arrayed against the pope. In Dec., 1237, he set out for Rome, hoping to enlist the pope on the side of ecclesiastical reform. From this futile mission he returned to England in Aug., 1238, to find himself reduced to a cipher. If he excommunicated his monks, they appealed to Rome and paid no attention to his interdict. Finding himself foiled at every turn he finally submitted to the papal demands; and early in 1240, hoping to win his cause against his monks, he paid to the pope's agents one fifth of his revenue, which had been levied for the pope's war against Emperor Frederick II. Other English prelates followed his example. Then came the demand that 300 English benefices should be assigned to as many Romans. This attack upon the rights of the national Church was more than Edmund could endure. In the summer of 1240, broken in spirit, he retired to the abbey of Pontigny, France, which had been the refuge of his predecessors, St. Thomas and Stephen Langton. A few months later he died at the priory of Soisy. In less than a year after his death miracles were alleged to be wrought at his grave; and in 1247 he was canonized.
Edmund is one of the moat attractive figures of medieval history. His life was one of self‑sacrifice and devotion to others. From boyhood he practised asceticism; and throughout his life he wore sackcloth next his skin, pressed against his body by metal plates. After snatching a few hours' sleep without removing his clothing, he usually spent the rest of the night in prayer and meditation. Besides his " Constitutions," issued in 1236 (printed in W. Lynwood's Cotiorves Anglite, Oxford, 1679), he wrote Speculum ecclesice (London, 1521; Eng. transl., 1527; reprinted in M. de la Bigne's Bibliotheca veterum patrxcm, v., Paris, 1609).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Vita by Bertrand of Pontigny, with Epiatohs vario; and other pertinent material is in E. MarWne, Thesaurus rwvue aneedotorum, iii. 1775‑1826, Paris, 1717; another, by his brother, Robert Rich of Pontigny, is in L. Surius, Yitm sanetorum, Nov., vi. 388‑378, Paris, 1575 and is also in W. Wallace, Life of St. Edmund of Canterbury, London, 1893. Sources of knowledge are the works of Matthew of Paris, ed. H. R. Luard, no. 57 of the Rolls Series, vole. iii.‑v.; Annales monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, no. 38 of Rolls Series, 4 vole.; Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, no. 71 of Rolls Series, vol. ii. MS. material is indicated in T. D. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, no. 26 of Rolls Series, iii. 87‑9B; while documents of value are given in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 483, 465. Modern accounts, besides the work of wgllaee ut sup., are: OV. F. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops
of Canterbury, vol. iii., 12 vols., London, 1880‑76; E. Jaepar, Notice biographique sur S. Edmorul, Lille, 1872; L. F. Masse, The Life of S. Edmond of Canterbury, London 1874• ib. 1897; F. de Paravieini, Life of St. Edmund of Abingdon, ib. 1898; W. R. W. Stephens, The English [Church 1066‑127,0, pp. 22$‑233, 277, ib. 1901; DNB, avi. 405‑410.
EDMUND (EADMUftD), SAINT, THE MARTYR: Last king of the East Angles; b. in Nuremberg 841, the son of King Alkmund; killed by the Danes near Hoxne (25 m. n. of Ipswich), Suffolk,

Edward. Saint
THE NEAP SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Nov. 20, 870. As the adopted son of Offa, the East Anglian king, he succeeded that monarch Dec. 25, 855. It was the time of the Danish incursions in England. In 870 a formidable band of the heathen attacked East Anglia, and according to the not altogether trustworthy accounts, Edmund determined to sacrifice himself in the hope of saving his people. He was bound to a tree, tortured, and finally beheaded. His remains were interred at Hoxne for thirty‑three years and then deposited at the town now known as Bury St. Edmunds, where Canute built a magnificent church and abbey in his honor in 1020. Whether Edmund was ever formally canonized is doubtful, but miracles were attributed to him soon after his death, his shrine was long one of the most frequented resorts of English pilgrims, and his sainthood was unquestioned in the popular estimation. His piety, meekness, and benevolence are highly extolled and it is said that he shut himself up in his tower at Hunstanton in Norfolk for au entire year to memorize the Psalter.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Paeaio aanctd Edmunds, by Abbo., ed. T. Arnold, is in Rolls Series. No. 98, London, 1890. Consult the Anglo‑Saxon Chronicle, ea. B. Thorpe, in Rolls Series. No. 23, ib. 1861; DNB. xvi. 40p‑401.
	EDOM, EDOMITES: The country known in
the	Old Testament principally as Edom (Hebr.
			'Edhom, Assyr. U dtcmu or Udumi,
		The	Egyptian Aduma) lay southeast of
	Country Palestine, and included the valley
		and	of the Arabah south of the Dead Sea,
		its	approximately 100 miles in length,
	Names.	and the mountain ranges which border
			it, with a somewhat indefinite extent
of territory east and west, corresponding to the pres
ent	al‑Sher9,. In its greatest extent it reached
north and south from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of
Akabah, eastward to the Arabian desert, and west
ward to the desert of Sin (Josh. xv. 1). The name
most probably means " Red (Land)," from the color
of the sandstone cliffs which are a prominent feature
of the topography. Other possibilities are that
Edom is the name of a deity, or that it means " man
(par excelteyece)," being connected with " Adam,"
the Bible name for the first man. The country is
also	known as Seir and Mount Seir (Heb. Se'ir,
" hairy," possibly from the effect of the wooded
or brushy crests of the mountains as seen from a
distance, Gen. xxv. 25, 30, xxvii. 11, 23, xxxii. 3;
Num. xxiv. 18; Deut. i. 44; and often); and, poet
ically, " the mountains of Esau " (Obad. 8‑9, 19,
21).	The later name was Idumea (Isa. xxxiv. 5‑6;
Ezek. xxxv. 15, xxxvi. 5; Mark iii. 8). The region
is at present for the moat part barren, though por
tions in the east are not only tillable but luxuriantly
fertile. The valley has an elevation of 600 feet near
the middle part of its length, and slopes northward
down to the Dead Sea, and south to the eastern arm
of the Red Sea. Among its cities were Maon (Judges
x. 12), the present Ma'an; Punon or Pinon (Num.
xxxiii. 42‑43; cf. Gen. xxxvi. 41); Bozrah (Gen.
xxxvi. 33, and often), probably the capital, the
modern Buseirah; Selah or Petra (I1 Kings xiv. 7).
Possibly Teman (Gen. xxxvi. 34; Jer. xlix. 7, 20;
Amos i. 12; and often) was the name of a district,
78
not of a city. An important feature of the country were the trade‑routes which cut or skirted it, especially that from Damascus to the Red Sea, and the eastern and western road from Babylonia to Egypt.
The Edomitea belonged to the northern branch of the Semitic race, with the Moabites, Ammonites,
and Hebrews constituting the Hebraic The group. The Old Testament makes People. them descendants of Esau (who is as
eponym given the name Edom because of his coloring; cf. Gen. xxv. 25), the elder brother of Jacob‑Israel. This statement of the relationship of the two brothers is the expression of the consciousness in Israel of the earlier origin or crystallization into nationality of the Edomitea. But the latter appear as the conquering invaders of the country, not as the autochthonous inhabitants, who are called " sons of Seir the Horite " or " Horitea " (Gen. xxxvi. 2, 20; Dent. ii. 12, 22; cf. the Egyptian Sca'a2rn; "Horitea" probably means troglodytes; Gee GEZER; cf. the Egyptian designation of the people as Haru), who are represented as continuing in the land, while the Egyptian reports of two peoples as " Beduin from Aduma" and Sa'aira existing side by side east of Egypt corroborate the representation. According to Gen. xxxvi. 15‑19 the Edomites were composed of thirteen clans; Gen. xxxvi. 40‑43 implies only eleven. Gen. sxxvi. 31 names eight Edomitic kings; and Num. xx. 14 and Judges xi. 17 imply a kingdom as early as Moses. The people are described as hunters, agriculturists, and viticulturists, which corresponds to the nature of the country. Their home on the great roads of commerce also gave them tribute from that source, and they may have been carriers. Of their religion little is known; II Chron. xxv. 14 makes them polytheists (cf. I Kings xi. 5‑6). Divine names form elements in the names usually borne by Edomites, and it has been shown to be plausible that the name Edom belonged to a deity who became the eponymous ancestor of the people (cf. the names Gad and Asher [qq.v.]). The name Obodedom, " servant of Edom " (found also in an inscription from Carthage), is much in favor of this hypothesis, while an Egyptian papyrus knows of a goddess Atuma, possibly implying a Semitic male deity Atum. . The element Baal in Baalhanan (Gen. xxxvi. 38‑39) may be a mere appellative. Hadad (Hadar, Gen. xxxvi. 35‑36, 39; I Kings xi. 14 sqq.) may have been an Aramean loan‑god. In the cuneiform inscriptions a proper name is possibly to be read Malik‑ra,mmu, the first element of which may be compared with Moloch in its general meaning of king of his people. Ye'ush, an Edomite clan name (Gen. xxxvi. 5), may be the Edomitic form of Ya'uth, the name of an Arabic deity. Josephus (Ant. XV., vii. 9) knows of an Edomitic deity Koze, and he is corroborated by numerous inscriptions in cognate languages and by the element Kaus appearing in proper names (see below). Nothing is known of Edomitic civilization, though the trade‑routes passing through the land must have had results in this direction. One of Job's friends was Eliphaz of Teman, presumably an Edomite, and it has been plausibly suggested that the Book of Job is Edomitic. Not a single inscrip‑

79
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
31dom
Edward, Saint
tion of the language has survived, but the tongue probably differed only dialectically from Hebrew.
Apait from the early Biblical references (lien. xxxvi. 35, which credits the Edomitea with a victory over the Midianitea), the region and its
History people enter history by the mention in
till the Egyptian documents of the thirteenth
Assyrian century of Shasu (Bedouin) from Aduma
Period. (ut sup.) who were allowed to pasture their flocks near the Egyptian frontier, and a papyrus states that the Shasu of Sa'aira (Seir) were defeated in battle (c. 1200). Gen. xxxii. 4, xxxvi. 8 asserts that Esau took up his abode on Mount Seir. The story of the Exodus makes Israel encompass the Edomitic territory, permission being refused to pass directly through the region. The next contact of the two peoples appears in the campaign of Saul against them (I Sam. xiv. 47), which appears to have had no permanent results, as David was in conflict with them probably in the valley south of the Dead Sea (II Sam. viii. 13‑14; cf. I Kings xi. 15‑16; I Chron. xviii. 11‑13), and Joab is said to have extirpated the males in this campaign of half a year. At this time probably was laid the beginning of that intense enmity between the peoples which lasted till the time of Herod the Greet. One of the royal house escaped either to Egypt (Heb. Mizraim) or to the North Arabian Muxri (see ABaYRIA, VI, §2), where he married and his r3on Genubath was brought up, and then proved a thorn in the side of Solomon (I Kings xi. 14‑22, 25b, where read 'Edham instead of 'Aram, " Syrians "). The tatter's command of the Gulf of Akaba, involving control of the roads leading thither, shows that the Edomitic territory was under Hebrew dominion (I Kings ix. 26‑28). After the division of the kingdom Edom fell to the portion of Judah, and in the time of Jehoahaphat (c. 850) must still have been subject to Judah (II Kings iii.), since the king of Judah was in control of Ezion‑geber (I Kings xxii. 48); it is also stated (ver. 47) that the ruler of Edom at the time was a " deputy " (cf. II Kings iii. 9. 10, 12, 26, where the ruler is called king). In the campaign of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat against Moab the Edomites furnished part of the allied forces, almost certainly as a tributary people. In the reign of Jehoshaphat's son Joram they revolted, with at least partial success (II Kings viii. 20‑22; II Chron, xxi. 8‑10). Amaziah inflicted a severe defeat (c. 790), capturing Selah (II Kings xiv. 7; II Chron. xxv. 11), and Amaziah's successor Uzziah was in possession of Elath, one of the ports on the Gulf of Akabah (II Kings xiv. 22; II Chron. xxvi. 2, 7). Later the Edomitea seem to have been allies of the Syrians (II Kings xvi. 6), and were active against Judah (II Chron. xxviii. 17).
They figure in the cuneiform inscriptions about 734‑732 as tributary to Assyria under their king Kauamalik. In 711 Edom was a member of the great western coalition against Sargon, but rendered tribute to the great conqueror. They were also in the confederation of 701 led by Hezekiah, but the Edomitic king Malik‑ralnxnu submitted and paid tribute. Kausgabri, king of Edom, was one of the princes subject to Eaarhaddon (681‑668) and to Aashurbanipal (668‑626). Edomitic representatives
were among those who consulted at Jerusalem, evidently with the idea of resisting the approach of Nebuchadrezzar (Jer. xxvii. 3). The Deuteronomic representation implies friendly relations about 625 (Deut. ii. 4‑5, xxiii.8). On the capture of Jerusalem Judean fugitives found refuge in Edom (Jer. xl. 11). Yet at that period the long hostility between the two peoples found vent in Edomitic rejoicing which raised new bitterness in the Hebrew mind (Lam. iv. 21‑22; Ezek. xxxv. 3‑15; Obad. 10‑16). Edomites seized the territory of southern Judah, including the region about Hebron, to which the name of Idumea was given, bearing witness to the fact. A contributing cause for this northward movement was doubtless the pressure exerted upon Edom by the Nabataean wave of migration from Arabia (see ARABIA, III). There is reason to believe that the Edomites maintained their hold upon the district and even advanced to the neighborhood of Jerusalem, where they appear to have been just before the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, after which the strength of the Jews probably restricted them to the south. Judas the Maccabee fought them (I Mace. v. 3, 65) and finally drove them from Jewish territory. John Hyrcanus carried operations into their own country, conquered them, and compelled them (c. 109) to adopt Jewish rites and religion (Josephus, Ant., XIII. ix. 1, XV. vii. 9; War, I. ii. 6, III. iii. 5), Idumea becoming fully recognized as Jewish territory. There is reason to believe that they were amalgamated with the Jews, lost their national identity, and added one more strain to the muchmixed blood of the Jews. The people of South Judah not only gave the dynasty of Herod (see HEROD AND HIS FAMILY), but took part in the final revolt of the Jews against the Romans, and suffered with them in the catastrophe. GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Buhl, Geechichte der Edomiter, Leipaie. 1893; W. Libbey and F. E. Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and Petra, New York, 1905; Schrader, IfAT, i. passim; F. Baethgen, BeiCrttpe sur semitischen ReLipionspeachicAte, pp. 10 sqq., Berlin, 1889; E. H. Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 429 sqq., Cambridge, 1871; E. Hull, Mount Seir, etc., pp. 85 sqq., London, 1885; J. F. McCurdy, History. Prophecy and the Monuments, 3 vole., New York, 1894, 1898; E. Meyer, Entatebung lea Judcnhama, pp. 114 sqq., Halls, 1898; E. Robinson, Researches, ii. 117 eqq., 168 sqq., London, 1841‑43; A. Muail, Arabia Petrma, ii., Edons. Vienna, 1908.
EDSALL, SAMUEL COOK: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Minnesota; b, at Dixon, Ill., Mar. 4, 1860. He studied at Racine College (B.A., 1882) and practised law until 1888, when he was graduated from the Western Theological Seminary, Chicago. In 1889 he founded St, Peter's, Chicago, of which he was rector until 1899, when he was consecrated missionary bishop of North Dakota. In 1901 he was translated to Minnesota as coadjutor to Bishop H. B. Whipple, and within the year, on the death of the aged bishop, assumed full control of the diocese.
EDUCATION: See THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION; also the articles on the various countries for the relations of Church and State and popular education. For education among the Hebrews, see FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATIONS, HEBREW, § 15.
EDWARD (EADWARD), SAINT, THE CONFESSOR: King of England 1042‑66; b. at Islip

Edward, Safest
Edwards
(5 m. n. of Oxford) c.1003; d. at Westminster, London, Jan. 5, 1066. He was a son of Ethelred the Unready (king 979‑1016) and nephew of Edward the Martyr (see DUNaTAN, Snurr). As a child he was sent to Normandy, his mother's country, and there he was brought up and lived, while the Danes, Canute and his sons, ruled England (1016‑42). The desire of the English to restore the kings of their own race made Edward the general choice to succeed Hardicanute in 1042, and he was crowned at Winchester on Easter day, Apr. 3, 1043. As king the best that can be said for him is that he meant well; he was indolent and willingly left royal duties to others. The great earls really ruled England and their jealousies and intrigues were productive of disorder. Edward preferred his Norman friends to Englishmen and appointed his favorites in Church and State. The Normans, however, were superior to the English in arts and learning, and one result was a closer connection between the English Church and continental Christendom. English representatives appeared at papal synods and visited Rome (1050). Simony was scandalously prevalent. Edward gave much to monasteries. Between 1051 and 1061 he rebuilt the monastery of Thorney (Westminster), west of London and near his palace, and then he erected a new church, which was the first church in England of the Norman Romanesque style, and became the king's burial‑place nine days after its consecration. Miracles were soon believed to be wrought at the tomb; and a mass of legend gathered about Edward's name, attributing to him visions and gifts of healing even before he became king. He was canonized by Alexander III. in 1161.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources: The Vita by Alred or Erred (d. 1166) with other material and prefatory comment is in ASB, Jan., i. 290‑304, and part of this is in MPL, cacv, 737‑790; the Lives of Edward the Confessor, ed. H. R. Luard for the Rolls Series, no. 3, London, 1858, contains several works of primary importance; other material may be found in Chronicles o/ the Reigns of Edward 1, and IL, ed. W. Stubbs for the Rolls Series, no. 78, 2 vole., ib. 1882‑83; and Matthew of Paris, Chronica majors, ed. H. R. Luard for Rolls Series, no. 57, vol. i., ib. 1872. The beet modern book is E. A. Freeman, Hilt. of the Norman Conquest, vol. ii., Oxford, 1879. Further material is in Lyfe of Saynt Eduardo, London, 1533; J. Porter, Life of St. Edward, King and Confessor, ib. 1710; J. R. Green, The Conquest of England, 760‑1071, 2 vole., ib. 1889; F. Liebermann, Ueber die lepea Edwardi Conteaeorfia, Halls, 1896; J. H. Ramsay, The Foundations of England .... B.C. ti6A.D. 1164, 2 vole., London, 1898; W. Hunt, The English Church . . . (699'‑1066), ib. 1899; DNB, xvii. 7‑14; and, in general, the works on the history of the period.

EDWpRDS,ALFRED GEORGE: Church of England bishop of St. Asaph; b. at Llanymowddwy (38 m. w. of Shrewsbury), Wales, Nov. 2, 1848. He studied at Jesus College, Oxford (B.A., 1874), and was ordained priest in 1875. He was curate of Llandingat, warden and headmaster of the college of Llandovery 187b‑85, and vicar and rural dean of Carmarthen, as well as chaplain and private secretary to the bishop of St. Davids, 1885‑89. In 1889 he was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph. He was select preacher to the University of Cambridge in 1891 and to the University of Oxford in 1895‑96.
EDWARDS, BELA BATES: American theologian; b. at Southampton, Mass., July 4, 1802;
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
so
d. at Athens, Ga., Apr. 20,1852. He wsa graduated at Amherst in 1824 and at Andover Theological Seminary in 1830. From 1828 to 1833 he was assistant secretary of the American Education Society. In 1837 he was ordained and appointed professor of Hebrew in Andover Theological Seminary, succeeding Mmes Stuart as professor of Biblical literature eleven years later. In 1846, in consequence of enfeebled health, he made an extended tour of Europe, visiting England, France, Germany, and Italy; and five years later he was again compelled to absent himself from Andover, and spend the winter in the South. Edwards originated and planned many philanthropic‑ institutions, among others, that which has resulted in the Congregational Library at Boston. He was likewise active in editorial work, and in 1833 established The American Quarterly Obwuer, took the sole care of it for three years, and then merged it with The American Biblical Repository, which he edited from 1835 to 1838. In 1844, together with E. A. Park, he established the Bibliotheca Sacra, and remained its editor‑in‑chief until 1852. Mainly through his influence The Biblical Repository, then published in New York, was merged with the Bibliotheca Sacra in 1851. To all these periodicals he contributed numerous articles and reviews. In addition to several educational books, he wrote The Missionary Gazetteer (Boston, 1832), and The Biography of Self‑Taught Men (1832), besides editing the Memoir of Henry Martyrs (1831). A selection of his sermons and addresses was published with a memoir of the author by E. A. Park (2 vole., Boston, 1853).
Bisrxoaaersr: . Besides the Memoir by Park, ut sup., con‑
sult: W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, ii. 73b‑743, New York, 1859; L. Woods, History of Andover Theological Seminary, Boston. 1884.
EDWARDS, JOHN: English Calvinist; b. at Hertford Feb. 26, 1637; d. at Cambridge Apr. 16, 1716. He studied at St. John's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1657, M.A., 1661, D.D., 1699). In 1664 he took charge of Trinity Church, Cambridge, but a few years later had to give up his work on account of his Calvinistic views. After having had several charges elsewhere he retired from the ministry in 1687, to devote himself to authorship, and returned to Cambridge in 1697, apparently for the use of the library. Though overestimated by his contemporaries, some of them calling him the St. Paul, or the St. Augustine, or the Calvin of his age, still he deserves high rank as a Calvinist theologian. Of the forty or more works that he published may be mentioned The Socinidn Creed (London, 1697); The Preacher (3 vole., 1705‑07); Theologila reformats (2 vole., 1713).
BIBLIOaSAP87: BiograPhia Bri#annica; DNB, avii. 121‑
123 (contains full list of Edwards' works).
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (THE ELDER): The founder of the New England theology as a distinct type of doctrine, considered by many the greatest theologian America has produced; b. at Windsor
Farms (now East Windsor), Conn., Oct.
	Ancestry.	b, 1703; d. at Princeton, N. J., Mar.
		22, 1758. His father, Rev. Timothy
Edwards, was born at Hartford, in May, 1669, was
graduated with honor at Harvard in 1691, and

		31d= BrAnt
81	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	314
was ordained pastor of the Congregational Church in Windsor Farms, in 1894. He remained pastor
of this church more than sixty‑three years, and
died Jan. 27, 1758. The mother of Jonathan Edwards was Esther Stoddard, daughter of Solomon Stoddard, who from 1672 to 1'T29 was pastor of the Congregational Church in Northampton, Mesa. She was a woman of queenly presence and admirable character, was born in 1672, married in 1894, became the mother of eleven children, and died in 1770.
In his early years Jonathan Edwards was instructed chiefly at home. He began the study of Latin at the age of six, and before he was thirteen had acquired a good knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In his childhood be was taught to think with his pen in hand, and thus learned to think definitely, and
to express his thoughts clearly. When
	Early	he was about nine he wrote an inter
Studies. eating letter on materialism, and when
College. he was about twelve he wrote some
remarkable papers on questions in natural philosophy. One month before he was thirteen he entered Yale College, and was graduated, with the highest honors of his class, in 1720. At the age of fourteen, one of his college studies was Locks on the Human Understanding. Not long before his death, he remarked to certain friends that he was beyond expression entertained and pleased with this book when he read it in his youth at college; that he " was as much engaged, and had more satisfaction and pleasure in studying it, than the most greedy miser in gathering up handfuls of silver and gold from some new‑discovered treasure."
As a child, his sensibilities were, often aroused by the truths of religion. He united with the Church, probably at East Windsor, about the time of his graduation at college. After graduation he
pursued his theological studies for
Theological nearly two years in New Haven. He studies. was " approbated " as a preacher in
	Early	June or July 1722, several months
Pastorate. before he was nineteen. From Aug.,
1722, until Apr., 1723, he preached to a small Presbyterian church in. New York City. From 1724 to 1726 he was tutor at Yale. On Feb. 15, 1727, when in his twenty‑fourth year, he was ordained as colleague with his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, and pastor of the Congregational Church at Northampton, Mass. On July 27 of that year he married Sarah Pierpont, daughter of Rev. James Pierpont of New Haven. At the time of her marriage, she was in the eighteenth year of her age, was distinguished by her graceful and expressive features, her vigorous mind, fine culture, and fervent piety. During her married life she relieved her husband of many burdens which are commonly laid upon a parish minister, and thus enabled him to pursue his studies with comparatively few interruptions. As a youthful preacher Edwards was eminent for his weighty thought and fervid utterance. His voice was. not commanding, his gestures were few, but many of his sermons were overwhelming. Ire wrote some of them in full. Often he spoke extempore, oftener from brief but suggestive notes. The traditions relating to their power and influence appear well‑nigh fabulous
IV.‑8
In 1734‑3b there occurred in his parish a " great awakening " of religious feeling; in 1740‑41
occurred another, which extended The Great through a large part of New England Awakening. (see REPIVdI6 oir RELIGION). At
Ejected at this time he became associated with
Iforthamp‑ George Whitefield (q‑v.)‑ During
	ton.	these exciting scenes, Edwards man
		ifested the rare comprehensiveness
of his mind. He did not favor the extravagance
attending the new measures of, the revivalists.
He did more, perhaps, than any other American
clergyman to promote the doctrinal purity, at the
same time quickening the seal, of the churches. In
process of time he became convinced that his grand
father, Solomon Stoddard, was wrong in permitting
unconverted persona to partake of the Lord's Sup
per. A prolonged controversy with the North
amrpton church followed, and Edwards was ejected
in 1750 from the pastorate which he had adorned
for more than twenty‑three years.
In Aug., 1751, he was installed pastor of the small Congregational church in Stockbridge, Maw., and missionary of the Housatonic Indians at that
place whom he served with fidelity. At Stock‑ On Sept. 28, 1757, he was elected bridge, president of the college at Princeton, President of N. J. He was reluctant to accept the
Princeton. office, but finally yielded to the advice
of others, and was dismissed from his Stockbridge pastorate Jan. 4, 1758. He spent a part of January and all of February at Princeton, performing some duties at‑the college, but was not inaugurated until Feb..18, 1758. One week after his inauguration he was inoculated for the smallpox. After the ordinary effects of the inoculation had nearly subsided, a secondary fever supervened, and he died five weeks after his inauguration.
The more important works of President Edwards are the following: A Divine and Supernatural Light Imparted to the Said by the Spirit of Goal (Boston, 1734), a sermon noted for its spiritual philosophy; the hearers of it at Northampton requested it for the press; A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of many Hundred Souls in Northampton, edc. (Boston and London, 1737); Five Discourses on Juatifiearion by Faith (Boston, 1738); Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God (Boston, 1741), one of his most terrific ser‑
mons; frequently republished; eeWorks. verely criticised by some who fail to
regard the character and condition of the persons to whom it was preached; Distinguishing ‑Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (1741); Some Thoughts concerning the Pteesnt Rbvr'roal of Religion in New‑England (1742); A Treatist concerning Religious Affections (1748), one of his most spiritual and analytical works; An Humble Atlsmpt to promote Explicit Agreement anal Visible Union of God's People in Extraordinary Prayer (1747); An Account of the Life of the Late Revsrend Mr. David Brainerd . . . chiefly taken froth has om Diary (1749); An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, concerning the Qualifications requisite to a Complete Standing and full Communion in the Visible Chrlstiarc Church (1749). His more im‑

Edwards
Egbert, Sit
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
portent works were published after he had left his first pastorate, some of them not until after his death, viz.: A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency (1754); The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended (1758); History of Redemption (1772); Dissertation concerning the End for which God created the World, and Dissertation concerning the Nature of True Virtue (1788).
The published works of President Edwards were printed in eight volumes, at Worcester, Mass., 1808‑09 (reprinted, New York). A larger edition of his writings, in ten volumes, including a new memoir and much new material, was published at New York, in 1829, by Rev. Dr. Sereno Edwards Dwight. (EDWARDa A. PABSt) F. H. FOSTER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life has been written by 8. Hopkins, Boston, 1765; J. Hawkaley, London, 1815; 9. E. Dwight, 1829 ut sup.; J. Iverach, in The Evangelical Succession. Edinburgh, 1882; A. V. G. Allen, Boston, 1889; H. N. Gardiner, ib. 1901; and W. Walker, in Tea New England Leaders, pp. 217 eqq., New York, 1901. Consult further: J. Sparks, The Library of Americas Biography, vol. viii., 10 vole., New York, 1848‑51; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 329‑336, ib. 1859; H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years as seen in ate Literature, ib. 1880; G. P. Fisher, Diacwaiona is History and Theology, ib. 1880; J. A. Stoughton, Winaor Farmea, Hartford, 1883; W. Walker, Creeds and Platform of Congregationalism, pp. 283‑285, New York, 1893; idem, in American Church History Series, vol. iii. passim, ib. 1894; A. E. Dunning, Congregationaliate is America, passim, ib. 1894; E. C. Smyth, in Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1895, pp. 212‑238; L. W. Bacon, The Congregationalists, passim, New York, 1904; Jonathan Edward& Bicentenary, Memorial Volume of the Proceedirypa of the Andover Celebration, Oct. 1908, Andover, 1904; I. W. Riley, American Philosophy; the early Schools, pp. 126‑191, New York, 1907; F. H. Foster, New England Theology, Chicago, 1907.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (THE YOUNGER):
Second son and ninth child of Jonathan Edwards
the Elder; b. at Northampton, Mass., May 26,
1745; d. at Schenectady, N. Y., Aug. 1, 1801. As
he received the degree of D.D. from Princeton
College, he is often called " Dr." Edwards, while
his father (who was not a doctor of divinity) is
distinguished as " President " Edwards. He en
tered the grammar‑school at Princeton in Feb., 1760,
		and was graduated at Princeton Col
	Studies legs in 1765. He became a member of
	and First the Church in 1763, studied theology
	Pastorate. with Dr. Joseph Bellamy (q.v.) 1765
		1768, and was " approbated " as a
preacher in Oct., 1766, by the Litchfield County
Association in Connecticut. He was indefatigably
diligent while at college, served as tutor, 1767‑69,
and received an appointment (which he declined)
to a professorship of languages and logic in the
college. On Jan. 5, 1769, he was ordained as pas
tor of the Society of White Haven, in the town of
New Haven, Conn. He remained in this office
more than twenty‑six years. Several members of
his church were advocates of the Half‑way Cove
nant (q.v.), which he opposed. His pastorate was
also disturbed by the spiritual reaction which had
followed the " Great Awakening " (see REVIVALS
of RELIGION) in 1740‑42, and by the demoralizing
influences of the Revolutionary War. The result
was his dismission from his pastorate on the 19th of May, 1795.
In Jan., 1796, he was=installed pastor of the church in Colebrook, Conn. In May, 1799, he was elected
president of Union College, SchenecPastor at tady, N. Y. As he had declined a
Colebrook professorship at Princeton, so he was
	and	prompted to decline the presidency of
President Union College. He applied to an
of Union ecclesiastical council for advice: the
College. advice was in favor of his removal.
He was therefore dismissed in June, and entered on the duties of his presidency in July, 1799. He discharged his duties with his accustomed fidelity. His reputation as a philosopher gave him an uncommon influence over his pupils, and his skill as a teacher heightened his reputation as a philosopher. He remained in this office, however, but a short time. About the middle of July, 1801, he was attacked by an intermittent fever, and died Aug. 1.
As a theological teacher Dr. Edwards was eminently successful. He prepared certain of his father's writings for the press, and, while at Cole‑
brook, published A Dissertation conWorks. cerning Liberty and Necessity, in Reply
to the Rev. Dr. Samuel West (Worcester, 1797). Besides a large number of articles in The New York Theological Magazine, over the aigna,tures " I " and " O," he published mangy sermons, among them one on The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave‑trade (New Haven, 1791; Dr. Edwards, like his friend Samuel Hopkins, was an early opponent of the slave system). The moat celebrated of his discourses are the three On the Necessity of the Atonement, and its Consistency with Free Grace in Forgiveness, " preached before his Excellency the Governor, and a large number of both Houses of the Legislature of the State of Connecticut, during their sessions at New Haven, in Oct., 1785, and published by request the same year." They have been frequently republished and form the basis of that theory of the atonement sometimes called the " Edwardean theory," commonly adopted by the " New England school of divines." Closely connected with this was a volume entitled The Salvation of all Mere strictly Examined, and the Endless Punishment of those who Die Impenitent, Argued and Defended against the Reasonings of Dr. Chauncey in his Book Entitled " The Salvation of all Men " (1790). In 1788 he published a paper entitled Observations on the Language of the Muhhekaneew Indians, in which the Extent of that Language in North America is Shown, its Genius Grammatically Traced, and Some of its Peculiarities, and Some Instances of Analogy between that and the Hebrew, are Pointed out. This was " communicated to the Connecticut Society of Arts and Sciences, and published at the request of the Society."
Nearly all of Dr. Edwards' published writings were collected and reprinted, with a Memoir, by Tryon Edwards, a descendant (Boston, 1842).
(EDWARDa A. PARK'f.) F. H. FOSTER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the Memoir by Tryon Edwards,
ut sup., consult: Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, July,
1809; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i.

as	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Egbaint
B53‑6B0, New York, 1859; J. A. Stoughton, Winaor
Farmea, Hartford, 1883; W. Walker, Creeds and Plat
forms of Congregationalism, pp. 529‑630, New York, 1893;
idem, in American Church History Series, iii.293‑299, ib.
1894; L. W. Bacon, The Congregationalists, Passim, ib.
1904; F. H. Foster, New England Theology, Chicago, 1907.
EDWARDS, JUSTIN: American Congregationalist; b. in Westhampton, Mass., Apr. 25, 1787; d. at Bath Alum Springs, Va., July 24, 1853. He was graduated at Williams College in 1810 and studied one year at Andover Theological Seminary. He was ordained Dec. 2, 1812 and preached in Andover 1812‑27. In 1821 he became the corresponding secretary of the New England Tract Society. He was one of the founders of the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance in 1825, and as its secretary from 1829 to 1836 he traveled and lectured extensively in the interest of temperance reform. From 1836 to 1842 he was president of Andover Theological Seminary. In the latter year he became secretary of the American and Foreign Sabbath Union, and until 1849 he worked for the observance of the Sabbath as he had formerly done for the cause of temperance. He published numerous sermons and tracts, including a Sabbath Manual (New York, 1845), and a Temperance Manual (1847). The last years of his life were spent at Andover in the preparation of a compendious Bible commentary, which was left unfinished.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American
Pulpit, ii. 572‑585, New York, 1859.
EDWIN (EADWINE): King of Northumbria; one of the greatest of the kings of Anglo‑Saxon England and an earnest champion of Christianity; b. 585; slain in battle at Heathfield (probably Hatfield Chase, 7 m. n.e. of Doncaster, Yorkshire) Oct. 12, 633. He was born a heathen, son of Ella, king of Deira, who died when Edwin was three years old, whereupon the Bernician king, Ethelric, seized his kingdom. Edwin, during his boyhood and early manhood, was a wanderer, often in danger from the unrelenting pursuit of Ethelric and his son, Ethelfrid. In 616 or 617 he was at the court of Redwald, king of East Anglia, and may have met there with the Roman missionary Paulinus (q.v.). Redwald refused to deliver him up at the bidding of the Northumbrian king, attacked the latter, and defeated and slew him. Edwin now regained his kingdom. He established his capital at York and extendod his dominions northward to the city which bears his name (Edinburgh), westward to the islands of Anglesea and Man, and southward over all England with the exception of Kent, with which he was in alliance. In 625 he married Ethelburga, Prince‑ of Kent, a Christian, and thus Paulinus gained admission to his court. For the story of Edwin's conversion see PAULINUS OF YORK. The king's greatness of mind is evident in his toleration of his wife's religion, in his reluctance to accept it himself without due deliberation and conviction, and in his conduct when once the decision was made. His first step was to announce his resolve to his witan and to ask if they would be baptized with him. The head priest is said to have been the first to give an affirmative answer, saying his service of the old gods had profited him nothing. After
a noble had spoken in favor of a trial of the new religion, the others gave their assent and the priest led the way in desecrating the heathen temples and altars. Edwin gave Paulinus full permission to preach and baptize, and began a stone church at York. He persuaded Eorpwald of East Anglia to become a Christian. He ruled so well, says Bede, that a woman with her newborn infant could cross his realm from sea to sea without harm. He had cups placed beside the springs along the highways for the use of travelers, and such was the love or the fear of him that no oneroarried them away. It was an evil day for England when he was slain by Penda, the heathen king of Mereia, with the help of the Britons of Wales, who, though Christians, could not forget the old animosity against the Saxons.
BIBLIOGRAPHY'. Sources to be consulted are: Beds, Hint. eecL., ii. b, 9‑17, 20; Anglo‑Saxon Chronicle, in Monuments hietorica Britannica, ad. H. Petrie, J. Sharps, and T. D. Hardy, London, 1848; Nennius, Eulogium Brir fannim, in Monuments hietariea Britannica, ut sup.; Alcuin, Carmen de pontifuibue, ed. J. Rains, "In Hiatoriana of York, i. 349‑398, cf. pp. lxi.‑Ixv., London, 1879; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 123, iii. 83 4fi. Consult: J. R. Green, Making of England, London, 1882; DNB, xvi. 132‑134.
EDZARD, EZRA. See JEWS, MISSION$ TO THE. FELLS, MYRON‑ Congregationalist; b. at Walker's Prairie, Wash., Oct. 7, 1843; d. near Union City, Wash., Jan. 4, 1907. He was graduated at Pacific University, Forest Grove, Ore., in 1866, and Hartford Theological Seminary in 1871. He was pastor of the Congregational Church at Boise City, Ids., 1872‑74, and after 1874 was a missionary of the American Missionary Association among the Indians at Skokomish, Wash. He was pastor of the Congregational Church at Skokomish, after 1876, and supplied several churches of his denomination in Washington. He was president of the Idaho Bible Society 1872‑74, clerk of the congregational Association of Oregon and Washington 1874,85, and superintendent of the Washington ethnological exhibit at the World's Fair, Chicago, in 1893. In theology he was a Congregationalist of the earlier school. He furnished collections of words, phrases, and sentences to the Smithsonian Institution in Chemakum (1878), Clallam (1878), Twang, (1878), Skwaksin (1878), Lower Chehali (1882), Upper Chehali (1885), and Chinook Jargon (1888), and wrote Tttrana Indians of Washington Territory, in United States Geographical and Geological Survey (Washington, 1877); Hymns in Chinook Jargon Language (Portland, Ore., 1878); History of the Congregational Association of Oregon and Washington (1881); History of Indian Missions on the Pacific Coast (Philadelphia, 1882); Ten Years at Skokomis)t (Boston, 1886); Tumrea, Clallam, and Cheynakum Indians of the State of Washington (Washington, 1887); Father Fells (Boston, 1894); and Reply to Pro/. E. G. Bourne on the Whitman Question (Walls Walls, Wash., 1902).

EGBERT, SAINT: Early English saint; b. of noble lineage in Northumbria 639; d, at Ions Easter day, Apr. 24, 729. In his youth he went to Ireland for study, accompanied by Ceadda (q.v.) and others. Seized by the plague in 664, he vowed that, if be recovered, be would never return to

Egixrt o! York Eglinne
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Britain, would recite the Psalter daily, and would fast a day and a night every week. This vow he kept faithfully and added to it new austerities. He became a priest, renowned for humility, kindness, and learning. He desired to preach the Gospel to the tribes on the continent from whom the Angles and Saxons of Britain had sprung, gathered a company, and set sail (686 or 687); but, warned by visions, as he supposed, and driven back by a storm, he returned to Ireland. His interest continued, however, and about 690 he sent an Englishman, Witbert, on an unsuccessful mission to the Frisians, and in 692 he despatched Willibrord (q.v.) and his company. He did much to persuade the Irish to conform to Rome in regard to Easter and the tonsure, and in 716 went to Ions and worked successfully and with much tact for the same end there and on the mainland of Scotland.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Belle, HieE. ecd., iii. 4, 27, iv. 3, v. 9, 10, 22, 23; ASB, April, iii. 313‑31b, cf. 997; R,ettberg, KD, ii. 513; W. F. $kene, Celtic Scotland, ii. 278‑282, Edinburgh, 1880; DCB, ii. 49 eqq.; DNB, xvii. 148 eqq.: Hauck, KD, i. 418‑417.
EGBERT OF YORK: First archbishop of York; d. at York Nov. 19, 766. He was of royal family and a brother of Edbert, king of Northumbria 737758. His childhood and youth were spent in the monastery of Hexham; then he went to Rome, where he learned the Roman usages and was ordained deacon. He was an intimate friend of Belle, who wrote him a letter (in Plummet's Belle, i. 405423) when he was made bishop of York. He received the pallium from Pope Gregory III. in 735 and thus became independent of Canterbury. For his great learning he was called armarium omnium liberalium artium. His greatest achievement, perhaps, was the founding of a school attached to his cathedral church and the training of competent teachers for it; it became for the north of England what Canterbury was for the south and among its teachers were Egbert's successor Albert (Ethelbert), and the great pupil of the latter, Alcuin. He esteemed classical learning, promoted grammatical study, church music, and the recording of contemporary history, and collected a library highly praised by Alcuin (q.v.). The latter and Egbert's anonymous biographer speak of his admirable qualities in the warmest terms. Boniface applied to the influential and learned archbishop in two extant letters (in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 358360, 388‑390), begging him to use his influence with Ethelbald, the powerful king of Mercia, asking for certain works of Belle's, and seeking advice in a question of conscience. Egbert's replies are, unfortunately, not preserved. He was buried in his church in York. Several works of Egbert's are preserved, but not in original form; they are (1) a dialogue on the government of the Church and church discipline (Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 403‑413); (2) a penitential (Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 413433); (3) a pontifical (ell. W. Greenwall, Suttees Society publications, xxvii., Durham, 1853); (4) a work De jute sacerdotali; (5) the De remediis peocatorum is merely a section of the larger collection. H. HAHN.
BIHLIOQeAPBT. $otwoee: Vita Aleuini in Jsff6, BRG, vi.;
Alauin, De pontiftcibw W aria eocleaiae Eborataa‑
84
sie, in MGM, Pods. i (1881), 189‑208: travel. in J. Rains, Historians of the Church of York, i. 348‑398, cf. preface, lxi.‑lxv., London. 1879; Belle, Epiatola ad Ep_ bertum in MPL, xew., and in Opera, ell. by J. Smith, pp. 207‑228, London, 1841; $imeon of Durham, Hiet. Du„elmm, ell. by \T. Arnold, London, 1882, travel. in J. Stevenson, Church Historians of England, v., London. 1855; William of Malmesbury, De rebus Deetie repum Anplorum in MGM, Script.. a (1862), 449‑484, travel. in J. Stevenson, se above, vol. iv., London, 1855; Bonifaoe. Epietoia in MGM, D'Pletolarum, iii (1891), 207 eqq. Consult also Fae6i Eborauneee, ad. by W. H. Dixon, i. 94‑100, London, 1883; DCB, ii (1880), 50‑52; H. Hahn, Bonifas und Lul. PP. 189 eq4.. LeiDe=0. 1883: DNB, avii (1889), 147‑148.

EGEDE, eg'e‑de, HAMS.
Early Life (¢ 1). Settlements in Greenland (¢ 2).
Interest in Mission to Greenland (¢ 3).
Success as a Missionary (¢ 4)•
Royal Support Withdrawn and Restored (¢ b). Closing Years (¢ 8).
	Norwegian apostle of Greenland; b. at Tron
denas, a village on the island of Senjen (n.w. coast
of Norway), Jan. 31, 1686; d. at Stutibekjbbing
(58 m. s.w. of Copenhagen) in the island of Falater,
Denmark, Nov. b, 1758. After completing his
studies at the University of Copenhagen, he took
		charge, about the age of twenty‑one,
z. Early of the Lutheran pariah of Vaagen, one Life. of the Lofoden Islands, and soon afterward married Gertrude Rack. From his brother‑in‑law, a whaler of Bergen, he learned that the southwestern part of Greenland was inhabited by heathen, and his interest in them was still further increased by reading old Norse chronicles.
During the tenth century pagan Northmen had migrated from Iceland to Greenland, and had driven back the aborigines, who were called Skrallingen; but about the year 1000 Christianity seems to have taken root among the colonists. s. Settle‑ About 1348, however, the " black menu in death," raging throughout Europe, Greenland. severed communication with the kingdom, and the aborigines seized the opportunity to destroy one settlement after another. For some sixty years the Church survived, but the year 1410 marks the cessation of all authentic reports concerning the colony and Church. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the kings of j Denmark and Norway sent a series of expeditions to regain the province, which failed, but the enthusiasm awakened in Egede'a heart and his hope in a higher goal were destined to win a victory.
Despite the opposition of high and low, se well as of his nearest kin, he became more and more convinced that he was called to go to these poorest of his brethren, but the bishops of Bergen and Trondhjem, before whom he laid his " pro3. Interest poeal for the conversion and enlightin Mission enment of the Greenlanders," recoiled to Green‑ from the difficulties, and even the
	land.	missionary college founded at Copen
		hagen in 1714 gave him faint sympathy.
In 1717 he resigned his pastorate, and went, in the
autumn of the following year, to Bergen with his
wife and four children. There he not only tried
to interest friends in his plan of a Greenland mission

86	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	2
Mfor York
in connection with commercial enterprises, but also acquired some mechanical sad technical knowledge. In the spring of 1719, when peace was made on the conclusion of the northern war, Egede went to Copenhagen to see King Frederick in person. The latter acceded to his plan, but his assistance was ineffectual, and Egede perceived that he himself must assume the entire responsibility. After repeated disappointments he found a few friends in Bergen and elsewhere, who formed with him a " Greenland Society " and contributed a fund which enabled them to buy the ship " Hope." Shortly afterward (1721) the missionary college notified him that the king sanctioned the intended expedition and appointed Egede missionary and leader with a salary of 300 ruc‑dollars.
On May 3, 1721, the little band of forty‑six, including Egede's family, left Bergen; on June 12 they came in eight of Statenhuk, the southern point of Greenland; and on July 3, after much peril, they reached a safe haven and promising site for their colony on the western coast. The natives, who thronged around them, but soon timidly disappeared, turned out to be Eskimos, descendants of those who had destroyed the earlier Icelandic colonists. They were very ignorant, and had few religious ideas, while their unorga,nic language, with no relation to any European tongue, presented a serious obstacle to missionary en;. Success deavor. With the help of his chil‑
as a Mis‑ dren, however, who quickly made
	sionary.	friends with the aborigines, Egede
		gradually mastered their language,
into which he soon translated the catechism of
Luther. He was indefatigable in visiting his
charges, and amid privation and danger he became
a Greenlander to the Greenlanders, winning the
hearts of even the unfriendly Angekoka (sorcerers).
In his first colony of Godthaab (" Good Hope ")
he paid special attention to the children; and
although he was, perhaps, too scrupulous with
regard to adults and laid too strict conditions upon
them, he gladly baptized boys and girls, provided
their parents also welcomed the preaching of the
Gospel. His chief obstacle was his own country
men, who murmured at their hard lot and caused
grave scandal to the natives on account of their evil
lives, particularly after the government had trans
ported a number of outcasts after his arrival.
He was cheered, on the other hand, by the con
stantly increasing eagerness of the natives to accept
Christianity. In 1723 he received the aid of his
first colleague, Albert Topp, who had been ap
pointed to establish a second colony, and they were
soon joined by two others, as well as by his son Paul
and, a little later by his younger son Niels, while a
few years afterward a native assistant was added.
In 1727 the Bergen‑Greenland company was dissolved, since it was a commercial failure, sad after the death of Frederick IV. a second blow befell Egede, when, in 1731, the king commanded that the colony should be entirely abandoned as financially unprofitable. If, however, Egede and others preferred to remain, a year's provisions should be left for them. Egede, who had at last secured a firm footing, willingly yielded to the importunity of
the Greenlanders, who would not let him go, and he remained with the few courageous souls who braved privation and danger. At this
g. Royal crisis Count Zinzendorf, who was then Support at Copenhagen, prevailed upon ChriaWithdrawn tiara VI. to renew his support of Egede sad and to give him a public testimony Restored. of acknowledgment in addition to granting him a generous subvention and indoraing his plans for continuing the mission (April 4, 1733). An epidemic of smallpox ravaged the country until June, 1734. The victims numbered 3,000, while in the colony of Godthaab, which contained more than 200 families, all the Greenlanders died with the exception of a boy and a girl. Evede stood as in a desert. His faithful wife succumbed to her almost superhuman efforts and he himself, broken in body and soul determined to entfuat the stricken land to the more robust strength of his son Paul and to promote the work of his life henceforth from a more quiet spot.
	In 1736 he returned to Copenhagen; became di
rector of a training‑school for missionaries to Green
land, and in 1740 superintendent of the mission
work there. In 1747 he retired to StubbekjtSbing
and henceforth had no official connection with mis
sion work in Greenland, but his interest continued
and his son Paul was a noted Greenland scholar and
the translator of the New Testament into its lan
guage. 	J. BEl$fiEIM.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief sources are Egede's Omatttndelig
Relation, Copenhagen, 1738, and his Diary (in Danish), ed. E. Sundt, Christiania, 1860 ; A. G. Rudelbach, Chrietliehe Biographies, pp. 371‑434, I,eipeie, 1850; J. Olaf, in Sonntaga Bibliotleek, vi. 2, Bielefeld, 1853; E. M. Bliss, Encyclopedia of Missions, i. 332‑333, New York, 1891 (2d ed. not so full).
EGLI, EMIL: Swiss theologian; b. at Flaach (15 m. n.n.e. of Zurich) Jan. 9, 1848; d. in Zurich Dec. 31, 1908. He was educated at the University.of Zurich, held charges in its canton, became tutor in its university in 1880 and later full professor of church. history. He was the foremost Zwingli scholar of his time and made remarkable contributions to Zwingliana and to Zurich reformation history, e.g., Aetensammlusg zur Geschichle der Ziircher Reformation is den. Jahren 1619‑1633 (Zurich, 1879); Asaleckt Refor»laloria, I. Dokumenle and Abhdndlunges zur Geschiehte Ztuisglis and seiner Zeit, II. Biographies: Bibliander, Ceporin, Johannes Bullinger (2 vole., 1899‑1901); his editorship of Ztvingliana, the semi‑annual publication since 1897 of the Zwingli Museum in Zurich; and chiefly since 1904, and in conjunction with Georg Finder, of the probably final edition of Zwingli'a yYerke (Berlin, vol. i. completed 1905, voL 11908; vol. iii. was to begin the correspondence).

EGINHARD. See EINSSan.
EGLINUS (von Goetzen; Lat. Icortiua), RAPHAEL: Swiss theologian, an advocate of Calvin's doctrines in Hesse; b. at Rilesickon (5 m. s. of Zurich) Dec. 28, 1559; d. at Marburg Aug. 20, 1622. He was the son of a clergyman, received instruction in Chur and Chiavenna, studied in Zurich, then under Beza in Geneva, and under Gryneeus in Basel. His filet position was as a

FBYP us
teacher at Sondrio in the Valtelline, whence, in 1586, he was compelled to emigrate on account of measures taken by the Roman Catholics against the Evangelicals. He stayed a short while in Winterthur, and in 1588 went to Zurich, where he filled various positions, at last that of professor of the New Testament and archdeacon at the minster. His inclination for theosophy and alchemy was disastrous, for the latter deranged his finances so that he had to flee from Zurich on account of debt in 1601; nevertheless he was helped by his friends, was enabled to return, and accepted a call of the Landgrave Maurice to Cassel. Himself a friend of alchemy, the landgrave made Eglinus a teacher in the court school there, and in 1606 appointed him the fourth professor of theology in Marburg, in 1614 creating him also court preacher. During this Hessian period Eglinus did not give up his alchemis‑
I. Ancient Egypt. 1. The Land.
The Names (§ 1).
Extent, Boundaries and Divisions
(§ 2).
Climate and Products (¢ 3). 2. The People.
Ethnology and Language (§ 1).
Customs (§ 2).
Manufactures (§ 3).
Officials (§ 4). 3. Chronology.
I. Ancient Egypt.‑1. The Land: The name is derived from the Greek AigyPtos, which is a possible,
	1. The	but not a probable, derivative from
	Names.	one of the native names of Memphis;
		the Semitic names, Hebrew, Mizraim,
Babylonian, Mizri, Assyrian, Muzur, all go back
to a common root. The etymology of both seta of
names is uncertain. The native name was Kemet
(km‑t), " black," in reference to the color of the
arable soil when contrasted with the sand and rock
which border it.
Egypt has a superficial area scarcely equal to that of Belgium; shaped like a fan with a disproportionately long handle‑the Nile valley, which averages only about ten miles in width. From the dawn of its history it was divided into 2. Extent, two parts, indicated in the title of the Boundaries kings, " lord of Upper and Lower sad Divi‑ Egypt," the point of division being
	sions.	somewhat south of Cairo. In ancient
		times each of these parts was divided
into twenty‑two nomoi, districts, recognized for
administrative purposes, but their origin is to be
found in tribal limits. The union of the two parts
into one kingdom was ascribed to Menea, the first
king, and it marked the actual beginning of Egyp
tian history. The arable ground was formed by
the silt brought down by the Nile, and its fertility
was due to the same agency. This is particularly
true of the northerly portion, the Delta, though the
removal of a few inches of the surface renders the
ground sterile. Within historic times the land
along the coast has been gradually sinking. For
merly the Nile discharged into the Mediterranean
and the Red Sea by seven mouths, only two of
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tic tastes, and was encouraged by the landgrave, with whom he carried on a lively correspondence about his experiments. These interests brought him also into connection with the Rosicruciana, for whom he published an apology in 1618. In spite of his occupation with these side‑issues Eglinus had no little influence as a theologian, for the introduction of the (Reformed) Verbesserungspunkte (q.v.) by the huldgrave occurred during his stay in Hesse, and he gave important aid, by his literary work, as well as through his teaching, in establishing the Reformed confession in that land.
CARL MIRBT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. W. Strueder, Grundlage zu eiuer heaeir ashen Gelehrten‑ uud Schriftatelder‑Geachichte, iii. 299‑318, GSttinycen, 1783 (contains a liar of the works of Eglinus).
EGLISE CATHOLIQUE‑FRANgAISE. See CHATEL, FERDINAND FRANrpOIB.
EGYPT.
4. History.
Conspectus and Sources (§ 1).
Hykaos, Pharaohs and their Successors to the Exodus ($ 2).
Exodus to the Assyrian Period (§ 3).
Period of Assyrian Contact ($ 4).
Babylonian and Later Periods (§ b).
b. Religion.
General Features (§ 1).
Polytheism Dominant (§ 2).
Religious Texts (§ 3).
8. Exploration and Excavation.
The First Period, 1798‑1830 ( §1).
Private and Tuscan‑Prussian Work, 1832‑50 (§ 2).
Mariette, 1851‑81 (§ 3').
The Recent Period, since 1881 ($ 4).
General Results (§ 5). II. Modern Egypt.
Statistics, General and Religious
	($ 1)•
The Orthodox Greek Church (§ 2).
Other Communions (§ 3).
which now remain, the others being represented by canals. On the west of Egypt is the Libyan desert, from which the sands blow over the arable land at certain seasons. On the east also it is desert in the southerly portion; at the northeast the (former) Bitter Lakes represent an old arm of the Red Sea to the north of which was a series of garrison towns intended to guard against the incursions of the Bedouin.
Upper Egypt is a land of almost perpetual sunshine; storms and rain occur near the coast. The preservation of the antiquities of the land is due to this circumstance, as the dry sand is a great conserver of even the fragile papyrus. The fertility of the soil is due to irrigation by the Nile under natural conditions or when artificially s. Climate impounded. Reference is made to and this fertility (Gen. xiii. 10), and to
	Products.	artificial irrigation (Deut. xi. 10) in
		the Old Testament. The seasons are
reckoned as three: beginning with the inundation
(about July 20), spring, and harvest, the last begin
ning toward the end of March. The fauna of
ancient Egypt was very varied, as is evident from
the pictures on tomb walls and in the variety of
animal forms utilized for the hieroglyphic writing.
The camel and horse were imported late: the horse
(I Kings x. 28) was introduced apparently by the
Hykaos. It was used principally in war, with the
chariot,and was depicted as a hieroglyphic sign after
the New Kingdom only. The camel (Gen. xii. 16;
Ex. ix. 3: J passages) is not mentioned till the
Greek period. The ass has always been the burden
bearer. The flora was luxuriant, but not greatly
varied, being mainly restricted to the staples,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
8?
making Egypt the " granary " of the ancient world. The storage of grain products is mentioned in Gen. xli. 35, and is familiar from the remains of the " store city" Pithom (Ex. i. 11) discovered by Naville, and from the representations upon tomb walls. The latter depict structures like a haycock with an aperture at the top through which the grain was thrown. The usual Oriental method of threshing was by the feet of cattle (Dent. xxv. 4), and winnowing was done with shovel and fan (Ira. xxx. 24). Various articles of vegetable food used in Egypt are mentioned in Num. xi. 5. The papyrus which furnished the writing material of antiquity also flourished, but wood was scarce. Objects as large as a sarcophagus had to be made by joining pieces with wooden dowels, a process in which the Egyptian acquired great skill. Minerals known to the Egyptians were gold and iron, from the region of Syene and the south, copper or bronze from Sinai and Cyprus, and silver in smaller quantities by foreign import. Silver was scarcer and more highly valued than gold. Building stone was abundant and varied‑limestone in the north, granite in the south, and sandstone between.
2. The People: No theory of the origin of the people has found general acceptance, except that the ruling class came from Asia, but whether by way of Nubia, the Red Sea and Koptos, or Suez, is disputed. It has been contended that the language points to an.original Semitic stock, that the mythology indicates a Babylonian parentage, and that the racial features point southward. It is
1. Ethnol‑ worthy of note that the inscriptions
oav and do not point to or hint at any con‑
Lanauage. sciousness of foreign extraction or any aboriginal immigration. The language has many characteristics of the Semitic group, mainly in its grammatical features; the vocabulary shows variations which indicate an entirely diverse origin. If it was originally Semitic the relation was collateral rather than by way of descent. The earliest connected texts now extant are the socalled " pyramid‑texts " beginning in the end of the fifth dynasty (say 2650 s.c.) and strangely enough these texts are written in a more strictly phonetic form than those of later times. Herein consists the difficulty and uncertainty of their interpretation. The artistic ability also of this period and the degree of development of religious belief and practise are well worthy of remark. The classic period of the language was in the twelfth dynasty, and later periods attempted to imitate the earlier model. The Coptic was the daughter of the Egyptia,n, and continued to be spoken till the seventeenth century A.D. The original system of writing was strictly hieroglyphic, variations being due to abbreviations for the sake of speed and of adaptation to the writing material employed, papyrus. The characters used for stone sculpture, the hieroglyphic, consisted of pictures of objects in nature and domestic life executed in greater or leas detail and with a remarkable degree of accuracy; the " hieratic " was not a " priestly " script, but merely an abbreviated form, the characters being applied to the papyrus with a brush; and the " demotic " was a further and later abbreviation of the hieratic, not
a " popular " chirography. The first two were used coincidentlyaud some mistakes in hieroglyphic texts can be corrected and understood only upon the assumption that the stonecutter misread a character in his hieratic copy. It is evident also in some of the recessions of the " Book of the Dead" that the scribes of the New Kingdom were unable to understand some of the characters and words found in early copies of the work in the chirography of the Middle Kingdom, and that their perplexity was as great as that of modern scholars. The characters used possess varied powers, some being purely alphabetic, others syllabic, and others ideographic or determinative.
Polygamy was practised as in the East generally, and concubinage was also a recognized institution, both depending upon the ability of the man to support a harem. The marriage practises of Egypt are set forth in great detail in Lev. gviii. and what is now known bears out the accuracy of the account. In the royal house, concerning which special opportunities for knowledge exist, several of the Pharaohs married their own sisters, following 2. Customs. a divine example supposed to have been set notably in the case of Osiris and Isis. Political alliances were cemented by intermarriage. The taking of Sarah (Gen. xii. 14, 15) for the royal harem was an example of a general custom, and the story of Potiphar's wife finds an almost exact parallel in the "'Tale of Two Brothers
in the D'Orbiney papyrus now in the British Museum. The statement that the son of Hadad was brought up with the sons of Pharaoh (I Kings xi. 20) is identical with the cases of many Egyptian officials who claimed it as a mask of honor that they were educated among the children of the court. The case of Moses (Ex. ii. 10) was similar in part only. The practise of shaving the head, changing the raiment, washing the feet, bowing in obeisance (Gen. xli. 14, xliii. 24, 28) were all part of Egyptian Practise. Unfortunately little is known of the court ceremonial of Egypt, but what is known bears out the Biblical record. In the Ancient Kingdom the practise of " kissing the ground " before the king was so much the practise, that a high priest of Memphis mentions it as a mark of special favor that the king did not insist upon the performance of this act of submission, but required him to kiss his foot. But the rigor of this ceremony was relaxed in the period of the New Kingdom. Slavery was imposed upon conquered peoples in accordance with universal oriental practise. The abhorrence of the Egyptian for foreigners (Gen. xliii. 32, xlvi. 34) is to be explained upon the ground of the fundamental difference between the two, as emphasized in the Egyptian conception of their origin. The great gods had appeared in Egypt only; there the great sun‑god Ra had warred and ruled, and his
posterity still sat upon the throne with the title " son of the sun," ruling over those who alone were entitled to the name of men, while foreigners were never men but only negroes, Libyans, or " miserable " Aeiatics, who had once rebelled against the great god Ra, and for their insubordination had been driven north, south, and west. The special " abomination,) in which shepherds were held

Egypt
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
se
(Gen. xlvi. 34) was not on account of the fact that the land had been conquered by " shepherd kings," though this may have made the conquest the more galling. To the Egyptian the shepherd was an unshaved, dirty, undressed pariah. His home was in the swamp, and while a necessary appendage to a large farm, he received no honor at the hands of his master. This seems the more strange, since it was with the utmost pride that the number of cattle, sheep, oxen, and goats is recounted and portrayed on the walls of the tombs.
The wagons provided by Joseph (Gen. xlv. 19) appear to have been carte adapted to the transport of household goods and of persons incapable of the prolonged standing required by the ordinary chariot. Both chariots and carts seem to have been intro‑
duced along with the horse in the dark
8. 7oCaau‑ period assigned to the Hyksoa rule.
factures‑ Bricks were made of Nile mud, and
were frequently stamped with the cartouche of the reigning Pharaoh. They were either baked or sun‑dried. Naville reports that the bricks found at Pithom were of two sorts, mud mixed with straw and mud alone (Ex. 1. 14, v. 7, 18). Unfortunately none of the bricks from Pithom bear a royal stamp. Linen and broidered work (Ezek. xxvii. 7) are mentioned specially, and beautiful specimens of this fabric are preserved in many museums. Baskets (Gen. xl. 16) for conveying small objects are depicted in funerary scenes of all ages, particularly in carrying grain and sand, and the same practise has persisted to the present time.
The title for the king (Gen. xii. 15) which is used in the Pentateuch, gives no clue to the identity of any particular individual mentioned. " Pharaoh " is derived from the native title, which is made up of the words per‑aa, signifying " great house," and is similar to the Turkish " Sublime Ports." The claim of the divine origin of the ruling class is seen in the ordinary appendage to the coronation name,
" son of Ra." Biblical references to 4. Officials. the officers of the government are few.
The position to which Joseph was named has approximate parallels. In the Ancient Kingdom there was a man who boasted the title of " overseer of the whole land," while officials having similar charge in later times recognize the geographical divisions of the land in their titles. In the New Kingdom we find a man who appears as the mouthpiece of Pharaoh, and another whose office was that of " overseer of the granaries," of whom it is said that his province included not only Egypt but also Ethiopia and all the territory to the confines of Naharina (Mesopotamia). Potiphar (Gen. xxxvii. 36, xxxix. 1) is spoken of as captain of the guard (R. V., margin, "chief of the executioners"). The latter title is explained by the supposition that extreme punishment was executed by the chief officer of the body‑guard. As this officer lived probably in the time of the Hyksos, and as very little is known about this period, little light can be thrown upon the subject. Later the body‑guard was formed of mercenaries, and the position of chief was one of great importance. The mention of a chief baker and a chief butler (Gen. xl.) is exactly in line with
the household service of the upper classes as well as that of the king. Each . sort of service had a special corps which was charged with it, and each corps had its overseer. Similarly in the field each gang of workmen had an overseer or " taskmaster " (Ex, i. 11, iii. 7). Among the insignia of office mentioned as having been turned over to Joseph was the signet ring (Gen. xli. 42). As all legal and commercial documents were stamped with a seal, the significance of this emblem of office is apparent.
8. Chronology: Egypt, like other Oriental countries, used no era in dating the events of its history. All that have been handed down to us are partial lists of kings such as those of Abydos, Karnak, and Sakkarah, containing selections of seventy‑six, sixty‑one, and forty‑seven royal names respectively, and even the sequence of these is doubtful. The only known complete native list, with the years of the reign of each king, was contained in the ever to be regretted Turin papyrus which was irreparably damaged during its journey to Europe. In its present fragmentary condition it is incapable of rendering much aid in fixing of Egyptian chronology. The historical work written in Greek by the native priest Manetho about 250 B.C. has been preserved only in excerpts of somewhat doubtful accuracy given by Josephus and Julius Africanus. Mistakes occur in the figures due both to copyists' mistakes and to apologetic emendation. Manetho's division of the entire period into thirty dynasties, however, furnishes a convenient method of indicating the relative location of events. Dates approximating exactness can not be assigned back of the New Kingdom, and precise chronology begins with the accession of Psammetichus in 663 B.C. It is claimed, however, that the date of Amenhotep I. of the twelfth dynasty, has been fixed astronomically at 2000 B.C., and that the reign of Thothmes III. extended from May 3, 1501, till Mar. 7, 1447. Many a prior, theories and corresponding systems of chronology have been propounded, but the best results are only approximations so far as the earlier periods are concerned. One notable feature of recent investigation is seen in the tendency to reduce the length of the history as a whole. This is evident from the appended chronological table.
	Dynasty.	po: 	Brugec6 	Petrie. 	Meter. 	Breasted.
	1.‑11,	b887	4400	4777	3180	3400 s.c.
	III.	b318	3988	4212		2980 '
	IV,	b121	3733	3998	2830	2900 "
	V.	4873	3588	3721		27b0 "
	V1.	4425	3300	3b03	2530	282b "
	VII.‑VIII.	4222	3033	3322		2475 "
	IX.‑X.	4047		2821		2445 "
	XI.	3782		298b		2180 "
	XII.	3703	2488	2778	2130	2000 "
	XIIL‑XVII.	3417	2233	2098	1930	1788 "
	XVIII.	1822	1700	1587		1b80 "
	XIX.	1473	1400	137b	1530	13b0 "
	XX.	1279	1200	1202		1200 "
	XX1.	1101	1100	1102	1080	1090 "
	XXII.	971	988	952	930	"
						9,0
	XXIII.	851	788	7bb		745 "
	XXIV.	782	733	731		718 "
	XXV.	718	700	721	728	712 "
	XXV1.	874	888	884	883	883 "
	Persians	524	b27	b25	b26	b2b "
	Greeks	331				332 "
	Romans					30 "

89	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Rsspt
The figures of Brugach are based on the average length of a human generation; Met'er's on the minimum reign‑lengths shown by the records; astronomical calculations depend on eclipses as related to the Sothic periods of 1,460 years and the variable year of 365 days. The earlier systems suffered from insufficient data for the application of the method of " dead‑reckoning," which is the only system really available.
	4. History: The predynastic period is little
known, but excavations made mainly since the
beginning of the present century have begun to
throw light upon the subject. The work of De
Morgan and Petrie is of initial importance. The
main divisions of the history, based upon the thirty
dynasties of Manetho are: (1) the Ancient King
dom, dynasties I.‑VI., say 3400‑2475 B.C.; (2) the
Middle Kingdom, dynasties XI‑XIL, 21601788
B.C.; (3) the New Kingdom, dynasties XVIIL‑XX.,
1580‑1090 B.C.; (4) the period of decline and for
eign intervention, dynasties XXL‑XXV., 1090‑&63
B.C.; (5) the period of restoration, dynasty XXVL,
663‑‑525 B.C.; (6) the Persian and Greek domination,
dynasty XXVII. onward, 525‑30 B.C.; for details
		as to the history, reference must be
1. Con‑ made to the special works on that subepeotns and ject. The gaps in the above list repre‑
	Sonroee.	tent dark periods about which little
		is known. Dynasties seven to ten
were occupied with internal strife resulting in the
removal of the seat of power from Memphis grad
ually southward to Thebes. Dynasties thirteen to
seventeen covered also a period of unrest and of
foreign domination by the Hyksos, " Sheiks of the
Bedouin," who were probably of Semito‑Hittite
race. ‑‑The sources of the history are numerous and
consist of antiquities illustrating manners and beliefs;
texts on stone, leather and papyrus, containing the
facts forming the raw material of historical repre
sentation; records in the cuneiform character and
in Hebrew tradition as well as the accounts pre
served by Greek travelers and historians. Aside
from the Turin papyrus and Manetho's work, there
is no evidence of the compilation of a complete
list of the kings which could be called even a com
prehensive outline or framework of the history.
The annals of some of the kings, and the records of
the separate temples constitute the historical wri
tings of the Egyptians, and these extended scarcely
beyond lists of names and reign‑lengths. The
available material is widely scattered, and while
remarkably full for some periods, is for the most
part meager and unsatisfactory.
It is probable that the immigration of the sons of Jacob must be assigned to the period of the Hykeos (before 15$0 B.C.). There are pictures on tomb‑walls which represent the approach of shepherds of peculiarly Semitic features, and a papyrus tells of permission granting grazing privileges to others of that race. Them is also a Ptolemaic tradition of a seven‑year dearth in the reign of Zoser (2890 B.C.). The journey of Abraham to Egypt and the resort thither against famine are quite in line with known fact. The theory which identifies the expulsion of the Hyksos with the Exodus of the Israelites (Josephus) is impossible
chronologically without destroying the historicity of the latter event. Thothmes III. (1501‑1447 $.c.) was the embodiment of the warlike 2. Hyksoe, spirit which the Egyptians had acquired
Pharaohs from their conflict with the Hykaos. sad their He pushed his conquests through Pal8neoeseors satins, leaving a record of the places to the he had conquered on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak. In this list were included the names of Kadesh on the Orontes, Megiddo, Damascus, Hamath, Acco, Joppa, Gazer, etc. Later glimpses of the condition of the Palestinian dependencies of Egypt are derived from the cuneiform tablets found at Tell el‑Amarna. (see Amexsre TABLETS). These tablets were sent by the local vassals of the Pharaohs, and contain items of information, private and political, written in Babylonian, the language of the diplomacy of the period. The picture which they give is of the time just preceding the Exodus. They were composed for the information of Pharaohs who are generally supposed to have been largely under Semitic influence, one of whom nude the only attempt in Egyptian history to introduce a monotheistic form of religion and worship. The attempt came to nothing permanent, and the power of Egypt in Palestine was overthrown soon afterward. Not till the time of Rameaea II. (1292‑1225 B.C.) was the reconquest attempted. He made his influence felt as far as the Lebanon, and his twenty‑first year was marked by a treaty of peace with the Hittites. He is commonly regarded as the Pharaoh of the oppression, and the fact that he was the builder of Pithom confirms the Hebrew tradition. The absence of any personal designation in the title Pharaoh, precludes the possibility of absolute identification in most cases. The power of Egypt in Palestine did not long survive Rameses IL, and it must have been during this period that
~ the Hebrews took possession of the land.
The Exodus is usually assigned to the reign of
I Merneptah (1225‑1215 B.C.) the successor of Rameses I II. The earliest extant mention of the name of Israel is in a victory‑stele (discovered in 1896) which this king erected. The name is enumerated in connection with other places in
S. Exodus Palestine and Syria as scenes of the to the Pharaoh's conquests. On its face it is Aesyriaa evidence that a tribe bearing this desig‑
	Period.	nation had been defeated in Palestine;
		but as it stands alone, an uncorrob
orated witness to the king's expedition, its value
has been seriously questioned. Nevertheless it
raises interesting and important questions. An
unnamed Pharaoh, who in view of the subsequent
history (I Kings xi. 40) could scarcely have been
Sheshonk I. (Shishak), captured the city of Gazer
and gave it to his daughter, the wife of king Solo‑
loon (I Kings ix. 16). This is the first intimation of Egyptian conquest in Canaan in nearly three hundred years. Sheshonk I. (945‑924 B.C., called " Shishak," not " Pharaoh " in I Kings xi. 40, being the first time that the Old Testament gives a personal name to an Egyptian king) about 926 B.C.
~ celebrated an expedition in which, among other
~~ places, he pillaged the temple at Jerusalem (I Kings

Egypt ~ 	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	90
xiv. 25‑26). This expedition was not in favor of Jeroboam whom he had harbored (I Kings xi. 40) but against all Canaan. A place which he also ravaged was called " Field of Abram." Again there was a period in which the internal weakness of the government caused a cessation of campaigns in Palestine and Syria. The references of II Chron. xiv. 9‑13 to " Zerah the Ethiopian," and of II Kings xvii. 4 to " So " (or Sews) find no counterparts in the Egyptian records. If the latter was an Egyptian, he must have been a petty ruler in the North at the beginning of the Ethiopian domination in the South. See ASSYRIA, VI., § 10.
With Shabaka (712‑700 B.C.) the first king of dynasty XXV began an attempt to ward off the danger from so powerful a neighbor as Assyria, and the peoples of Palestine and Syria were induced to join in an offensive alliance in spite of the realistic prophecy of Isa. xx. Sennacherib, however,
defeated the allied forces at Altaku 4. Period but returned home without rednc‑
Aseyrian I,~ Jerusalem. In 688 B.C. Taharka
Coataiet. ( Tn'hakah, king of Ethiopia ) suc‑
ceeded to the throne. Against him an expedition was led by Esarhaddon in 674, and in the following year a battle was fought that resulted unfavorably to the Assyrian. Again in 670 he returned, and after having reduced Tyre, he conquered Egypt and received the allegiance of many petty princes, among whom Necho of Sais was one. But the withdrawal of Esarhaddon was the signal for the return of Taharka from Ethiopia whither he had fled. Aashurbanipal renewed the expedition and proceeded up the Nile, possibly to Thebes. After his departure a conspiracy arose in the Delta, for the restoration of Taha,rka, and it was headed by Necho of Sais. When it was suppressed, Necho was sent in chains to Assyria, but later he was pardoned and sent back as viceroy. Tanutamen, son of Shabaka and nephew of Taharka, tried to regain Egypt, and even took possession of Memphis. Again Aeshurbanipal marched against Egypt and proceeded to Thebes , which he sacked and destroyed (Nahum iii. 8‑10), and finally ended the Ethiopian domination (661 B.C.). Psammetichua L, a son of Necho of Sais, was made king by Aeshurbanipal, but after some years, and in consequence of the growing conflict between Babylonia and Assyria, he succeeded in making Egypt quite independent. During his reign there was a revived of the ancient models in all the relations and customs of . the land. Necho, his son, in 609, invaded Palestine in an attempt to extend his kingdom to its ancient northern boundary. In 608 he conquered and killed Josiah at Megiddo (II Kings xxiii. 29), and took possession of the country as
far as the Euphrates.
After the fall of Assyria the Babylonian conqueror in the person of Nebuchadrezzar threatened Egyp‑
tian supremacy in Syria, and in 605 de= 6. Baby‑ feated Necho at Carchemish (Jer. xlvi.
Ionian and 1_12). After pursuing Necho to Egypt Later
Periods. he made a compact with him by
which all of Egypt's Asiatic pretensions were to be abandoned (II Kings xxiv. 7). Necho and his eon, Psammetichus IL, devoted them‑
selves to the development ' of Egypt and to the
imitation of ancient models in art and literature.
Apries (Hophra, 588 B.C.) instigated a confedera
tion of the petty kings of Western Asia, which un
dertook to throw off the Babylonian yoke, but
unsuccessfully. Nebuchadrezzar took Jerusalem in
586 B.C., and again in 568 he marched to the Delta
as had been foretold by the fugitive Jeremiah
(xliii. 8‑13). The details of the expedition, how
ever, are unknown. But the country was strong
enough to resist the Babylonian forces successfully.
In fact the government was so well established
that it became a dominant power on the Medi
terranean, with varying fortunes till the Persian
conquest under Cambyses in 525 B.C. The period
from 404 to 342 B.C. saw native rulers again; the
Persians returned and ruled till the conquest of
Alexapder the Great in 332 B.C. This began the
Ptolemaic period which lasted till the Roman period
beginning in 30 B.C.
8. Religion: The Egyptian religion is a large matter and the subject of much debate. It has been contended by some that it had a monotheistic basis, and by others that it was merely a form of totemiam. The original deity seems to have been a local god, its bounds being prescribed by the village, town, city or nomos (county). Such deity was the special patron of the particular place, and to it appeal was made by those of the town. Each such deity took an animal form in which it was supposed to exercise its inherent i. General powers. Each locality was believed
	Features.	to be inhabited by a multitude of in
		ferior spirits, and these spirits were
subject to a higher divinity. With the growth of
a town or with a change in the capital, a change
was made in the dignity of the particular deity
under whose protection the city stood. But the
moat peculiar feature of the Egyptian religion was
its syncretism. It seems to have been easy to
merge one deity into another, and to attribute the
powers assigned to one to another similar being. It
is a frequent phenomenon that contradictory quali
ties are alleged of the same deity in different periods
of the history, later attributes being added without
the elimination of the earlier. Resulting contra
dictions seem not to have been noticed. There
was evident also a gradual tendency to a simplifi
cation by the merging of many into fewer types,.
as in the case of the sun‑god, with whom in the
course of centuries a large number of deities who
had acquired a more than local significance became
identified. Nearly every god in the pantheon had
certain distinguishing characteristics which were
conventionally denoted by peculiarities of pose, of
dress, of head, of ornament or other feature. Up
raised arms and kneeling attitude were charac
teristic of the god of heaven, Shu; the youthful
Horus was a child with a curled side‑lock and a
forefinger at lip. Bea was a dwarf with a large
feather head‑dress; Osiris had a royal crown flanked
by feather plumes; Anubis had the head of the
jackal and Horus the head of a hawk; Hathor was
a woman with the ears of a calf, and Sebek had the
head of a crocodile. About each one of a multitude
of such forms there moat have been a rich myth‑

91	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Egypt
ology. The story of Osiris, Isis, and Horus has been preserved after a fashion by Plutarch, but the great mesa of the myths has perished. A few, such as the story of the destruction of mankind, have been preserved, but for the most part all that remains is a collection of references to characteristics in the nomenclature of the various gods. But the stories and beliefs on which these appellations rest have disappeared.
The claim for a monotheistic basis of the Egyptian religion rests upon dogmatic assumption or upon phrases and attributions found in divine hymns, prayers or religious texts. But to bear such an interpretation such phrases moat be dislocated from their context. It is also necessary to disregard the fact that each city or province had its special tutelary deity with its 2. Polythe‑ special circle of subordinate deities,
ism Dorm‑ and that the triad, or even the ennead, pant. not the individual without peer or companion, was the unit. The development of the religion up to the time of the pyramidtexts in the fifth dynasty is largely a matter of conjecture and debate. Since that time there has been nothing, except the ill‑starred attempt of Amenhotep IV., which bears the slightest resemblance to monotheism, and only such expressions as indicate the headship of a particular god in a particular region, or his supremacy over other gods can be adduced in support. The argument in favor of pantheism is more plausible, but that is too abstract an idea to find lodgment with the Egyptian; he was too realistic. The whole question is one of speculation as to what the course of development was in the period preceding the pyramid‑texts, that is in the period before, say, 4000 n.c., for these texts show a form of belief in a multitude of gods which remained practically unchanged through thousands of years. The Egyptian idea of divine service was based upon that of human service. As the king had attendants who dressed him and made his toilet, so the gods had priests to perform the same, and a large part of the service consisted in changing the garments of the images. The offerings presented were ostensibly for the nourishment of the god of the temple, but really for the attendants. There does not seem to have been any such thing as a burnt sacrifice, though quarters of beef are portrayed on the tables of offering along with bread, beer, wine, geese, and other viands. In this may lie the reason why the Egyptians regarded the sacrifices of the Hebrews as an abomination (Ex. viii. 26).
The religious texts and books of the Egyptians were quite numerous, the chief place being occupied by the so‑called " Book of the Dead." There were several recensions of the text, but no stereotyped form and no recognized sequence or fixed number of chapters. The chief purpose of the
3. Reliai‑ book was to benefit the dead and to
	our Teats.	instruct them in the matters of the
		future life and in the use of magical
formulas for the avoidance of the dangers of the
underworld. One of the notable chapters (usually
numbered cxxv.) contains the "Negative confes
sion/) consisting of forty‑two sections each of which
is addressed to a separate deity and contains a statement that the deceased had not committed some specified sin or evil deed. The volume is filled with the names of various deities, places or persona, and is a thesaurus of information with regard to the beliefs of the Egyptians. Underlying it all was a persistent belief in man's immortality which colored and determined many Egyptian religious practises. The pyramids and the rock‑hewn tombs are witnesses to this faith. In order to insure the continued existence of the soul, the body must be preserved intact as a refuge for the soul, which was believed to possess the power of independent movement and action. When the body was destroyed the soul ceased to exist, hence the necessity for " everlasting " depositories for the dead and the embalming of the body.
CHARLES RIPLEY GILLETT.
8. Exploration and Excavation: Systematic exploration and excavation and study of the monuments of Egypt began with the Egyptian military campaign of Napoleon in 1798, which was accompanied by a number of competent scientists, artists, and savants, among whom were MM. Jollois and Devilliers, who examined the monuments then accessible. The results were published in memorable form under the auspices of the 1. The First French Academy in Description de
Period, t1gypte, ou reeueil des observations qui
1798‑1830. out Ete faites en Jgypte pendant l'expedition de l'armWe franyaise (37 vole., Paris, 1820‑1830). These magnificent volumes first acquainted the world with the existing remains of the past civilization of the Nile land. Prosper Jollois' Journal d'un ingEnieur attache a l'expedition
. . 1798‑I802, is published by G. Masp6ro in BibliothEque egyptologique (Paris, 1894) and throws a definite light upon the work of these scientists, since most of the sites since excavated with so large results are mentioned in the Journal. Memorable among the material results of the expedition was the Rosette Stone discovered in Aug., 1799, at Rosette, east of Alexandria, i4acribed in hieroglyphic, hieratic, and Greek, which enabled Champollion to begin decipherment and make the first great contributions to Egyptology (see INSCRIPTIONS). Another expedition, under the Tuscan government supported by Charles X. of France and led by the French Champollion and the Italian Rosellini, the latter a professor at Pisa, went out in 1828, studied anew the monuments in the light of Champollion's achievements with the materials of the first expedition, and carried their researches as far as Nubia. Champollion died in 1832, but Roaellini stayed some years, and the results were published in Monuments dell' Egitto a dells Nubia (3 vole. of plates, 8 of text, Pisa, 1832 sqq. ), the French equivalents in Monuments de l'ggypte et de Nubie (4 and 8 vole., Paris, 1835 sqq.).
The next period began in 1832, at first under private enterprise, no great official efforts being made. Among the most notable and useful labors were those of the English engineer F. E. Perring and his associate Col. Howard Vyse, who took accurate measurements of the pyramids, especially those of Gizeh, and ]aid the foundations for all subsequent

Egypt	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	9$
exact knowledge, verified and completed for the Gizeh pyramids by Petrie in 1881‑82, results being
assured often to one‑tenth of an inch. 8. Private The object of the building of the
and	pyramids was discovered largely
O'n‑ through the investigations of Perring ian and Vyee. In 1841 Alexander von Work, Humboldt and Karl Josias von Bun‑
1882‑60. sen educed Frederick William IV. of Prussia to send an expedition headed by Karl Richard Lepsius and a strong staff, which carried on work from 1842 into the sixties. Investigation was begun at the pyramids near Memphis and the conclusion was reached that these structures vary in size approximately in proportion to the length of the reign of the king for whose tomb each was prepared; that the tomb was begun at the beginning of the reign and increased in size by symmetrical outside casings as long as the king lived, when a final casing was added. This theory is denied by Petrie (Ten Years' Digging in Egypt, New York, n.d., pp. 141‑142) but pronounced substantially correct by Steindorff (H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, Philadelphia, 1903, p. 633). Over 130 other tombs were discovered and the materials from them collected, including the inscriptions, for an outline history of Egypt. Explorations were extended southward up the Blue Nile past Khartum, where attention was paid to Ethiopian civilization, and eastward to the ancient mines of Sinai. Among individual achievements was the recovery at Tanis of a trilingual stele carrying the decree of Ptolemy III. Euergetea in hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek, confirming in general the decipherment begun with the Rosetta Stone. Results were published by Lepsius (12 vole., Berlin, 1849 sqq.). The arrangement was not geographical, as had been the case with previous publications, but historical in the sequence of development as then understood. Thus the outlines of a new treatment were struck out which subsequent work has followed, amended, and filled out.
With Augusts Mariette a new period began, and by the discovery near Memphis in Nov., 1851, of the Serapeum or cemetery of the sacred Apis‑bulls intense interest was created. Sixty‑four of these
tombs were found with a vast amount S. )sari‑ of cultic, memorial, ornamental, and
ette,	historical material, useful in construct‑
1861‑81. ins a picture of life, history, and belief.
In 1857 Mariette was made director of the new museum at Cairo, and when permits already issued for excavations expired, he would not have them renewed and permitted no one but himself to dig for antiquities. His own activities were feverish and his excavations so extensive and so scattered that they could not be under his personal supervision. Moreover, the strictly scientific methods of the present had not come into existence, consequently through the carelessness or incapacity of his workmen many objects were irretrievably lost or ruined. No systematic account of the excavations was kept, and a record of work done by Mariette is consequently a desideratum which can never be supplied. His chief aim was to collect fine specimens for his museum, and the accom‑
plishment of thorough work was a secondary end. Yet some of his discoveries were notable: as the statues of the seated scribe, now in the Louvre, and the Sheikh al‑Beled (" village chief "), in the Cairo museum; at Abydos the temple of Seti I. and the Seti list of seventy‑six royal ancestors with their names and titles; at Denderah, the temple of Hathor; at Edfu, the fine temple of Horus; and under his direction many volumes of the inscriptions recovered and copied were issued.
After hlariette's death in 1881 the direction remained in the hands of the French, but under competent and more generous management such as that of G. Masp6ro, E. Grebaut, J. de Morgan,
and Victor Loret. Permits to exca4. The vats were once more granted to repreB.ecent sentatives of other nations and interests,
Period, while for the Egyptian government
since 1881. researches were conducted at Luxor,
	Ombos, and in the Valley of the Kings,
in which last place a notable fund of know
ledge was accumulated, as it proved to be the
hiding‑place of the mummies of the kings of the
seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. Since 1883
the Egypt Exploration Fund and since 1893 the
Egyptian Research Account (qq.v.) have been con
tinuously at work; both have been favored agencies
and their progress has been one of repeated triumphs
under such brilliant workers as Edouard Naville,
W. M. Flinders Petrie, F. Ll. Griffiths and E.
A. Gardner. In 1894 the Swiss scholars F. J.
Gautier and J. Jdquier entered upon work on the
pyramids near Dahshur, and the tombs of Amen
ophis I. and Uaerteaen I. were recovered. Am6li
neau's work since 1895 has been momentous, in
cluding the recovery of a famous tomb of Osiris
and the royal tombs of part of the first dynasty
near Abydos. Meanwhile M. Gayet had begun
work for the Muse Guimet. M. de Morgan's
labor for the Cairo Museum at Abydos, Dah
shur, Sakkareh and elsewhere has been con
tinuous and important, especially in the investi
gation of neolithic interments and the discovery
of the tomb of Menes near Nakada. Professor
Spiegelberg has carried on a private enterprise for
Lord Newberry at Memphis and elsewhere. More
recent work has been done for the Germans by
H. Schafer, e.g., at Abusir, where a sun temple of
the fifth dynasty was discovered.
The attempt to state the results of all these efforts has already filled hundreds of volumes. Here only the moat general or most significant conequences can be given. The general course and extent of Egyptian history have been determined,
though with many gaps and with
6. General deficiencies sufficiently indicated by
Results. the differences in the chronology as
determined by different students shown in the chronological table given above. Yet the dynasties are few of which definite knowledge is not at hand, while the gaps are ever being filled in. The general course of civilization and of development of science, art, and letters in the Nile land is determined even into the prehistoric period, and the investigations have fixed within narrow limits the period of alien civilizations such as the Greek

gg	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Mycena'an and Cretan. With this goes considerable light upon the movements and control of Mediterranean commerce and intercourse prior to 1000 B.c. New light is continually directed upon the two riddles of the Egyptian sphinx‑the ethnology and language of the valley and delta. The increase in the number of monuments and cultic and social implements on the one hand and of inscriptions and literary remains on the other promise ultimate solution of these two problems. Single questions of importance settled definitely are: the relations of Egypt to Palestine in the fifteenth century s.o. (see AAfARNA TABLETS); the situation of the Goshen of the Israelites through the location of Pithom (1883) and poeaiblyRameeea (1906) alongthe Tannic branch of the Nile; the relations of Egypt to Greece in the use of Greek mercenaries from the seventh to the fourth century H.o. by the excavations of the sites of Naukratis and Daphnes (Tahpanhea); the character of the cult of Hathor (1908) through finding an untouched temple of the goddess with a cow sculptured in sandstone as the cultic object‑‑the first discovery of a shrine with its deity and paraphernalia of worship intact; and the recovery of the site of the Onus temple (1906). Among the unexpected results is the recovery of early fragments of classical, Jewish, and Christian literature, including the famous Logic Jesu (see Acxerae), early bite of the Greek Old and New Testaments, new fragments of Sappho, and Menander, the Epitome of Livy covering several lost books; while of Baruch, Hermae, Pindar, Julius Africanus, Euripides, tEechinea, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Plato, Demosthenes, and others, texts, fragmentary to be sure, earlier than any before known have been unearthed. Added to these are a mesa of oatraca, accounts, letters, official documents, and other materials of the post‑Alexandrine period which has already required a recasting of the history of the Greek language. With th0 last phase of work and of epoch‑making finds the names of Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, David G. Hogarth and the versatile W. M. Flinders Petrie are indissolubly connected. See EGYPT Exrrpxnxtorr FUND.
GEO. W. GBMORE.
II. Modern Egypt: Egypt fell under the dominion of the Turks in 1517, but retained its independence in‑ great measure. It is now formally dependent on the Sultan, although it has its own prince, who is called Khedive. The present Khedive is Abbas IL, crowned 1892. Since 1882 England has exercised actual control, which was secured until further notice by an agreement with France in 1904. The area of the country, which is now officially bounded on the south by Wadi Halfa, amounts, according to Hiibner and Jursechek, to 994,275 square kilometers (somewhat less than 400,000 square miles) or a little over three times the area of Great Britain, but only one‑
s. 8tatie_ thirtieth is fertile and inhabited. The
rice, den‑ census of 1897, according to the same
eras and authorities, showed a population of
Religions, 9,821,045, a number slightly in excess of that given by the Almanac de Goths, which includes about 113,000 foreigners, consisting mainly of Greeks, English, French, Aus‑
trians, and Hungarians. The majority of the English and Germane belong to the Protestant Church. Hiibner and Juraschek give the number of Protestants as 11,894, while the Almanac de Goths. raises the number, probably with greater correctness, to 24,409. The number of Roman Catholics, according to the former, is 58,343; according to the latter, 81,051. By far the greater number of natives are Mohammedans. The majority of native Christians belong to the Coptic Church (q.v.), which, according to Hilbner and Jurasehek, numbers 608,448 members. There are also 53,479 " orthodox Greeks "; but no distinction is made between the members of the Orthodox Church proper, over which the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople presides, and those Christians whom that Church regards as heretical sad schismatic. The latter are represented by many denominations, especially the Armenian and Syrian Jacobites.
The Orthodox Church is under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Alexandria. Egypt was for centuries the moat splendid seat of the Oriental Church, but has declined more and more since the invasion of the Arabs. The moat famous patriarch of modern times was Cyril Lucar (q.v.), who lived for the most part at Constantinople, where he became ecumenical patriarch in 1620. In 1846
the patriarchal residence was restored
2. The to Egypt, and is now at Cairo. The
Orthodox present incumbent of the see of Alex‑
Qreek andria is Photios, a man of energy and
church. ambition, who was consecrated in
1900 with the title of " moat blessed and all‑holy pope (Gk. papas) and patriarch of the great city of Alexandria and all Egypt, of Pentapolis and Pelusium, of Libya and Ethiopia." Under him are four titular metropolitans. Formerly the patriarchate had large estates in Rumania, but they were sequestrated some decades ago. It must not 5e supposed, however, that all the Orthodox who live in Egypt belong to the Church of Alexandria, but only those who settled there long ago, whose number is not over 10,000. Although the immigrant Greeks and Russians take part in the. service held by the clergy of the patriarch, they have no rights concerning it. The most important privilege vested in the subjects of the patriarchate
is his election, in which the laity take a prominent part. The congregations in Cairo and Alexandria are rich, and supply the patriarch with large means. The first patriarch to return to reside in the country founded schools and hospitals with ecclesiastical funds. The patriarch is aided in the government of the Church by a permanent synod, consisting of the four metropolitans, and a council, or committee, for secular and financial affairs. Some important monasteries belong to the patriarchate, especially the large cloister of St. George in Cairo; the monastery of Sinai is ecclesiastically independent.
The Roman Catholic Church has an influential mission in the country, and since the time of the crusades has nominally a patriarch there, although he actually resides at Rome, where he has the church S. Paolo fuori le Mure. The Uniates have a dis. tinct organization. The Anglican Church is largely represented in the principal cities, and Preabyteri;:n

Egypt	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	94
Egyptian Research Account
chapels also exist.	German congregations are
	found at Cairo and Alexandria, where they include
	the Swiss and Evangelical French.
3. Other	From 1752 to 1783 the Moravians
	Comma‑ worked among the Copts, and since 1854
nions.	the United Presbyterians of the United
	States have been engaged in mission
work.	The Indian prince Dalip Singh (d. 1893),
	who married an Evangelical Coptic woman, sup
	ported the mission, which in 1907 had fifty‑three
organized congregations and 140 stations.	Fifteen
ordained missionaries,	thirteen lay missionaries
	(including five medical missionaries), sixteen mis
	sionary sisters, thirty ordained native ministers,
	thirty native auxiliary missionaries, 333 teachers,
	and thirty‑eight colporteurs are among the number
now at work.	There are 25,500 baptized members,
and 6,580 communicants.	In 1901 the contribu
	tions for church purposes amounted to about
$31,650.	In the 169 schools 13,406 pupils were
	taught (including 6,852 Copts and 2,924 Moham
	medans), and $31,489 were contributed for educa
tional work.	In 1882 a mission among the Moham
medans was begun	by the Anglican Church
	Missionary Society, but its success has not been
great.	Since 1892 the North African Mission has
	worked in the same direction in the Nile delta. A
	small Dutch mission is also at work, as well as the
	Egyptian General Mission, which has its head
quarters in Ireland.	See also " Egypt " under title
AFRICA, VOL 1., p. 67.	F. i1ATTENBUSCH.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Articles which cover the whole topic ex
	cept Modern Egypt are DB, i. 65367; EB, ii. 1203
	1247. The article in KL, i. 256‑267 includes Modern
Egypt.
	On the archeology consult: A. Erman, Life in Ancient
	Egypt, New York, 1894 (supersedes all earlier works);
	the various Reports and other publications of the two
	societies treated below, which give results of their
	operations; the publications of the Mission arehdo
	logique frangsiae an Caire, Paris, 1885 aqq. (a magnifi
	cent series of volumes dealing with various topics); G.
	Perrot andC. Chipiez, Hint. of Art in Ancient Egypt, 2 vole.,
	London, 1883; W. M. F. Petrie, Historical Scarabs,
	London, 1889; idem, Ten Years' Digging in Egypt, New
	York, 1892; idem, Egyptian Decorative Art, ib. 1895; G.
	Maspero, Life in Ancient Egypt, ib. 1891; E. A. W. Budge,
	The Mummy: Chapters on Egyptian Funeral Archhar
	oloyy, Cambridge, 1893; W. Max Moller, Amen and
	Europa reach allagyptischen Denkmtilern, Leipaic, 1893;
	M. Benson and J. Gourlay, The Temple of Mut in Asher
	illustrating the Hiat. of Egypt and the Main Relig
	ious Ideas of the Egyptians, London, 1899; J. de Morgan,
	Recherchea our lea ariyinea de L1gypte; l'dge de la pierce
	et lee metauz, Paris, 1895‑96; H. Wallis, Egyptian Pot
	tery, London, 1598; M. Brodrick and A. A. Morton, Con
	cise Dictionary of Egyptian ArchasoIoyy, ib. 1901; J. Ca
	part, Les Debuts de fart en tgypte, Brussels. 1904, Eng.
	trans[., Primitive Art in Egypt, Philadelphia, 1905; F.
	W. von Bessing, Monuments of Egyptian Sculpture, New
	York, 1906 (typical examples of art arranged chrono
	logically): T. M. Davis, E. Neville, H. Carter, Theodore
	M. Davis' Excavations, New York, 1908; A. H. Gardiner,
	Inscription of Mea: Study of Egyptian Judicial Procedure,
	ib. 1906; G. Maspero, Manual of Egyptian Archeaology,
	ib. 1906; P. E. Newberry, Scarabs: Introduction to the
	Study of Egyptian Seals and Signet Rings, London, 1908;
	H. Schneider, Kultur and Denken der alter Aeyypter, Leip
	sic, 1907; E. A. W. Budge, The Egyptian Sudan, its His
tory and Monuments, 2vols., London, 1907.
	On the history it is to be remarked that the earlier works
	are superseded and should be used only with the greatest
	care. Consult J. H. Breasted. A Hiat. o/ Egypt, New
	York, 1905 (in connection with this may be employed
	Breasted'sAncient Records of Egypt, including the Historical
Documents, 5 vole., Chicago, 1905‑06); idem, History of the Ancient Egyptians, New York, 1908 (s brief and handy manual); A. Wiedemann, AegyptiacheCeachichte, Gotha, 1884; E. Meyer, Geachichte des Allertums, vol. i., Stuttgart, 1884; idem, Geschichte des aZten Aepyptens, Berlin, 1887; W. M. F. Petrie, A Hiat. of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Thirtieth Dynasty. 6 vole., New York, 1894‑1905: A. H. 8ayce, The Egypt of the Hebrews and of Herodotu.e, ib. 1895; F. G. Flesy, Egyptian Chronology, ib. 1899; G. Maepero, History of the Ancient Peoples of the Classic East, 3 vole., ib. 1897‑1900; E. A. W. Budge, A Hint. of Egypt, 8 vole., ib. 1902. On the Greek period, besides the appropriate sections in works mentioned above, consult: J. P. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, London, 1895; M. C. 3traek, Die Dynaatie der Ptolem8er, Berlin, 1897. For the Roman period, J. G. Mine, History of Egypt under Roman Rule, London, 1899. On the externs! relations of Egypt, consult W. M. Moller, cat sup., and the literature under AMearre TearrTa.
On the religion: A. Wiedemann, Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, New York, 1897 (the best single work); G. Steindorff, The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, ib. 1906 (covers the subject, but largely on the basis of Herodotus); M. Brimmer, Egypt: Three Essays on the Religion, His&, and Art, Boston, 1891; G. Maspero, Atudea de mythologic et d'archeoloyie, 4 vole., Paris, 1893‑1900; G. St. Clair, Creation Records in Egypt. Studies in the Book of the Dead, London, 1898; W. M. F. Petrie, Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt, ib. 1898; E. A. W. Budge, Egyptian Ideas of a Future Life, Oxford, 1899; idem, Egyptian Magic, ib. 1899; idem, The Gods of the Egyptians, 3 vole., London, 1905 (sumptuous and meaty); idem, Egyptian Heaven and Hell, ib. 1906; A. H. Sayee, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, New York, 1903; A. Erman, Die dtyyptiache Religion, Berlin, 1905, Eng. tranal.. Handbook of Egyptian Religion, London. 1907; E. Neville, La Religion des anciena 9gyptiena, Paris, 1906; DB, Extra volume, pp. 176‑197
On the literature: For the Book of the Dead, the recession of the British Museum copy was reproduced in color by Griggs, London, 1859; that of the Turin Papyrus was edited by R. Lepaius, Leipsic, 1842; The Book of the Dead was translated in part by Le P. Renouf for the Society of Biblical Archaeology, parts i.‑iv., London, 1893‑95, completed by h. Neville, 1907; it has been translated into English by C. H. S. Davis, New York, 1894, and by E. A. W. Budge, 3 vole., London, 1898 (text, vocabulary, sad translation). An excellent Fr. tranal. is by P. Pierret, Paris, 1882. Collections are: K. Piehl, Inscriptions hieroglyphiques, 3 vole., Leipsic, 1886‑1903; Corpus papyrorum Rgypti, ed. R. Revillout and A. Eisenlohr, Paris, 1894 sqq.; Urkunden des aeyyptiachen Altertuma, ed. G. Steindorff, Leipaio, 1903 aqq. Egyptian Tales from the Papyri, 2 series, ed. and tranal. by W. M. F. Petrie, New York, 1894‑95 is of great interest psychologically and from the point of view of folklore. Consult also: Untersuchungen zur Geachichte and Altertumakunde Aeyyptena, ed. K. 3ethe, 4 vole., Leipsic, 1896 sqq.; R. Lepsius, Denkmttler aua Aepypten and Aethiopien, Leipsic, 1897 aqq. (4 vole. issued): G. Ebers. Papyrus Ebera, 2 vole., ib. 1875: I. Myer, The Oldest Books in the World, London, 1900; A. Erman, Aegyptiache ChreatomaUtie, New York, 1895.
On exploration and excavation consult: G. Steindorff, in H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, Philadelphia, 1903; W. M. F. Petrie, Ten Years' Digging in Egypt, London, 1892; the Annual Archaeological Reports of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1890 eqq., furnish socounts not only of the work of that association but of the discoveries made by other investigators; Bibl%ofheque egyptoloyique, Paris, 1893 sqq., contains many memoirs of s historical nature concerning exploration and excavation.
On Modern Egypt: De Chabroe, Easai. scar lea mmurs des habitants modernea de l'ggypte, in Description de l1gypte, ii. 2. PP. 381‑526, Paris, 1822; J. Silbernagl, Verfasaung cared yeyenwdrtiger Bestand attmmtlicher Kirchen des Orients, Landahut, 1907; H. Stephen, Daa heutige Aegypten, Leipsic, 1872; M. Liittke, Aeyyptena neue Zeit, Leipaic, 1873 (the most comprehensive book for ecclesiastical matters); O. Schneider, Beitr6ge zur Kenatniaa der priechiach‑orthodoxen Kirche Aepyptens, Dresden, 1874 (important); O. Werner, thbia terrarum catholicua, pp. 195 sqq.. Freiburg, 1890; F. Kattenbuseh, Lehrbuch der veryteichenden Confeaaionekunde, i. 170 aqq.. Freiburg,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	ftt
	EgyDtiaa $eaesroh Account
1892; Abu $alih. Churches and Monasteries of Egypt,
London. 1895; A. von Fireka, Aegypten. Berlin, 1895;
E. L. Butcher, Story of the Church of Egypt, London, 1897
(good for the modern period); A. Watson, American
Mission in Egypt. 1854‑96, Pittsburg, 1898: A. B. Ed
wards, Pharaohs, FeZtaha and Ezptorera. New York, 1891;
M. Fowler, Christian Egypt, London. 1901: B. Baedeker,
Egypt. London, 1902; K. Beth, Die orientaliache Chriaten
heit der Mittelmesrittnder, Berlin, 1902; H. Gundert, Die
evangeliaehe Mission, Are Ltiu:er, Volker and Arbeiten,
pp. 232 aqq., Stuttgart, 1903; O. Hiibner, Geopraphiach
atatistsache Tabelle aUer L1lnder der Erde, ad. F, von Jura
schek, Frankfort, 1907; Oothaiacher penealopiacher Karen
der, Goths, 1906; C. R. Watson, Egypt and the Christian
Crusade, Philadelphia,1907,and the literature underCorrrc
Caoaca.
EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND : A society founded in 1882 by Miss Ameba B. Edwards, Sir Erasmus Wilson, and others to carry on systematic and scientific research of ancient Egypt. The success of the undertaking was assured when the promoters obtained tho services of the well‑known Swiss Egyptologist, Adouard Naville, and the distinguished explorer, W. H. Flinders Petrie (since 1892 Edwards professor of Egyptology, University College, London). The results achieved may be classed under three heads ~ (1) Biblical, that is throwing light on the Old Testament narrative; (2) classical, showing the connection between Greece and Egypt at a very early period; (3) purely Egyptian, illustrating the history, religion, arts, and literature of ancient Egypt. During the season of 1882‑83 M. Navitle excavated the site of PithomSuccoth and determined the starting‑point of the Exodus; the city was built in the reign of Ramesea the Great, the oppressor of the Hebrews. In 188384 Prof. Petrie excavated Zoan (cf. Num. xiii. 22), but did not reach the Biblical city, as many centuries of later builders had buried it so deep that the cost and labor of reaching it was prohibitive. In the following season Prof. Petrie excavated at Tell Defenneh (the Biblical Tahpanhes), " The Palace of the Jew's Daughter," and found traces of the pavement before the entry of Pharaoh's house
(cf. Jer. xliii. 8‑10). In 1885 M. Naville identified the location of the Land of Goshen at Saft el‑Henneh
(cf. Ex. viii. 22). The three chief classical sites are those of Naucratis, Tanis, and Tel( Defenneh
(Gk. Daphnui). Naucratis was the city in which Psammetichua II. allowed his Greek mercenaries to settle. At Tanis remains of many Roman houses were found; that of a lawyer named Bak‑akhiu of c. 174 was especially rich in papyri and objects of the Greco‑Roman period. At Tell Defenneh traces of the camp of the Greek mercenaries were found. Other sites excavated have been: the city of Onias and Tell el‑Yehudiyeh (" Mound of the Jew "); the great temple of Bubastis; where monuments of the Hykaos, the shepherd kings who ruled in the time of Joseph (see EGYPT), were found; Ahnas el‑Dledineh, Deir el‑Bahari, the great temple of Queen Hatshepsu, and the eleventhdynasty temple of Mentuhetep adjoining; Deshasheh, Dendereh, and Abydos.
There are two auxiliary branches of the Fund, (1) the Archeological Survey, which copies wall sculptures and the like which have been uncovered and thus are liable to injury; and (2) the GrecoRoman Branch, established to search for papyri.
The Archeological Survey has done excellent work at Beni Haaan, el‑Bersheh, Saqqareh, Sheikh Said, Deir el‑Gebrawi, and el‑Amarna. To the excavators of the Greco‑Roman Branch, Drs. Grenfell and Hunt, are due the recovery of the " sayings of Jesus " (see AGRAPHA), many portions of the Gospels, as well as invaluable Greek papyri. The principal site worked by the Greco‑Roman Branch has teen ORyThyEChUB. EMILY PATERSON.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The following is a list of the publications
of the Fund: I. The Memoirs: 1, for 1883‑84, by E. Neville, The Store City of Pithom and the Routs of as Exodus, 2, for 1884‑85, by W. M. F. Petrie, Tanis, part
i.; 3, for 188588, by W. M. F. Petrie, Naukrad%a, part i.; 4, for 188887, by E. Neville, Goshen and the Shrine of Saft‑d‑Henneh; 5, for 1887‑‑88, by W. M. F. Petrie, F. Ll. Griffith and A. $. Murray, Tanis, part ii., Tell Dafenneh, and Tall Nebeaheh: 6, for 1888‑89, by E. A. Gardiner and F. Ll. Griffith, Naukratie, part ii.; 7, extra
volume, by E. Neville and F. L1. Griffith, The City of Oniaa and the Mound of the Jew; 8, for 1889‑90, by E.
Neville, Bubaetia; 9, extra volume, by F. Ll. Griffith and W. M. F. Petrie, Two Hieroglyphic Papyri from Tanis; 10, for 1890‑91, by E. Neville, The Festival Hall of Oeorkon II. (Bukaetia); 11, for 1891‑92, by E. Neville, J. J. Tylor and F. Lt. Griffith, Ahnaa eNMedineh, and The Tomb of Paheri at el‑Kab; 12‑14, 16, 19 and 27, for 1892‑95, 189897, 1899‑1900 and 1904‑‑05, by E. Neville, Deir el‑Bahari, Introductory and parts i.‑v.; 15, for 1895‑96, by W. M. F. Petrie, Deahaaheh ; 17, for 1897‑98, by W. M. F. Petrie, Dendereh; 18, for 1898‑99, by W. M. F. Petrie, Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty; 20, extra volume, by W. M. F. Petrie, Dioapolia Parva; 21, for 1900‑01, by W. M. F. Petrie, The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties, part ii.; 22 and 24, for 1901‑03 by W. M. F. Petrie, Abydoa, parts i.‑ii.; 23, extra volume, by D. Randall‑MacIver, A. C. Mace and F. Ll. Griffith, El‑Amrah and Abydoa; 25, extra volume, by C. T. Currelly, E. R/Ayrton and A. E. P. Weigall, Abydos, part iii.; 26, for 1903‑04, by W. M. F. Petrie, Ehnasya; 28, for 1905‑06, by E. Naville and H. R,. Hall, The Eleventh Dynasty Temple at Deir el Bahari.
II. The Archeological Survey: 1‑2, for 1890‑92, by P. E. Newberry and G W Fraser. Beni Haean, parts i. ii.; 3, for 1892‑93, by P. E. Newberry, El‑Beraluh, part i.; 4, for 1893‑94, by F. LI. Griffith and P. E. Newberry. El‑Beraheh, part ii.; 5 and 7, for 1894‑95 and 1898‑97, by F. LI. Griffith, Beni Haean, parts iii.‑iv.; 6, for 1895‑96, by F. Ll. Griffith, Hieroglyphs from the Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund; 8‑9, for 189799, by N. de G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith, The Maatabah of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh, parts i. ii.; 10, for 1899‑191)0, by N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Said, 11‑12, for 1900‑02 by N, de G. Davies, The Rack Tombs of Deir e1‑Gebrawi, parts i.‑ii.; 13‑15, for 1902‑05, The Rock Tombs of el‑Amarna, parts i.‑iii.
III. Grew‑Roman Branch: 1, 2. 5, 6, b, for 189799, 1902‑04, 1908‑07, by B. P. Grenfell and A. $. Hunt, The Ozyrhynchua Papyri, parts i.‑v.; 3, for 1899‑1900, by D. G. Hogarth. B. P. Grenfell and A. $. Hunt, Fayum Towns and their Papyri; 4, 1901‑02, by B. P. Grenfell, A. $. Hunt and J. G. $myly, The Tebtunia Papyri; 7, for 1904‑06, The Hibeh Papyri.
IV. Annual Archeological Reports on the seasons' work, running from 1890‑91 to date.
V. Special Publications: B. P. Grenfell and A. $. Hunt, A01`IA IHTOY ; " Sayings of Our Lord,, and
New Sayings of Jesus and Fragment of a Loaf Gospel; Atlas of Ancient Egypt; Guide to Temple of Deir at_Bahari; W. E. Cruet, Coptic oakum.

EGYPTIAN RESEARCH ACCOUNT: A society carrying on archeological research in Egypt, which had its beginnings about 1893, when through the exertions of Prof. W. M. Flinders Petrie a fund was collected to assist students in Egypt. For eleven years the fund (the " Research Account "), con‑

tinued by subscriptions, was administered by Professor Petrie as a personal trust, and the students who

Egppflea Research Account	THE NEp SCHAFF‑HERZOG	98
Eiohhorn
shared in it worked in accord with his excavations
latterly conducted for the Egypt Exploration Fund
(q.v.). In 1905 a different basis was found desir
able, and the work was organized and expanded
at a public meeting of subscribers and friends held
in London. Regulations were adopted stating the
name of the new association to be the " Egyptian
Research Account and British School of Archeology
in Egypt." The office was appointed at University
College, London. The objects were defined as
follows:
	s. To conduct excavations and pay all expenses inci
dental thereto.
	b. To discover and acquire antiquities and to distribute
the same to public museums.
	c. To publish works.
	d. To hold exhibitions.
	e. To promote the training and assistance of students
	All of these objects to be carried on in relation to Egypt,
meaning in general the Nile valley, but with occasional ex
tension to any part of the former kingdom of Egypt.
	All receipts from subscriptions, bequest, or sale
of books are applied solely to the objects mentioned
above, and no expenses are incurred for offices or
management.	Antiquities not claimed by the
Egyptian government are divided among subscribers
and among public museums in proportion to the
amounts contributed in their respective localities.
The management of the society is in the hands of
an executive committee appointed by a general
committee, which in turn is appointed by the sub
scribers at an annual general meeting held in
London. A director has charge of the work in the
field and the work of students. He is the professor
of Egyptology in University College, London, if
he choose to fill the position; if not, appointment
is made by the general committee on nomination of
the executive committee. Professor Petrie has con
tinued as director. Late work of the society has
been excavation at Tell el‑Yehudiyeh, twenty miles
north of Cairo, where it is thought the celebrated
Hyksos capital Avaris hag been discovered, and also
the town and temple of Onus; the Jewish high priest
who fled to Egypt about 150 a.c. The exploration
of Memphis is now in progress, and it is estimated
that fully fifteen years will be required to excavate
the temple sites alone, apart from the city. The
following is the complete list of the society's pub
lications, and indicates the locality and character
of the work done since its beginning:
	i. 1895. J. E. Quibell, BaZlaa,
	ii. 1898. J. E. Quibell, The Ramenaeum.
	iii. 1897. J. E. Quibell, El Kab.
	iv. 1898. W. M. Flinders Petrie, HiarakvntopoZis, i.
	v. 1899. F. W. Green and J. E. Quibell, Hisrakonfap
		dia, ii.
	vi. 1900. J. Garetang, EZ Arabah.
	vii. 1901. J, Garatang, Mahosna,
	viii. 1902. A. St. G. Caulfeild, The Temple of the Kings.
	ix, 1903. M, A. Murray, The Oaireion,
	z, 1904. M, A. Murray, Saqqara Maatabas, i.
		L. Lost, Gmrob.
	xi. 1905. Hilda Petrie, Saqqara Mastabaa, ii.
	aii. 1908. W. M. Flinders Petrie, Hyksoa and laraeiite
		Cities.
	aiii. 1907. W. M. Flinders Petrie, Oiaeh and Rifeh,
	uv. 1908. W. M. Flinders Petrie, Athribia and Memphis, 1.
	EHRENFEUCHTER, 5"ren‑feis'ter, FRIEDRICH
AUGUST EDUARD: German mediating theolo
gian; b. at Leopoldahafen (near Carlaruhe) Dec.
15, 1814; d. at Gottingen Mar. 20, 1878. He
was educated at Mannheim and Heidelberg, and
from 1835 to 1839 was instructor in religion at
Mannheim. In 1841 he was appointed vicar at
Weinheim, and then became court and municipal
vicar at Carlaruhe. He attracted attention by his
Theorie des christlichen Kultus (Hamburg, 1840)
and Entu°icklungsgeqchichte der Menschheit (Heidel
berg,1845), and in 1845 accepted a call to Gottingen,
where he remained until his death, despite calls to
Heidelberg, Leipaic, Carlaruhe, and Dresden. In
1849 he became full professor of theology, in 1856
abbot of Burafelde, and in 1859 counselor of the
supreme conaistory and member of the Hanoverian
council for religion and education. The chief sub
ject of his lectures was practical theology in all its
branches, although he also taught theological intro
duction, the philosophy of religion, apologetics, the
life of Jesus, interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles,
modern church history, and similar topics. Both
as a lecturer and preacher, he was extremely popu
lar. Distinctly irenic in temperament and unable
to conceive of a conflict between science and the
Church, theory and practise, of ecclesiastical‑ polity
and academic teaching, Ehrenfeuchter was exposed
to attacks both from conservatives and radicals,
particularly in the neo‑Lutheran controversy which
raged in Hanover in 1853 and the following years.
He was a prolific writer, his principal works, in
addition to those already mentioned, being: Zeug
nisse aus dem akade»xischen GoGzsdienst in Gdttingen
(Gottingen, 1849‑52); Zur Geschiehte des Kate
chismus (1857); Die praktische Theologie (1859);
Die Katechismusfrage in der hannoverschen Landea
kirehe (1862); and Christentum and moderns Weltan
schauung (1876). He was one of the founders of
the Jahrbiieher far deutaehe Theologie (Stuttgart and
Goths, 1856‑78). 	(J. A. WA(iENnswrrNt.)

EICHHORR, aia'hern, JOHARN ALBRECHT FRIEDRICH: Prussian minister of worship;. b. at Wertheim (20 m. w. of Wiirzburg) Mar. 2, 1776; d. at Berlin Jan. 16, 1856. He served as an army" officer in the war of liberation in 1813, and afterward took an active part in promoting the welfare of his country. He soon occupied various prominent positions, and when Frederick William IV. ascended the throne of Prussia in 1840, Eichhorn was appointed minister of worship and education. As the state governed the universities and regulated the appointment of its teachers, the influence of the ruling policy upon the destinies of scientific efforts was inevitable, and showed itself especially in philosophy and theology. The tendency to substitute a positive philosophy in place of the negative became a great stumbling‑block to theological candidates and ministers. The result of this policy was an opposition which in 1842 nourished two hostile parties.
In 1843 Eichhorn undertook the formation of synods in the eastern provinces, and these diatricteynoda, composed only of ministers and meeting in 1843, advocated an increase of pastoral forces, better preparation of the candidates, the formation of presbyteries, greater interest of the congregations in the election of ministers, sad a more definite

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
97
adherence on the part of the clergy to the Augsburg Confession. In 1844 the six eastern provincial synods were convened and advocated the restoration of consistories in their ecclesiastical quality and the establishment of other synodical institutions. In 1846 at the instance of Prussia, conferences, represented by delegates from all the twentysix Protestant governments, were held (Berlin, Jan. 3), but they accomplished little except to serve as preludes for the Eisenach conferences (see EISENACH CONFERENCE).
	In regard to the universities, Eichhorn declined
to favor any particular doctrine, although he
checked pantheistic speculation and deistic natural
ism; moderate tendencies, on the other hand, were
given free scope. He formed many plans, and
efforts were made to acquaint the public through
the press with the intentions of the government.
But the revolution of Mar., 1848, made an end of all
these plans and Eichhorn withdrew from public
life. In his administration a special section was
formed for Roman Catholic interests, and the
bishops were permitted to communicate freely with
Rome. 	(W. HoLLENSERat.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Eilere, Zur Beurteilunp lea Miniakriuma Eichhom, Berlin, 1849; O. Meier, in Preuasiuhe Jahr‑
biicher, 1877, parts 2 and 3; H. von Treitschke, Deutsche
Geech%chte im 19. Jahrhundert, v. 229 eqq., Leipeic, 1894.

EICHHORN, JOHANN GOTTFRIED: Biblical scholar; b. at DtSrrenzimmern (near KUnzelsau, 24 m. n.e. of Heilbronn) in the principality of Hohenlohe‑Oehringen, Oct. 16, 1752; d. at G6ttingen June 14, 1827. His father was pastor at Diirrenzimmern. After preparatory studies in the town school at Weikersheim and the gymnasium at Heilbronn, he studied at GSttingen, 1770‑74, under Michaelis, Walch, Miller, SchlSZer, and Heyne. He became rector of the gymnasium at Ohrdruff, near Goths, in 1774. The next year he was appointed ordinary professor of Oriental languages at Jena, In this period he published a number of treatises on the history and literature of the Orient, as well as of particular Mohammedan dominions. In the main, however, he devoted himself to the Biblical sciences. In the Repertoritcm fur biblische and morgenlandische Litteratur (Leipsic, 1777‑86), edited by himself, he did much which was preliminary work to his Einleilung ins Alts Testament (3 vols., Leipsic, 1780‑83). This work, which is distinguished alike by youthful enthusiasm, synoptical arrangement, comprehensive scholarship, and solid investigation, gained universal acceptance, and appeared in the fourth edition (5 vole., 1823‑26). In it Eichhorn made Introduction a literary‑historic science. A proof of the lively interest with which he pursued the study of Biblical literature is furnished by Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Littxratur (10 vole., Leipsic, 1787‑1803).
In 1788 he went to G&ttingen as ordinary professor of philosophy; and here he exhibited until shortly before his death an exceedingly diversified activity, combined with rare powers of labor and indefatigable industry. His numerous lectures embraced not only the Biblical sciences, but also the history and literary life of ancient and modern times. At the same time he embodied the material I V. 7
RE= $effiswroh Account
o ors
of his lectures in extensive works issued in rapid succession (cf. Hauck‑Herzog, RE, v. 235 for list of his historical works). Nevertheless, the principal part of his activity was directed to Biblical science. Of his additional theological writings may be mentioned: Commentariua in Aloocalypsin Joannis (2 vole., Gottingen, 1791); Einleitung in die apokr^gphischen Schr4,ften des Alters Testaments (Leipsie, 1795); Einleitung in das New Testament (2 vole., Leipeic, 1804‑12), containing detailed researches with reference to the origin of the Gospels; Die hebrdischen Propheten (3 vole., Giittingen, 181fr19); and a metrical translation of the Book of Job (Leipaic, 1800; 2d ed., 1824). His lectures in the Gdttingen Society of Sciences are also noteworthy. After Heyne's death (1812) he edited the Gottinger gelehrten Anzeigen, for which he wrote many literary notices.
The verdict upon Eichhorn and his works became less favorable not long after his death; his historical writings, which were really mere' sketches, were found wanting in thorough investigation and painstaking conscientiousness. Still more sharply were his theological works censured, because the more accurate knowledge of the characteristics of this or that particular composition was lacking; and his research was not sufficiently free .from prejudice. It may likewise be said against his exegesis that it neglected the psychologic element, and frequently explained away the profound content of the Biblical records by means of so called " natural " elucidation. His merit remains, however, in the fact that he not only vindicated the Bible against the ridicule of its enemies, but that far and wide he awakened love for the Biblical writings, especially the Old‑Testament Scriptures, and the zeal to examine them carefully.
CARL BERTHEAU.
BIBLIOGRAPHY‑ F. Saalfeld, Geechichte der Ilniveraitltt G6ttinpen, pp. 332 eqq., Hanover, 1820; H. Doering, Die yelehrfsn Theolopen Deuteehlande, i. 356 eqq., Neustadt, 1831; H. Ewald, Jahrbildeer der Gibliachen Wiaeenechaft, i. 28 sqq., Gdttingen, 1849; t1DB, v. 731 eqq.; C. H. H. Wright, Introduction to O. T., London, 1890; C. A. Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, psaeim, New York, 1899.
EICHHORft, KARL FRIEDRICH: German jurist; son of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, b. at Jena Nov' 20, 1781; d. at Cologne July 5, 1854. He studied law at Giittingen, Wetzlar and Vienna. In 1803 he commenced his academic activity at Gottingen, was appointed professor of law at Frankfort‑on‑the‑Oder in 1805, and was called in 1811 to Berlin. He served in the war of 1813, and four years later, at the wish of his father, accepted 8 call to Gottingen. He retired on account of illhealth~ in 1829, but in 1831 returned to Berlin, lectured for a year, then devoted his time partly to his high offices in civil administration, and partly to literary pursuits. He withdrew entirely from public life in 1847, and, after residing four years on his estate at Ammern (near Tiibingen), removed to Cologne, where he spent the remainder of his life. Eichhorn was regarded as the foremost of the historical school of German jurists, and wrote a number of legal works which still take high rank. In the domain of canon law he wrote Grundsatze des Kirehenrechts der katholisehen and der evange‑

Eiohetaett
Eisenach Conferenoe
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
lisclten Religionspartei in Deutschland (2 vole., G&ttingen, 1831‑33); Gutachten fur die Domgemeinde zu Bremen (Hanover, 1831); and Ueber die spanische Sammlung der Quellen des Kirchenrechts in the Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie (Berlin, 1833‑34) and in the Zeitsehrift fur geschichtliche Rachtsurissensclutft, xi. (C. T. G. VON SCHEURL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. von Schulte, Karl Friedrich EidtMrx, aein Leben and yVirken, Stuttgart, 1884; J. C. Blunteehli and K. Bracer, Stoats‑Wlirterburh, iii. 237 eqq., ib. 1858; Preuasiache Jahrbiirher, xxavi (1575), 22 eqq.; ADB, vp. 469 eqq.
	EICHSTAETT, aia'stat, BISHOPRIC OF: A
German bishopric named from a city of Germany, 42
m. w.s.w. of Regensburg. The diocese was estab
lished by St. Boniface, and in 740 had a monastery
on the wooded height above the Altmiihl. On Oct.
22, 741, the Anglo‑Saxon Willibald (q.v.), who was
the abbot of this cloister, was consecrated bishop
by Boniface, primarily for missionary work among
the neighboring Wends. The actual diocese, how
ever, first came into existence two years later, when
Odilo of Bavaria was obliged to cede the northern
portion of his domains to Karlman and Pepin,
whereupon, to secure the incorporation of the new
possession in Frankish territory, the Frankish dis
trict of Suala was united with it to form a bishopric.
The diocese lost a small portion of its territory
when the see of Bamberg was established (1015),
but the modern diocese practically corresponds to
the ancient. 	(A. HAUCK.)
Bishop Gebhard I. (1042‑57) became first an imperial minister of great force, and then pope as Victor IL, still, however, retaining his German bishopric and for a time, as administrator of the Empire after the death of Henry Ill., uniting the highest temporal and spiritual power. Few events of general interest occurred until the episcopate of William of Reichenau (1464‑96), whose achievements in statesmanship, economic and intellectual improvements, and building were notable; the University of Ingolatadt was now founded, with William for its first chancellor. The Reformation made marked headway in the diocese in spite of the stalwart opposition of Bishop Martin of Schaumberg (1560‑90), who founded at Eichstatt the first seminary in Germany as prescribed by the Council of Trent. A period of great prosperity for the diocese was the episcopate of Conrad of Gemmingen (1593‑1612), but the Swedish army laid it in ruins and burned the see city in 1634. The secularization of 1802 divided the diocese between Bavaria, Prussia and Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany, until in 1805 the fragments were reunited under Bavarian rule. Bishop Joseph von Stubenberg (1790‑1824), though no longer a temporal magnate, recovered the full extent of his diocese in the Concordat of 1817, and many evidences of spiritual life were shown during the remainder of the nineteenth century.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for history are: Gundechari Liter pontificalis Eichatetetts%a, 9¢1‑107l,, ed. L. C. Bethmann in MGH, Script., vii (1846), 239 aqq.; the same volume, pp. 253 aqq., contains Anonymua Haaerenaia de epiacopia Eichatetenaibua 7k1‑1063; Geata. epiacoPm•um Eichatetenaium 1,99‑1/,l6, MGH, Script., xxv (1880), 590‑609. Consult: M. Lead, Regeaten der Biachtife von Eichatlitt
..:;;`::sa;,:.~."': , . Mia_' `~A ~ . _~. . ' .,
98
7/,1‑1897 Eiehatatt, 1871‑74; J. Sax, Geaehichte des Hochatifta and der Stadt Eichattitt, ib. 1858; Hauck, KD, i. b18‑519.
EINHARD, ain'hdrt (EGINHARD): Frankish historian and ecclesiastic; b. in the district of the Main, Lower Franconia, about 770; d. at Seligenstadt (15 m. e.s.e. of Frankfort) Mar. 14, 840. He received his earliest education in the monastery of Fulda, and was presented by the abbot Baugolf (779‑802) at the court of Charlemagne, where he enjoyed the instruction of Alcuin, devoting himself especially to mathematics and architecture, and being appointed inspector of the royal buildings. He was likewise one of the trusted counselors of Charlemagne, and in 806 was sent to Rome to secure the pope's sanction of the division of the realm as proposed by the emperor. He retained his position with Charlemagne's son and successor, Louis, who entrusted him with the education of his son Lothair, although he later became a strong opponent of the evil influence of the empress Judith. In 829 he fell seriously ill, and in the following year left the court. He then retired to Seligenstadt, but in 833 he was at the court of Lothair to do him homage. His chief interest, however, was the development of Miihlheim on the Main, which he renamed Seligenstadt on account of the relics of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, which he brought thither from Rome in 827.
	The importance of Einhard as a historian has been
much overrated, his perfection of form and diction
concealing his inaccuracies. His Vita Caroli Magni
(Eng. tranal. by W. Glaiater, London, 1877), which
is modeled on Suetonius, and draws its political
portions from the Annales Einhardi, was written
shortly after the death of the emperor, and was at
once most widely circulated. His letters, which
extend only from 825 to 840 and are for the most
part undated, are valuable historical documents
and are characterized by clarity and simplicity,
but his Translatio aanctorum Marcellini et Petri is
filled with incredible miracles, though it is not
without importance as a source for culture‑history.
		(WILHELM ALThIANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: NA, id (1886), 235‑238 contains his De
adoranda truce. and xii (1887), 263 eqq. his Egiatolis, the
latter also in MPL, civ.; the Vita RaroZi, ed. G. H.
Pertz, Is in MGH, Script., ii (1829), 428‑483, thence re
printed in MPL, xcvii. and was also edited by A. Holder,
Freiburg, 1882. A rich bibliography is given in A. Pott
hast, Bibliotheca hiatorica medii a'vi, pp. 395‑397, Berlin,
1896; also in J. C. F. Bahr, Geachiehte der ronaiachen
Li,teratur, pp, 163‑166, 200‑218, Carlaruhe, 1840. Consult: J. Freae, De Einhardi vita et acriptia, Berlin, 1846; H. Schneider, Daa Leben Eginharda, Bamberg, 1881; E. Dunzelmann Einhard and seine Werke, in NA, ut sup., ii (1877), 491‑499; M. Boudois La Translation des saints Marcellin et Pierre. L~f'tude our Einhard et as vie politique 8r9 531,, Paris, 1907; DCB, ii. 64‑65.
EINSIEDELN, ain'zi‑deln (MARIA EINSIEDELN)
A town of Switzerland (9 m. e.n.e. of Schwyz), containing (1900) about 4,000 inhabitants, and famous as a place of Roman Catholic pilgrimage. Monastic life there dates back to the ninth century, and is connected with the legend of St. Meginrad or Meinrad, who is said to have come from the region near Rottenburg or Hechingen. He first lived in a cell, perhaps at Bollingen near Rap‑

98	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eiohetsett
		Eisenach Conference
	persweil, but yielding to his desire for a hermit's
	life, is said to have gone to the summit of Mount
	Etzel, and thence to the still more impenetrable
	wilderness of the mountain forests. There he is
said to have tamed two ravens, which, when be was
murdered by robbers in 861, followed the criminals
to Zurich and convicted them of the crime. It
was not until the tenth century, however, that a
	monastery was erected in this region, when Benno
and Eberhard are said to have made the first at
	tempts to gather monks about the deserted cell of
	Meinrad. Authentic history begins with 947, when
	Otto I. granted immunity to the cell and to Eber
	hard, and allowed the free choice of an abbot. Otto
	L, Otto IL, and Henry II. gave rich gifts to the
	cloister, and until the thirteenth century the control
was in the hands of the counts of Rappersweil.
	After the time of Rudolf, on the other hand, it was
	controlled by the house of Austria, and was accord
	ingly involved in the struggles between the Swiss
	Confederacy and the Hapsburgs. The Sempach
war broke all bonds which held Einsiedeln to Aus
	tria, and after the end of the fourteenth century
	the monastery belonged to the Canton of Schwyz,
	although it was decaying rapidly when Zwingli was
	its parish priest.
		The Zurich Reformation depopulated Einsiedeln,
	but under the administration of the first civil abbot,
	Joachim Eichhorn (1544‑69), it revived, and in the
	seventeenth century, during the rule of Placidua
	Reymann, the Documenia archivii Einsidleresis
	were printed, while the librarian of the monastery,
	Christof Hartmann, wrote its history in his Annales
	Heremi (Freiburg, 1612). The monastery was
	burned repeatedly, but underwent no essential
	change until 1798, when it was entirely destroyed
	by the invasion of the French and the establish
	ment of the Helvetian Republic. In 1801 its
	restoration was begun and its importance steadily
	increased, until at its millennial celebration in 1861,
	it contained nearly 100 monks, and a daughter
	house was founded in the United Staten by Abbot
	Heinrich at St. Meinrad, Ind., in 1854.
		Einsiedeln is ~ especially famous as a center of
	pilgrimage from Switzerland, the neighboring dis
	tricts of Germany, and from France and Austria.
	These pilgrimages began in the tenth century, and
	in 1895 reached the number of 210,000. The
	chief day is Sept. 14, regarded as the date of the
	divine dedication of the church in 948. The center
	of devotion is a statue of the Virgin, originally fiesh
	colored, but blackened by the smoke of the lights
	and lamps which burn continually. It stands in
	a small chapel in the church of the cloister, which,
	like all the buildings, was erected in the eighteenth
	century.	(G. MEYER VON KNONAIT.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. Ringhola, Wallfahrtapeachichte unaerer
		lichen Frau von Einaiedeln, Freiburg, 1896; idem, Ge
		achichte den fiiratlichen Benediktinerstiftea . : . von Ein
		aiedeln, Einaiedeln, 1902 eqq (in progress); A. Huhn,
		Der jetzipe Sliflabau Maria‑Einaiedeln, ib. 1885. Earlier
		materials will be found in T. von Mohr's Repeaten der
		Archive in der Schweizeriachen EidgenoaaenarAaft, vol. i.,
		Bern, 1848; Liber Heremi, ed. G. Morel, in Gesehirhta‑
freund, vol. i.. Einaiedeln. 1843; G, von Wyss Ue6erdie
Antiquitakmoraalerii . . Enidlenaia and ,den Liber
Hersmi, in Jahrbuch far aehmeiseriade Geechichta, vol. a.,
lass.
	EISENACH CONFERENCE	(KONFERENZ,
EVAftGELISCH‑B.IRCHLICHE);	A gathering of
German Protestants which has met at Eisenach,
usually every other year shortly after Whitsuntide,
		since 1852, forming	at present the
Origin only official bond between the Evanand gelical State Churches of Germany.
	Purpose.	The corporate name of the conference
		is Evangelisch‑Kirchliche Konferenz.
As early as 1846 at the instance of the king of
W iirttemberg a conference of delegates from the
German State Churches met in Berlin to find ways
and means for establishing a more intimate con
nection. Owing to the disturbances of 1848, the
cause made little progress, but it was revived in
1850 and 1851. The church authorities agreed
upon an order of business for a periodically recur
ring conference of delegates " to discuss freely,
upon the basis of the Confession, the more important
questions of church life and to form a bond of union,
without interfering with the independence of each
individual State Church, and to promote the uni
form development of their conditions." The con
ference met for the first time at Eisenach June 3,
1852, under the presidency of Court Preacher Carl
(von Griineisen q.v.) of Stuttgart to whose efforts
chiefly it owed its existence. Twenty‑four church
governments were presented. In later meetings
the authorities of all German State Churches have
taken part, including Austria. The conference
lasts about eight days and is usually opened on
Thursday in Trinity week by a service in the chapel
of the Wartburg. The archives used to be in the
Luther room of the Wartburg, but are now in the
grand‑ducal castle in Eisenach. The expenses are
met by contributions from the different states which
take part.
Although originally the purpose of the conference was to aim at harmony in principles of church administration by purely advisory measures, in the course of time it has undertaken executive functions with the tacit approval of
Topics the church authorities. A revision of of Dis‑ the liturgies was advocated as early
	cussion.	as 1852, but was found impracticable
		on a large scale owing to the difference
of confession. Questions which touch the church
service were discussed, however, as the introduc
tion of passion‑services in Lent (1855) and the
restitution and revival of catechization (1865).
Attention was also given to the education of clergy
men and the administration of their office, as in the
discussions concerning the order of promotion in
1857 and 1859, pastors' colloquies in 1863, and
other similar questions. Consultations were also
held on the inspection of the administration and
life of clergymen (1852 and 1853), the secret of the
confessional (1857 and 1859), and the cooperation
of congregations in filling clerical positions (1855).
Other subjects of discussion have been: the advi
sability of supplementing the episcopal form of
government with presbyteries and synods ,(1852,
1874, 1878, 1880); the question of marriages be
tween Evangelicals and Roman Catholics (1853);
marriage and divorce (1855, 1857, 1868); the atti
tude of the church authorities to the protectorate

Eisenach Conference
Elagabalus
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
of the nobility (1861); the taxation of congregations (1874); church discipline (1857); the treatment of sects (1852, 1855, 1884); religious instruction in secondary schools (1868); the introduction of a Biblical text‑book instead of the whole Bible in primary and secondary schools (1898); and the inspection of religious instruction in secondary schools (1900). The topic of Christian charity was brought up in discussions on aid for emigrants (1855, 1872, and 1894), the organization of charities (1865), Christian work in war (1868 and 1870), furtherance of foreign and home missions (1872), and care of dismissed prisoners (1892). As a result of a recommendation of the conference a collection for German Evangelicals in foreign countries is now taken up every other year in most of the German State churches.
The resolutions following all these discussions were, of course, not legally binding; but the opinions of the most prominent theologians and jurists,
as expressed in the papers and reports Practical of the conference, had a permanent
Results. value; and still more valuable was the
personal intercourse of men charged with church administration from all parts of the country. And the conference was not satisfied with mere theoretical discussions; it was drawn by an inner necessity to productive work for the common interests of Evangelical Germany. In this connection may be mentioned the practical impulse given in 1859 to the organization of associations for the cultivation of religious art, the regulations for the building of Evangelical churches (1861 and 1898), the propositions for getting up a uniform almanac for the German Evangelical Church (1868, 1870) and selecting daily lectionaries from the Bible for use at home and in the Church (1868). Detttsches Evangelisciies Institut in Jerusalem, an enterprise of the German Evangelical Churches that had its inception in the conference of 1900, may also be mentioned.
The desire to publish the results of its discussions soon led to the founding of the Allgemeines Kirchenblatt fur das evangelische Deutschland, which, besides the protocols of the conference, compiles the laws and regulations of general interest enacted by the German Evangelical Church authorities. It forma the most complete collection of documents for modern church law in the German Evangelical Church. The question of church statistics was discussed in 1859, and resulted in the volume Zur kirchlichen Statistik des evangeliscTten Deutschlands imJahre1862 (Stuttgart, 1865). Since 1880suchstatistics have been published regularly. In 1861 the revision of Luther's translation of the Bible was advocated. It was decided to procure a uniform text on the basis of a received text of the Canstein Bbile Institute, with due regard to the original editions of Luther's Bible, and to modern scholarship. The revised New Testament appeared in 1867 and was approved by the conference in 1868. In 1870 the revision of the Old Testament was undertaken and in 1883 appeared the so‑called Probebibel. The entire work was completed and accepted by the conference in 1892. At its first meeting the conference decided upon a selection of the best hymns,
100
and the execution of the plan was entrusted to such hymnologists as Vilmar, Bahr, Wackernagel, Daniel, and Geffken. Their work, consisting o>r 150 Ifernlieder, was approved by the conference in 1853, and generally appreciated, but the hymns have not come into common use, principally because the selection confined itself too exclusively to older periods.) In 1878 the conference again took up the matter and appointed a committee to revise the Prussian Militar‑liirchenbuch. This revision, which was finished in 1880, has contributed greatly to uniformity in the use of hymns in the church, in the school, and in the home. It has been introduced in the army and navy. In 1880 a committee was appointed to collate and revise the melodies. Their work was published in 1890. Another committee was appointed to revise the old pericopea and to supplement them by a second series of Epistles and Gospels. Its work was finished and approved in 1896. In 1880 the conference tool up the discussion of lather's smaller catechism which was then used in sixty different versions, and in 1884 there appeared a revision that quickly supplanted earlier imperfect editions.
The work of the conference has proved that the need of a closer connection between the German
State churches is steadily growing, Unification and that thin need may be met withof the Na‑ out interfering with the independence
tional of the individual State churches, Churches. either in confession and order of worship, or in constitution and government. A permanent commission of six members was appointed in 1900, with the president of the conference as chairman, to further a uniform development in the different State churches. The commission, which was increased to fifteen members in 1903, is empowered to communicate directly with the church authorities and to report its communications to the conference. It will depend upon further developments whether this conference offers the proper basis for the effective unification of the German State churches. The Eisenach Conference must either be entrusted with greater authority by the church governments, or it must make way for some new body to be agreed upon by the state rulers and empowered with sufficient initiative and executive power for the fulfilment of its duties.
(H. VON DER GOLTZt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The organ is the AllgemPinea KirchereblatE
for daa evangeZische Deutschland, Stuttgart, 1852 eqq. For statistical materiel consult: P. Pieper, Kirchliche Statistik Deutachlanda, Tiibingen, 1899; J. Schneider, Kirehlichea Jahrbuch, 1907, Giitereloh, 1907.

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

101	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eisenach Conference
		Elagabalns
his travels he continued his studies for nineteen
years, first at Heidelberg and later at Frankfort‑on
the‑Main, availing himself of the services of Jews
who little suspected the purpose for which they
were engaged as his tutors. In 1700 he published
his Entdecktes Judenthum, styling it " a truthful
and authentic account of the horrible manner in
which the obdurate Jews blaspheme and dishonor the
moat Holy Trinity, God the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost; insult the holy mother of Christ, the New
Testament, the Evangelists and Apostles; mock
ingly traduce the Christian Religion, and disdain
and curse all Christianity to the utmost: where
also are shown many other things and great errors
of Jewish religion and theology hitherto either not
at all or only partially known to the Christians, as
well as numerous ridiculous and merry fables and
follies." Prince Johann Wilhelm approved of
Eiaenmenger's book, and appointed him professor
of Oriental languages at Heidelberg, but at the
request of the Jews the imperial government con
fiscated the work, lest its publication cause dis
turbances. Eisenmenger found that he might be
able to publish his book ii. Holland. The Jews
offered him 12,000 florins for the edition of 2,000
copies, but he asked 30,000, and died while nego
tiations were still in progress. His heirs appealed to
Frederick I. of Prussia, who carried their cause be
fore the emperors Leopold and Joseph, but without
success. At length Frederick I. (1711) decided to
have the work published " outside the kingdom,"
ostensibly in Kbnigsberg but in reality in Berlin,
and presented half the edition to Eisenmenger's
heirs. Forty years later the Frankfort edition
appeared. The Entdecktes Judenthum did not meet
with the success which its author had hoped since
it could no more be called a faithful representation
of Judaism than an indiscriminate collection of
everything superstitious and repulsive within Chris
tian literature could be termed characteristic of
Christianity. During recent decades August Roh
ling and others have used the work in anti‑Semitic
propaganda, and a reprint of the portions most
available for that purpose has been made by F. X.
Schieferl (Dresden, 1893). Eisenmenger collab
orated with Johann Leusden in the preparation of
an edition of the unpointed Hebrew text of the
Old Testament (Amsterdam, 1694), and also wrote
a Lezicum Orientate Harmonicum, which is still
unpublished.	(G. DALMAN. )
BIHLIOGRAPHT: J. J. Sehudt, Jildischa MerkuHtrdspkeiten,
	i. 426‑438, iii. 1‑$, iv. 288‑287, Frankfort, 1714; H.
	Graetz, Geachrochte der Juden, x. 273, 278, 281, Leipeie,
	1897; KL, iv. 343‑348; JE, v. 80,82.
	EKKEHARD, ek'ke‑hart, OF AURA (Ekke
hardus Uratigensis): Frankish Benedictine abbot
of Aura (near Kissingen, 30 m. n.n.e. of Wiirzburg);
b. in the eleventh century; d. Feb. 25 of some year
after 1125. He was apparently a monk of the
Bamberg monastery of Michelsberg, and in 1113
received benediction as abbot of Aura, which had
been founded according to the rule of Hirschau,
from Otto of Bamberg, who later became the apostle
of the Pomeranians. He had previously lived
in the monastery of Corvey, had visited Jerusalem
sae a pilgrim in 1101, and had attended the Lateran
Council of April, 1102. He accompanied Otto of Bamberg on his visit to the pope in 1106, and was present at the Council of Guastalla. He apparently left his monastery in 1116, and attended the Lateran Council held in March. Ekkehard was the author of a universal chronicle, which he afterward revised four times. The original work extends to 1099, and is based on a similar work which originated in Wurzburg, although‑he amplified it from other authors, such as Einhard, Widukind, Liutprand, and Richer, as well as from oral tradition and his own knowledge. He subsequently extended it to 1106, when he revised it twice, the last time on the basis of the chronicle of Sigibert of Gembloux, and carried it successively to 1114 and 1125. His work, which is not a mere compilation, is the most complete o£ all the medieval chronicles, although he is surpassed in depth and insight by Otto of Freising. (WILHELM ALTMANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ekkehard'a Chronicon and Hieroeolimita, ed. G. Waits, are in MGH, vi (1844), 1‑287. An excellent list of literature is given in Potthast, Wepweiaer, pp. 400‑401, cf. Wattenbach, DGQ, ii (1894), 189‑198. Consult N. Iteininger, in Archiv den hiatoriachen Vereina von Unterfranken and Aachafjenburp, avi. 1‑98, Wtlraburg, 1862; G. Buchholz, Ekkehard ‑von Aura, Leipaic. 1888; J. Tessier, in Revue hiatoriQue, xlvii (1891), 287‑277.

EB.BEHARD OF SAINT GALL. See SAINT GALL, MONASTERY OF.

ELAGABALUS, el"n‑.gab's‑Ivs (Varius Avitus Bassianus): Roman emperor; b. at Emesa, Syria, c. 201; killed by the pretoriane in Rome, 222. He was a son of the senator Varius Marcellus and Julia Soaemias, and a grandson of Julia Maesa (see ALEXANDER SEVERU$). Both mother and grandmother had retired to Emesa, and here they inculcated in the boy that Oriental religious fanaticism which was later to be the chief characteristic of the emperor. He was early consecrated as a priest of the sun‑god at Emesa and later appropriated his name (Elagabalus=Syriac El gabal, " mountain [?] god "; by popular Greek etymologizing the name became Heliogabalus, from hellos, " sun "). The intrigues of his mother and the fall of Macrinus brought him to the throne in 218. His personal beauty impressed the soldiers, and his claim to be the son of Caracalla won their respect. He did not enter Rome till 219. Unnerved by indulgence of his passions and crazed by his practise of superstitious sorcery, he had now only two aims in life, to follow his own pleasure and to introduce into Rome the worship of the sun‑god as the one supreme deity ruling throughout the whole world. All the attributes of other gods, even the sacra of the city, in so far as these were not profaned and put aside, were to be transferred to this one god.
This was the dream of a crazy boy in the year 219. Ninety years later the Church had to take account of a religious speculation essentially related to the views of this dissipated youth: viz. the idea of the oneness of God, as held by the emperor Alexander Severus (q.v.), and as represented in Neoplatonism (q.v.). At first Christianity was inclined to be peaceable toward this Neople,tonic speculation; but at the beginning of the fourth century it assumed an aggressive attitude and called

Elah
Elders in Israel
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
its adherents out for the conflict, until Constantine (q.v.) and his followers adopted a religious policy of which, it must be admitted, the boy Elagabalus was the forerunner. As Elagabalus did not have time to carry out his plans, his reign was one of peace for the Church. (ADOLF HARNAC%.)
BIBLIOGRCPIIY: The sources are: Dion Cassius, " Roman History," lxxvii. 3011, Ixxix.; Herodian, " History of the Kings," v. 4‑23; Lampridius. Elagabalus; Aurelius Victor, De Caaaritwa, xxiii.; idem, Epitome, xxiii. Modern accounts are: w. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, ii. 8‑7, London, 1890; V. Duruy, History of Rome, VII. 1, pp. 102‑118. Boston, 1890; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, i. 141‑198; KL, v. 1748‑50.

ELAH, i'Id: Fourth king of Israel, son and successor of Baasha. According to the sources in I Kings xvi. 6‑14 (cf. Josephus, Ant., VIII. xii. 4) he reigned parts of two years, and his dates according to the old chronology are 930‑929, according to Duneker 901‑900, according to Hommel 886‑885, according to Kamphausen 891‑890, and according to Mahler 889‑888. He was assassinated while intoxicated by Zimri, one of his generals, who usurped the throne.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the literature given under ARAB.
SLAM, i'lam: The name of a country known to the Assyrians as Elamtu (the " t " being a feminine termination), called in Greek Elymais, though part of its territory was known as Susiana in later times. Herodotus calls the country Kissia. The Assyrian name is usually explained as meaning " highland," but Jensen's explanation as " eastland " (that is, east of Babylonia), maybe correct.
Geographically the ancient Elam may be defined as lying east of the Tigris and north of the Persian Gulf and comprising not only the lowlands of the modern Khuzistan, but also the mountainous chains surrounding them on the north and east. Slam is classed in the Old Testament among the sons of Shem (Gen. x. 22; I Chron. i. 17) and this led early investigators to enumerate the Elamites among the Semitic peoples. The classification in the Old Testament must now be considered as geographical rather than ethnological, for it is quite clear that the Elamites are not Semitic either linguistically or ethnologically. Their language is agglutinative in character, and though difficult to classify with certainty is not in any way to be identified with the Semitic group.
The origin of the Elamite stock is veiled in obscurity. The true Elamites occupied the more mountainous parts of the country, while the lower levels near Babylonia even in very early times had a Semitic intermixture, whose nomenclature appears in certain place names near the river Tigris. The earliest mention of Elam known appears in an inscription of the Babylonian King Alusharshid (see BnslrLONln, VI, 2, § 5) about 3800 s.c., who declares that he had conquered Elam and Bara'se. The capital of Elam, Susa, was henceforward accounted by the Babylonians as in their sphere of influence. It had to be reconquered from time to time. Gudea (see BABYLONIA, VI., 3, § 3) conquered Anshan, henceforth regarded as the southern division of Elam, and furnishing the title of its greatest kings in later centuries. Later Babylonian princes
built temples in Suva, made marriage alliances with its princes and gave other evidences of their influence upon Elam. The ruler of Elam for about seven hundred years is called patesi (see BABYloNrA, VI., 2, § 1, note), and they seem all to have acknowledged Babylonian overlordship. All their inscriptions are written in Semitic Babylonian.
About 2285 B.c. Babylonia was overrun and conquered by KudurNahunte, King of Elam, whose name is Elamitic, not Semitic, and who belongs to the true Elamite stock, whose language appears in numerous inscriptions from this time onward. Thirteen years later Kudur‑Mabug (see BABYLONIA, VI, 4, § 1), king of Elam, established his rule over southern Babylonia, and his, son Rim‑Sin became king of Larsa, the Biblical Ellasar, in Babylonia. To this same line of princes belongs Chedorlaomer (Kudurlagamaru; Gen. xiv. 1). The Ele,mite ascendency in Babylonia was broken by Hammurabi ( = Amraphel of Gen. xiv. 1; see HAMMURABI AND HIS CODE) and from this time onward Elam and Babylonia pursued separate lines of development, though frequently at war with each other. About 640 s.c. Slam was conquered by Aeshurbanipal ( = Asnapper or Osnappar, Ezra ii. 10), king of Assyria., and its power broken forever. Soon afterward arose the princes of Anshan, who were the forebears of Cyrus the Great (553‑529 s.c.) who calls himself king of Anshan, and later king of Persia. He belongs to Indo‑Germanic stock and it is therefore probable that Elam had already been overrun by some migration of these people. ROBERT W. ROGERS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: w. K. Loftus, Chald&,a and Suaiana, Lon‑
don, 1857; F. Delitasch, Wo lap daa Paradiea t p. 237,
Leipsic, 1881; A. H. Sayce, in Transactions of Leyden
Oriental Congress, 1885; M. Dieulafoy, L'Aeroyole de
Sum. Paris, 1890; A. Billerbeck, Suaa, Freienwald, 1893; DB, i. 874‑878; EB, ii. 1253‑54; JE, v. 88‑89; and the articles A68YRIw and BABYLONIA, with the works on history cited there.
ELATH, f'lath (SLOTH), EZION‑GEBER (EZION‑GABER): Elath is the Old‑Testament name of a place on the eastern arm of the Red Sea, and in the land of Edom. In the Septuagint it appease as Ailath, Ailom, Adam ; in Josephus as Ilanis, Ailane, Elathous; in other Greek writers as Aeilan, Azlana; in Pliny as Aetana. These variations are explained by the different forms in Hebrew and Aramaic. It is clear that the name is derived from that of a holy tree or grove, and the original form may be found in the El‑paran of Gen. xiv. 6 (M.T. 'eyl pa'ran, " oak [or some other large tree] of Paran "). The form Elah is found only in Gen. xxxvi. 41 as the name of a district of which Elath was the center.
The location is clearly given in I Kings ix. 26, and with this Eusebius agrees (Orwmasticon, ccxxvii. 40), placing it on the Red Sea, in Edom, three days' journey from Paran. It was known to the Arabic writers, but owing to its inaccessibility it was first visited in modern times by E. Riippell in 1822, later by Laborde, E. Robinson and others; in 1884 the Palestine Exploration Fund sent out Professor Hull and Major Kitchener, and they explored thoroughly the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Akabah. Their reports describe the situation as follows: The eastern arm of the Red Sea ends

108	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Elah
		Elders in Israel
on the northeast in a bay about four miles wide
with an irregular beach of sand, mussel shells, and
detritus from the neighboring hills. On the east
cliffs of porphyritic rock rise to a height of 4,000 feet,
on the west are porphyritic rocks, interrupted by
strata of sandstone and limestone about 2,500
feet in height. In the northeast is a depres
sion continuing for about twenty miles at a height
of about 210 feet above sea level, which is the
continuation of the depression in which lies the
Dead Sea and is known as the Wadi al‑Arabah.
The drainage of the rainy season from the hills
empties along the west side though much is lost in
the sand. By digging, water is easily found (of.
II Kings iii. 16‑17), at first brackish, afterward
fresh and potable. Nearly the entire region is
covered with a growth of thorn‑bush. In a bight
of the Gulf not far from the east side are heaps of
ruins, and a little farther south is a square fort
with thick walls and a tower at each corner, which
bears the name of (Kalat al‑) Akabah, " Fort of
the Declivity." The Arabic geographer Idrisi
(1154) speaks of the `Akabet Aila, in which may be
recognized the fuller form of the prlsent name.
At the northeastern corner of the bight is a beauti
ful palm grove containing both date‑palms and the
African variety. This circumstance has given rise
to the conjecture that the name came not from the
oak (as the form of the name would suggest) bat irom
the grove of palms. The cultivated area is small,
though the ground is not unfrli';ful. The tempera
ture averages high, especially in summer. The
water of the bay is very clear and abounds in fish,
and sharks are numerous. Corals are plentiful.
	The heaps of ruins mentioned above belong prob
ably to the Aila of the Middle Ages the Elath of
the Old Testament probably was situated on the
hills higher up. The Old Testament knows of
two places in the region, Ela,th and Ezion‑geber
(cf. I Kings ix. 26 and II Chron. viii. 17), the latter
probably north of the former. Ezion‑geber has
been located at Ladyan, about twenty‑four miles
north of the present coast line, but formerly on the
coast when the sea extended farther inland.
	Elath and Ezion‑geber are brought into connec
tion with the desert wandering of the Hebrews
(Deut. ii. 8), and David made the region a part of
his realm (II Sam. viii. 14). From Elath and
Ezion‑geber Solomon sent his ships to Ophir (q.v.;
I Kings ix. 26, 28); but after the death of Je
hoshaphat they were retaken by the Edomites
(II Kings viii. 20), and were for only a short
time in the possession of Judah, during the reign
of Uzziah (II Kings xiv. 22, xvi. 6). Under
the Romans Elath was still an important mercan
tile place, the station of a legion, and the seat of a
bishop. Under the Mohammedans it lost its trade.
About 1300, at the time of Abulfeda, it was com‑
pletely deserted.	H. GUTHE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai and Western
	Palestine, pp. 71 eqq., London, 1889; idem, Memoir on
	the Geology and Geography of Arabia Petr., ib.,
	1889; E. Ruppell, Reiaen in . . , dem PefrBiachen Arabien,
pp. 248 eqq.. 385‑386, Frankfort, 1829; L. de Laborde ,
Voyage de L'Aratrie Petree, Paris, 1880; E. Robinson, Biblical
Researches, i. 280, Boston, 1856; C. M. Doughty, Travels
in Arabia Deserts, London, 1888; G, le Strange, Palestine
under the Moslems, ib.1890; H. C. Hart, Fauna and Flora
of Sinai, Petra and Wads Arabah, ib. 1891; F. Buhl, Geachichte der Edomiter, Leipeic, 1893.
ELDAD AND MODAD, BOOB OF. See PaEUDEPIGRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, III, 31.

ELDERS IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. See PRESBYTER.
	ELDERS	IN ISRAEL: The patriarchal and
later officers, whose position was due to their statue
as heads of families. Till the establishment of the
kingdom the Israelites had a tribal organization
the characteristic feature of which was that the
constituents (families) of the tribe as well as the
individuals were fully independent. There was no
organized government. The Sheik of a tribe or
encampment among the Arabs has no formal au
thority. He may lead in war, locate the camp In
times of peace, and the like; he may advise but can
enjoin nothing of importance without consulting
the prominent men of the aggregation. As a judge
he has moral influence, but no power to carry out
a sentence or to inflict punishment. The elders
		had similar functions, as is indicated
	Before the	in the narrative of the desert‑journey
	Settlement	in E. They appear not as though
	in Canaan.	instituted in Mosaic times, but as
		existing ever since there was a " people
of Israel " (Ex. iii. 16 sqq., iv. 29). They are also
presupposed among other nations (Josh. ix. 11;
Num. xxii. 4, 7). They had no special office, but
as the most prominent individuals (Ex. xviii. 21)
were called to represent the people on special oc
casions (Ex. xvi. 12; Num, xvi. 25; Josh. vii. 6);
their decision had weight (Ex. xvii. 5; Deut. xxxi.
9); and they were leaders in war (Josh. viii. 10).
By virtue of this position they mediated between
Moses and the people; according to E, Moses often
communicated Yahweh's behests first to the elders
(Ex. iv. 29; Deut. xxxi. 9); what was commanded
to them was also commanded to the people, whose
representatives they were by station and birth.
Their connection with the family constitution is
evident from Ex. xii. 21 sqq.; while the gloss on
Deut. i. 15 designates the elders correctly as the
family heads of the tribes called also " heads of
the people " (Num. xxv. 4).
The settlement in the West‑Jordan country caused many changes among the tribes, but not in the organization. The tribe was organized early for war; the family‑heads remained the persons in authority. The elders of the tribe of Gilead made Jephthah captain (Judges xi. 1 aqq.); by presents David sought to win over the elders of Judah, of the Jerahmeelites, Kenites and others
	From the	(I Sam, xxx. 26 sqq.); the elders of
	Settlement	Israel led in the war against the Phi
to the Exile. listines and decided to have the ark of
		the covenant brought to the camp
(I Sam. iv. 3). In the name of the people the elders
asked a king of Samuel (I Sam. viii.). The word is
used always in the plural. When the people settled
in a locality the elders became the heads of the local
communities (Judges viii. 4 sqq.; I Sam. xi. 3 aqq.,
xvi. 4). Gradually the heads of the communities
took the character of magistrates, and their influence

Elders in Israel mi. Levity
lasted till the time of Solomon (I Kings viii. 1, 3). In proportion as the royal power developed, that of the elders declined. The case of Ahab (I Kings xx. 7 aqq.) was an exception. In the administration the elders had no part since the royal officers were the executives (I Kings iv. 1 sqq., xx. 15); but they constituted a part of the nobility. That they retained such influence was due to the fact that the royal government was satisfied with receiving the revenues and did not otherwise interfere with the affairs of the communities.
During the exile, the genealogical register was preserved; the settlement seems to have been by families, and. the heads of the families took their places at the head of the settlements and acted for the families and the community (Ezek. xxi. 1 sqq., viii. 1; Jer. xxix. 1). The return from the exile was by families (Ears ii.; Neh. vii.). At the head of the families stood the chief of the fathers (Ears i. 5, ii. 88; Neh. vii. 70). The new commonwealth was organized along those lines; the
After	elders of the Jews formed the national
	the Exile. government; they directed the build
		ing of the temple; with them the
Persian governor treated (Ears v. 3 sqq., vi. 7 aqq. ).
In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the organization
consisted of twelve " princes," representatives of
the tribes, who dwelt at Jerusalem (Neh. xi. 1),
whereas the local government of the country‑com
munities was in the hands of city‑elders and judges
	(Ears x. 14). The Jerusalem college of sardm
became afterward the aristocratic aerate of the
Oerouaia, first mentioned in the time of Antiochua
the Great (Josephus, Ant. XII., iii. 3; cf. I Mace.
vii. 33). From I Mace. xii. 6, xiv. 20 it is clear that
the " Geroueia of the nation " and " the elders of
	Israel " were identical. The term aynedrion was
first used in Herod's time, it became the common
	deaignati.n (Matt. v. 22; xxvi. 59) alongside of
	preabyterion (Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5) and
hoofs (Acts v. 21). 	(I. BENZIN(3E$.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. $eeeemann. DM Adtesten im A. T., LeiPaia. 1895: Bensinger. ArchGoiopie. PP. 298‑329; Nowack. ArchdoTopie, i. 300 sqq., 320 eqq.; J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, vol. ii., New York, 1898; Amram, in JBL, 1900; E. Day, Social Life of the Hebrew, ib. 1901; A. Bilahler, Dye Bynedrion in Jerusalem. Vienna. 1902; $eh8rer, (ieschichta, ii. 178 eqq., Erg transl. II, ii. passim; DB, i. 878‑877; EB, ii. 1908‑07, iii. 2717‑18; JE, v. 92.
ELECT, ELECTION. See PREDESTINATION.
ELEUTHERUS, el"iii‑thA'rva: Pope, c. 174189. He is first heard of as deacon to Pope Anicetus (c. 154‑169); from his name it is probable that he was a Greek. During his pontificate the Church at Rome was little molested by the government, there being but one martyrdom (that of Apollonius, q.v.). It was much troubled, however, by heresy. Marcionitea, Valentinians, and other sectaries formed influential congregations by the aide of the true Church, and Eleutherua had to continue the struggle against the Montaniata begun by his predeoesaor, Soter. Gallic Christians about 178 sent him letters on the subject by the hand of Ireneus, then a presbyter of Lyons, whom they commend warmly. Their aim was probably to exhort the pope to be steadfast against Montaniam (cf. Salmon
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
104
in DCB, iii. 937‑J38), and their admonition may have had the more weight as the Churches of Lyons and Vienna were then undergoing severe persecution (Eusebius, Hilt. eccl., v. 1‑2). The Liber pontificalis gives much detailed but worthless information about Eleutherus. It includes the statement that he received a letter from a British king, Lucius by name, " that he might be made a Christian by his mandate," which is generally admitted to be a fabrication of the seventh century, devised to support the claims of the Roman party in England against the British Church (see CELTIC CHURCH IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND). Bade knew of the statement and refers to it in three places (De temporum rations, 331; Hist. eccl., i. 4, v. 24), and it was often repeated and much elaborated in later times.

The first mention of the Lucius legend is in the recension of the Libor Ponti:ficalia known as the Catalogue Falicianus, written about 530. It is not in the earlier Catalogue, written shortly after 353. Gildss knows nothing of it. The more important of Bede's references (Hint. eccl., i. 4) is se follows: " In the hundred and fifty‑sixth year of the incarnation of the Lord, Marcus Antoninue Verna became emperor, the fourteenth from Augustus, with his brother, Aurelius Commodus. In their time, while Eleutherus, a holy man, held the pontificate of the Roman Church, Lucius, king of the Britons, sent to him a letter, asking that he might be made s Christian by his command. And presently he attained his pious request, and the Britons retained the faith which they received, uncorrupted end entire, in peace and tranquillity, until the time of the emperor Diocletian." The Historic Britouum (end of the eighth century; see NENNIQa) reads Euchariatua for Eleutherua and has all the chieftains of Britain baptised with Lucius. The Libor Landaveuede (twelfth century) names the messengers of Lucius and locates the narrative in Wales. At about the same time William of Malmeebury localises it at Glastonbury. Geoffrey of Monmouth names the mieeionsries sent and makes them found three archbishoprics and twenty‑eight bishoprics. The Welsh triads (of uncertain date) connect the story with Llandaff. A compilation of the time of Edward II. gives a letter from Eleutherus to Lucius. Later Lucius became a benefactor to the Church and the schools, and, being confused with a continental teacher of the same name, was represented as missionary and martyr.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Eueebius, Hilt, eccl., iv. 22; v. proemium, 3‑6. 22. Liber panliftdais, ed. Ducheene, i. 4‑b, 138, Paris, 1888, cf. pp. cii.‑civ.; J. Langen, Oesehichte der rgmiachan %irche his sum Pont%fi7cate Leo's 1., i. lb7‑1b9, Bonn, 1881; Harnsak, atur, II. i. 144‑148; Bower, Popes, i. 1b‑17. For the Lucius Legend, W. Bright, Chapters o/ Early English Church History, pp. 3‑b, Oxford, 1897; Haddsn and Stubbs, Councils, i. 2b‑28; L. Duahesne, in Rem Celdque, vi (1870), 491‑493; Chronica minors, ed. T. Mommeen in M(3H, iii., Aud, ant., uii (1898), llb‑118, 184; Plummer, note to Bede's Hist. mi., i. 4; H. Zimmer, Nennius virdicatua, pp. 141‑1b4, Berlin, 1893.
ELEVATION OF THE HOST. See Mesa.
ELI: A (high) priest at Shiloh near the clone of the period of the Judges, among whom he is also reckoned. Descent from Aaron is claimed for him through Ithamar (I Sam. ii. 27 aqq.; I Chron. xxiv. 6). It was Eli who promised the granting of her petition to the praying Hannah ( I Sam. i. 9, 13 aqq. ), to whom she afterward entrusted Samuel, the object of that petition (verse 25 eqq.), to become his minister in his old age and then his successor. Eli seems to have been a mild, gentle bearer of the office, who had the interests of the sanctuary at heart; but he was lax in the discipline of his sons, Hophni and Phinehae, who shamelessly abused their priestly

106	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Elder in Israel
		Elise Levity
position (I dam. ii. 12 eqq.). For this reason
a prophet first foretold to Eli God's judgment in
the sudden death of his two sons, a curse upon
the entire family, the members of which were
to die early, after failing in preferment to their
hereditary office. Finally Samuel announced to
his master the near fulfilment of his doom (I Sam.
iii.). In a war with the Philistines, Israel was
completely overcome, both sons of Eli were killed
and Eli, ninety‑eight years of age, fell from his
seat and died. The narrative relates the fulfil
ment of the doom on Eli's hour during the reign
of Solomon.	C. VON ORELLI.
	ELLS (HELGESEN), PAULUS: Danish hu
manist; b. at Varberg (on the Cattegat, 40 m. s. of
Gothenburg), Holland, then a Danish province,
about 1480; d. in 1535 (7). Educated in Skara,
Veaterg6tland, he appears in 1517 as a monk in the
Carmelite monastery in Elsinore, and it was prob
ably from the patron saint of the Carmelites
the prophet Elijah‑that he chose the name
" Paulus Helie " (Heliae, Elia;). Imbued with the
spirit of humanism, he hailed with joy the appear
ance of Luther, but when the latter broke com
pletely with the Roman Church, he looked upon
him as a dangerous revolutionist. In 1519 Elise
was appointed lecturer in the Carmelite college at
Copenhagen, and also lecturer in theology at the
university there. In the beginning of his career
he sympathized with King Christian IL, who dis
played an active interest in the promotion of public
schools, but the massacre of Stockholm changed his
opinion of this king and he came to regard him as a
godless tyrant. When, therefore, the king sent him
a Latin pamphlet with a request to translate it, and
he found it to be " an evil book, more calculated to
teach yin than to improve mankind," he substitu
ted for it Erasmus' writing on the duties of a Chris
tian monarch, which he sent to the king. The
result of this act as well as of his subsequent bold
sermons in the royal chapel, taking Herod for his
text, was that the king became enraged and Elise
was compelled to flee to Jutland. Here he pre
pared a Latin pamphlet setting forth his accusations
against the king (cf. Mon. hilt. Dan., i. 121 sqq.),
and this was used later for framing the obligations
to be assumed by King Frederick II.
	After the flight of Christian II. Elite again became
lecturer at the university, and for a time he offi
ciated as provincial of the Carmelites as the suc
cessor of Anders Christensen. In 1526 he pub
lished a Danish translation of Luther's prayer‑book,
in the preface to which he defends himself against
the accusation of having been a pupil of Luther,
and he also states his opinion of the German Re
former. During the following years Elia; proceeded
with great zeal against the Reformation, publishing
pamphlet upon pamphlet against those who had
joined that movement, including several of his for
mer colleagues from the Carmelite college. In
1530 he began an attack upon Hone Tausen and
had to leave Copenhagen in consequence; three
years later, however, he returned and renewed his
attacks, causing Tausen to be branded as a heretic
on account of his teachings regarding the Lord's
Supper. Having accomplished this, Elise went to Roskilde where he published his aforementioned pamphlet on the duties of Christian rulers. During the feud among the nobility he endeavored to mediate between the factions by publishing a "Brief Instruction in Christian Union and Reconciliation," which was partly an adaptation of Erasmus' commentary on Psalm lxxxiii (De amabili ecclesiee concordia). Besides a brief Latin history of the Danish kings, Elite wrote a chronicle of the first four kings of the house of Oldenburg, generally called the " Skibby‑Chronicle." It is a remarkable attempt in the pragmatic method of historiography, and is filled with bitter one‑aided opinions of the opponents of the Roman Church. This work closes in the middle of a sentence (Dum hwc aguntur . . .), from which it would appear that its author lived until the end of 1534 or the beginning of 1535. An unconfirmed report says that Elise joined the reform party and became pastor somewhere. Schmitt is of the opinion that he may have fallen victim to violence, but this is highly improbable; it is more likely that he fled to Holland, to the birthplace of his beloved Erasmus.
(F. NIELSENt.)
BIHLI068AYEf7: The " $kibbY‑Chronicle " and some of the letters of Elise were published in 13. R.oerdam. Monuments h%storice Danioe, vol. i., Copenhagen. 1873. Consult further: C. Olivarius, De rites et saiptie Pauli Elio', Copenhagen, 1741; L. Schmitt, Der Karmel%ter Paul Elio, Freiburg, 1893.

ELIAS OF CORTONA. See FRANCIS, SAINT, OF Assisi, AND THE FR.ANCIBCAN ORDER, L, § 4, III., §§ 1‑3.

ELIAS LEVITA (Elijah ben Asher ha‑Levi): Rabbi; b. at Neuetadt‑on‑the‑Aisch (20 m. n.w. of Nuremberg) 1489; d. at Venice Jan. 28, 1549. His German birth is explicitly declared in the first preface to his Massoret, a statement corroborated by Kimchi and by Sebastian Monster. But Italy became his second home, hence he could state at the end of the Methurgeman, that he " wished to return to Italy, the land whence he came, and die in his city of Venice." He taught Hebrew at Padua 1504‑09, lost his property there at the sack of that city by the French, removed to Venice, thence to Rome (in 1512), where he was under the protection of Egidio of Viterbo. When Rome was taken by Charles V. (1527) a second time he lost his property. He removed to Venice, which became his permanent home, with the exception of a few intervals spent at Isny and in a visit to Germany, 1540‑43.
Elias Levity would occupy an honorable place among Hebrew grammarians, even if an extraordinary significance had not been attached to his labor by the historical conditions under which it was accomplished. His w:rk became a factor of that historical advancement by which Christendom returned to the documentary sources of its doctrines. To this new beginning of linguistic and historical studies Elias Levity rendered important services. After Reuchlin under the direction of the physician Jacob Jehiel Loans (L. Geiger, ut inf., pp. 24, 26) had mastered Hebrew, and after Matthias Adrianus, a

~~ suits
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
converted Jew from Spain, had been the teacher of Pellican (Geiger, p. 43), Levita, through the mediation of Sebastian Munster and Paul Fagius, exercised a much stronger and more lasting influence upon the transference of Hebrew knowledge to the Christians. Still greater than in the department of grammatical and lexical inquiries was the impulse which Elias Levita by his Massoreth hammas$oreth gave to the text‑critical treatment of the Old Testament. He brought his children up in the Jewish faith in spite of his intimate intercourse with Christian scholars; but to the greatest sorrow of one of his daughters her two sons, Elisno and Sol. Romano embraced the Christian faith (Graetz, ix. 335). Elias Levita was a pleasing example of a scholar who [mew how to keep free from partizan entanglements the interest in the subject of his inquiry.

	His writings are: (a) Teateritiosl: Maaaoreth hammas
aoreth (Venice, 1538; German translation by C. G. Meyer
with annotations by Semler, Halls, 1772; in Hebrew and
English by D. Ginsburg, London, 1887); (b) Grammatical:
Peruah al Pethach Debarag (ascribed to Moses Kimehi [q.v.],
Pesaro, 1b07); Biur al Mahmlakh ahebhile ha.daath (" Eluci
dations on Kimchi's grammar Mahalak," Pesaro, 1508; the
Maha7akh with a Latin version by $. Munster, Basel, 1b27);
Sepher habbahur (treating of Hebrew grammar, Rome, 1518,
revised edition, Isny, 1542; Hebrew and Latin by Munster
under the title of D%kduk, Basel, 1518; with echolia, 1537,
1542); 3epher ha‑harkabhah (elucidation of words composed
of different forma, Rome, 1b19); Sepher tub‑ta'am (on
Hebrew ascents, Venice, 1538, also Latinised by Munster);
Nimmukhim (remarks on D. Bimahi'e MikhlBl and printed
with it, Venice, 1b45). (c) Lexical: liahbi (an explana
tion of 712 words from Jewish literature, Basel, 1527);
Methurpeman (a lexicon of Targumia and Talmudic words,
Ieny, 1b41); Shemoth debharim (a glossary of Hebrew words,
Iany, Ib42); Nimmu$im (annotations to D. Kimchi's "Book
of Roots," printed together Venice, 1548); (d) Exegetical:
" The Psalms with Kimchi's commentary and corrections
by the editor,, (Ieny, 1b42); " The Psalms faithfully trans
lated into Judeo‑German; " " the Targum to the proverbs
with Glosses " (Iany, 1541); " The Book of Job in Rimes "
(Venice, 1544); (e) Literary: Sepher habbabhah (narrative of
the wonderful edenta of prince Buovo d'Antons, a novel),
Shirim, " Hymns " (Venice, 1b45). 	E. g5rrxa.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. C. Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraa, i. 1b3‑181, iii. 97‑102, iv. 182, Hamburg, 171b‑33; J. F. Hirt, Orisn<aliache and exepetiache Bsbiiothak, vii. 50 eqq., Jena , 1778; J. Furat, Bibliotheca judaica, ii. 239‑242, Leipsic, 18493; L. Geiger, Dos Stadium der hebrdiadun Sprarhe in Deutschland, ib. 1870; J. Levi, Elia Levita and seine Leiatunpen ale Grammatiker, Breslau, 1888; Backer, in ZDMG; 1889, 208‑272; H. Graetz, Geachichte der Juden, vol. ix. passim, Leipaic, 1891; C. A. Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, passim, New York, 1899; JE, viii. 48‑49.

'ELIAS MIRIATIS: Greek bishop; b. at Lixuri (5 m. n. of Argostoli, on the island of Cephalonia) 1669; d. in the Mores 1714. He was educated at Venice, where he was ordained deacon and appointed notary of the metropolis of Philadelphia, whose bishops then resided at Venice. After acting as a teacher in Cephalonia, Zante, Corfu, and Com stantinople, and after serving in various diplomatic missions, he was consecrated bishop of Kernike and Kalabryta in the Mores, but held office only three years.
Of his works only two are known, both edited posthumously by his father. The first of these, " Teachings for the High and Holy Quadragesima and Other Sundays and Chief Feasts of the Year," was first published, according to 8athas, in 1727,
although it seems actually to have appeared much earlier. The book went through many editions, and in its completest form (the edition of A. Maze, rakis, 1849), contains twenty‑one sermons for fasts and twenty for Sundays and festivals. In his doctrines Elias was orthodox. He emphasized the freedom of the will and the twofold nature of Christ, while in his concept of the atonement he recognized a sort of satisfaction, which should reconcile the justice and love of God. He also postulated the intercession of the mother of God with Christ the judge. The second work was the " Rock of Offense " (1718), which was a polemic against the Roman Catholic Church, treating in its first book the history of the schism, and in the second the supremacy of the pope, the procession of the Holy Ghost, unleavened bread, and similar topics.
(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Ma:arakia edition of the " Teachings " contains a sketch of the life. Consult also: J. A. Fabricius, Bibliofheca Greets, ed. G. C. Harles, xi. 787, Hamburg, 1808; A. Pichler, Geachichta der kirchlschen Trees nunp awiachen dam Orient and Occident, i. 481 eqq.. Munich, 1884.

ELIGIUS (ELOYSIUS, ELOI), SAIRT: Bishop of Noyon (67 m. n.n.e. of Paris), and the patron saint of goldsmiths; b. at Cadillac near Limoges in the early part of the reign of Clotaire II. (584‑629); d. at Noyon Nov. 30, 659. He learned the goldsmith's trade under Abbo, the master of +he royal mint at Limoges, and held a similar office himself under Dagobert I. (629‑639) and Clovis II. (639‑657), as is shown by the coins bearing his name. During Dagobert'e reign he was probably one of the most influential persons at the court. He was influenced by the religious movement promoted by the Celtic missionary Columban, whom he visited at Luxeuil, and whose rule he introduced into the abbey of Solignac. Soon after Dagobert'a death he left the court with his influential friend Audoen, also a disciple of Columban's. Both became bishopeAudoen of Rouen and Eligius of Noyon; they are said to have been consecrated together on May 13, 641. The diocese of Eligius included, besides Noyon, Vermandois, Doornik, Kortrijk, Ghent, and Flanders. The inhabitants, mainly Franks with some Frisians, were still for the most past heathen. According to the Vita, Eligius had great success in his missionary work among them; but the only certain fact in his career as bishop is his participation in the Synods of ChSlons‑aur‑Seine (639 and 654). The authenticity of the homilies which have been handed down under his name has been long contested; E. Vacaudard has proved the spuriousness (Revue des questions historiques, 1898, pp. 471 sqq.) (A. HAUCg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Vita by Dado or Audaenus is in MPL, lxxavii., Fr. transl. by C. Barthelemy, Paris, 1847, and by Parenty, ib. 1870 (of. O. Reich, Ueber Audoena Lebensbeachreibung des . . . Elipius, Halls, 1882). The literature is given by Potthast, Wegweiaer, pp. 1283‑$4, and in wattenbach, DGQ, i (1893), 114. The life in French has been written by Bonnet, Carpentras, 1855; J. F. Godeacerd, Rouen, 1883; P. Jouhannesud, Limoges, 1885; A. Delassus, Paris, 1898; and F. Arbellot, ib. 1897. Consult also C. F. de T. Montalembert, Lea Moines d'occident, ii. 837, ib. 1880‑87; G. F. Msoteas. Apostles of Mediaroal Europe, London. 1888.

107	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~~ sutra
ELIJAH.
Prediction of Drought (§ 1). Contest with Bawl‑Prophets (§ 2). Flight from Jezebel (§ 3). Varied Activities (¢ 4). Character and Miracles (§ b).
Elijah (" My God is Yahweh ") was perhaps the greatest of the prophets of the northern kingdom. He was of Tishbeh in Gilead (I Kings xvii. 1 according to the correct reading; cf. the Septuagint). The narrative concerning him (I Kings xvii.‑xix. 21; II Kings i., u.) is taken from a separate source and contains the tradition of the prophetical companies. It is possible that the last sections belong to another Eliaha‑source.
The public appearance of Elijah occurred during the reign of Ahab (now placed about 876‑‑854) and Ahaziah (854‑853). Ahab suffered himself to be unhappily influenced in his domestic
r. Predic‑ life and in religious matters by his tion of queen Jezebel, the daughter of Eth‑
	Drought.	baal, king of Tyre, a priest of Astarte
		and a regicide (Josephus, Contra
Apion, I. xviii.). Fanatical, scheming, and ener
getic, she procured the establishment of her native
cult in Israel, and had erected in Samaria a grand
temple of Bawl of Tyre. When heathenish con
fusion had become dominant in the country and
the faithful among the Yahweh‑prophets were
silenced by persecution, Elijah appeared and an
nounced in the name of Yahweh a long drought,
and then suddenly disappeared. He dwelt mean
while by the brook Cherith (Wadi Kelt near Jericho,
or an eastern tributary of the Jordan?), where he
" was fed by the ravens "; after the brook dried up
he lived at Zarephath (now Sarfend) in the terri
tory of Zidon in the house of a widow. For two
years no rain fell. Menander (Josephus, Ant. VIII.,
xiii. 2) knew of an extraordinary drought which
lasted one year under the Tyrian king Ithobal
(i.e., Ethbaal, father of Jezebel), and this accords
well with the Hebrew mode of computing time.
The later Jewish tradition, however, differs (Luke
iv. 25 and Jas. v. 17), stating that the heaven was
shut up three years and six months.
	At last Elijah came again before the king, who
like his people had been humbled by the famine.
He asked of him an ordeal to decide which God
should rule the country. The outcome of this
		ordeal is described in full, I Kings
s. Contest xviii. 20 sqq. The scene of this act
with Bawl‑ was most likely a place on the southProphets. eastern height of mount Carmel (now called el Mohraka, " place of fire "). In spite of all their penances and ecstatic dances " the prophets of Baal," whom we may conceive as like the modern dervishes or fakirs, were unable to elicit a sign of life from their god, whereas in answer to the simple prayer of Elijah a fire from heaven consumed the sacrifice, so that the assembled people did homage to the God of Israel. The 450 ministers of the false god received the punishment merited according to the strict principle of theocracy (cf. Ex. xx. 3; Deut. v. 7, xvii. 2‑7). Having thus expiated the guilt, Elijah could promise rain and went as forerunner (I Kings xviii. 46) before the royal
chariot to show that he was no rebel but was ready to render the smallest service to the king as soon as he obeyed his God.
Soon, however, Elijah had to escape from the vengeance of Jezebel. This time he went to mount Horeb (I Kings xix.). There he witnessed a grand theophany after the manner of Ex, xxxiii. 20‑21, xxxiv. 5 sqq. It is significant that the zealous
prophet did not find the presence of 3. Flight God in storm, earthquake, or fire, but
	from	in the still small voice. Those were
Jezebel only signs, his innermost nature is
grace. In the second place it was important that God should comfort the discouraged prophet, who imagined himself the last, the only one remaining faithful, by the announcement that there were still 7,000 in the country whom God knew. Finally he received three commissions; Hazael was to become king over Syria, Jehu over Israel, and Elisha was to be Elijah's successor in the prophetical office. These three were to carry out God's judgment. But the Elijah‑narrative tells only how Elijah called Elisha as his successor, while the anointing of Hazael and Jehu was brought about by Elisha. Some have seen often in this a contradiction between the Elijah‑ and the Elisha‑source. But as the records are only fragmentary, a transference of those acts from Elijah to his disciple may have taken place, especially as it concerned political acts for which the proper time had to be awaited.
Elijah, whose residence was then in the wilderness of Damascus (I Kings xix. 15), appeared only at intervals in the land of Israel, as avenger of a misdeed of Jezebel and her husband (I Kings xxi.), again
as bearer of ill tidings to their son 4. Varied Ahaziah (II Kings i.). Finally II
Activities. Kings ii. tells of his translation, on
which occasion he left his prophet's mantle to his companion Eliaha. The Chronicler, who otherwise passes over the stories of Elijah and Elisha, mentions (II Chron. xxi.12 aqq.) a threatening letter written by Elijah to King Jehoram of Judah, the son‑in‑law of Jezebel. But Elijah hardly lived to see the rule of this king. It is possible that a disciple of the prophet composed the letter with reference to analogous sayings of Elijah against the king.
Elijah appears as the moat heroic form among the prophets. Each of his brief words is an effective deed. The awful apostasy of his people forced him to appear as an avenger. His elements were fire and storm. But though he was obliged to oppose the seducers, kind traits are not wanting
in his history (see I Kings xvii. 20 g. Charac‑ and II Kings ii. 12). By his faithful ter and zeal for God's law he saved the people Miracles. and reconciled the rising generation
with the fathers (cf. Mal. iv. 6). From the theological point of view, very noticeable is the conscious monotheism contained in his mockery (I Kings xviii. 27) which, however, is not a new trait in him. That Elijah and Elisha took no offense at Israel's calf‑worship, as some modern writers assert, can not be inferred from their silence about it. Neither Elijah nor Elisha had any con‑

nection with the sanctuary at Bethel; they assembled the people at some other place for worship, and the manner in which Elijah on Carmel ignored the royal clergy at Bethel, and on Horeb represents himself as the only one remaining faithful is sufficiently eloquent. The story of Elijah is rich in the miraculous and has on this account often been called legend. It can not be denied that the miraculous is intentionally emphasized and colored by the narrator. It is also possible that, through oral transmission in prophetical circles, the account of the deeds of the great master laid undue stress upon externals. Yet by his extraordinary powers he wrought great changes in the' land. The principal miracles which he wrought before the people (the announcement of the drought and the ordeal on Carmel) admit no rationalistic explanation. The person and history of the prophet stand or fall with them. Elijah produced an indelible impression upon his contemporaries and upon posterity. On the basis of Mal. iv. 5 the Jews is the time of Jesus expected his return before the Messiah (Matt. xvii. 10, xi. 14, cf. J. Lightfoot, Horn Hebraica; on Matt. avii. 10; C. Schoettgen, Horse Hebraica; et Talmrodicta, Dresden, 1742, ii. 533 sqq.). On the legendary appearances of Elijah in the Talmud cf. J. A. Eisenmenger, Entdecktea Jtcdcnturrt, 12 parts, Dresden, 1892‑93, i. 11, ii. 212, 402‑404.. There also existed apocryphal writings under his name; the oldest, the "Apocalypse of Elijah," is first mentioned by Origen (on Matt. xxvii. 9), and from it according to him the quotation in I Cor. ii. 9 is said to have been taken. Among the Mohammedans Elijah became the hero of many legends; he was blended among them with the heathenish mythical form El‑khidr.
Elijah appears as the name of other Israelites, I Chron. viii. 27; Ezra x. 21, 26.
(C. VON ORELLL)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the literature on the History of Israel cited under AHAB, consult: T. Ii. Cheyne, Haliominp of Criticism, London, 1888; E. Reran, History of the People of Israel, ii. 229‑242, ib. 1888; R. Kittel, Oeschiehte der HsbrAsr, ii., Go" 1892, Eng. trawl., London, 1895; C. H. Cornill, Prophets of Israel, Chicago. 1897; H. (iunkel, in Prauasieche Jahrbacher, 1898, pp. 18‑b1; idem, Elias, Jahvs and Baal, Tiibingen, 1908 (critical reconstruction); W. Erbt, Untareuehunpen tur Geschichts der Helirder, part i.. Elia. Elisc, Jones, Leipaic. 1907: Clermont‑Gannenu, in Revue arch6otopiqua, xmi. 388 eq4.: 8ohilrer, Oeaehichte, ii. 35, 287‑271, 344, 351‑352, 524‑b25. Erg. trawl., II. ii. 158‑157, iii. 129 eqq.; Smith, OTJC, pp. 238‑237: idem. Prophets, pp. 78 eqq., 118 eqq.; DB, i. 887‑892; EB, ii. 1270‑74; JR, v. 121128 (gives literature on Mohammedan and medieval legend). A homiletical classic is F. W. Krummsoher, Elise der TAiabiter, Elberfeld, 1828 and often, Erg. trawl. Cheltenham. 1838 and often.
ELIJAH, APOCALYPSE OF. See PBEUDEPIORA>'se, OLD TESTAMENT, IL, 12.

ELIOT, JOHN: The Apostle to the North American Indians; b. either at Widford (20 m. n. of London), Hertfordshire, or at Nazing (15 m. n.n.e. of London), Essex, 1604 (baptized Aug. 5); d. at Roxbury, Mass., May 20, 1890. He studied at Jesus College, Cambridge, taking his degree in 1822; then for some years was usher in the grammareehool of the Rev. Thomas Hooker (q.v.), at Little Bsddow, near Chelmsford in Essex. Eliot's connection with this rigid Puritan formed a tusning‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
point in his spiritual history. "When I came to this blessed family," said he, " I then saw, and never be‑
fore, the power, of godliness in its lively Early Life vigor and efficacy." He resolved to and Emi‑ devote himself to the ministry of the gration to Gospel; and as his non‑conformist prinAmerica. ciples hindered his advancement under Archbishop Laud, he sought America, arriving at Boston Nov. 4, 1631. In Nov., 1632, he was settled as teacher of the Church of Christ in Roxbury and continued in that office until his death,‑a period of nearly sixty years. He married in the same year. With his colleague Thomas Weld, and Richard Mather of Dorchester, he prepared for the press a new metrical version of the Psalms, which was the first book printed in the English colonies in America, being issued at Cambridge by Stephen Daye in 1640, and known as The Bay Psalm Book (see BAY PaeLnr Boos).
Soon after his settlement in Roxbury, Eliot became deeply interested in the Indians, and at
length resolved to preach the Gospel Ministry to them. Having prepared himself to the by two years' study of their language,
	Indians.	he preached for the first time to an
		assembly of Indians at Nonantum,
in the present town of Newton, Oct. 28, 1646. He
was opposed by the sachems and powwows, or
juggling priests, but prosecuted his mission with
apostolic energy, until villages of " praying Indiana "
began to appear in different parts of the colony.
In 1660, at Natick, the first Indian church was or
ganized; it existed till the death of the last native
pastor in 1716. Eliot tried also to civilize as well
as convert the Indiana, thinking it " absolutely
necessary to carry on civility with religion." In
time he came to be regarded by them as their best
friend. His influence over them was strong, and
he exerted it for their temporal and spiritual good
with rare wisdom and sagacity.
In 1653 he published a catechism in the Indian language, and by Sept., 1661, the entire New Testament was printed at Cambridge; the whole Bible was completed two years later, and Cotton Mather wrote of it: " Behold, ye Americana, the greatest honor that ever ye were partakers of,‑the Bible printed here at our Cambridge; and it is the only
	Bible that ever was printed in all
Transla‑	America, from the very foundation of
	lions into the world." Seventeen years later,
	the Indian with the help of Rev. John Cotton
	Language. (q.v.) of P Plymouth, Eliot prepared a
	second edition, which was printed at
	Cambridge between 1680 and 1685. Both editions
	are now rare and valuable, and no one is living
	who understands their language. Baxter's Call
	to the Unconverted and other religious treatises were
	also translated, and, assisted by his sons, John and
	Joseph, Eliot prepared The Indian Grammar Begun,
	or art Essay to bring the Indian Language info Rules
	(1866; ed. P. S. du Ponceau, Boston, 1822). In
	his last years, when weighed down by bodily in
	firmities, and unable longer to preach or to visit the
	Indians, he induced several families to send their
	negro servants to him once a week, that he might
	instruct them in the truths of the Gospel. His old

109	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	RUM
age was adorned with the simplicity and artlessness of a little child, with wonderful humility, and a charity that never failed.
Eliot's work excited much interest in England, and funds for carrying it on were supplied by a "Corporation for the Promoting and Propagating the Gospel among the Indians of New England," instituted by ordinance of parliament in July, 1649, and reestablished after the Restoration by the exertions of Robert Boyle (q.v.). He also had support in the colonies and gave liberally of his own property. 1n 1874 the number of " praying Indiana " was estimated at 3,600; they fought with the English during King Philip's War (1875‑78), but received a blow at this time from which they never recovered; after Eliot's death their extinction proceeded rapidly.
Eliot kept his friends in England informed of the progress of his work by letters (cf. Proceedings of the Massachusetts HistoricalSociety, Nov., 1879), and a detailed history of his labors and those of his assistants is given in a series of " Indian tracts," issued between 1624 and 1705. A list of these
tracts may be found in the article
Other " Eliot, John," by H. R. Tedder in Publics‑ DNB, xvii. 189‑194, where Eliot's tions. publications are also enumerated. The more important not already mentioned were The Christian Commonwealth (London, 1659), which the authorities in New England found " full of seditious principles and notions"; Eliot recanted and the book was suppressed; Communion of Churches, or the divine Management of Gospel Churches by the Ordinance of Councils, constituted in order according to the Scriptures (Cambridge, 1665) the first book privately printed in America; The Harmony of the Gospels (Boston, 1678).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A number of the publications of Eliot have been republished in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, 1792, eqq. The moat complete life is by Convene Francis in Sparks's Library of American Biography, vol, v., Boston, 1838; there are later sketches by H. A. 8. Dearborn, Roxbury, 1850, J. 8. Stevens, Cheshunt, 1874, R. B. Caverly, Boston, 1882. Consult also G. Fritaehel, C:eschichle den chrisUiehsn Mission enter den Indianern Nord Amarikaa, Nuremberg, 1870; J. Wineor'e Memorial History of Boston, vol. i., Boston, 1880; W. Eames, Bibliographic Notes on Eliot's Indian Bible and on his other Translations and Works in the Indian Language of Massachusetts, Washington, 1890.
ELIPAftDUS: Bishop of Toledo. See AnorTTorlsm, § 2.
ELISHA.
His Call, Length of His Activity (§ 1). His Character Compared with Elijah's (12). His Patriotism (§ 3). His Miracles and Prophecy (¢ 4).
Elisha (" My God is Salvation ") was a prophet of the Northern Kingdom, and succcessor of Elijah. According to I Kings xix. 16, 19, he was born at Abelmeholah and was the non of a wealthy landowner. He was called by Elijah from the plow to the prophetical work, and willingly left his home, requesting only to be allowed to take leave of his family. He then followed his master, whom he accompanied some time se an attendant (II Kings iii. 11), whose faithful and active disciple he proved
himself until the letter's death. Thereafter he was the leader of the companies of prophets and was universally acknowledged as heir of the dignity of Elijah. His activity lasted for more than half a century; for according to II Kings r. His Call, ii.‑ix., xiii. he was active from the be‑
Length	ginning of the reign of Jehoram
of His to the beginning of that of Joaeh of
	Activity.	Israel (895‑840 or 85r798). The
		stories of Eliaha's work are largely
involved in the history of King Jehoram, and thin
period seems to have been the palmy days of his
activity. But even if his labors began in the first
year of that king, not all of his deeds recorded up to
II Kings viii. 8 find room in that reign. Moreover,
that Elisha was inactive during the twenty‑eight
years of Jehu'a reign and the seventeen years of that
of Jehoahaz is precluded by II Kings xiii. 14. The
time of some events, however, can not be fixed with
certainty.
	The powerful championship of Elijah had effected
a great change in the disposition of the people; the
God whom he worshiped became again generally
honored. True, Jezebel was still alive and had
surrounded herself with priests of Baal, and the
companions of Jehoram, the so‑called Yahweh
prophets, were still less filled with God's spirit.
But Jehoram had forbidden the worship of Bawl
(iii. 2) and treated Elieha with respect (II Kings iv.
13). Thus the prophet could await the issue till
he became certain that the execution of the divine
judgment on Ahab's house enjoined on him by his
master could be accomplished. That done, Elisha's
relation to Jehu, the avenger appointed by him,
and to his son and grandson, could be more friendly
		(II Kings xiii. 14). 1n some places
z. His the soil had become fit for the divine
Character	gifts of grace, and Elisha, in keeping
Compared with his name, could appear as a mediwith ator of divine salvation and blessing.
	Elijah's.	Severity was indeed one trait of his
		character (cf. II Kings ii. 23, v. 26,
ix. 2 sqq.). But as compared with the militant
Elijah, Elisha had the more peaceful mission se
mediator to the faithful in Israel to bring to them
the assistance and blessing of their God. This
difference between the activities of Elijah and Elisha
depended in peat upon the changed attitude of the
people and also upon the personalities of the two
men. Elisha dwelt more among the people and was
more intimate with them than was Elijah. Though
he sometimes lived in the solitude of Carmel, he
was often in the colonies of the young prophets
near Jericho and by the Jordan, at Gilgal and
Bethel, and even had a permanent residence in
Samaria.
He appeared as a philanthropist, a benefactor of the poor, a helper in distress, manifesting a tender solicitude for even the little needs of domestic life. As a healer of the sick, so the story goes, he became known even in Syria, and the Syrian captain Naaman, suffering from leprosy, came to Israel where he was healed by the prophet. The punishment of Gehazi, servant of Elisha, represents the penalty due to covetousness, and belongs with the lastnamed episode.

Elfsha
Elizabeth, Saint
Elisha was not only a private benefactor, he was also the good genius of the country, so that even
King Jehoram when in distress was 3. His not deprived of his help, though he was Patriotism. unworthy of it. Having been suc‑
cessful, through Elisha'a assistance, in a campaign against the Moabites (II Kings iii. 11 sqq.), when distress was caused by the Syrians he relied on the advice of the prophet. So accurately did Elisha inform him of the plans of the Syrians that their king imagined the existence of traitors in his own camp. The Syrian attempt made to capture the prophet was a failure, and resulted only in the capture of the Syrian force, which, by the humanity of the prophet, was spared the fate of prisoners of war (II Kings vi. 8 sqq.). Elisha's power was so manifest that Jehoram attempted to make him responsible for the horrors of a Syrian siege of Samaria (II Kings vi. 24 sqq., vii.). Because of the king's contumacy, involving also the people in divine punishment, Elisha was the channel of the announcement of the coming chastisement of the royal house and of the people. With sorrow Elisha announced to Hazasl his elevation to the throne of Syria (II Kings viii. 7 aqq.) and the consequent devastation of the kingdom of Israel.
Turning his attention to the affairs of his own people, Elisha caused the anointing of the energetic Jehu (q.v.) who, being an unrighteous instrument of righteous vengeance, destroyed the house of Ahab with unholy impetuosity (II Kings ix.‑x.). Only by a complete misjudging of the dependence
of the true prophet upon a higher will .E. His Mir‑ can Elisha be reproached on account
acles and of these acts of obedience to his God.
Prophecy. The authority among the people which
he enjoyed for decafiea, the testimony at his death of a king who lamented him as a father sad as Israel's protection, and his last utterances against the enemy threatening in the North (I Kings xiii. 14 aqq.) prove how much he had at heart the welfare of his country. Thus Elisha worthily followed the footsteps of his predecessor. He was not his equal in his unique spiritual power, but in him was embodied the lovelier grace and providence of God in the minutia' of life. The miracles accredited to him resemble on a smaller scale those of Elijah. Whether those miracles, which as in the case of Elijah are recorded with intentional emphasis upon the supernatural, are to be considered historical will depend upon one's attitude to the miraculous in general. The knowledge of future events or of things which are removed from the limited view of ordinary mortals can not be denied the prophet, since it must be conceded in the secular domain to the clairvoyant. It must not be forgotten that a childlike faith, especially that of a man of God, may discern as in a higher light things which take place in the sphere of the ordinary (cf. II Kings ii. 19 sqq., iv. 38 sqq., vi. 6 sqq.). In the case of Elisha it would be impossible to ascribe everything to ordinary earthly happenings. Whoever acknowledges in the life of the Son of God analogous deeds which transcended natural ability will not be able to deny them to his Old‑Testament autetype or to credit
the story to poetical legend.	C. VON ORELLI.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The activity of Elisha is treated in the works on the history of Israel, for which consult the list under Aaes; cf. also the commentaries on the Books of Kings. Consult further: P. Cassel, Der Prophet Elsaa. Berlin, 1880; A. Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, London, 1877 (valuable): C. G. Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 94‑9b, ib. 1893; C. H. Cornill, Prophets of Israel. Chicago. 1897; R. C. Dodds, Ebiaha the Man of God, Winona, 1904; W. Erbt, Unteranchungen zar Geachschte der HebrBer, part i., Elia, Eliaa, Juna, Leipsio, 1907; Smith, prophets, passim; DB, i. 893‑896; EB, ii. 127b‑78; JE, v. 138‑138.
ELIZABETH, ALBERTitNE: Countess‑palatine and abbess of Herford; b. at Heidelberg Dec. 26, 1618; d. at Herford (16 m. s.w. of Minden), Westr phalia, Feb.11,1680. She was a daughter of Frederick V., elector of the Palatinate and king of Bohemia, and Elizabeth Stuart., a daughter of James I. of England. After the overthrow of her father, her earliest youth was spent at Berlin, under the case of her grandmother Juliana, a daughter of William of Orange, who gave her thoughts a lofty and pious direction. In her ninth or tenth year she was sent to The Hague where her parents kept a quiet court surrounded by a select circle of noble and educated men. Here Elizabeth was taught classic and modern languages, art and literature, and showed especial inclinations toward philosophical studies. She early decided to remain unmarried and devote her life to study. The many misfortunes that befell her family may have confirmed her decision. In 1639 she entered into correspondence with Anna Maria von Schiirmann, a learned woman, called the Dutch Minerva. A little later she became acquainted with Descartes, who, at her request, was made her teacher in philosophy and morals, and in 1644 he dedicated to her his Princapia. In 1649 Descartes followed an invitation of Queen Christine of Sweden, but continued in correspondence with Elizabeth until he died in the following year. At this time Elizabeth returned to Heidelberg with her brother Karl Ludwig who was now elector, but his conjugal troubles induced her to leave Heidelberg. During a visit to an aunt at Krosaen she became acquainted with Cocceius who later entered into correspondence with her and dedicated to her his exposition of the Song of Songs. Through him she was led to the study of the Bible. In 1667 she became abbess of the institution of Herford where she distinguished herself by faithfulness in the performance of her duties, by her modesty and philanthropy, and especially by her kind hospitality to all who were oppressed for the sake of conscience. In 1670 she received the followers of Jean de Labadie (q.v.), by whose piety she was attracted, sad when the congregation left in 1672, retained a small body of like‑minded souls under her protection. The Labadiste were followed hi 1676 by the Quakers. In 1677 Penn himself arrived together with Barclay, and remained three days, holding meetings which made a deep impression upon the countess. Her friendship with Penn lasted until her death in 1680, and he celebrated her memory in the second edition of his book No Cross, No Crown (1682), praising her piety and virtue, her simplicity, her care as ruler, her justice, humility and charitable love. Leibnitz visited her in 1678. (J. SCHNEIDER.)

111	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	El~i~n°u ,beth, 8siat
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. E. Guhrauer, in Hiatorischee TaachenbucA, oil. F. von Raumer, aeries 3, vol. iii., Leipeic, 1851; M. Goebel, Ceachichie lee c),riatLichen Lebena . . . , vol. ii., §§ 9, 11, Coblenz, 1882 (both of the foregoing contain lists of literature); Foucher de Careil, Descartes, et la prsnceeae Palatine, Paris, 1882; idem, Descartes, la prtnceaae Elisabeth et la refine Christine, fib. 1879: C. J. Jeannel, Descartes et la princease Palatine, fib. 1889; H. Heppe, Geult%chte des Pietiamua and der Myatik, pp. 321‑341, Leyden, 1879; T. wills, in Neuere HeidelbsrparJahrbilchar, xi. 108 eqq.; ADB, vi. 22 aqq.

ELIZABETH, QUEEN OF ENGLAND, EXCOMMUNICATION OF. See FEIJrow, Joxls.
ELIZABETH OF SCHOENAU: German mystic; b. about 1129; d. at Schisnau (6 m. n.e. of Heidelberg) June 18, 1164. When twelve years of age, she entered the monastery at Schiinau in Nassau, and in 1152 she began to see visions which are fully described in her three books of Visiones (of. the edition by F. W. E. Roth, Briinn, 1884, and the earlier editions noted in the bibliography). They commenced with a feeling of heavy oppression and with convulsions, ending in unconsciousness. In this state she saw heavenly forms which she was able to describe when she awoke. The visions later became more frequent and lasting, so that she could converse with the celestial apparitions and question them. It was usually either the saint of the day or the Virgin who appeared to her, but the visions seldom transcended the horizon of a simple soul, which remained childlike amid monastic surroundings. Her interests were limited to questions connected with monastic piety, as when she asked Mary for a true description of her assumption, or sought from the angels a confirmation of the authenticity of the relics of the 11,000 virgins which had been found at Cologne. Ecbert's description of her death shows that to the last she remained a childlike, pure, lovely, and humble soul, and despite all visionary eccentricity her religious nature remained in the main simple and healthy. Her own writings were supplemented by Ecbert as seemed best to him. The first book of the Viszortzs and the Libzr viarum Dei were much read during the Middle
Ages. 	R. Scawlnt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Faber f3tapuleneis, Liter mum viromm d mum virpinum spiritualium, Paris, 1513 (contains the Visions, reprinted in RevelaG,onea aanctarum varginum Hildegardie et Eliwbethce, Cologne, 1828 and in MPL, cacv. Consult: W. Preger, Geackirhte' der deutscJten Myatik, i. 37 eqq.. Leipeic, 1874.
ELIZABETH, SAINT, SISTERS OF: 1. A name often given to the nuns of the third order of St. Francis. Their origin is uncertain, but was not due to St. Elizabeth of Thuringia (q.v.). Angelina di Corbara, Countess of Civitella (d. 1435), founded a community of Franciscan tertiaries at Foligno (in Umbria, 20 m. e.s.e. of Perugia) in 1395, which in 1428 became a congregation with several houses, and was confirmed by Pope Eugenius IV. in 1436; that they bore the name of St. Elizabeth, however, can not be confidently asserted. Toward the end of the fifteenth century there was a considerable number of Elizabeth‑houses in Italy, Germany, and France, partly subject to the Franciscan Observants, and in part to the diocesan bishops. The latter were given the rule of the t)rd order of St.
Francis by Leo X. in 1521, while the former received the revised constitution of the Poor Clarea. They wore a gray dress (gray acapulary, five‑knotted girdle, and black veil), whence the popular name " gray sisters." There were also " brown sisters "; steers de la faille (who wore cloaks and gathered alms); " cell‑sisters," who went out as nurses; hospital nurses, etc. At the middle of the sixteenth century the order had 4,000 members and 135 convents; in 1900 there were one house in France, one in Belgium, three houses in Bavaria, four in Prussia, and eleven in Austria.
2. Distinct from the above is the St. Elizabeth Society or Gray Sisters of St. Elizabeth, founded at Neisae in Upper Silesia in 1842 by Maria Merkert (d. 1872), with the help of her sister, Mathilde, and two other young women of the Roman Catholic Church. They take simple vows for three years and devote themselves to the work of nursing the sick, helping the poor, caring for children, and the like. Pins IX. in 1871 accorded them the status of a religious society. In 1892 they had about 140 establishments with more than 800 members.
(O. Ziic>ir.ERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Helyot; Ordrea monaatiquea, vii. 301‑312;
Heimbucher, Orden cared %onprepationen, ii 504‑b05, b28, iii. 389 aqq.; Carrier. Religious Orders, p. 253; R. Bungs, Deutsche Samariterianen, Leipaic, 1883 (with life of Maria Merkert): J. Jungnits, Die %ongregationsn der prausn Schmeatern von der Asiligen Elisabeth, Breslau, 1892; Carrier, Religious Orders, p. 550.
ELIZABETH, SAINT, OF THURINGIA.
Early Life and Marriage (§ 1). Subjection to Franciscan Influence (§ 2). Life of Charity at Marburg (§ 3). Estimate of Her Character (§ 4).
	Saint Elizabeth, landgravine of Thuringia, was
born at Pressburg, Hungary, 1207; d. at Mar
burg Nov. 19, 1231. The leading facts of her
brief life are historically established, though a halo
of legend early surrounded her. She was the daugh
ter of King Andrew II. of Hungary (1205‑35) and
		his queen, Gertrude, of the house of
	:. Early	Meran‑Andechs. When not yet four
	Life and	years of age, she was betrothed to
	Marriage.	Louis, son of Hermann, landgrave
		of Thuringia (so the common tradition,
but cf. Wenck, 221 sqq.), to whom she was married
in 1221, certainly not " against her heart's desire,"
for she devoted herself to her husband with all the
love of which a young woman is capable and Louis
was a lovable husband. He did not oppose her
in her devotional exercises, and even provided for
her benevolence which sometimes was very lavish.
She became the mother ~ of four children, her
youngest daughter being born after the father's
death.
About this time the Franciscans came to Germany, and Jordan of Giano asserts that Rodeger, for a long time Elizabeth's confessor, was a Franciscan; the influence of the Franciscans upon Elizabeth can be clearly perceived. Her later life was dominated by Conrad of Marburg (q.v.), who was admitted to the Wartburg two years before the death of the landgrave, about 1225. He obtained the confidence of the landgrave to a high degree,

Elizabeth, Saint
and Elizabeth came into complete spiritual dependence on him. In 1227, following his religious sentiment as well as the summons
s. Subjec‑ of the emperor, the landgrave took
tion to the cross. She accompanied him
Franciscan on the way two days beyond the
	Influence.	frontier of his territory, although his
		mother turned back there, and could
hardly be persuaded to return. When she learned
of her husband's death (of fever at Otranto, Sept.
11, 1227), her first exclamation was: " now the
world is dead to me with all its joys." Her life
at this point is obscure. Some claim, following
the older notices, that her brother‑in‑law, Heinrich
Rasps, drove her from the Wartburg; others that
she voluntarily left the castle. At any rate she
spent some time at the castle Pottenstein in Fran
conia, which belonged to her uncle, the bishop of
Bamberg. Afterward she returned to Thuringia
with the remains of her husband and was present
at their solemn burial in the monastery of Rein
hartsbrunn. She wished to enter a monastery or
to beg for bread from door to door. But as Conrad
rudely refused to sanction this, she vowed to re
nounce all glory of this world, parents and children,
and her own will.
Some time afterward she went to Marburg, which had been conceded to her for life with all its privileges and revenues, in order to live there under Conrad's immediate guidance. She joined the Tertiariea of the Franciscans, wore the poorest dress and lived on the scantiest food, spending all her income in works of charity; with great delight she took care of the sick, especially those afflicted with the worst diseases. At Conrad's behest she gave up her children, one after the other, dismissed two of her friends dear to her from
3. Life of early childhood, and took in their
Charity at place two unlovable servants selected
	Marburg.	by Conrad, while she so far submitted
		to him as to receive physical chas
tisement at his hands. While she was lying in
state after her death the people crowded in large
numbers about her bier and in the mania for relics,
which no feeling of piety could restrain, mutilated
the corpse. The news soon spread that miracles
took place at her grave and witnesses were examined
for the purpose of her canonization, which was
accomplished Perugia, May 27, 1235, by Gregory
IX. The Teutonic knights, to whom her brother
in‑law Conrad had belonged since 1234, promoted
her veneration. In 1235 they laid the founda
tion of the beautiful Elizabeth‑church at Maiburg
which was finished in 1284, where a sumptuous
monument became the receptacle of her bones.
Elizabeth belongs to the sweetest female characters of the Middle Ages. With a loving heart, capable as well as desirous of absolute devotion, she early felt the drawing from on v 4. Estimate high and followed it. Deep and ain‑
of Her core piety filled her life and she is not
Character.	to be blamed because its manifestation
	was determined by the tendency of
her time. Some extravagance and want of true
understanding in the exercise of her benevolence
can not be denied, but these defects are intimately
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
connected with her excellencies. That in later years she forgot her duty to be a mother to her children, was indeed an aberration; but she acted in obedience to her spiritual adviser and believed that she was fulfilling her highest duty toward God. S. M. DEBTaCH.
Bxsrroaaerar: The literature in voluminous; for a long list of sources and tresliaae cf. Pottheat, Wepuxiser, pp. 1284‑87. The chief sources are: Libellua de dictia quatGuor ancitlarum sander Elaaabethm, m J. B. Menoken, Script. rer. Germ., ii. 2007‑34, Leipeic, 1729; Conrad of Marburg's Epietola (ad Greporium IX.), in A Wyss, Heaaiaches UrkundenbucA, pp. 31‑35, Leipeie, 1879, the bull of canonization of Gregory IX., in Wyse, ut sup., pp. 3fr‑b3; the Vita by Conrad in in Meneken, ut sup., p. 2012; that by Theodore of Apolda is in H. Caniaiue, Lectiones antique, v. 2, 143‑227, Ingoletadt, 1894; Chronica Rsinhartabrunnanaie, in M(iH, Script., zxx (1898), blb‑8b8. Out of the modem literature, for the moat part uncritical, may be mentioned: K. W. Jueti, Elisabeth die Heilipe, Marburg, 1835; C. F. Montalembert, Hiatoire de Ste. Elisabeth do Honpria, Paris, 1835, Eng, transl., London, 1839 (s picture of s saint, but uncritical); F. X. Wegele, in 8ybele Hiatorieche Zeitsehrift, v (1881), 378 eqq.; G. Boerner, in NA, aii (1888), 433‑618; C. Wenek, in Hiatoriache ZeitachrifR lxia (1892), 209‑244; idem, Die En6stehunp der Reinhartabrunner (iescAichtebttcher, Halls, 1878.
ELB.ESAITES, el'ke‑Baits: The name of a section of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. They were mentioned by Epiphanius (Hcer., xix., xxx., liii.), Origen (Eusebius, Hilt. acct., vi. 38) and Hippolytus (Philosophountena, ix. 13 sqq.). The derivation of the name has led to many conjectures. Delitzach derived it from a hamlet Elkesi, in Galilee. The Church Fathers derived it from the name of a aupposititious founder, Elxai, which name, according to Epiphanius, denotes " a hidden power." Elxai is probably not the name of a person, but the name of a book which was the chief authority for this sect. At all events, the sect held in the highest esteem a work which was brought into connection with Elxai. This book, which appears to have been the chief authority for all the Jewish‑Christian Gnostic sects, was known to Origen (Eusebius, Hilt. acct., vi. 38), and the Syrian Alcibiades of Apamea brought it with him to. Rome (about 220 A.D.). As Origen reports, this book was believed to have fallen from heaven; according to an account in the Phitosophoumena, it was revealed by an angel who was the Son of God. Elxai is said to have received it in the third year of Trajan (101 N.D.), and its contents were communicated to no one except under oath of secrecy. The work itself contains a large element of natural religion mingled with Judaistic and Christian ideas. The pagan element shows itself in particular in ablutions. Remission of sins is proclaimed upon the ground of a new baptism, consisting without doubt of oft‑repeated washings, which were also used against sickness, and were made in the name of the Father and the Son. In connection with these ablutions appear seven witnesses‑the five elements, and oil and salt‑(also bread),‑the latter two symbolizing baptism and the Lord's Supper. The same pagan element appears in the use made by the Elkeaaites of astronomy and magic; baptismal days were fixed in accordance with the position of the stars. The Jewish element appears in the obligatory character of the law, and in circumcision. They rejected sacrifices, and also

118	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Blixab°0'~ ~~t
		Elliott
several parts of the Old and the New Testament
	(of the latter, the Pauline epistles). What their
views of Christ were is not certain. On the one
hand they described him as an angel; on the other
	they taught a repeated or continuous incarnation
of Christ, although the virgin‑birth seems to have
	been retained. The Lord's Supper was celebrated
	with bread and salt; the eating of meat was for
	bidden; marriage was highly esteemed; renuncia
tion of the faith in time of persecution was allowed.
A prayer, which is preserved by Epiphaniua (xix.
	4), is entirely unintelligible. Much as the Clem
	entine Homilies agree with the doctrinal system of
	the Elxai‑book, there are differences which prove
	that the latter represents the older, the Homilies
	the later form of the doctrinal system. Ritachl
	regards the Elkesaitea as the antipodes of the Mon
	taniats, and asserts as their chief peculiarity the
	setting forth of a new theory of remission of sins
	by a new baptism. Gieseler has wrongly identified
	them with the Ebionitea (KirchengescTtichte, I. i.
	134, 279). The Elkesaitea were not a distinct sect,
	but rather a school scattered among all parties of
	the Judeo‑Christian Church. This syncretietic
	gnoatic Judaism contributed to the origin of Islam.
	(G. Uxlaoxxt.)
	BaLioaswrar: A. Ritechl, in ZHT, 1853, part 4; idem,
	Entafehunp der attkathotiachen Kirclu, pp., 234, Bonn,
	1857; A. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeachiehte, pp. 433 eqq., Leip
	aic, 1884; idem, Judentum and Judenchriatsntum, pp.
	95 eqq., ib. 1888; NPNF, aeries 2, i. 280, notes: Har
	nack, Geachichte, i. 207‑209; idem, Dogma, i. 240 248,
	304 aqq., ii. 110, iii. 320, 331; Neander, Christian Church,
	i. 352; Schaff, Christian Church,, ii. 430 eqq.; DCB, ii.
95‑98; and the literature under CLEncExrrnas.
ELLER, ELIAS. See Rorrsnox.>• SECT.
	ELLICOTT, CHARLES JOHN: Bishop of Glou
	cester; b. at Whitwell (21 m. e. of Leicester),
	Rutlandshire, Apr. 25, 1819; d. at Birchington‑on
	Sea (1? m. n. of Dover), Kent, Oct. 15, 1905. He
	studied at St. John's College, Cambridge (B.A.,
	1841), where he was fellow 1845‑48, and was or
	dered deacon in 1845 and ordained priest in 1846.
	From 1848 to 1861 he was professor of divinity in
	King's College, London, and also rector of Pilton,
	Rutlandahire, until 1858. In 1860 he was appointed
	Hulsean professor of divinity at Cambridge, but in
	the following year resigned both professorships on
	being appointed dean of Exeter. In 1863 he was
	consecrated bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and
	on the division of the see in 1897 became bishop of
	Gloucester, resigning his diocese in 1904. He was
	Hulsean lecturer at Cambridge in 1858, a member
	of the royal commission on ritual and the rubrics
	in 1867, and was chairman of the British New Testa
	ment Revision Company 1870‑81. He wrote The
	History and Obligation of the Sabbath (Cambridge,
1844);	Treatise on Analytical Statistics (1851);
	Critical and Grammatical Commentary on Gala
	tians (London, 1854); Ephesians (1855); PhiliP
	pians, Colossians, and Philemon (1857); Thessa
	lonians (1858); Pastoral Epistles (1858); Historical
	Lectures on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ
	(Hulaean Lectures for 1859; 1860); Considerations
	on the Revision of the English Version of the New
	Testament (1870); Modern, Unbelief, its Principles
	and Characteristics‑ (1876); The Present Dangers of
IV.‑‑8
the Church of England (1878); The Being of God (1880)‑; Are we to modify Fundamental Dotxrinet (Bristol, 1885); 1 Corinthians, with a Critical Commentary (London, 1887); Spiritual Needs in Country,Parishes (1888); Christus Comprobator (1891); Sacred Study (2 vole., 1892‑94); Our Reformed Church and its Present Troubles (1897); The Reviaed Version of Holy Scripture (1901); and Sermons at Gloucester (1905). He also edited A New Testament Commentary for English Readers (3 vole., London, 1877‑82) and An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers (5 vole., 1882‑84).
ELLINWOOD, FRANK FIELD: Presbyterian; b. at Clinton, N. J., June 20, 1826; d. at Cornwall, Corm., Sept. 30, 1908. He studied at Hamilton College (B.A., 1849) and Auburn and Princeton theological seminaries, being graduated from the latter in 1852. He was ordained in 1853, and held pastorates at Belvedere, N. J., 1853‑54, the Central Church, Rochester, N. Y., 1854‑65. He was secretary of the Presbyterian Committee of Church Erection 1866‑70 and of the Memorial Fund Committee 1870‑71. Since 1871 he was corresponding secretary of the . Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions and from 1886 till 1904 was professor of comparative religion in New York University. He wrote Oriental Religions and Christianity (New York, 1892) and Questions and Phases of Modem Missions (1899).
ELLIOTT, CHARLES: Methodist Episcopal clergyman; b. at Killybega (14 m. w. of Donegal), County Donegal, Ireland, May 15, 1792; d. at Mount Pleasant, Iowa, Jan. 6, 1869. After having been denied admission to the University of Dublin for refusal to take the prescribed teat oath, he pursued advanced studies privately and emigrated to America in 1815. He joined the Ohio Conference in 1818, and during the next twelve years served successively as traveling preacher, superintendent of the mission among the Wyandotte Indians, presiding elder of the Ohio district, and professor of modem languages in Madison College, at Uniontown, Penn. Later he was presiding elder of the Pittsburg district and editor of the Pitta= burg Conference Journal (1833‑36). He also edited the Western Christian Advocate (1836‑48, and 18521856). As editor of the Central Christian Advocate of St. Louis, Mo. (1860‑64), he strongly supported the cause of the Union. From 1857 to 1860 he was professor of Biblical literature and president of the Iowa Wesleyan University at Mount Pleasant, and again from 1864 to 1867. His principal works were Delineation of Romanism (2 vole., New York, 1841; London, 1851); The Great Secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church (Cincinnati, 1855); and South‑western Methodism, a History of the M. E. Church in Missouri (New York, 1868).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. M. Buckley, History of Methodism in the United States, Passim, New York, 1897.
ELLIOTT, CHARLOTTE: English hymn‑writer; b. at Brighton Mar. 17, 1789; d. there Sept. 22, 1$71. She lived with her father at Clapham, a suburb of London, till 1845, then at Torquay till 185?, returning then to Brighton. In 1822 she met Cksar Malan (q.v.), who influenced her strongly.

3B11oEt
ilohim
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
During the last fifty years of her life she was an invalid. Of her 150 hymns some are still in common use, e.g., " Just as I am without one plea," and " My God, my Father, while I stray." Selections from her poems, with a memoir by her sister, Mrs. Babington, were published in 1873.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 8. W. Duffield, English Hymns, p. 389 et passim, New York, 1886; Julian, Hymnology, p. 328; N. Smith, Hymns historically Famous, pp. 1b9‑186, Chicago, 1901 (on "Just as I am ").
ELLIOTT, DAVID: American Presbyterian; b. in Sherman's Valley, Perry Co., Penn., Feb. 6, 1787; d. at Allegheny, Penn., Mar. 18, 1874. After his graduation from Dickinson College in 1808 he studied theology for three years and was licensed to preach as a probationer by the presbytery of Car lyle Sept. 26, 1811. He was pastor at Mercereburg, Penn., from Feb. 19, 18i2, to Oct. 28, 1829, and at Washington from 1829 to 1836, and was also acting president of Washington College from 1829 to 1832, when he completely reorganized sad revived that institution. He declined the appointment as permanent president, but was president of the board of trustees for thirty‑three years. From 1836 to 1854 he was professor of theology in the Western Theological Seminary, at Allegheny, Penn., and from 1854 till his death professor of polemic, history, and pastoral theology in the same institution, becoming professor emeritus in 1870. He was often a member of the General Assembly, and as moderator of that body in 1837, when the Church was divided, he distinguished himself by the fairness and accuracy of his decisions.

	ELLIS, GEORGE EDWARD: Unitarian; b. at
Boston Aug. 8, 1814; d. there Dec. 20, 1894. He
was graduated at Harvard College in 1838, and the
Harvard Divinity School in 1836. He then devoted
four years to travel and study in Europe, was or
dained in 1840 and was pastor of the Harvard
Unitarian Society, Cambridge, Mass., 18409.
From 1857 to 1863 he was professor of systematic
theology in Harvard Divinity School. For several
years he was editor of the Christian Register and
later of The Christian Examiner. He wrote A Half
Century of the Unitarian Controversy, with Par
ticular Reference to its Origin, Us Course, and its
Prominent Subjects among the Congregationalists of
Massachusetts (Boston, 1857); Aims arid Purposes
of the Founders of Massachusetts, and their Treat
ment of Intruders aced Dissentients (1869); Intro
auction to the History o f the First Church in Boston,
1630‑1880 (1882); The Red Man and the White
Man in North America (1882); and The Puritan
Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay
(1888).
ELLIS, WILLIAM: English missionary; b. in London Aug. 29, 1794; d. at Hoddesdon (4 m. e.e. of Hertford), Hertfordshire, June 9, 1872. He was sent by the London Missionary Society to the South Sea islands in 1816 and labored there till 1822, when he removed to Oahu, Hawaiian Islands (q.v.). He assisted the American missionaries in the conversion of the people and reduced the Hawaiian language to a written form. In 1825 the state of his wife's health compelled him to return to Eng‑
land. On the way he agent three months in the United States, lecturing on conditions in Hawaii. He now entered the home‑work of the Society, became assistant foreign secretary in 1830 and soon afterward chief foreign secretary, retiring in 1844 on account of ill health. In 1837 he married as his second wife, Miss Sarah Stickney, a lady of some literary fame. In 1853 he was sent to Madagascar to revive the mission there (see AFRICA, III., MADAGASCAR), but not till his third trip in 1856 was he allowed to enter the capital, and then only for a month. In 1861, after the death of Queen Ranavalona I. he made his fourth, and most satisfactory, visit to the island, not returning to England till 1865. By his tact and zeal he placed Christianity upon a firm basis in the island, and his work was crowned in 1868 by the accession of a Christian queen to the throne.
As a missionary Mr. Ellis was thoroughly practical, being bent upon providing for the temporal, as well as for the spiritual, welfare of his converts. He had been bred a gardener; and the year before he went to the South Sea Islands he learned printing and bookbinding. Thus he was able to introdues many valuable plants and fruits and he set up the first printing‑press in the archipelago. Through his books he won for missionaries, as a class, a respect they had not often enjoyed. Writing in the Quarterly Review Southey said of his Polynesian Researches (2 vole., London, 1829), " A more interesting book . . . we have never perused." His books were not merely faithful records of missionary labor but real contributions to science. Other works that may be mentioned are, Missionary Narrative of a Tour through Hawaii (London, 1826); History of Madagascar (2 vole., 1838); History of the London Missionary Society (not completed, vol. i., 1844); Three Visits to Madagascar (1858); Madagascar Revisited (1867); The Martyr Church of Madagascar (1870).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. E. Ellis, Memoir of Rev. William Elks,
London, 1873 (by his son); DNB, avii. 298‑297.

ELLWOOD, THOMAS: English Quaker, friend of Milton; b. at Crowell (15 m. e.s.e. of Oxford), Oxfordshire, Oct., 1639; d. at Hunger Hill, Amersham (25 m. e.s.e. of Oxford), Buckinghamshire, Mar. 1, 1714. He joined the Quakers in 1659, against his father's will, and subsequently suffered frequent arrest and imprisonment for his religious views. He is remembered chiefly in connection with Milton. For a few months in 1662 he was Latin reader to the blind poet in London; and in 1665 Milton lent him the manuscript of Paradise Lost. In returning the work Ellwood remarked, " Thou heat said much of ` Paradise Lost,' but what halt thou to say of ` Paradise Found ' 7 " Upon Milton's own admission Paradise Regained was a result of this remark. Ellwood was also a friend of William Penn, George Fox, and other Quaker leaders; and to him we are indebted for much information about the Quakers, as well as about Milton. Of his numerous works may be mentioned, An Alarm to the Priests (London, 1660); Forgery no Christianity (1674); The Foundation of Tithes Shakers (1678); Sacred History (2 pts., 1705‑09);

116	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	2lu°tt
		Elohim
and his autobiography, under the title The History
of the Life of Thomas Elhvood (1714; reprinted,
Boston, 1877).
]BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Msseon, Life and Times of John Milton,
	6 vols., London, 1859‑80; Maria Webb, The Penns and
	the Penningtona of the 17th Century, ib. 1867; A. C. Bick
	ley, George Fox and the Early Quakers, ib. 1884; DNB,
	zvii. 303‑305 (contains full list of his works); his auto
	biography was republished in the original spelling, Lon
	don, 1906.
	ELMER, JOHN. See AYLMER, JOHN.
	ELMO, SAINT. See HELPERS IN NEED, THE
FOURTEEN.
	ELOHIM, el'o‑him". (Hebr. Elohim): The most
common designation for God in the Old Testament,
applied both to the heathen gods and to the one true
		God, whose proper name is Yahweh.
	Con‑	The term moat nearly related to Elohim
netted as a designation of God, though occur
ftames. ring rarely and only in poetry, is its
		singular in the form Eloah, likewise
the short and frequently used word El. The ques
tion of the derivation and significance of Elohim
must take into consideration these related words.
	For a long time the derivation of Elohim received
with the most deserved approval was that of Flei
acher (in Delitzach's Genesis, Leipaic, 1872, 57‑58)
from a root alihd not current in Hebrew but found
in Arabic, signifying " to be amazed, to fear."
This derivation does not satisfy because it does not
account f or the singular form El, and the Arabic word
is itself probably a secondary formation from the
word for God (cf. Dillmann, Alttestamentliche The
		dogie, Leipsic, 1895, 210). H. Schultz
	Etymol‑ (Altteatamentliehe Theologie, GSttingen,
	ogy. 1896, 405, note 10) derives El from ul
		" to be strong." El signifies then
"the strong," "the mighty," and is conceived as
a verbal noun. Many objections can be brought
to this derivation both in regard to the significance
of the name and with respect to the original short
ness of the a in El (cf. Dillmann, ut sup. Theodor
Noldeke derives El from a verbal stem ul or il
signifying " to be in front" (Monatsberichte der
Berliner Akademie, 1880, 760 aqq.). God is then to
be thought of as " the leader," " the foremost
one." This derivation demands the long a in El
and is not satisfactory to the scholarship of to
day. Lagarde (Uebersicht fiber die Nominalbildung,
Giittingen, 1889, 170; cf. G. Kerber, Hebrdische
Eigennamen, Freiburg, 1897, 83; Bathgen, Bei
trage zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin,
1889, 272 aqq.) has sought to derive the word from
the root slab to which the preposition el, " to," be
longs. El =God would then indicate "the end of
all human seeking " and " the object of all human
striving." This receives some support from analo
gous usage in the Assyrian. But the idea is too
abstract to express the original first impressions of
divinity among any people. The authority of the
philologist has very little weight either in the history
or philosophy of religion. It is not safe to build
historical or philosophical theories concerning the
original conception of divinity on etymological
speculations. Nevertheless one can not deny that
the concept of " might," or " mighty one," has a con‑
tent which, on the one hand, bears in it the essential mark of the concept of divinity, and, on the other, is sufficiently concrete to serve as a foundation for a root so ancient and original as El. If it be possible to remove the objections to the derivation from slab, " to be strong," this etymology will be the moat probable.
The next question concerns the relationship of Eloah and Elohim to El, and scholars are virtually agreed that Elohim is an old plural of El, while Eloah is a secondary formation from Elohim. As to the significance of this plural the main question is, does it now or did it originally signify plurality of divine being? The data are confined to the Old Testament and the text in several instances is not beyond question (cf. Strack's Genesis, 68). If one looks at the instances where Elohim must be plural, because it signifies a plurality of (heathen) gods, there yet remain a great and preponderating number of passages where it can mean only the (one)
God of Israel. In these instances, it is Use in the rule that Elohim, where it is aubSingular ject and where it has an attribute,
and Plural. takes the singular of the predicate as well as of the attribute. But there are not lacking cases in which this rule will not apply in which Elohim takes both the attribute and the verbal predicate in the plural. The moat apparent explanation is that these are traces of a previous general manner of expression and consequently a proof of an old Israelitic polytheism (Baudissin, Stttdien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Leipsic, 1876, 55‑56; Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, i., Stuttgart, 1884, 376). But this argument is offset by the fact that the Hebrews used this manner of expression in later times where, considering all circumstances, polytheism can not be implied. The Hebrews used many collective nouns and many plural formations which referred to one person, the plural signifying a mesa of abstractions collected from single phenomena of like character. If the Hebrew writer wished to indicate his feeling of unity in the plural, he would express it by means of the singular of the attribute or predicate. If exceptions to this rule occur, they are exceptions and not remains of an old rule. The singular of the predicate or attribute along with a plural subject is absolute proof for the monotheistic view, while the plural of the attribute and predicate is not in the same manner a proof for the polytheistic view. A plural subject with a singular predicate or attribute could only be chosen by a decision consciously made to depart from grammatical rules of speech, but if the speaker thought of God as one being, singular attributes and predicates could easily come into usage because it would be understood that the plural subject was really a collective singular.
Extra‑Biblical sources afford no help. The analogy of the Phenician which possesses a plural word for a unitary God, is not significant because no Phenician document reaches back to Old‑Testament times. There is the possibility that the plural Elohim has come in early times from the experience of many divine beings (Smith, Rel. of Sem., 445), but this is not more than an abstract possibility. It may be claimed that the experience of many reve‑

Eltsholt,z	THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG	118
Emanation
lations of one being could also give the thought of plurality of divine beings. The latter is probable certainly from the way in which Adhonim and BaaLim are used, referring only to one Lord.
(R. Ira‑rar..)
BIHLIOQ'sAPHY: Consult, besides the literature mentioned in the tent: H. L. Fleischer, Kieiners 3abriften, i. 154 eqq., Leipaic, 1885; DB, ii. 198‑199; EB, iii. 3323‑25.
ELTZHOLTZ, CARL FREDERICK: Methodist Episcopalian; b. at Brahetrolleborg (3b m. s.e. of Fredericia), Denmark, Oct. 10, 1840. He was graduated at the nautical institute at Svenborg, Denmark, in 1861. In 1867 he became a clergyman of the Methodist. Episcopal Church, and has held charges in Wisconsin, Chicago, Denmark, and California. For six years he was presiding elder among the Norwegians and Dance in the Omaha District, and since 1898 has been editor of Den Kristelige Talsmand, a Dano‑Norwegian organ of his denomination. He was the founder, in 1878, of the Danish temperance movement. He has written Livsbilleder of John Wesley (Chicago, 1903); Livsbilleder of O. P. Petersen (1903); My Brother's Keeper (1908); and J. Wesley's Conversion and Sanctification (1908).

ELVEMCH, PETER JOSEF. See HicRmra, GEOR(i.
ELVIRA, SYNOD OF: A synod held at Iliberria (Elvira) or Municipium Florentinum, the modern Granada, on May 15, shortly before 303 (P) or about 310 (?). It was attended by nineteen bishops and twenty‑four presbyters, mostly from southern Spain, Baetica, and Carthago Nova; of the northern dioceses, Legio (Leon) and Caesar sugusta (Saragossa) were represented, but not Tarragona. It takes rank among the more important provincial synods. Its broad outlook over the whole field of Christian life and attempt to codify the rules for it may have been due to the influence of Hosius of Cordova (q.v.), who was present, although the presidency was held not by him but (presumably on the ground of seniority) by Felix, bishop of Accis (Guadix). The canons, numbering eightyone, were proclaimed by the bishops. At least at the outset, a systematic treatment seems to have been attempted; canons i.‑iv. dealt with idolatry, v.‑vi. with homicide, and vii.‑x. with unchastity; xi. on prohibited marriages being a supplement to these. All of them breathe a spirit of great strictness, almost of Novatianism. In a large number of cases exclusion from communion is imposed as a penalty, while in others an exactly graduated system of penance is worked out with the allowance of restoration after a number of years varying from one to ten; the synod seems, following the earliest Christian practise, to deny the possibility of restoration after a second fall. Mitigations are contemplated only in case of mortal illness and for women who marry the partner of their guilt; but practise was probably milder than theory. The synod permitted the traditional civil and religious ordinances to stand, but made an earnest effort to guard the Christian flock from any public participation in action contrary to the faith, especially from active or passive assistance at heathen sacrifices, which were still performed in all the larger
cities of Spain. The whole attitude points to a
time of. peace, not to one immediately following
a persecution; the complete absence of any pro
visions as to the case of the lapsed is enough to
exclude the modern theory as to the date. The
synod can thus not have been held in 305 or 306,
but must have taken place either before the Dio
cletian persecution (in 300, as the oldest investi
gators and Duchesne say), or several years later,
though before 316, in which year Bishop Valerius
is known to have been dead.	It is probable that it
occurred after official toleration of Christianity on
an equal footing with other religions had been
proclaimed by Constantine in the other parts of the
Western empire, or was at least fn contemplstion
i.e., about 310. The work of the synod suggests
the attempt to draw up, under the guidance of a
distinguished adviser of the emperor, a sketch of
Christian principles applied to the limits of a pro
vincial church, which might serve as a model for
the carrying out of a similar program on a larger
scale. According to this view, its work is in the
main the prelude to a greater and more universal
policy, and its aim is more political and moral than
purely spiritual. 	(EDGAR HENNEKE.)
B113LIOGILAPHY: Hefele, Conciiienpeechichte, i. 148‑192, Eng, tranel., i. 131‑138; P. B. Game, Rirchenpsechichte von Spanien, ii. 1‑138, Regensburg, 1884; A W W, Dale, The Synod of Elroira, London, 1882; L. Duahesne, Le Coneile d'Elvire, in M6lanpea Rsnisr, pp. 1b9‑174, Paris, 1887; Manai, Coneilia, ii. b7‑397; Neander, Chriatian Church, i. 198 et passim; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 180‑181; Harnack, Litlerotur, i. 803; idem, Dogma, ii., iii. 123‑124, v. 28.
ELWERT, el'vdrt, EDUARD: Lutheran theologian; b. at Cannatadt (4 m. n.e. of Stuttgart), Wilrttemberg, Feb. 22, 1805; d. there June 9, 1866. He studied at Maulbronn and Tiibingen. In 1830 he became repetent at Tiibingen and lectured on the history of Protestant doctrines, publishing at the same time several of his most impotent essays in theological periodicals. From 1832 to 1836 he was deacon at Nagold. In 1836 he became professor of theology at Zurich where he lectured on church history and the history of dogmas. His delicate health soon compelled him to give up this position and live in retirement as country pastor in M6tzingen. Here he remained twelve years (183$‑50) with the exception of two years which he spent as professor of theology at Tiibingen (1839‑41). He was superintendent of the seminary of SchtSnthal, 18b0‑64, teaching New‑Testament exegesis, Biblical history, dogmatics, ethics, and church history. In 1865 his health again forced him to resign. Elwert was spiritually related to Schleiermacher, as may be seen especially from his union of a sincere inward piety with a clear perception of the practical conditions of life, from his union of regard for each individual with love of fellow men, and of a thorough classical education with a simple Christian faith. He was saved from Schleier. macher's dualism between faith and knowledge by his faithfulness to the Biblical record, and subjectivism was counterbalanced in him by a firm grasp of the objective revelation of God as an actual fact. Of his literary works, his Zurich dissertation, De arUinomia Johannia Agricolm (1836), is a not

117	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eltaholta
		Emanation
unimportant work in the sphere of historical the
ology. Important in exegesis are his Annotationes
in Lamm Gal. ii. 1‑YO (SchBnthaler Programm,
1852) and Quceationes et observatitmea tad philologiarn
aacrarn Nevi Teatamenti pertinent" (Tabingen,
lsso).		(Ro$ERT x$BELt.>
	ELY: A small town of England in Cambridge
shire (18 m. n.n.e. of Cambridge). It is the seat
of an important bishopric, erected in 1107, which
for a long time, owing to its remote situation amid
the marsh‑lands of East England, enjoyed a quasi
palatine authority second only to that of the see
of Durham (q.v.). A convent was founded on
the Island of Ely in 673 by Etheldreda, queen of
Northumbria (see ETHELDREDA, SAINT), W110 Con
tinued abbess till her death. In 1070 Ethel
wold, bishop of Winchester, restored the buildings
after the ravages of the Danes and filled them with
monks instead of nuns. In 1083 Abbot Simeon
commenced the conventual church, which Henry
VIII. made the cathedral. The present buildings
date from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries,
affording examples of every period of English
Gothic, and especially as restored in the nineteenth
century, with the beautiful painting executed as a
labor of love by Mr. Gambier Parry, are among
the principal attractions of English ecclesiastical
architecture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. E. Dickson, Ely Cathedral, London,
	1897; C. W. Stubbs, Historical Memorial* o/ Ely Cathe
	dral, ib. 1897; Handbook to the Cathedral, Ely, 1898; Ely
	Diocesan Remsmlmanar. Cambridge. 1898 eqq.; W. D.
	Bweeting, Cathedral Church o/ Ely, London, 1901.
		EMANATION.
Definition and Distinctions U 1).
Hindu, Persian, and Greek Phases (¢ 2).
Philonic and Early Christian Doctrine ($ 3).
Dionysian, Scholastic, and Mystic Doctrine ($ 4).
	The doctrine of emanation holds that all derived
or secondary things proceed or flow from the more
primary. It is distinguished from the doctrine
of creation by its elimination of a definite will in
the first cause, from which all things are made to
emanate according to natural laws and without
conscious volition. It differs from the theory of
		formation at the hands of a supreme
	I. Defini‑ artizan who finds his matter ready
	flea and to his hand, in teaching that all
	Diatinc‑ things, whether actually or only ap
	tions. parently material, flow from the primal
		principle. Unlike evolution, again,
which includes the entire principle of the world,
material and spiritual, in the process of develop
ment, emanation holds to the immutability of
the first principle as to both quality and quantity,
and also in the tendency of the development
evolution implying one which goes from leas to
more perfect, while emanation involves a eerier of
descending stages. Evolution may be classed
under the general head of pantheism; emanation
can not, since its primary essence does not enter
into the world. The vagueness prevalent in the
definition of emanation is due partly to the con
stant use of metaphors in describing it; indeed the
term emanation itself is a metaphor taken from the
flowing of liquid. Of these analogies perhaps the best is that taken from light, the beams of which go out continually without any diminution of the original source, and become more feeble the further they get away from it.
In the Upanishads of the Veda there are not a few passages which point, if obscurely, to this doctrine. One frequently quoted passage asserts that "From this Atman originated space, and from space the wind, and from the wind the fire, and from fire water, and from water the earth, and from the earth plants, and from plants food, and from food the seed of man, and from the seed of man himself." This, however, does not s. Hindu, clearly assert an emanation, but
Persian, merely marks the stages of descent and Greek that separate man from the Atman.
	Phases.	Attempts have often been made to
		derive the Gnostic doctrine of emana
tion from the Avesta, but with doubtful success.
Even if we may assume another higher power ante
cedent to the two hostile powers set forth in this
dualistic system and comprising them both, still
the independence of these two, as well as of the
angels or half‑divine beings who surround them,
is not clearly asserted as owing to their emanation
from the primal principle. In the ancient Egyptian
religion, in which polytheism early appeared, there
is no question of either emanation or evolution.
In Greek philosophy emanations (aporrhoiai) occur
at as early period, as in Empedoclea, who accounts
for sensual perceptions as emanations or effluxes
proceeding from the objects percei ed. Similarly
Democritus spoke of effluxes of moms from the
thing perceived, by which images (eidola) are pro
duced, which strike our senses. But these views
do not come under the general head of emanation,
since they do not touch the origin of the atoms.
Nor does the teaching of the Hylozoists, like Hera
clitus, with his doctrine of the transformation of
all things into fire, and then of fire into all other
things. The same is true of the Stoics; some of the
later ones, like Marcus Aurelius, speak of the soul
se an aporrhoaa of God, but this means a part of
God, not an emanation from an undiminished
source. The first real mention of the doctrine in
Greek or Hellenistic philosophy is iz the Wisdom of
Solomon, where wisdom is described as " the breath
of the power of God, and a pure influence (alOOr
rhoia) flowing from the glory of the Almighty."
These and the following expressions may, indeed,
be poetical, not involving a personification of wis
dom apart from the Godhead; but the way in
which wisdom is spoken of throughout the book
makes for the conception of an independent cosmic
power which is an efflux from the Godhead.
The doctrine of emanation is a little more explicit in Philo, though he dote not teach it clearly and consciously, still leas purely and logically. It assumes its most definite form for Greek philosophy in Vie works of the Neoplatoniats‑though their speculations are largely derived from the Gnostic mythological systems of Basilides and Valentinus, in which emanation played a prominent part. According to Basilides, a whole series of eons emanated in successive stages from the uabegotten

Emanation	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	118
Emigrants
Father; and the Valentiniana spoke of the primal essence as " throwing off " (proballein), without diminution, that which was derived from it
(see VALFNTINUB; BABILIDEB). In 3. Philonic the Neoplatonist system, the highest
and Early principle, the One, overflows without
Christian a conscious act, merely by a law of its
Doctrine. nature, losing nothing of its fulness
and this process has no end in time. It goes from more perfect to less perfect, and the ineffable Unity is the source of all plurality. The Noes (intellect), the first stage in the process, thinks, and thus from it emanate the soul and the logos (word). So the process goes on until the lowest stage is reached in essenoelesa matter. The notion of emanation was frequently used by the early Christian writers in the attempt to express the relation of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father, though the symbolism is not pressed too far. The phrase used of the Son in Heb. i. 3 remin3s of the Book of Wisdom. The idea is similarly used by Athenagoras, Origen, and Arnobius; Tertullian even ventures to employ the Valentinian term probole for the relation of the Son to the Father, while repudiating the separation which Valentinus had taught between his eons. In the final establishment of the Trinitarian doctrine the idea of emanation undoubtedly played a part, as in the emphasis laid upon the Son's being " begotten, not made " (Nicene Creed), and the " procession" of the Holy Ghost; but the idea of descent to imperfection is ]asking.
A common pisunderatanding regards Dionysius the Areopagite as of importance in the history of the doctrine of emanation. He does teach an efflux from God; but the heavenly hierarchy, with its various grades of perfection, does not arise by an emanation of one from the other; all have their origin directly from God, or the Highest
Good. Erigena., referring much of his
;. Dionys‑ doctrine to Dionysius, makes use of ian, Scholas‑ a kind of creation which resembles
tic, and the Neoplatonist emanation. His
Mystic	world of cavsce primordiales is eternal,
Doctrine. though not with God's eternity, but
eternally created by or proceeding from God. Creation is a processio through these to the visible and invisible creatures; it too is eternal; God is in the creation, and the creation in God. From Erigena the custom passed over to scholasticism of considering creation as a sort of emanation; but in the passage of Thomas Aquinas moat frequently quoted in this connection (1., qu. xlv., art. l ) the specific character of emanation is so weakened as to be perceptible only in the fact that he does not draw a sharp dividing line between God and his powers and the world. In the mystics, despite their connection with scholasticism, the doctrine of emanation can scarcely be discovered in its pure form. But in the Jewish Cabala (q.v.) the emanationistic origin of the world is distinctly taught; the connection with Christian Gnosticism, with the Neoplatoniata, and with Dionysiua is evident. With the founders of modern metaphysics, Descartes and Spinoza, emanation plays no prominent part; but the logicians of the
sixteenth and seventeenth certuries make use of the term causes emanativa in contradistinction to causes actives. In the newer philosophy the old view of emanation is disappearing, though it is found in Leibnitz's conception of the relation between God and single monads; God is the primal unity, the moms Primitives, which produces the created and derived monads " par des fulgxcrationa continuelles de la Di7Ylnitts de moment h moment." But since the time of Leibnitz it has been found impossible to combine the doctrine with the clearer views prevalent on cosmology, to say nothing of theology and metaphysics; and its place has been taken by the doctrine of evolution. (M. HEINZE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature cited under GNOaTICIa1I. NEOPLATONIaM, PHILO, MANDAEANa, and MANICHEANa contains much that is pertinent. On Indian Emanations consult: R. Garbs, Philosophy of Ancient India, Chicago, 1897; F. Mss Miiller, Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, London, 1899. For discussion of the subject in the Occident consult the works on the History of Philosophy by J. E. Erdmann, vol, i., London, 1890, and w. Windelband, New York, 1893.
EMBER‑DAYS: Days of special fasting and prayer occurring quarterly (Lest. jejunia qtcatttcor temporum), on the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the first Sunday in Lent, Pentecost, Sept. 14, and Dec. 14. They seem to have been originally instituted for the purpose of asking God's blessing on the several seasons of the year (Bingham, Origines, xxi. 2); but later they assumed more importance as the seasons specially appointed for ordination. See FASTING, II.

	EMBER, PAULUS: Hungarian Reformed church
historian; b. at Debreczen c. 1660; d. at Liszka
(on the Bodrog, 50 m. n. of Debreczen) 1710.
He studied in the Refcrmed College of Debrec
zen and became teacher at Patak (fi m. n.e. of
Liazka). After a visit to Franeker and Leyden
(1684‑‑86) he returned to Patak as pastor, but was
soon driven away by the Jesuits. Thenceforth his
life was a wandering one; its happiest and most
productive period was a residence at Losoncz from
1695 till 1701. He suffered in the war following the
revolution of Francis Rak6ezy and had to flee from
Szatmar, where he was then pastor. A place was
made for him in his native town, but the advance
of the Austrian army drove him thence in 1705.
His works were Garizim & Ebal (Kolozavar, 1702),
a defense of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestina
tion, which provoked a fiery attack from a Lutheran
writer, Martinus Regis (Wittenberg, 1708) ; and
Histories ecclesix re forrnatce in Hungaria et Tran
sylvania. The material for this work was collected
during his wanderings and it was written at the
request of the Prussian court‑preacher, E. D. Jab
lonaky. After Ember's death it was sent to Utrecht
and was published there (1728) with alterations
and additions by F. A. Lamps, who mentioned the
author on the title page only as vir quidam duo
tissimvs. It is still a valuable and indispensable
work for the history of the Reformation in Hun
gary. 	F. BALOGH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: [Michal Rotarides,] Hieloria Hangaricm
lilteraria, lineaments, pp. 49, 55‑57, 179, Alton&, 1745. Other literature (in Hungarian) is given in Hauck‑Her.
aog, RE, v. 336.

119	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Emanation
		Emigrants
		EMBOLISMUS ("Thrown in" or "Interca
	lated"): The name of the prayer following the
	Lord's Prayer in the mass, Libera nos, quwsumus,
doming, ab omnibus malls, etc. (" Free us, we be
	seech thee, O Lord, from all evils," etc.).
		EMBURY, PHILIP: The first Methodist preacher
	in America; b. at Ballygaran near Ruthkeale
	(16 m. s.w. of Limerick), Ireland, c. Sept. 1,
	1728; d. at Camden, Washington Co., N. Y., Aug.,
	1775. His parents were members of a colony of
	Palatines who settled in Ireland. He learned the
	carpenter's trade, was converted under Wesley's
	preaching in 1752, and began to preach soon after
	ward. Accompanied by Peter Sweitser, Paul and
	Barbara Heck, and otherA, he emigrated to America,
	landing at New York Aug. 10, 1760. Here he
	followed his trade and did not begin preaching
	again till 1766, being moved to do so then by the
	reproaches of his cousin Barbara Heck. The
	first services were held in his own house in Burrack
	street, now Park Place. In 1768 the meetings
	were transferred to the famous " rigging loft "
	in what is now William Street. This was the first
	Methodist congregation in the United States of
	which there is record. In 1768, under Em
	bury's direction, the first Methodist church was
	built on the site of the present John Street church.
	It was a stone structure forty‑two by sixty feet.
	Embury himself worked on the building as a car
	penter, and preached the dedicatory sermon Oct.
	30, 1768. After serving the church gratuitously
	as pastor, trustee, and treasurer, Embury removed
	to Camden in the spring of 1770, shortly after the
	arrival in New York of the first missionaries sent
	out by Wesley. Here he continued to follow his
	trade during the week and preach every Sunday.
	At Ashgrove, near Camden, he organized the first
	Methodist society in what is now the Troy con
	ference. His remains were first interred on a farm
	near Camden, then at Ashgrove, and finally (1866)
	in Woodland Cemetery, Cambridge, N. Y., where
	a monument to him was unveiled by Bishop
	Simpson in 1873.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: N. Bangs, Hisdmy of the Methodist Episco
		pal Church, vol. i., New York, 1832; W. B. Sprague,
		Annals of the American Pulpit, vii. 1‑3, ib. 1881; J. M.
		Buckley, History o/ Methodists a» the United States, passim,
		ib. 1898.
		EMERTON, EPHRAIM: Unitarian; b. at Sar
	lem, Mass., Feb. 18, 1851. He studied at Harvard
	(B.A., 1871) and the universities of Berlin and
	Leipsic (Ph.D., 1877), and became instructor in
	history and German in Harvard University (1876),
	instructor in history (1878), and (1882) Winn pro
	fessor of ecclesiastical history. He has written
	Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages (Boston,
	1888); Mediawal Europe, 814 1300 (1894); and
	Desiderius Erasmus (New York, 1899).
		EMIGRANTS AND I>IIMIGRAIQTS, MISSION
	WORK AMOftG.‑L In Germany: Both the Evan
	gelical and the Roman Catholic Churches in Ger
	many have established missions whose twofold
	object is to provide emigrants with the means of
	spiritual improvement in the harbors of departure
	and arrival, and to protect them against unscrupu‑
lous agents and lodging‑house keepers on both sides of the ocean. Aid rendered in European ports takes the form of assistance in making purchases, exchange of money, the care of baggage, etc., as well as the furnishing of cards of recommendation to those in charge of toe mission work in the cities to which emigrants are going. Before departure religious services are held, communion being administered to those who desire it. Bibles and works of devotion are distributed. Aid in the form of money loans for the purpose of securing passage is invariably refused. In Hamburg a harbor mission was established some time after 1870, and the work in its present form was organized in 1882. It is carried on under the authority of all the German Lutheran Churches, without regard to the internal divisions within the Evangelical Church in the United States. Bremen has a general mission for all Lutheran emigrants and a minor organization for adherents of the Missouri Synod. There are other missions at Stettin, Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam.
	Work among Roman Catholic emigrants is
carried on by the St. Raphael Society, organized
in 1868, through the efforts of Peter Paul Cahensly,
a merchant of Limburg on the Lahn, where the
society has its headquarters. It has obtained
wide influence and has its agents among the Roman
Catholic clergy and laity in many American sea
ports. Its organ is the St. 12aphaels‑Blatt, pub
lished at Limburg. It also has an Italian branch
the organ of which is L'Emigranto Italiano, pub
lished at Treviso. 	(THEODOR SCHAFER.)
II. In the United States: Provision for the welcome, protection, and guidance of foreigners arriving in the United States, has grown with the growing volume of immigration. At New York, the chief port of entry, more than thirty religious societies and homes are represented at Ellis Island by devoted agents and missionaries who are present qn the arrival of every immigrant steamship. The following list of these agencies has been prepared by Dr. Walter Laidla,w, Secretary of the Federation of Churches and Christian Organizations in New York City.
Austrian Society, 170 East Eightieth Street; Bulgarian Society; American Bible Society, Bible House; Clara de Hirsch Home for Immigrant Girls, 375 East Tenth Street; Danish Mission Home, 130 Prospect Avenue, Brooklyn; Danish Church, .195 Ninth Street, Brooklyn; German Baptist Home Mission, Brooklyn; German Society, 13 Broadway; Deuteches Lutheriechea Emigranten‑Haue, 4 State Street; Greek Society, 8 Oak Street; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, 232 East Broadway; Hungarian' Home. 3 State Street; Irish Emigrant Society, 51 Chambers Street; Immigrant Girls' Home (Methodist Episcopal Church), 9 State Street; Lutheran Pilger House, 8 State Street; Mission of Our Lady of the Rosary (Irish immigrant girls), 7 ~$tate Street; Norsk Lutherescke Church, 218 Twantyeeventh Street, Brooklyn; Presbyterian Board of Home Missions, 158 Fifth Avenue; Protestant Episcopal Church Mission, 29 Veeey Street; Polish Society, 117 Broad Street; Reformed Church of North America, Ellis Island; Swedish Missionary, 24 Greenwich Street; St. Raphael Italian Society, 8‑10 Charlton Street; Swedish Baptist Home Mieaionaty, 22 Greenwich Street; Scandinavian Immigrant Home. 22 Greenwich Street; Svenska Lutheran Immigra., lion Hemmett, b water Street; $t. Raphael Society, Leo House, 8 State Street; Society for Protection of Italian Immigrants, 17 Pearl Street; American Tract Society. 150 Nassau Street; United Hebrew Charities, 358 Second Avenue; Women's Christian Temperance Union.

Emigrants.	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	120
Ems, Congress of
	The missionaries and agents of these homes
and societies command, altogether, the use of more
than twelve foreign tongues or dialects, while
interpreters employed by the government supply
any lack that may still exist; it is seldom that an
incoming alien fails of receiving a welcome to
America in his mother tongue. Representatives
of Churches and denominational societies soon
find their own at Ellis Island, and are ready not
only to supply them with literature in their native
tongue, but to comfort them in distress, to minister
to their immediate needs, to protect them against
imposture, to assist them in making necessary
appeals to the government, to supply them with
financial help, if needed in reaching their ultimate
destination, and in many cases to furnish them
letters of introduction. to friends at the West,
whither they are bound. The American Bible
Society, the American Tract Society, and the
Women's Temperance Union are generous in their
distribution of literature. The New York City
Bible Society has a large and special opportunity
in connection with immigrants and is improving
it with energy. The distribution of literature by
this society alone during 1906 at Ellis Island was
44,368 volumes. Of these only 2,713 were in
English. The Polish language ranks first in the
number of Scriptures called for, with 10,056 vol
umes, and the next largest number of Scriptures
distributed was in Italian, 4,674. The value of
these various agencies is warmly appreciated by
the Ellis Island authorities, who heartily second
their humane endeavors.
	At the port of Boston, the same general methods
are repeated, though on a somewhat smaller scale.
Yet nearly a score of societies, homes and other
institutions are engaged in the work at that point.
For twenty years the Boston Young Women's
Christian Association has maintained what is
known as a Travelers' Aid Department, in connec
tion, especially, with provincial and foreign steam
ships. In the busy season a hundred boats per
month are met. In a single year often three thou
sand travelers, many of them unprotected girls,
coming to the Staten for work have been safeguarded
and assisted. The St. Vincent de Paul Society also
employs a woman missionary to watch over the
Roman Catholic girl immigrants. Not a small
part of the Travelers' Aid is that of bringing safely
together the incoming immigrant and her American
relatives, who perhaps have been carelessly noti
fied, and not seldom wholly uninformed, of her
arrival.
	At the port of Baltimore, four distinct agencies
cooperate for the care and comfort of the immigrant,
chief of which is the German Evangelical Immigrant
Home. This mission was established more than
twenty years ago by the German Evangelical Synod
of North America, and within two years has built
a fine immigrant home near the landing‑pier at
Locust Point. It is undenominational, taking
care of all good immigrants, welcoming the friend
less and finding work for the willing. It provides
religious instruction as well, and regularly holds
a short service of prayer every morning and evening.
For a score of years it has done a moat valuable
humane work. The Lutheran Mission Synod also employs a missionary, but as yet has no home. The Bohemian Presbyterian Church sends a missionary to meet every incoming steamship and has recently opened a little home of its own. The German Baptist Church supports two lady missionaries who supply much needed help.
	At the port of New Orleans, immigrant relief
is not yet distinctly organized. The only foreigners
arriving direct from Europe are Italians, who are
quickly taken in charge by relatives and friends.
See HOME MISSIONS, § 2; SL&vic MISSIONS IN
THE UNITED STATES. 	J. B. CLARK.
BIBLrOaRAPHY: For Germany: A. $ehr&ter, Die kirchliche Veraorpung der Auewonderer, Goths, 1890; H. E. $ohneider, Atlantis Germani6a, Leipsic, 1883; P. Willer, Die tutherieeha Auawanderermssaaon and ihre Stellung zu den kirchlichen AuJpaben der Zeit, Hamburg, 1890; T. $cht;fer, Leitfaden der innsrsn Mission, pp. 142 eqq., ib. 1894. There is no literature bearing upon work done in the United States.
EMILIANI, GIROLAMO. See SOMA6CHIANB.
EMILIE JULIANE, COUNTESS OF SCHWARZ‑
BURG: Hymn‑writer; b. at the Heideckaburg near Rudolstadt (18 m. s. of Weimar), Aug. 19, 1637; d. at Rudolatadt Dec. 3, 1706. Her parents died while she was a child, and her relatives, the Count and Countess of Schwarzburg, brought her up in strict orthodox fashion. In 1665 she was married to her cousin, Count Albert Anton of Schwaszburg. Her husband's former tutor, the learned but pietistic Ahssvsrun Fritsch, won great influence over her, which appears in the pietistic character of many of her religious songs. Moat of these are too subjective and diffuse for congregational use; but a few like " Bin hierher hat mich Gott gebracht " (" Thus far the Lord has led me on") and " Wer weias, wie nahe mir mein Ends 7 " (" Who knows how near my end may be? ") have found a permanent plane in German hymnbooks. Her songs were published at Rudolstadt in various collections from 1683 to 1770. A selection may be found in J. L. Pasig, Der Grti fcn Emilie Juliane von Schtuarzburg‑Raulolstadt geistliche Lieder (Halls, 1855), accompanied by a biography.
(FERDINAND COHRa.)
EMMERAM: An early missionary, said to have been bishop of Poitiers; d. about 715. According to the biography of Aribo (second half of the eighth century), the sole source of information, soon after his consecration as bishop he determined to devote himself to the conversion of the heathen in Pannonia. He appointed his successor at Poitiers, took with him a priest named Vitalis who was a good linguist, and went eastward across the Rhine. Passing through Radaspona (Regenaburg), the residence of Theodo, duke of Bavaria, he was told that the country beyond the Enna had been laid waste, and that the newly converted Bavarians needed his care as much as the Avari to whom he had been going. Theodo begged him to remain, either as bishop or as abbot of all the monasteries. He stayed three years, and busied himself in spreading and strengthening Christianity in Bavaria; then he started for Rome, but was murdered on the way, at Helfendorf, three days'

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
journey from Regensburg, by Lantbert, the duke's
son, who accused him of seducing his sister Ota.
The curious story is that Ota had confessed her
fault to Emmeram, and that he, to shield her, per
mitted her to cast the blame on him; she was
banished to Italy, but Emmeram's innocence
was discovered when too late, by the testimony
of a priest to whom he had given the true facts
before his death. Theodo had his remains brought
to Regensburg in solemn state, and interred in the
chapel of St. George. There is no evidence for
Emmeram's episcopate at Poitiers, nor for his ex
tensive missionary plans. It is probable that he was
an itinerant monk who possessed episcopal conse
cration. He may have worked in Regensburg as
the head of a monastic fraternity, out of whose
existence the monastery of St. Emmeram grew,
and it is not unlikely that Theodo made use of him
in his reforming plans. The cause of his murder
is an insoluble riddle, since Aribo's story is ob
viously a romance. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Vita by Aribo is in Analeeta Bollandiana, viii. 211 sqq., cf. pp. 358‑357, Paris, 1889 (cf.
Rettberg, KD, ii. 189); Hauck, KD, i. 383.
EMMONS, ftATHANAEL: New England Congregationalist; b. at Millington, East Haddam township, Conn., Apr. 20, 1745; d. at Franklin, Mass., Sept. 23, 1840. He was graduated at Yale in 1767, and studied for the ministry under Rev. Nathan Strong of Coventry, Conn., and Dr. John Smalley of Berlin, Conn. In 1769 he was "approbated " as a preacher and on Apr. 21, 1773, was ordained pastor at Franklin, Mass. This position he filled for fifty‑four years, resigning May 28, 1827, and replying to the remonstrances of his parishioners that he wished to retire while he still " knew enough to do so." It may be remarked that he retained his faculties to a surprising degree till his death.
Dr. Emmons was a typical New England clergyman of the old school and probably no one exerted a wider influence. His houxe was a theological seminary. The number of young men whom he trained for the ministry can not be exactly ascertained, but was probably not less than a hundred. Among his pupils nine became presidents or professors of colleges or theological seminaries, fourteen had an important agency in establishing literary and charitable institutions, forty‑six are noticed in the biographical dictionaries of eminent men.
Dr. Emmons was an original thinker, and formed his theological system with rare independence of mind. He was one of the fathers of the Mataaachuaetta Missionary Society, and for the first twelve years of its existence was its president. He was one of‑ the original editors of The Massachusetts Missionary Magazine. When the masonic fraternity was most popular, he was a pronounced antimason. When antislavery was moat generally condemned, he was an active abolitionist. In politics he was an outspoken Federalist.
The theological system of Dr. Emmons is often confounded with that of Dr. Samuel Hopkins (q.v.). The following statement of the two systems was given by Emmons himself, and will explain the difference, as well as the agreement, between the two:
Emigrants
Ems, Congress of
The distinctive tenets of Hopkinaianiam are: (1) All real holiness consists in disinterested benevolence; (2) All sin consists in selfishness; (3) There are no promises of regenerating grace made to the doings of the unregenerate; (4) The impotency of sinners with respect to believing in Christ is not natural, but moral; (5) A sinner is required to approve in his heart of the divine conduct, even though it should cast him off forever; (R) God has exerted his power in such s manner se he purposed would be followed by the existence of sin; (7) The introduction of moral evil into the universe is so overruled by God as to promote the general good; (8) Repentance is before faith in Christ; (9) Though men became sinners by Adam, according to a divine constitution, yet they have and are accountable for no sins but personal; (10) Though believers are justified through Christ's righteousness, yet his righteousness is not transferred to them.
The distinctive tenets of Emmons' system are: (1) Holiness and sin consist in free, voluntary exercises; (2) Men act freely under the divine agency; (3) The least transgression of the divine law deserves eternal punishment; (4) Right and wrong are founded in the nature of things; (5) God exercises mere grace in pardoning or justifying penitent believers through the atonement of Christ, and mere goodness in rewarding them for their good works: ((i) Notwithstanding the total depravity of sinners, God bas a right to require them to turn from sin to holiness; (7) Preachers of the Gospel ought to exhort sinners to love God, repent of sin, and believe in Christ immediately; (8) Men are active, not passive, in regeneration. Dr. Emmona believed that these eight statements are involved in the system of Dr. Hopkins; that they are evolved from that system, rather than added to it. Still they characterize Emmoniam as it is grafted upon Hopkinsianism.
Dr. Emmons published more than two hundred articles in various periodicals. In 1842 many of his sermons were published in a uniform edition, with memoir by his son‑in‑law, Rev. Jacob Ids (6 vols., Boston). In 1860‑61 a new collected edition of his works appeared (6 vole., Boston), with memoir by E. A. Park. ' F. H. FOSTER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult, besides the Memoir by Mr. Ids, W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 893708, New York, 1859; A. E. Dunning, Congregationalists in America, ib. 1894; W. Walker, Fliat. of Congregational Churches, pp. 280‑303 et passim, ib. 1884; L. W. Bacon, The Congregationalist*, ib. 1904.
EMORY, JOHN: Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. in Queen Anne County, Maryland, Apr. il, 1789; d. in Reisterstown, Md., Dec. 16, 1835. From 1824 to 1835 he was book‑agent and editor for the Methodist Church at New York, during which time he paid off all the debts of the book concern. He founded the Methodist Quarterly Review, and nearly all of the original articles in the first two volumes are by him. In 1832 he was elected bishop. He was one of the founders of the University of New York, Wesleyan University, and Dickinson College. He was an able controversialist in behalf of his Church, and wrote Defense of our Fathers (New York, 1824); The Episcopal Controversy Reviewed (New York, 1838).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Life of John Emory, by his son, Robert
	Emory, New York, 1841,

EMS, CONGRESS OF.
Papal Nunciature in Muni& (§ 1), The Ems Agreement (Emser Punctation) (§ 2). Further Complications (§ 3). The Outcome (§ 4).
The Congress of Ems was a meeting of representatives of the archbishops of Mainz, Treves, Cologne, and Salzburg held at Ems (or Bad Ems, a watering‑place of Hesse‑Nassau, 5 m. s.e. of

Ems, Congress of	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	129
Coblenz) in 1786, prompted by the prevalent desire of the higher clergy in Germany to shake off their depressing dependence on the curia. This desire was stimulated to new life in 1763 by the book of Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim (q.v.), suffragan bishop of Treves, published under the pseudonym of Justinus Febronius, and a tendency to action manifested itself in 1764 in a document of the spiritual electors of Mainz, Treves, and Cologne, in which they besought the imperial protection. Further negotiations followed and in 1770 they addressed new requests to Joseph II. (the so‑called " Coblenz Articles"; cf. Stigloher, ut inf. 257‑260), aiming at a decided restriction of papal power in German affairs. When, however, the emperor refused to intervene in Rome, the whole matter came to a standstill, only to be taken up again with livelier interest when a plan of est#blishing a papal nunciature in Munich came out.
	From 1771 Elector Karl Theodor united under
his rule Bavaria, the Palatinate, and the duchies
of Julich and Berg, which are situated on the
Lower Rhine. As these territories were subject in
ecclesiastical matters to different bishops, who as
estates of the empire were coordinate with the
elector, the condition of affairs was disagreeable
to him; and as the resultant difficulties could be
obviated in no other way, he applied to the Roman
curia, which conceded in 1785 the establishment
of a permanent nunciature in Munich. The news
of this made an extraordinary sensation, because
the existing nunciatures in Vienna. (since 1581),
Cologne (1582), and Luzerne (1586) had proved
		troublesome because of their inter
z. Papal ference with episcopal jurisdiction,
Nunciature and because the bishops formerly in Munich. competent in Bavaria and the Palatinate suffered serious encroachments by the new step. These bishops were: Prince Bishop Count Colloredo of Salzburg; Prince Bishop Baron von V'elden of Freising; the Elector of Mainz, Friedrich von Erthal, who at the same time administered the Prince bishopric of Worms; the Elector of Treves, Prince Wenzeslaus of Barony, who was also Prince Bishop of Augsburg; and finally the Elector of Cologne, Franz of Austria, the brother of the Emperor Joseph II. After unsuccessfully petitioning the curia, the elector of Mainz, with the consent of the other archbishops, handed in a complaint to the emperor as the supreme protector of the Church, and the latter caused a declaration to be made in Rome, that he could not permit that the archbishops and bishops of the German empire should be disturbed in the diocesan rights which had been given to them by God and by the Church; in other words, that he would recognize the papal nuncios merely as delegates for political affairs and matters pertaining to the pope as the supreme head of the Church, but that he could concede to them no jurisdiction whatever. But the curia did not allow itself to be put off by this protest; in May, 1786, there appeared as nuncio in Munich Count Zoglio, Archbishop of Athena; at the same time the nunciature at Cologne was newly filled with Bartholomaeus Pacca, archbishop of Damiate, in the place of Monsignor
Bellisomi. Zoglio was brilliantly received at the Bavarian Court; Pacca was not even given an audience by the elector of Cologne. All the German archbishops refused to recognize the two nuncios, but nevertheless the latter began at once to make use of their commissions.
The archbishops of Mainz, Treves, and Cologne did not remain inactive. The Congress of Ems
followed, and its result was the s. The Ems " Ems Agreement " (Emser PunkAgreement tation, cf. Mirbt, Quellen, 326‑328),
(Eraser which was signed on Aug. 25, 1786, Punctation). and at once ratified by the bishops
and sent to Joseph II. The subscribers declared therein:
The Roman Pope is and always remains the supreme overseer (Oberau/aeher) and primate of the whole Church, the center of unity, and has been equipped by God with the jurisdiction requisite thereto AV Roman Catholics moat always yield him canonical obedience with full reverence. But all the other advantages and reservations which were not connected with this primacy in the first centuries, but arose from the later Iaidorian Decretals to the manifest detriment of the bishops, can no longer be included is the sphere of this jurisdiction, because the forged nature of the Decretsls is now universally recognised. These are to be classed rather as usurpations on the part of the Roman
curia, and, especially because none of the remonatrancea
hitherto made at the Roman curia has been of effect, the bishops are authorised to reinstate themselves, under the supreme protection of his Imperial Majesty, in the exercise of the power committed to them by Gad.
Then the archbishops made the following propositions for reform: all persona living within the limits of s diocese should henceforward without exception be subject to its bishop. Therefore appeals to Rome which neglect the bishop should no longer be allowed; exemptions, with certain stated exceptions, should xsee; the monastic clergy should be forbidden to render obedience to foreign generals and superiors. The bishop should have the right to grant dispensations from commandments of abstinence and from matrimonial impedimenta, and also to absolve the monastic clergy from their vows. At the same time limitation of the impediments to marriage and postponement of the age for taking vows was proposed. The bishop should also be empowered to modify philanthropic trusts. In future /acu&atea qainqueDrealca should no longer be sought of the Roman court. The bulls, briefs, and other papal regulations, se well se the decisions of the Roman congregations, should not have binding force until accepted by the bishops. The nunciaturea in the form in which they had hitherto existed should cease. It was further attempted to insure, the independence of the bishop in filling ecclesiastical positions. The procedure in regard to the " information " (process" anfornwtivue) of new bishops should be altered; the oath which the bishop had formerly rendered to the pope as his vassal should be replaced by a formula in accordance with episcopal rights. The annstes and the moneys paid on receipt of the palfium should be reduced, and if the pope should therefore refuse his confirmation, the archbishops and bishops should nevertheless perform the functions of office. In spiritual jurisdiction the court of first instance is that of the bishop, the second that of the archbishop, the third is the Roman See, the nunciatures being entirely left out' provision is made, moreover, that national judges should pronounce the verdict even is Rome. At the close, the archbishops declare that, as soon as they are put in possession of the rights which belonged to them, they will take up the improvement of ecclesiastical discipline, and better organisation for the cure of souls and for religious establishments and cloisters. Moreover, the emperor, as the supreme head of the empire, is requested to demand of the curia that the council which had been promised in the Concordat of Aeahsffenbarg (see CON_ CORDATa and DELIMITING BULIB, III, )„ J $) Or at least 8 national council, should be convened.
The answer of the emperor was kindly; he even showed readiness to help; but he advised the arch‑

123	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ems, Congress of
bishops above all to come to an understanding with the bishops under them. This advice was at once adopted, but it was too late. The German bishops felt aggrieved because they had not been admitted to the consultation at Ems, and even though some of them were won over, a part held entirely aloof. This opposition of the bishops found its leader and spokesman in Count LimburgStyrum, prince bishop of Speyer, who came out in public with his criticism of the resolutions of Ems and thereby started lengthy literary discussions on both sides.
The contest between the archbishops and the nuncios had broken out at the close of 1786. Zoglio had appointed a provost in Diisseldorf, inter nuncio for Jiilich and Berg; and Pacca 3. Further granted a matrimonial dispensation
Complica‑ regardless of an objection made by dons. the elector of Cologne. As the latter, like the electors of Treves and Mainz, granted certain matrimonial dispensations in degrees not covered by their quinquennial faculties, Paces, sent on Nov. 30, 1786, a circular to all priests and general vicariates, declaring the invalidity of these dispensations. Then the archbishops of Cologne, Treves, and Mainz gave all their priests the command to return this circular to the sender. In this they were supported by the emperor. The Imperial Council in Vienna published two decrees in which Pacca's action was designated as unseemly and improper and his circular was formally declared invalid. The elector of the Palatinate was, moreover, directed not to concede any jurisdiction to the nuncio Zoglio, and also to prohibit the internuncio appointed by him from executing the orders given by the nuncio. But the elector of the Palatinate objected strongly to this censure, and demanded of the priests of the diocese of Worms that, under penalty of confiscation of their temporalia, they should at once return the archiepiscopal order which had demanded their sending back the circular of the nuncio. He also required that they should accept no directions from the archiepiscopal vicariate without his consent, and laid claim to the power to receive a nuncio as one of his rights as sovereign and made it known to the emperor that his territorial rights might be limited by imperial legislation but not by decrees of the Imperial Council. Zoglio now appointed, with the encouragement of the elector, a subdelegate in Heidelberg.
Still greater dangers for the German archbishops arose among themselves. In 1785 the German " League of Princes " (Fiirstenlrund) had been formed. Its existence was in danger, if on the death of the aged and invalid archbishop of Mainz, Friedrich von Erthal, his successor did not sustain his policy. Under these circumstances Prussia undertook to play the part of mediator in the contest between the elector of Mainz and the curia, and a secret arrangement was made that Theodor von Dalberg, the candidate preferred by Prussia and agreeable to the cathedral chapter of Mainz, should be recognized by the pope as the successor of the elector. This agreement also stated that both the elector and Dalberg promised
to remain true to the union; but both took upon themselves as well the obligation of not putting the resolution of the Congress of Ems into execution. On June 5, 1787, Dalberg was chosen coadjutor archbishop of Mainz. In pursuance of this arrangement he openly abandoned the ground taken in the Ems agreement, petitioned in Rome for the renewal of the quinquennial faculties, and raised no objection when the nuncio in Cologne was commissioned to undertake his episcopal examination (processes informativus).
The other bishops also appeared to be more peaceably inclined. Then Pius VI. adopted a measure which provoked great excitement; in a brief of Nov. 6, 1787, he granted the petition of the elector of the Bavarian Palatinate to take a tithe of the incomes of the ecclesiastical property throughout the whole extent of his territories. This concession was all the more important because it was to last ten years and the nuncio in Munich was ordered to collect the tithe and commissioned to punish with all censures, and even with excommunication, those who refused the payment, and, if necessary, to depose them from their offices and benefices. All the German archbishops were affected by this order; Mainz, in the diocese of Worms; Cologne, in the duchies of Jiilich and Berg; Treves, in Augsburg; Salzburg, in his Bavarian territories.
This procedure on the part of the curia, to be sure, caused the elector of Mainz to return to the side of the other archbishops, and induced them to approach the emperor again in order to obtain action against the nuncios. With their assent an imperial court decree was issued, which referred to the Diet of Regensburg the controverted question whether nuncios with jurisdiction should be tolerated in Germany. But not even the archbishops earnestly intended to bring about a decision at the diet; they only wished to put pressure on the curia. The negotiations were without issue and finally the archbishops decided to take the advice which had been given them and preferably to reach an understanding with the curia directly; but their efforts in Rome met with no success. The answer which finally came to them, dated Nov. 14, 1789, was in the form of a brief, which was a memorial filling three hundred and thirty‑six quarto pages. Therein the pope insisted upon all his demands in thei‑r full scope.
The curia had made no mistake in its calculations. Under the pressure of the revolutionary
trend of the times, which proceeded 4. The from France, the opposition of the Outcome. German archbishops collapsed. The
electors fled from their capitals in 1792 when the French General Custine drew near. The abolition of the ecclesiastical principalities, ordered in 1803, together with the still more potent factor of the rise of Ultramontanism, have saved the nineteenth‑century papacy from a resurrection in power of the ideas of 1786.
The defeat of the German archbishops may be explained on many grounds. It' was disadvantageous for them that public opinion, which backed them at the start, soon turned from them and became interested in other things; but the lament‑

Emser
EnoyoloDedia
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
able issue of the controversy was chiefly the result of the character of the opposition movement itself. To be sure, motives of religion and of ecclesiastical reform were not entirely wanting; considerations of German national feeling were not lacking; but primarily the archbishops most heartily desired to benefit their own interests as archbishops and territorial sovereigns‑interests in the assertion of which they were hindered by the extension of the papal power. As a result the contest soon took on essentially the character of politics or of church politics. Thereby they lost the support which the sympathy of the Roman Catholic population and clergy might have given them; thereby the harmony of the archbishops themselves suffered. The curia owed its victory to the attitude of the German bishops, who felt themselves threatened by an increase of archiepiscopal power, to the energetic action of the Bavarian Palatinate, and to the emperor's inadequate support of the archbishops; and last, not least, to the commencement of the revolutionary period and to the circumstance that the entire development of post‑Reformation Catholicism was on the side of the curia. CARL MIaBT.
BxaLxoaesra:: Reaultat des Emser Konprrasu, Frankfort, 1787; F. K, von Moser, Gesckichte der pdpatliclun Nurr kan in Deufichland, ib. 1788; Hiatorierhe Denkutlrdipkaitm des KardinaL . . . Paws, Augsburg, 1832; E. von Winch, Gearhichte dew Emser Konprusea. Carlsruhe, 1840; M. 8tigloher, Die Errichtunp der pttyetliehsn Nuntiatur in MQndren and der Eraser Konpreas, Regensburg, 1887: O. Meier, Febroniua, Tiibingen, 1880; H. Brilok, Geechirhta dar kathoEischen KircAe im 18. Jadrhundart, Dart i., Main:. 1902.
EMSER, HIERONYMUS: Literary opponent of Luther; b. at tTlm, Mar. 16 (267), 1478 (1477?); d. at Dresden Nov. 8, 1527. He studied at Tiibingen (1493‑97) and at Basel, where he received his first and second degrees; in consequence of certain satirical verses, which offended the Swiss, he was driven from the latter city. As secretary and chaplain he accompanied the papal legate, Cardinal Raymond Peraudi, on a tour of visitation in Germany (1502 sqq.), and thus came to know a great part of the land and its famous men. At the request of the cardinal he published (1503) a treatise De crucibtus, attesting certain alleged miracles in the course of the war against the Turks. In 1504 he edited the works of Pico dells Mirandola at Strasburg, taught at Erfurt, where he had Luther among his hearers, and went to 1.eipsic, where he became bachelor of theology in Jan., 1505. Duke George of Saxony had already chosen him secretary and this post called him to Dresden. For some years he was occupied with the effort to secure canonization for Benno, bishop of Meissen (q.v.), which took him to Rome in 150fi07. He received rich benefices and led a very comfortable life at Dresden and Leipsic. A Latin treatise on the origin of the custom of drinking healths, an uncritical and fantastic life of Benno, an essay on the best way of keeping wine, numerous light verses, and new editions of the works of others belong to this period.
When the Reformation came Eraser naturally took sides against Luther, having no true appreciation of the dangers of the Church and sharing in the jealousy which the Saxon court felt toward
Wittenberg. He considered Luther a Hussite, a revolutionist, one who, contrary to the Bible, rejected the utterances of traditional authority, sacrificed the " ecclesiastical " priesthood to the " laical," uprooted the papacy, and stirred up the common people against the clergy and rulers. After the Leipsic Disputation (1519) an open rupture took place and a controversy began, by no means edifying and without profit to the cause. It is sufficiently characterized by stating that during its progress Luther called Eraser the he‑goat of Dresden, with reference to his escutcheon, and Eraser called Luther the bull of Wittenberg, After a time Luther gave up the contest, but Eraser continued to issue original works and translations or new editions of the works of others against Luther, writing generally in German and often in doggerel verse to catch the ear of the people. He criticized Luther's translation of the New Testament, exhorted the bishops to provide a better, and ultimately undertook the task himself; in Aug., 1527, his work appeared, made to resemble Luther's folio edition as much as possible, with illustrations by Cransch and his scholar, Gottfried Leigel, which had already been used in Luther's " December " Bible of 1522. Introductions and notes are added; but at the end Eraser warns the laity against Bible‑reading. The work at once became popular, and in its original form and worked over by Johann Dietenberger and by Eck, it appeared in more than one hundred editions during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Luther criticized it sharply as stolen from his text.
	Of the earlier literary. opponents of the Ref or
mation Eraser was the most indefatigable. He
published his writings at no small personal expense.
He was well read in the fathers and had good
humanistic training. But he was uncritically
and blindly devoted to tradition, and quite unable
to appreciate the motives which influenced Luther.
His hatred for the latter steadily increased and
he wished more and more earnestly to have him
silenced by force. 	(G. Kwwxltwu.)
Bxnrsooawrar: G. E. Waldau, Nadvriclvt von H. Eanaer's Leban, Anepaah, 1783; P. Mown, H. Eraser, der Vork8mpfer Rom* pagan die Reformation, Halls, 1890; G. Kawerau, Hieronymus Emear, Halls, 1898. On his New Testament, consult G. W. Panaer, Varauch ainer kurzen Geachichte der rtlmiach‑katholiachen daubchen Bibelnberaafzunpen, pp. 18 eqq., Nuremberg. 1781.
EIiCIEftIA (Gk. enkainia): A dedication festival; applied particularly to the Jewish festival commemoratiyg the rededication of the Temple (see SYNAGOGUE), and to the anniversaries of church dedications (see CONSECRATION).

ENCRATITES, en'cra‑twits (" the Self‑disciplined," " the Continent "): A name given in the Christian heretic‑histories to certain sectaries, who abstained from animal food, intoxicating drinks, and sexual intercourse. Strictly speaking there was no sect of Encratites, nor did they have a particular founder, though Eusebius (Hilt. eccl., iv. 28) first mentions Tatian as such. Nor can they be lumped together with the Gnostics, which, however, does not mean that Encratites here and there may not have represented Gnostic teachings.

125	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hippolytus (Philosophumens, viii. 20) says expressly
that the views of Encratites about God and Christ
accorded with those of the Church. Clement of
Alexandria states that Julius Casaianus, whom he
calls the founder of the heresy of the Doceta> (see
DOCETIBM) wrote " about continence or about
eunuchism " and quotes three passages from this
work of Encratitic content (Strum., iii. 13). En
cratitic tendencies were no doubt shown also by
the Gospel according to the Egyptians (see Apoo
RYPAA, B, L, 8). Epiphanies devoted an entire
section of his history of heresies (xlvii.) to
the Encratites; he speaks of their dualism, says
that they reckon the Acts of Andrew, John, Thomas,
and other apocrypha among their Scriptures, and
that they use water instead of wine at the Lord's
Supper (like the Aquarii and Hydroparaetatae,
qq.v.). Encratism is not confined to Christianity;
Clement (Strum., i. 15) compares them with the
Indian gymnosophista, and Hippolytus (Philoso
Phumena, viii. 20) with the Cynics. The Nazi
rite's vow and the usages of the Eseenes may also
be brought into comparison, although no genetic
connection can be shown. 	G. KitfYaEa.
Bisn:oasArar: A. Hilgenfeld. Aetzeroeschuhte des Urchristenluma, 1.eipeie, 1884; Nenndet, Christian Church, i. 456‑4b8, 505; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 495; DCB, ii. 118‑120; and the literature under TaamotLrwx.
ENCYCLICAL LETTERS: Circular letters, which in the ancient Church were often sent by a church or council to the churches of a certain district. The name is now applied to letters of the pope, relating to the entire Church, sent to all his subordinate bishops.
ENCYCLOPEDIA, THEOLOGICAL.
Conception and Purpose (¢ i). Theological Science in the Primitive Church (1 2). In the Byzantine and Middle Ages (¢ 3). In Humanism and the Reformation (§ 4). Pietism and Rationalism Influential (¢ b). 8chleiermacher and his Influence (§ 8). Modern Problems (¢ 7). Development Outside Germany (¢ 8). In the Roman Catholic Church (§ 9).
	Theological Encyclopedia is the branch of learn
ing which sets forth the order and contents of theo
logical science. The word encyclopedia, in its
technical sense, is derived from the philosophic
realm of Alexandrine study, and back of that from
Greek antiquity. Since the time of Aristotle
enkyklios paideza meant the circle of education
which, according to Quintilian (Iresli'tutiones, L, x.
101), included grammar, rhetoric, music, geometry,
and astronomy. The idea which philosophy took
up was appropriated by theology. The compounded
expression as a single word occurs first in a dis
course by the Jesuit Tarquin Gallucci (b. 1574)
entitled De encycloPcealis compsrsrtda, (J. Lami,
De erttditione alooatotorum, Florence, 1738, p. 215)
and next in J. H. Alstedt's Curses philosophici
		encyclopcedia (Herborn, 1820), in which
r. Concep‑ Aletedt refers to the Encyclapadie of tion and Matthias Martin (1649) as his source. Purpose. The meaning of " Encyclopedia " in these cases is an orderly exposition of knowledge. The works just named were the forerunners of the great encyclopedic colleo.
tions which have set forth either the material of
science as a whole or that of individual sciences.
So that the word encyclopedia has become fully
naturalized. It was first applied to theology by
S. Mursinna in Primes liners ertcyclapcedice theo
Zogicte (Halls, 1784‑94). The idea of a formal
encyclopedia of sciences was first put forward by
Hegel (EncyklagcYdie der philosoPhischen Wiseett
schaften, Heidelberg, 1827, J 16), who limited it
to the setting forth of the beginnings and the
fundamental conceptions of special sciences. So
theological encyclopedia sets forth the fundamental
conceptioue and methods of theological science.
In doing this it takes cognizance of the genius of
the Christian religion, of the causes which have
built up a theology, of the historical and system
atic relationship of the parts to the whole, and,
above all, of the relationship of the science to life
and of theology as the science of religion to the
Church which is held together by this religion.
Inasmuch as this science is always in s state of
flux‑new materials always being added, new ques
tions arising‑the best that can be done is to
describe it historically and in relation to the present.
	The history of theological encyclopedia is not
to be separated from the history of teaching and
of the science. Christian theology grew out of the
proclamation of the Gospel according to the com
mand of Jesus (Matt. xxviii. 19‑20). The com
		munities of believers, instead of at
_. Theolog‑'tempting to satisfy their religious
ical Science needs with cultic organizations or
	in the wasting their energies in social per
	Primitive formancea, sought through instruo
	Church. tion an assured sad unified con
		viction of the grounds of their faith
as members of the body of Jesus Christ. And just
se in the religion of the Old Testament priesthood
and prophecy strove together, and in Greco
Roman culture religion and philosophy, so in Chris
tianity revelation and philosophy were the two
factors out of which a developing theology drew its
materials. There was an inherent tendency to a
unification of all the elements which could serve
the nourishment of the soul and the support. of
Christian activities. Catecheties, systematic in
troduction into the Christian rites, were the motives
for the collection of the reports about the work of
Jesus and his relation to salvation (Luke i. 4; I
Cor. xiv. 19; Gal. vi. 6; Heb. vi. 1‑2). Thus with
the development of the organization of the Church
grew up a literature of instruction. While direct
testimony to the existence of such a body of material
in the early Church is not immediately attainable, it
can not be doubted that in such centers of Chris
tianity as Alexandria, Antioch, and Conetanti
nople during the second century such technical
material existed. Indirect testimony to this is
found in the technical terms existing in patristic
works which have their roots and their analogies
in the terminology of rhetoric, philology, and phi
losophy. Instruction in the form of question and
answer is suggested by the Institttta reguldris
dim‑ce tegis of Juniliue at Antioch, thv Sacra
parallels of John of Damascus, the Qumtioines
Amphilochica of Photius, and the Hupomntatikon

Encyclopedia	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	128
biblion of Josephus (MPG, cvi. 14‑177). For other varieties of instruction the homilies, corresponding to the Diatribes of the Cynic‑Stoic schools, and echolia and commentaries are evidence. These are the roots of the system of instruction in dogmatic and practical theology. There soon followed the encyclopedic productions of Chrysostom (Peri hierosynes), of Ambrosias (De of~'eciis ministrorum), and of Augustine (De doctTina christiana, De catechizandis rudibus, Encheiridion ad Laurentium).
During the Byzantine period and the Middle Ages the pedagogic methods of patristic times passed over into the Western Church where the influx of new peoples made necessary the use of these means of instruction. In Byzantine literature heathenism and Christianity remained in a relation of easy sociability of which the Myrobiblion of Photiua (d. 891) is an example. Philosophical activity was concerned with Caton&, (q.v.) which set forth
authoritative traditions of exegesis, 3. In the faith, and conduct of service. In
Byzantine the West the concern was for a prac‑
and Middle tical use of the material of science, Ages. and in this direction Augustine was
the leader. Under his influence Cassiodorus wrote his Institutiones divinarum litterarum, which was followed by the more systematic seventh and eighth books " On God, Angels and the Orders of the Faithful " of Isidor's Originum sive etymologictrum. In the Middle Ages the monastic schools and universities arose, the latter with their trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic) and quadrivium (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music). The De institutions clericorum of Rabanua Maurus (c. 850), the Capitula. ad presbyteros of Hincmar, and the Capitulare of Hatto of Basel are specimens of the work done for the schools of the monasteries, when the monks and clergy were the leaders in the Western world. During the heyday of scholasticism appeared the Speculum doctrinale of Vincent of Beauvais, part of an Omnium scientiarum encycloPcedia (4 vole., Douai, 1624). In opposition to this dialectic discipline arose a mystical type of instruction which partook more of the theological than the philosophical, illustrated by such works as the Didascalion of Hugo of St. Victor (d. 1141), the Epistohe of Jean Gerson (d. 1429), and the De studio theologico of Nicholas of Cl6menge (d. 1437).
The Reformation and Humanism created a new science through the study of linguistics and of history. Study of language gave to theology firm standing‑ground and new forms and purposes, the first results of which were attention to Scripture. Erasmus (Ratio sea methodus Pervertiendi ad veram
theologiam), Melanchthon (Brevis dis4. In Hu‑ cendte theologise ratio), and Luther manism sad (in his maxim: oratio, meditatio,
the Refor‑ tentatio faciunt theologum) showed the mation. way, followed by Theobald Thamer
(Adhortatio ad theologise stadium, 1543), David Chytrzeus (De studio theologico, 1557), and John Gerhard (Methodus studii theologici, 1617). Interest in questions of encyclopedia was livelier in the Lutheran Church than in the Reformed, as shown by Bullinger's Ratio studii theo‑
Ibgici and Konrad Gessner's Pandectce universales (1548‑49). Nevertheless the father of a systematic and thorough encyclopedia was the (Reformed) professor Andrews Gerhard of Marburg in his De theologo sea de rations studii theologici, (Strasburg, 1562‑82), in which the division of theological science into exegetical, historical, dogmatic, and practical theology was first made. But the development of theological encyclopedia proceeded without well‑formed plane; materials and methods were not carefully distinguished. Polemics too had its influence in the unfolding, and the science divided into exegetical, didactic, and polemical theology. Historical criticism had not yet come to its own, the linguistic methods of Humanism were yet dominant, and the contests between externals and internals dragged dogmatic, practical, and polemic interests into the foreground. Meanwhile philosophy, which among the Reformers had remained wedded to theology, received new impetus from Bacon and Descartes, and a new idea of the world came into existence through Copernicus and Kepler. For Bacon, theology is a positive science, independent of reason, which, however, it takes into its service. A great step had been taken toward insight into religion and toward the formation of a new basis.
The factors which next entered into conflict with rigid scholasticism were Pietism and rationalism, different in origin and purpose, yet united in emphasis upon individualism. Under Pietism theology took on a practical‑ascetic phase, it became piety. Spener gave direction to this in his Pia desideria (1675) and in the preface to his De imPedimentis studii theo‑
g. Pietism Zogici. Study of the Bible is the and Ration‑ foundation of all theology, interpre‑
alism In‑ tation is the mistress who orders all
	fluential.	the parts and affords the basis; dog
		matics and ethics are to come from
Scripture. Historical development was lost to
sight, church history simply furnished a bounding
line. The orthodox cultivation of homiletics
seemed to Spener the greatest hindrance to theo
logical study, while catechetics is especially im
portant. A. H. Franks took up Spener's thesis in
Idea studiosi theologici (Halls, 1718) and Methodus
studii theologici. (1723), as did J. J. Breithaupt in
Ezercitationes de studio theologico (1702), J. Large
in Institutianes atudii theologici (1723), and J. J.
Rambach in Studiosus theologise (Frankfort, 1723).
Related spirits were Franz Buddeus (Isagoge
historico‑theologica, Leipsic, 1727) and C. M. Pfaff
(Introductio in historiam theologize litterariam, 3
vole., Tiibingen, 1723), who reinstated the division
into exegetical, historical, dogmatic, and practical
theology. To the filling in of these outlines L.
Mosheim contributed in his Kurze Anweisung, die
Gottesgelehrtheit verniinftig zu erkennen (ed. Wind
heim, Helmstadt, 1756‑63). Through the preva
lence of the Wolffian philosophy rationalism had its
influence, and the works of J. S. Semler rapidly
succeeded each other (1757‑80). J. A. N&eselt
united a view of the materials and the literature
of theology in his Anweisung zur Kenntnisa der
besseren Biicher in der Theologie (Leipsic, 1800).

127	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Enoyolopedia
Similar lines were followed in the text‑books of G. S. Franke (Theologische EncykloPadie, vol. i., Altona, 1819), K. F. Staudlin (Encyklopkdie and Methodologie, Hanover, 1821), and J. T. L. Danz (Encyklopddie and Methodologie, Weimar, 1832).
A new start was made with Schleiermacher, who in opposition to rationalism in religion wished to recover for religion its own province in a philosophic consideration of the self‑consciousness of Christians. It was he who first discerned the essence of theology as subject to scientific treatment and gave to the science organic form. In this respect his Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Stadiums (Berlin, 1811, enlarged, 1830) made an epoch. He showed that theology had developed out of the needs of the Church and by those needs was to be oriented. He produced a clear demarcation between philosophy and the history of religion, but he divided the science into the parts, philosophical, historical, and practical. The first governed apologetical and polemic theology;
dogmatics and ethics were assigned 6. Schleier‑ to historical theology; and practical
macher theology dealt with church governand his ment and church service. The operInfluence. ation of Schleiermacher's principles was for a time thwarted by the entrance of the Hegelian philosophy which regarded religion and its results as transitional in the march of evolution, but with the help of the growing historical and linguistic criticism it established itself ever more firmly. Meanwhile there appeared the contrast between emphasis upon the historical (Strauss's Leben Jesu) and Hegelian opposition between pantheism and atheism, a problem to the solution of which F. C. Baur devoted himself in the history of early Christianity. Next to appear was the " Mediating theology," the fundamental thought of which was that a view of the world which includes supernaturalism is not an obstacle to scientific work. Recognizable here is the influence of Schleiermacher and Neander in the acknowledgment of a revealed character in Christianity, and of Hegel and Schelling in the tendency to speculation. The writing which best exhibits this character is A. F. L. Pelt's Theologische Encyklopddie (Hamburg, 1843), which makes historical theology take precedence of dogmatic and practical. Noteworthy are E. L. T. Henke's Grundriss I fir Yorlesungen zur Einleitung in das theologische Stadium (Marburg, 1869), J. P. Lange's Grundriss der theologischen Encyklopddie and Methodologie (Heidelberg, 1877) which unites systematic and practical theology, and K. Rosenkranz's Encyklopddie der theologischen Wissenschaft (Halle, 1831) which seeks to use Hegel's philosophy in the construction of theological science. The " mediating theology" was left behind by K. R. Hagenbach in the work which long remained the standard (Encyklopadie der theoZogischen Wissenschaft, Leipsic 1833, 9th ed. with the help of E. Scharer, 1874, 11th ed. by Kautzsch, 1884, 12th ed. by Reischle, 1889). J. F. Rabiger's Encyklopkdie der Theologie (1880) differs from R. Rothe's Theologische Encyklopddie (ed. Ruppelius, Wittenberg, 1880) in that it uses the historic standpoint of the Tiibingen school, while
Rothe gives the preference to a speculative tendency. The Encyklopiiaie of J. C. K. Hofmann (ed. Beatmann, Nordlingen; 1879) closely follows Schleiermacher in emphasizing the personal relationship of man to God, in which he was preceded by G. C. A. Harlesa (Nuremberg, 1837). More in the direction which Hengstenberg gave to theology is the aeries issued under the editorship of O. Zockler (B vole., Nordlingen, 1881‑90) under the title Hcendbiicher der theologischen Wissenschaften in encykloPadischer Darstellung.
The question what the present condition of theological work demands has been answered by Ritschl, who asserts as the starting‑point of theology the Gospel alit lies in Scripture. This Gospel is essentially a revelation, set forth, however, in historical relations and under historic conditions. So that there results a double field of investigation, philosophical history and the internal developments of church life. On this basis, investigation of theology without reference to the
7. Modern Church which developed it is out of the
	Problems.	question; it would make the Bible
		simply a part of the world's religious
literature, deprive it of the interest derived from
churchly relations, separate it from its accompany
ing conceptions of canon, symbol, and dogma.
Yet the tendency is strong in modern times in this
way to seek,a universal theology. In this direction
look the methodological proposals of G. Kriiger
(Was heisst and zu welchem Ende studiert man
DogmengeschichteP Freiburg, 1895; Das Dogma
vom neuen Testament, Giessen, 1896) and W. Wrede
(Ueber Aufgabe and Methode der sogenannten
neutestamentlichen Theologie, Gottingen, 1897);
the former would do away with the distinction
between canonical Scripture and the early patristic
writings, and the latter would put the theology of
the New Testament into a philosophy of religion.
Another advocate of this method is C. A. Bernouilli
(Die urissenschaftliche and die kirchliche Methode
in der Theologie, Tiibingen, 1897), who takes the
position that the true theology is something apart
from the Church and that " religion is history."
This school calls its method the " purely historical."
Yet can that be " purely historical " which disre
gards the historical fact of him who is cometo save
the lost? which attempts a vivisection between
Church and theology which is possible only in the
ory? The latest development analyzes the situation
into a necessity for investigation of three points:
the conception of the Church, of science, and the
view of the world which Christianity would set forth.
The Roman Catholic conception of the Church as
a sanatorium excludes the action of science, the
Lutheran conception of it as a community of faith
requires that .action for its own good. The con
ception of the world as set forth by the physicist is
different from that reached by the theologian and
is reached by different methods. The decision
upon the worth of the Scriptures of the New Testa
ment as compared with early patristic writings
in the construction of a history of dogma is helped
by the consideration that the former are the classi
cal expression fromtheearliest generations of Chris
tians of the faith which had been transmitted to

Encyclopedia Engelbreoht
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
them, while in the history of dogma Biblical science can not maintain itself as a separate entity over against church history and as a dogmatic fact. The history of Christianity involves the connection of the external and the internal, the latter the facts of Church life.
In countries other than Germany the development of the encyclopedia of theology rune nearly parallel with the German. In Holland the two conflicting tendencies are the Reformed and the historical schools, with a " mediating theology " between. Representative of these are for the Reformed A. Kuyper (Encyklopedie der heilige godgeleerdheid, 3 vole., Amsterdam, 1894); for the historical school J. T. Doedea (EncykloPedie der
christelijke theologie, Utrecht, 1876); 8. Develop‑ and for the mediating school J. Cla‑
	ment	rinse (Encyelopmdice theologicce epitome,
outside Leyden, 1832) and H. de Grout and
	Germany.	L. G. Pareau (Encyclopcedia theologi,.
		Christiani, 3d ed., Utrecht, 1851).
In England the historical school is represented by
the Unitarian J. Drummond (Introduction to the
Study of Theology, London, 1884), the Evangelical
by A. Cave (An Introduction to Theology, its
Principles, its Branches, its Results, and its Litera
ture, 2d ed., Edinburgh, 1896). In America the
mediating school is represented by P. Schaff (Theo
logical Prop4Tdeutic, a general Introduction to the
.Shiny of Theology . • . , New York, 1893), whose
results are not unlike those of Hagenbach. France
is represented by H. G. Kienlen (Encyclop6die
. . . de la theologie ehretienne, Strasburg, 1845)
and E. Martin (Introduction d l'etude de is theologie
protestante, Geneva, 1883). Schleiermacher has
found a follower in Sweden in Reuterdahl, whose
work was published 1837. Hagenbach's work was
reproduced in Hungary by Imre Rwdsz (1857)
and practically reproduced in America by G. K.
Crooks and J. F. Hurst (New York, 2d ed., 1894).
The Roman Catholic Church, while not unmoved by the movements of Humanism and the Reformation, was yet not driven from the methods of scholasticism, and its development of theological encyclopedia was in the direction of polemic and apologetics (N. J. Laforet's Diasertatio historicodogmatica de methbdo theoloy£ce sive de authorilate ecclesice catholic(e tanquam reg2tla ftdei christiante, Louvain, 1849). The key‑note was struck by Melchior Cano (De locis theologicis, Louvain, 1564),
taking the Scriptures and tradition g. In the as the starting‑point. The Jesuit
Roman Posaevinus (Bibliotheea selects de
Catholic rations studiorum, Rome, 1593) fol‑
Church. lowed a revived scholasticism. Much
material was furnished by the work of the Benedictines in patristics, and J. Mabillon produced an encyclopedic work in his De stttdiis monasticis (Venice, 1705). E. Du Pin's Methode pour etttdier la theologie (Paris, 1716, 1768, often translated) exhibited something of the breadth of Gallicanism, though the influence of the Jesuits did much to restrain this tendency. The work of P. Annato (Apparatus ad Positivam theologiam methodicus, 2 vole., Paris, 1700, 7th ed., 1744), exhibiting a tendency toward agreement with
Protestantism, was put on the Index. Under the stimulus of Protestant work after the middle of the eighteenth century a host of books by Roman Catholics appeared in Germany, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, under the influence of the philosophy of Schelling, Baader, and Gunther there were contributions by J. S. Drey (1819), H. Klee (1832), F. A. Staudenmaier (1834, 1840), A. Gengler (1834), A. Buchner (1837), and A. von Sieger (1839). Under the influence of the new dogma of infallibility J. B. Wirthmuller produced his Encyklolvdidie der katholischert Theologie . (Landshut, 1873), and the scientific method was employed by H. Kihn (Freiburg, 1892). The former distinguishes between an Ideal‑ and a Real‑Encyklopltdie, the latter includes under " formal " theology the " ideal" and the "instrumental," and under "material ". theology the departments of historical, doctrinal and ethical, and practical theology.
(G. HEINRICL)
BIHIiIOaaAPHr: Zyro, Verauch einer Revision der christdich theolopiachen Enebeklopsdie, in TSK, 1837, pp 880881; W. Grimm, in ZWT, 1882, pp. 1‑28; M. KAhler, Wieeenacha ft der chriatdichen Lehre, pp. 1‑42, Leipeic, 1893. All the later and best works mentioned is the text, such as Cave, Schaff, Kuyper, and I3agenbach, discuss the subject. An excellent handbook to Roman Catholic literature is D. GIs, Repertorium der katholisch‑fheolopiachen Litteratur, Paderborn, 1895. Consult also: A. Dorner, Gnandriaa der Encyc7op5aiie der Theolopie, Berlin, 1901; L. Emery, Introduction h L'e~tudede la thEolopie protestante, pp. 1‑55, Paris, 1904; E. D. Davies, Theological Encyclopedia, London, 1905.

ENCYCLOPEDISTS: The name usually applied to the group of French philosophers and men of letters who collaborated in the production of the famous EncyclopEdie, or were in sympathy with its principles. The work was planned by Denis Diderot (q.v.), and was announced as a Dictionnaire raisonnE des sciences, den arts, et des m6tiera. The intention was to provide a complete alphabetical treatment of the whole field of human knowledge from the standpoint of the " Enlightenment " (q.v.). The contributors included s number of remarkable men. First in importance, acting with Diderot on equal terms, was D'Alembert. A large part of the work was done by the Chevalier de Jaucourt, a man of encyclopedic learning. Monteaquieu when he died in 1755 left behind an unfinished article on " Taste." Voltaire wrote some articles, and constantly advised on the development of the plan. Rousseau contributed articles on music, but ultimately quarreled with the editors, whose plan was so different from his. Turgot wrote on economic subjects, and in the latter part of the work Holler, the physiologist, and Condorcet were engaged.
The first volume appeared in 1751, the second in the following January, and immediately excited the antagonism of the Church and the conservatives. On Feb. 12, 1752, the two volumes were suppressed by the Council, as containing maxims contrary to royal authority and to religion. Further publication was suspended for eighteen months, but from 1753 to 17:57 it went on without interruption. After the seventh volume the forces of conservatism rallied to a fresh attack. The sale of the volumes already printed, as well se the printing of any more,

189	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ea;Vge~°
was forbidden. Diderot, however, made his plans to continue privately to prepare the remaining volumes. D'Alembert withdrew, but Diderot toiled on and completed the work (28 vole., Paris, 1751‑72). Andrrz Franqoia Lebreton acquired a large interestin the undertaking and all the contributions were set up as they were written, but when Diderot had corrected the last proof, Lebreton and his foreman, without informing his partners, secretly cut out such parts from each article as he thought too radical or likely to give offense. In this way many of the best articles were mutilated, and to prevent the restoration of the eliminated matter, Lebreton burned the original manuscripts. Subsequently a supplement was published (5 vole., Amsterdam [Paris], 1776‑77), also an index (2 vole., 1780).
The Encyclopgdie was at once a repository of information and a polemical arsenal. It was an idea of the editors that if civilization should be entirely destroyed, mankind might turn to their volumes to learn to reconstruct it. No other collection of general information so large and so useful was then in existence. Yet mere learning was not what lay nearest to the hearts of Diderot and his fellows; they prided themselves even more on the firm and bold philosophy of some of the writers. The metaphysics is founded chiefly on Locks, who " may be said to have created metaphysics as Newton created physics," by reducing the science to " what in fact it should be, the experimental physics of the soul." Beyond this there is little unity of opinion, though the same spirit rules throughout. It includes a prejudice in favor of democracy, as the ideal form of government, and the worship of theoretical equality, but contempt for the populace, "which discerns nothing"; the reduction of religion to sentiments of morality and benevolence, and great dislike for its ministers, especially the religious orders. By its generous professions of philosophic tolerance, and apparent acquiescence in what for the moment it was too weak to overpower, the philosophic school won a hearing for doctrines which were essentially subversive of the established order of things in both Church and State, and prepared the way for overt revolution. See DEISM, II.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. de La Ports, Esprit de d'encyclop6die, Paris, 1768; F. M. A. de Voltaire, Questions our d'encgedop6die, ib. 1770; w. Van biildert, View of the Rise and Progress of Infidelity, i. 378, Oxford, 1839; C. Bartholmeae, Hilt, critique lea doctrines redipieuaea madernea, Strasburg, 1855; C. A. Sainte Beuve, Portraits lighraires, 3 vole., Paris, 1855; A. 6. Farrar, Critical Hint. of Free Thought, pp. 18B‑178, London, 1862; E. Faguet, Le Dix‑huitidme Sipcde, Paris, 1890. Consult also the literature given under DIDEROT, DExie.
	EfTDA (ENNA), SAINT, OF ARAN: Founder of
the first of the great Irish monastic schools, at
Killeany (" Church of Enna "), on the largest of
the Aran Islands (Inishmore), off Galway Bay;
d. c. 540. According to his fourteenth‑century
life he was of royal descent and a mighty warrior
in his youth; converted by a pious sister, he be
came a monk. He studied in Britain (probably
at Candida Casa; Bee NINIAN, SAINT), and founded
a monastery on the Continent (according to some at
Rome, according to others in Brittany). Return
		IV.‑9
ing to Ireland he established himself on Inishmore, where Ciaran of Clonmacnoiae, Brendan, Finnian of Moville, Columba, and other famous abbots and bishops were among his pupils. So many resorted to the island that it received the name of Aran of the Saints. It is still full of highly interesting remains of both pagan and early Christian times.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lanigan, Ecd. Hiat., i. 398‑400; J. Healy, Inauda aanctorum, pp. 163‑187, Dublin, 1890.
ENDERS, ERNST LUDWIG: German Lutheran; b. at Frankfort Dec. 27, 1833. He studied in Heidelberg, Erlangen, and Tiibingen (1852‑55), and since 1865 has been pastor at Oberrad nearly opposite to Frankfort. He prepared the second Erlangen edition of Luther's works (25 vole., Frankfort, 1862‑‑84), and edited Luther and Emser, ihre Streitschriften aus dem Jahre 16,1 (2 vole., Halls, 1891); Aua dem Ifampfe der Schwarmer gegen Luther, drei Flugschriften (1894); and Johann Eberlin von Gunzberg, ausgewalalte Schriften (2 vole., 1896‑1900). He is a collaborator on the complete edition of Luther's works in course of preparation by J. K. Irmischer, C. S. T. Elsperger, and H. Schmidt, to which he has contributed Dr. Martin Lathers Brie f toechsel (2 vole., covering the period from May, 1534, to July, 1538; Calw, 1903).
ENDURA. See NEw M!>.NICHEANB.

EIQERGUMEft. See DEMONIAC, § 5.
	EftGELBRECHT, en"gel"breH', HANS: German
mystic; b. at Brunswick Easter Day, 1599; d.
there 1642. In his youth he was an apprentice to
a weaver, and had little education. Even at an
early age he was of a melancholy disposition, and
in 1622 fell seriously ill, his disease culminating
in spasms accompanied with hallucinations. Ex
communicated as holding heretical doctrines of
the Lord's Supper, he fled from Brunswick in 1625,
and sought to work in Winsen‑an‑lerAller, Liine
burg, Hamburg, and Holland, but was everywhere
persecuted, although comforted by new visions
and converse with the angels. Returning to
Brunswick in 1631, he vainly endeavored to be
come reconciled with the clergy and again left the
city. At Hamburg he had himself imprisoned to
prove his divine power by fasting for a week. He
was driven from Gliickatadt by troops, and shortly
before his death returned to Brunswick. His
writings, based on his visions, are as follows: Eire
wahrha f f tige Geschicht and Gesicht vom Himmel
and der Hellen (Brunswick, 1625); Gdttlich urad
himmliach Mandat (Bremen, 1625); Brief can M.
Hartkopf, Seniorem in Hamburg (1640); Ein
christlich Schreiben art die Gelakrten ; Ein Gecieht
vom neuen Himmel and Erde ; and Anttvort, tvie
man Gott im Neuen Testament frragert soil (1641);
Gesicht von den drey Standen; Gesieht von dem
Berg des Heils and dem Wasser der Sunder; and
Schret7xn an Popke Popkes. A complete edition of
the works of Engelbrecht appeared at Brunswick
in 1686 (Erg. transl. by F. Okely, Northampton,
1780). 	(FERDINAND COHR$.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. J. R,ehtmeyer, Braunschweig KircherHistoric, iv. 417 eqq., 472 aqq., Brunswick, 1715; G. Arnold, Kitchen‑ and Ketzer‑Historic, iii. 217 eqq., Frankfort, 1729; w. Beats, in ZHT, 1844, pp. 122.

Bagslhardt
England, ahmxoh of
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ENGELHARDT, en"gel"hart', GUSTAV MORITZ KOft8TAHTIN VON: Lutheran theologian; b. at Dorpat July 8, 1828; d. there Dec. 5, 1881. His education was begun in Werro, a small town in Livonia, in a private institution, where he was influenced by a teacher educated in the faith of Herrnhut. From 1846 to 1849 he studied theology in Dorpat, where he came under the instruction of Philippi. In 1850 he continued his studies in Erlangen under Hofmann in whom he found a man endowed with the historic spirit,
	Life.	developing the course of salvation
		in its historical growth. In the sum
mer of 1851 he studied at Bonn, and in 1858 he
became professor of church history in Dorpat, in
which position he became one of the most effective
teachers of the Church in the nineteenth century.
The impression which he produced rested both
upon his personality, and upon his ability to sym
pathize with the needs and struggles of youth.
He did not merely impart knowledge, he educated
theological students for their practical office as
well as for their academic calling.
Engelhardt's eminence showed itself especially in the science of apologetics to which he was led in 1858 by his study of Nagelsbach's books on the Homeric and poet‑Homeric theology. The essence of paganism lay for him in its dualistic view of the world, and he considered it the task of apologetics to investigate and discuss critically the relation of Christianity to every system of natural religion. Christian apologetics, according to him, is successful in the degree in which the uniqueness of Christianity is shown over against the common qualities of all other modes of thought; in the Engelhardt next place, the inner consistency of as an Christianity over against the contraApologiat. dictions and indefensibleness of all other systems should be expounded; and finally the universality of Christianity should be brought out by showing that the religious and ethical ideals of the non‑Christian world are realized in Christianity. Engelhardt's conception of apologetics led him to measure faith with faith, since every non‑Christian mode of thought includes within itself a system of faith which agrees in its essential points with the others. Every departure from genuine Christianity, he thought, must have been occasioned by the influence of pagan thoughts. Such pagan elements Engelhardt found, for instance, in Romanism. The knowledge of grace as the merciful love of God toward the sinner he considered the fundamental principle of Lutheranism,, while the fundamental conception of the spiritual and imperishable substance of God on the part of the Roman Catholics leads, according to him, to all errors of Romanism. [The contrast intended seems to be between the personal and somewhat anthropomorphic conception of God and the metaphysical conception of him as the absolute being, which latter tended to discourage men from seeking direct communion with him and to foster Ma,riolatry, saint‑worship, and the like.
A. H. N.]
The opposition of an ethical to a metaphysical conception of God shows Engelhardt's point of
ISO
contact with Ritschl's views, and he was indeed greatly influenced by Ritechl'a works, especially after the second edition of the letter's
His Rela‑ Altktttholische Kerche (1857). Here
bona with he found his strongest weapons
Ritschlian‑ against Baur's representation of primi‑
	ism.	tive Christianity; ‑ for Ritechl held
		that old catholic Christianity in its
departure from the fundamental views of Paul had
not proceeded from a compromise between Judaic
and pagan Christianity, but from a degenerate
Paulinism which proceeded from an inadequate
comprehension by pagan Christians of the Old
Testament basis of Pauline doctrine. Engelhardt
has been mistakenly considered dogmatically de
pendent upon Ritschl. The two had indeed many
points in common; but Engelhardt felt the lack
I	in Ritschl's system of a full acknowledgment of sin and a corresponding holiness of God reacting against it; and of the necessity of blotting out the guilt contracted by this sin, as well as of a full appreciation of the value of God's salvation and of Christianity in particular as being a supernatural religion in the exclusive sense.
Engelhardt's activities included an interest in the religious instruction is secondary schools, and he wrote a treatise on its problems. He gave instruction in schools for girls, and on Sunday afternoons taught the children in a charitable institution. He also delivered public lectures, and was one of the most powerful preachers of his day. He was president of the ecclesiastical council of the university and took an active part in the Synod of Livonia and in the annual pastoral conferences which met at Dorpat.
Of his literary works may be mentioned Der Sen fkornglaube each den Evangelien dargestellt (Dorpat,
1861); Die Bergpredigt nach Matthaus,
Works. sine Stttdie xur bibliachzn Geschichte
(1864); Schenkel and Strauss, zwet: Zettgen der 'tI'ahrheit (1864). His studies in apologetics occasioned several essays which appeared in the Dorpater Zeitschrift Pr Theologie and Kirche and the independent publication Celsua oder die dlteste Krilik bibhacher Geachichte and christlicher Lehre vom Siandgrunkt des Heidentums (1869). An important work in connection with his studies of primitive Christianity is Dae Christentum Jtactirts des MBrtyrers, sine dognaerthiatoriache Untersuchung fiber die Aaftinge des katholischen Chriateatums (Erlangen, 1878).
(N. BONwETBCH.)
BIHLIOa8AP87: Zur Erinnerunp an Morns von Engelhardt, Dorpat, 1881; Mitteiiunpen and NacM^ieht far die svan‑
pelische Kirchs in Auaelarul, 1882, pp. 137 sqq., 1883, pp.
209 eqq.; A. von OettinRer, M. non Engelhardt's chrerh
iich‑theoiopiedver EntvrirkeLunpspang. Dorpat, 1883.

ENGELHARDT, JOHANN GEORG VEIT: German theologian and church historian; b. at Neustadt‑an‑der‑Aisch (20 m. n.n.e. of Anspach) Nov. 12, 1791; d. at Erlangen Sept. 13, 1855. He was educated in his native town, in Baireuth, and at the University of Erlangen, and became deacon at the Altstddter Kirche and professor at the gymnasium in 1817. Three years later he entered the faculty of the university as privet‑docent, was appointed associate professor of theology in 1821 and

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
full professor in the following year, holding this position until his death. From 1845 to 1848 he represented his university in the House of Deputies. Engelhardt's early plan of preparing a history of mystical theology was never carried out, although he made thorough preliminary studies of Plotinus, Dionysius the Areopagite, and Richard of St. Victor. He also devoted himself to Irenaeus, Tertullian, the entire field of patristica, and to ecclesiastical and dogmatic history. In addition to numerous programs and studies in the ZHT, his principal works were as follows: Dissertatio de
I~lhrac England, Ohnroh o!
viortysio plotinixante (Erlangen, 1820); Die angeb
lichen Schriften des Areopagiten Dionysius (2 parts,
1823); LeitfadenzuYorleaungentlberPatristik (1823);
Kirchengeschichtliehe Abhandlungen (1832); Hand
buch der Kirchengesehichte (4 vols.,1833‑34); Richard
von St. ViktorundJohannRuysbroek (1838); Ausleg
ung des apekulativert ?'sirs des Evaregeliuma Johannis
durch einen deutschen mystischen Theologen des trier
zehnten Jahrhunderts, aua einer deutschen Handschril t
der k6nigliehen Bibliothek in Mitachen (Neuatadt‑an
derAieeh,1839);andDogmengeschichte (2 vo1s.,1839).
	(J. J. HERZOGt.)
ENGLAND, CHURCH OF.
Elisabeth (¢ 3).
Struggle Between Anglicanism and Puritanism (§ 4).
Triumph of High‑church Principles Under Stuarts (6 5)
The Commonwealth, the Restoration, the House of Hanover (¢ 8).
Deism, Rise of Methodism (§ 7).
I. Pre‑Reformation Period.
British and Saxon Periods
The Norman Period (¢ 2).
Pre‑Reformation Resistance to Rome (¢ 3). II. History From the Reformation.
Henry VIII. (§ 1).
Edward VI. and Mary (§ 2).
The Church of England, the national Church of England as by law established, may be regarded as a product of the Protestant Reformation; and from this point of view its history is held to begin with the refusal of Henry VIII. to own further allegiance to the pope, and the resultant declaration that the king was the head of the Church in his dominions. In theology it is in general harmony with Protestantism, but in government it claims to have retained in unbroken succession from the Apostles, and hence from Christ himself, the three major orders of bishop, priest, and deacon. In ritual and worship it maintains a uniform order of church service, parts of which are derived immediately from ancient and medieval rituals. It occupies an intermediate position between the Latin communion and the churches of the Reformation. Many Anglican writers regard the Reformation as merely an incident in the history of the Church of England, which did not interrupt its historic continuity, which is held to date from Augustine, and even from the old Celtic Church. A considerable number, particularly in the High‑church party, look upon the Reformation as a serious mistake, if not as a crime.
L Pre‑Reformation Period: The first reliable information regarding the introduction of Christianity into Britain comes from Ter‑
	i. British	tullian, who, early in the third century,
	and Saxon	wrote (Adv. Jud., vii.; ANF, iii. 158)
	Periods.	that Christianity had penetrated into
		regions of Britain inaccessible to the
Romans. The history of the British Church wag
thenceforth that of early Christianity everywhere. It
furnished victims to persecution, one of whom, Alban
of Verulam (q.v.), was early canonized; it sent repre
sentatives to councils, for example, that of Arles
(314); and it produced the heretic Pelagius (q.v.;
for this entire period see CELTIC CHURCH). The
Saxon period dates from the arrival, in 597, of the
monk Augustine, who had been despatched by
Gregory I. (see ANGLO‑SAXONS, CONVERSION OF
THE; and AUGUSTINE, SAINT, OP' CANTERBURY). As
archbishop of Canterbury Augustine came into
conflict with the bishops of the old British, or Celtic,
Church; but the Roman type of Christianity pre‑
Later History (§8).
III. Theology, Liturgy, Clergy, Government.
Theology (§ 1).
Liturgy (¢ 2).
The Clergy (¢ 3).
Government (¢ 4).
Relation of Church and State (15).
vailed over the Celtic, and crowded it out. The differences concerned the date of Easter, the mode of the tonsure, and allegiance to Rome, the Britons being determined to remain independent of the Roman rule. Augustine called the British bishops to a colloquy on the Severn, but they refused to acknowledge his authority and Augustine invoked and predicted judgment upon them. Christianity spread rapidly in southern England, and was introduced into Northumbria by Paulinua, and made the permanent religion by the labors of St. Aidan of Ireland. Under Theodore of Tarsus (consecrated archbishop of Canterbury in 668) the English episcopate was more fully organized, and the dioceses were grouped around Canterbury as the central and superior see. Theodore held synods and treated the British Christians in a high‑handed way. During this period monasteries were founded; and here and there a solitary form, like C>3edmon, the monk of Whitby; or Bede, " the father of learning "; or Alcuin the scholar, called to the Court of Charlemagne; or Alfred, the Christian king and patron of letters, stands out prominently. The Danish invaders of the eighth and ninth centuries interrupted the services, and devastated the property of churches and monastic orders. But the judicious wisdom and enlightened zeal of Dunatan (959‑988), the first of many English ecclesiastical statesmen, repaired their ravages and effected a severer discipline and a more compact organization of the clergy. He guided the State during the nine years' reign of the invalid Eldred. During the Anglo‑Saxon period papal rule won acknowledgment in increasing measure. Members of the royal family went to Rome, and Peter's pence was paid to the Roman treasury. Lender the later Saxon kings the Church sank into ignorance and corruption. There were no synods; the priests were married or lived in concubinage; and simony was freely practised.
The Norman period dates from the conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066 under a banner blessed by Alexander II. It is distinguished by the complete vassalage into which the Church went to the papal nee, the subjection of

England, Church of	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	132
the State to ecclesiastical domination, and the growing corruption of the clergy. But the State
in turn struggled to emancipate itself a. The from ecclesiastical fetters by legisla‑
Norman tion, and the people to rid themselves
Period. of clerical incompetency and scandal
by a reform in the life and doctrine of the Church. William the Conqueror removed all the Saxon bishops except Wulfatan of Worcester and replaced them with Norman prelates. He practically chose all ecclesiastical dignitaries himself, and insisted upon the right of investiture as his royal prerogative. He withstood the claims of Gregory VIII. to rights over England as his fief. Lanfranc (q.v.), archbishop of Canterbury (107010891, secured the institution of special ecclesiastical courts, in which all ecclesiastical cases were tried. After Lanfranc, archbishop after archbishop contended with royalty, now for the superior rights of the Church and papal investiture, now for the liberties of the people. Lanfranc's successor Anselm (q.v.; 1093‑1109), appointed by William Rufus, fought the battle of investiture and went into exile rather than receive it from the king. Under his primacy the canons against clerical marriage and concubinage (,1102, 1107, 1108) were renewed by synodal action, but Eadmer reports that " almost the greater and the better part of the English clergy " were the sons of priests. The next great archbishop‑ Thomas Becket (q.v.; 11621170), contended with Henry IL, who sought to reform the abuses growing out of clerical exemption from civil jurisdiction. Becket's attitude called forth the famous Constitutions of Clarendon in 1164, which forbade papal briefs to be received in England without the royal consent, or prelates to go to Rome without the same consent. Though Becket was murdered, victory did not rest with the king. It remained for the State as a national body to come into subjection to the ecclesiastical power of Rome. This was accomplished during the reign of John (nee LANGTON, STEPHEN; and INNOCENT III.).
A new era seemed to have dawned with the earnest and plain preaching of the Dominican
(1221) and Franciscan friars (1224); 3. Pre‑Ref‑ but, becoming fat with lands, they
ormation lost their hold on the popular mind.
Resistance Here and there a great bishop, like
to Rome. Groaseteste (q.v.; 123:r53), lifted up
his voice against the corruption of the clergy, dared to resist the pope's assumption to force appointments within his diocese, and insisted upon the authority and preaching of the Scriptures. The great English chronicler Matthew Paris, in the middle of the thirteenth century, voices the protest of the people against the monetary exactions of the pope and his agents. The State was not completely paralyzed, but sought to meet ecclesiastical domination and abuses with remedial legislation. Two great acts stand out as protests against them. The statute of mortmain (1279) forbade the alienation of lands to religious corporations in such wise as to be exempt from taxation, while the statutes of praemunire and provisore (1351, 1391, etc.) made a royal license
necessary to the validity of papal appointments and bulls within the realm. [The statute of preemumire forbade resort to foreign tribunals (the curia included) for the adjudication of ecclesiastical causes without express permission from the crown. The statute of provieors was aimed against the reservation by the pope for himself or his favorites of English benefices, with the collection of the revenues without equivalent service. In case endowed positions were kept vacant with such intent, the revenues were to go into the royal exchequer. A. H. N.j Neither of these acts accomplished much at the time, but the latter was used effectively by henry VIII. In 1386, a parliament of Edward III, definitely refused to pay the annual tribute of a thousand marks promised by John to the apostolic see. In the fourteenth can‑_ tury loud protests began to be heard from the people and the clergy. John Wyclif (q.v.; 13241384), " the morning star of the Reformation," translated the Scriptures and asserted the rights of the State and the individual conscience. He published in 1381 twelve theses against transubstantiation, and declared that the Lord wan in the sacrament as a king is in his realm. He insisted upon the practise of preaching, denounced the idleness and ignorance of the monks, defined the Church as " the organization of the elect,'f and called upon the pope to give up his pride and wealth. William Longland, without Erasmus' scholarship, but in a more popular and earnest vein than he, ridiculed the friars in rimes. The Lollards (q.v.) were so numerous that, according to the chronicler Knighton, every other person on the road was one. But the energetic opposition of Church and State was effective in silencing them or inducing them to recant. The statute " for burning heretics " was enacted in 1401. By the order of the Council of Constants (1415), Wyclif's ashes were disinterred and scattered in the Swift. The Church slumbered on for more than a century longer, but the great movement finally came, out of which Christianity in England, again crystallized in a distinctly national Church of England, started forward on a career of renewed life and achievement.
B. History From the Reformation: The same general principle of protest against ecclesiastical
corruption was involved in the Refor‑
:. Henry mation movement in England that
	VI11..	inspired the Reformation on the
		Continent. Nevertheless, the move
ment in England had its own salient and distin
guishing features, preserving in unbroken conti
nuity the ecclesiastical orders and succession of the
catholic Church. Ciretunstances had been pre
paring the way for the Reformation in England.
The signs of the times in the early part of the six
teenth century indicated a mighty movement of
men's minds in England as well as on the Continent,
as shown by the revival of classical learning with
such names as Erasmus, Colet, and Thomas More,
the bold satires upon clerical abuses, the independ
ence of thought as shown in Erasmus' appeal to
the Greek New Testament in the preface of his
edition (Basel, 1518), and Mores dreams of im
provement in Church and State in his Utopia.

183	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eaeland, Church of
Open revolt was declared in the translation of the New Testament by Tyndale (1526) and its circulation, in spite of ecclesiastical disapproval. Luther's words from across the sea, declaring papal domination to be the Babylonian captivity of the Church (1520) found an eager audience in England, nor could the public burning of his tracts by Wolsey (1521) check the growing movement against Roman Catholic rule. Henry VIII., the " defender of the faith," was then a loyal son of Rome and set himself against reform in doctrine or in ritual. The aid which his attitude came to give to the Reformation was brought about with no deliberate intention on his part. The open rupture between Rome and England, which might not inconceivably have come to pass in any case, was actually forced, not as the protest of religious principles against ecclesiastical abuses, but as a political expedient to which Henry VIII. resorted to socomplish and to justify his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his marriage with Anne Boleyn. In 1531 Henry charged the clergy with a violation of the statute of praemunire for being accomplices with Cardinal Wolsey, who had exercised the functions of a legate without the royal consent. The two convocations compounded by the payment of 2118,000; but the king, not satisfied with this evidence of a submissive temper, demanded that he should be recognized as " chief protector, the only supreme lord and head of the Church and clergy in England." The Convocation of Canterbury accepted the title, but added the limiting clause: " so far as the law of Christ will allow." In 1533 a parliamentary statute forbade all ecclesiastical appeals beyond the kingdom. The year following, impelled by the pope's command to take back Catherine, Henry secured the passage of the Act of Supremacy, which made all papal appointments within the realm illegal, and vested unlimited authority in the crown to reform and redress ecclesiastical abuses. The English Church was thus severed from the papal communion and became an independent body. It was not long before the king, in 1536‑39, made a bold use of his new authority by abolishing the monastic establishments and confiscating their wealth, amounting to £38,000,000. In Thomas Cranmer (q.v.), who had helped, him in his efforts to divorce Catherine, Henry found an able primate. He was a strong friend of the new views, married to a Lutheran wife, and in his earlier life was strongly Lutheran in doctrine. The king, however, had little or no sympathy with the Continental Reformation. He attacked Luther in a tract on the seven sacraments, and Luther's rude reply confirmed Henry's mind against the Reformation. The articles adopted by Convocation in 1536 retained the doctrine of the Real Presence, the use of images, prayers to saints, purgatory, and auricular confession, and only divested these practises of some gross superstitions. The king seemed to take higher ground when he gave his sanction to the translation of the Scriptures known as the Great Bible (1539). But all hopes of a thorough doctrinal reformation were doomed to disappointment. The six so‑called " Bloody Articles " of 1539 denounced all denial of
transubstantiation as heresy, and declared strongly in favor of auricular confession, the celibacy of the clergy, and the sacrif ce of private masses. The punishment for denying transubstantiation was burning.
Under Edward VI. (1548‑53), the doctrinal reformation was accomplished. The six articles were
repealed, and sympathy with the Cona. Edward tinental Reformers was shown in the VI. and call of Butzer and Fagius to Cam)gary. bridge, and of Peter Martyr and
Oehino to Oxford. A Prayer‑Book was issued in 1549, the Forty‑Two Articles were drawn up in 1552. They declared that " the Church of Rome bath erred not only in its living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith " (xix.); expressly denied transubstantiation; permitted the marriage of the clergy; discontinued auricular confession; and approved of the communion in both kinds. With their adoption the formative period of the Church of England closes. The reign of Mary (1553‑58), a firm adherent of the Roman Catholic faith, checked the Reformation for the moment, but did not crush it, though a determined effort was made to restore papal control over the English Church, the intolerance of the age being freely employed. Hooper, Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer were brought to the stake, and many refugees fled to Basel and Geneva; but these persecutions, which were attributed largely to Spanish influence, Mary being married to Philip IL, only awakened dogged resistance. The number of certified executions for religious reasons during her reign was 286, of which forty‑six were of women.
The accession of Elizabeth restored the independence of the Church of England, which, in spite
of occasional resistance from within and 3. Elizabeth. papal opposition from without (1570),
became the permanent religious home of the large majority in the land, and was firmly established by the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Two periods stand out in the history of the Church under Elizabeth. In the early part of her reign the separation of the National Church from the Roman Catholic see was completed, and in the latter part the conflict between Anglicanism and Puritanism deepened and resulted in the victory of the Anglican school. The queen was no zealous reformer, but directed the affairs of the Church with the keen sagacity of a statesmanship which placed national unity and the peace of the realm above every other consideration. In the first year of her reign the Act of Supremacy was renewed and the Act of Uniformity (q.v.) was passed. By the former all allegiance to foreign princes or. prelates was forbidden; by the latter the use of the liturgy was enforced. The royal title of " Defender of the Faith and Supreme Head of the Church " was retained, with the slight alteration of " Head " to " Governor "; but the deprecation was struck out of the Litany which read, " From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities, good Lord, deliver us." The queen retained, against the protest of bishops, an altar, crucifix, and lighted candles in her own chapel, disapproved of the marriage of the clergy,

England, Church of	THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG	134
interrupted the preacher who spoke disparagingly of the sign of the cross, and imperiously forced her wishes upon unwilling prelates. But in spite of seeming to approximate the Church of Rome in points of ritual, Elizabeth did not interfere by any public measures with the results of the Reformation of Edward VI. The reduction of the I'ortytwo Articles to thirty‑nine (1563), the form which they have ever since retained, did not impair their Protestant character.
The independence of the National Church being thus permanently settled, it remained only to settle disputes within her own pale. The great question was whether Puritanism should be tolerated. This was a question not of doctrine, for the prevailing doctrinal views were Calvinistic, and ;. Struggle Elizabeth's bishops, almost without
Between	exception, were Calvinists. It was
Anglican‑	a question of ecclesiastical polity,
	ism and	ritual, and vestments. Many of the
Puritanism. refugees who had fled to the Continent
		is Mary's reign returned strongly prej
udiced against an elaborate ritual, and in favor of
the Genevan form of government. Thomas Cart
wright (q.v.), Margaret professor of divinity at
Cambridge, was the ablest exponent of these views
(1570). There was no uniformity practised in the
conduct of public services and the dress of the
clergy. Hooper, bishop of Gloucester, who had
died at the stake in 1555; for a long time refused
to be consecrated from conscientious scruples
against the usual episcopal robes, and Bishop Jewel
pronounced the clerical garb a stage dress and a
" relic of the Amorites." It is noteworthy that
two of Elizabeth's archbishops, Matthew Parker
and Edmund Grindal (qq.v.), were averse to enfor
cing uniformity in these matters. The latter, with
Bishops Parkhurst and Ponet, not only would
have allowed a coordinate authority to the preaby
terian system of Geneva, but would have gone
even farther. Grindal incurred suspension from his
office as primate by disobeying the queen's com
mand to suppress the Puritan " propheayinga," or
informal religious harangues. By a royal procla
mation these were suppressed, and a royal proc
lamation had already required the use of clerical
vestments. It thus was decided that no unre
stricted license in the conduct of public worship
and clerical dress was to be tolerated. These acts
made many of the Puritan clergy see fit to resign
their benefices. In Grindal's successor, John Whit
gift (q.v.), Elizabeth had a prelate to her hand.
The breach between the two parties became wider;
and if the Church, on her part, refused to counte
nance any dissidence, the Puritans, on their part,
became coarse, as in the so‑called Marprelate
controversy (1588), when they issued scurrilous
libels against the queen and bishops (see MAR
PRELATE TRACTB). The controversy was closed in
1593 by an act of Parliament which made Puritan
ism an offense against the statute law. After the
defeat of the Spanish Armada, some Puritans were
put to death and others took refuge in Holland,
and later in America. See PURITANS, PURITANISM‑
The history of the seventeenth century is marked by the consolidation of the Church of England in
spite of a temporary triumph of Puritanism, and by the development of the doctrine of the divine appointment of episcopacy, the first
5. Triumph indications of which showed themof High‑ selves in the Puritan controversies of church the Elizabethan period, with a con‑
Principles sequent uncompromising resistance Under to all dissent in ritual and doctrines,
	Stuarts.	culminating in the repressive legisla
		tion of Charles II. Under James I.
(1603‑25), who came from Scotland to England
with a cordial hatred of Presbyterianism, the
Puritan party was completely humiliated. All
the Puritan hopes expressed in the famous Mille
nary Petition, signed by eight hundred clergy
men, and asking for the removal of " superstitious
usages " from the Prayer‑Book, etc., were doomed
to disappointment; although James won the
approval of Churchmen and dissenters alike by
the preparation, under his auspices, of the au
thorized version of the English Bible which ap
peared in 1611 (see HAMPTON COURT CONFER
ENCE). James retained relations with the Reformed
Churches of the Continent, and sent five commis
sioners to represent the Church of England at she
Synod of Dort, with instructions to " favor no
innovations in doctrine, and to conform to the con
fessions of the neighboring Reformed churches."
But full sympathy with the Continental churches
was hereafter impracticable, and recognition of
their orders (as was the case under Elizabeth)
impossible, by the High‑church views of episcopacy
which were spreading, and which, under Charles I.
(1625‑49) and Archbishop Laud (q.v.; 16335),
assumed an extreme form. The latter taught that
episcopacy was not only necessary to the well
being, but essential to the very existence of the
Church. His administration revived, to the Low
church and Puritan mind, the ritual of Rome, and
displayed so much sympathy with it that he was
said to have been offered a cardinal's hat. Abbot,
archbishop of Canterbury (1611‑35), was a strict
Calvinist, but he could not check the growth of
the Arminian views advocated by Laud, whose
fidelity to his principles brought him to the block
in 1645. He and Charles I. have since been re
garded as martyrs by a school of Anglicans who
reprobate everything that savors of Puritanism as
contrary to the Church and to God. Since his day
a large liberty of opinion has been allowed and
practised in the Church of England on the question
of ritual and episcopacy; the High‑church views of
Laud, and the Low‑church views of Parker and
Grindal, both having their representatives.
During the Commonwealth, the Established Church wag, in fact, a religio illicita, an act of Parliament having abolished episcopacy, 6. The Com‑ and discontinued the use of the Lit‑
monwealth, orgy (Sept. 10, 1642). Puritanism the Resto‑ triumphed for a time, and the Weatration, the minater Assembly (q.v.) in 1643 esHouse of tablished a Presbyterian kingdom;
	Hanover.	but in spite of the strong theological
		intellects which supported it, and in
spite of the massive will of Cromwell, who was not
a Presbyterian, but an Independent, Puritanism

185	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	England, Church of
was a failure in England. The accession of Charles II. (1660) restored the Church of England to the national position which it has ever since held. Stern measures against the Puritans soon followed, By the Act of Uniformity (q.v.) of 1662, the use of the Prayer‑Book was rigidly enforced; and two thousand English clergymen, among them some of the most scholarly and pious divines of the time (such as Baxter and Howe), were deprived of their benefices. These penalties for dissent were increased by the Five‑Mile Act (q.v.) of 1665, while the Test Act (q.v.) of 1673, by excluding all Puritans from office, marked the culmination of legislation against dissenters. Charles II. died, it is commonly held, a Roman Catholic, and his brother, James IL, lived as one; but the nation was against him, and his efforts to restore confidence and toleration for the Roman Church failed. The accession of William and Mary in 1688 ushered in a new epoch. The principle that the Established Church had an exclusive right to existence and protection was abrogated. The movement in favor not only of toleration but of absolute freedom of worship and political equality without reference to ecclesiastical connection began with this reign. Put into more and more extensive practise, this principle has effected the abolition of most, if not all, political disabilities on account of religious differences. The first legislation in this direction was the Act of Toleration (q.v.) of 1689 establishing freedom of worship. The nineteenth century witnessed the repeal of the Test Act (1828), the removal of the disabilities of the Roman Catholics (1829) and Jews (1858), and the dieeatabliahment of the Irish Church (1868).
The eighteenth century was characterized by a wide‑spread religious apathy and worldliness among
the clergy, and witnessed the cuhni7. Deism, nation of Deism, which identified
	Rise of	Christian revelation with natural re
Methodism. ligion, and excluded from Christianity,
		as ungenuine and false, all that was
not contained in the latter (see DEI$bI). But the
influence of Deism was more than counteracted by
the Evangelical spirit and activity of Whitefield
and the Wealeys, graduates of Oxford, which worked
with irresistible power upon the masses, sad aroused
the clergy out of their indifference to a new sense
of their spiritual obligations. John Wesley (q.v.;
1702‑91), the founder of the movement, a man of
notable, power of organization as well as a great
preacher, reached the masses and spoke as no single
individual had spoken to England since Wyclif.
Charles Wesley (q.v.) gave the English people some
of its beat hymns. Whitefield (q.v.) in America
as well as in England made the reputation of the
greatest popular preacher England had produced.
Against his will John Wesley founded a new church
organization (see METHODIBTa). Fresh life sprang
up in the Church of England as a result of this
revival of practical religion. The so‑called Evan
gelicals, including some of the most famous pastors,
fervent preachers, devout poets, and self‑sacrificing
philanthropists‑men like Vena and Newton and
Cowper and Wilberforce‑brought a warm conse
cration to their work and vied with the more elo‑
quent and equally devoted leaders of the Methodist movement in spreading the truths of vital religion. The century closed with an intense sympathy for the heathen abroad and the depraved classes at home. Sunday Schools were organized by the layman Robert Raikea of Gloucester in 1780, and in 1799 the Church Missionary Society was founded, while later still the movement which resulted in the abolition of the sle,ve‑trade was inaugurated by Wilberforce.
The nineteenth century was characterized by earnest philanthropic movements, by the rise of the Oxford Movement, which profoundly
8. Later influenced the Church (see T$ACTABI‑
	History.	.uvlanl), and by the close affiliation
		with the Episcopal churches in the
United States and the English colonies. The
British and Foreign Bible Society united Church
men and dissenters in a common enterprise, and
the Evangelical Alliance, in 1846, again sought to
unify them in spirit and prayer. No preceding
period was distinguished for piety at once more
practical and more liberal. However, the Church
received a blow which, in the eyes of her opponents,
threatened to crush her, when John Henry Newman,
Henry Edward Manning, Frederick W. Faker, and
other men of eminence among both the clergy and
the laity became converts to the Roman Catholic
communion. A far different school, equally devo
ted to the Church of England, but adhering to
Reformation rather than to Anglo‑Catholic tenets,
included ouch men as the Hares, F. D. Maurice,
and Archbishop Whateley. In the last half of the
century Biblical scholarship was earned on to a
high point by such men as Archbishop Trench,
Dean Alford, Bishops Lightfoot and Weatcott of
Durham, Bishop Ellicott, Dean Stanley, and Pro
fessors Hatch and Hort, not to mention the living.
These Biblical studies culminated in the movement
to revise the English translation of the Bible (see
BIBLE VER$IONa, B, IV., § ?). The High‑church
party lays emphasis upon the exclusive right of
episcopacy and apostolic succession, and main
tains an advanced ritual, together with insistence
on the doctrines of the Real Presence and baptismal
regeneration. The extreme wing has reintroduced
practises abrogated under Lutheran and Calvinistic
influence, such as veneration of the Blessed Sacra
ment, auricular confession, communion in one kind
for the laity, and the establishment of monastic
orders. They are distinguished for the elaborate
and reverent character of their services, for the
frequent celebration of the Eucharist, which is held
to be sacrificial, and for their great zeal and devo
tion in benevolent church work. Occupying oppo
site ground is the Low‑church party, which holds
strictly to the natural interpretation of the Thirty
nine Articles (q.v.), denies episcopacy to be of the
essence of the Church, and ~ denounces so‑called
ritualistic practises. Between these two schools a
third has grown up since the middle of the nine
teenth century. Its combination of tolerant, and
sometimes latitudinarian, sympathies with loyalty
to the Church has secured for it the name of the
Broad‑church party. Among its more prominent
representatives have been Arnold, Julius Hare,

Easland, Church of	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	ISO
Maurice, Kingsley, and Stanley. During the nineteenth century the vigorous life of the Church was further shown by the restoration of cathedrals and the construction of churches, in the creation of new episcopal sees at home and the rapid extension of the Church and episcopate in the colonies. In addition to the Parliamentary acts bearing on the rights of Churchmen were the Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Act (1868) relieving dissenters of church taxation, and the University Teat Act (1871) throwing open the universities to all irrespective of creed.
III. Theology, Liturgy, Clergy, Government: The doctrinal standards of the Anglican Church are the Thirty‑Nine Articles (q.v.) and the Book of Common Prayer (see COMMON PRAYER, BOOK
OF). To these may be added the z. Theology. Catechism and the two Books of
Homilies (see HOLuLIARIUbi) issued in the reign of Edward VI. and sanctioned by the Thirty‑nine Articles. Within the pale of the Church the most divergent views have prevailed concerning its doctrinal status. On the one hand, it has been represented as strongly Calvinistic, both in respect to the sacraments and to the decrees; on the other hand, theologians such as Newman (before his conversion to the Roman Catholic faith), Bishop Fortes of Brechin, and Pussy hold that nothing is taught in the Thirtynine Articles which can not be harmonized with the Tridentine decrees. An unprejudiced study of the wording of the Articles, without any inferences from what is left unsaid, shows that they teach a moderate Calvinism, and are in all essentials in sympathy with the Protestant Reformation of the Continent. The sole and supreme authority of the Scriptures is emphasized (Art. vi.), as is the doctrine of justification by faith, Art. xi. reading: " Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a moat wholesome Doctrine," etc. Original sin is the corruption by nature of every descendant of Adam (Art. ix.); and predestination is the everlasting purpose of God to redeem " those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind " (Art. xvii.). The doctrines of purgatory, celibacy, etc., are specifically denounced (Arts. xxii., xxxii.). The teaching concerning the Eucharist is plainly against transubstantiation, which, in Art, xxviii., is declared to be " repugnant to the plain words of Scripture," the " Body of Christ " being " given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner." While Art. xxvii. can scarcely be said unreservedly to set forth the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the case is different in the Office for Baptism in the Prayer‑Book. After the child has been baptized, the priest says: " Seeing now . . . that this Child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church "; and again after repeating the Lord's Prayer, he gives thanks to God.for regenerating the infant, etc. These words, naturally interpreted, teach baptismal regeneration, although by Low‑churchmen they are frequently explained as being used in a hypothetical sense.
The worship of the Church of England is liturgical and is regulated by the Book of Common Prayer. Its beautiful forma of service, and its solemn and
venerable prayers, are not only among the choicest specimens of English, but exert on the ear and
heart of those who hear them an inZ. Liturgy. fluence which nothing else can replace.
The rubrics (so called from having originally been written or printed in red ink) give directions for the minutest details of the service. Provision is made for daily morning and evening prayer, these services consisting of prayers, anthems (Te Deum, Benedicite, Magnifical, Nunc Dimittia, etc.), one lesson from the Old and one from the New Testament, the Creed, and the sermon. After morning prayer on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday, a Litany of great beauty and comprehensiveness should be recited; and the Eucharist, for which a separate liturgy is provided, is celebrated at varying intervals, as often as once daily in many High churches. The original purpose was obviously to have a celebration at least once each week. Twentynine feasts are observed, while Lent and Advent, with certain other days, are fasts. The forms for baptism, confirmation, marriage, burial, and ordination are prescribed. The creeds are the Apostles,' Nicene, and Athanasian, the last‑named assailed by a strong faction. Any departure, even in the smallest detail, from the Book of Common Prayer is illegal.
The clergy of the Church of England consists of three orders‑deacons, priests (presbyters), and
bishops. The canonical age is respect‑
3. The ively twenty‑three, twenty‑four, and"
Clergy. thirty. The duties of the deacon are
to render assistance to the priest in the service of the sanctuary and in pastoral work. He may preach, read the prayers and Scripture lessons, assist in the distribution of the elements at communion, and administer baptism. The priest serves at the altar and consecrates the elements in the Eucharist. At his ordination the bishop pronounces upon him the words " Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God," etc., this being interpreted either as a petition for the anointing of the Holy Spirit or as marking the transmission of a heavenly grace through the bishop. The bishop has the exclusive right of ordination, confirmation, and the consecration of churches. Bishops are appointed by the crown. A conga dYlire is sent to the chapter when a bishopric is vacant, but it is a mere formality, as the name of the new appointee is sent with it. In the case of bishoprics recently established, as Manchester, St. Albans, Liverpool, Truro, Newcastle, and Southwell, they are conferred directly by letters patent from the crown. Deans have charge of cathedral churches and are assisted by canons, the number of which may not exceed six for any cathedral. The archdeacon assists the bishop in his official duties as superintendent of the diocese. He holds synods, delivers charges, and visits parishes. He is sometimes aided by rural deans. Both these classes are members of Convocation by virtue of their office. No bishop is allowed to transgress the limits of his diocese in the performance of episcopal functions unless requested so to do. The bishops frequently associate with themselves auffragan bishops.
England is divided into the two archbishoprics

137	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	England, Church of
of Canterbury and York. In 1906 there were within the limits of the former twenty‑five sees,
and within the latter nine. In order
4. Govern‑ of dignity the archdioceses and dioceses meat. rank: Canterbury, York, London,
Durham, Winchester, etc. In connection with the Church of England and Wales there are also twenty‑one suflragan bishops and two assistant bishops. The Irish Church, disestablished in 1869, has two archbishops and eleven bishops, and the Scotch Episcopal Church has seven bishops. The first colonial see was that of Nova Scotia, which was created in 1787. There are thirty‑two deans presiding over as many cathedrals, but the deans of Westminster and Windsor are independent of episcopal control, and are subject directly to the crown. There are ninety‑three archdeacons and 810 rural deans. The clergy of the Church in priest's orders in England and Wales are called " rector," " vicar," °` curate," etc., and at the census of 1901 numbered 25,235. The benefices, or livings, number nearly 14,080. Their patronage is divided between the crown (1,1501ivinga), the bishops (1,853), the universities (770), private patrons (6,200) etc. (see ENGLAND AND WALES.) The consent of the bishop of the diocese is necessary to the induction of an incumbent; and, in the event of a disagreement between patron and bishop, the case is decided by the Court of Arches. The people have no voice in the choice of their rector, but the rector, once inducted, has absolute control of his church, so that not even the bishop may enter it without his consent. Many of the parishes have endowments in lands; others are supported, in whole or in part, from public funds, such as Queen Anne's Bounty. The system of patronage has led to abuses, some of which still remain. On the other hand, the plurality system, by which a clergyman might hold any number of livings at the same time, and which was so much abused in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, has been rectified by parliamentary legislation. Under the present law no one can hold two cathedral positions at the same time. The holder of a cathedral position may hold only one pariah besides. A clergyman may have two parishes; but if the one numbers three thousand, the other may not include mole than five hundred. The evils of non‑residence have likewise been restrained by law. The yearly income of the Church of England from voluntary contributions amounts to something more than £8,000,000 and the income from ancient endowments to £5,500,000. Of this income the archbishop of Canterbury receives £15,000, and the archbishop of York £10,000; the bishop of London £10,000, and the bishop of Durham £8,000. The see with the smallest income is that of the bishop of Sodor and Man, which amounts to £2,000. Deans on the average receive £1 000; and the clergy from £150 upward. A fund managed by the " Ecclesiastical Commission," and supplied by the revenues of suppressed canonriea, sinecures, and the surplus revenues of bishoprics over and above the episcopal salary, is used for the augmentation of bishoprics, the increase of the smaller salaries, the endowment of new churches, etc.
	The Church of England is one of the estates of
the realm. Its relation to the State is one of de
		pendence, the sovereign being its
g. Relation supreme governor, and Parliament
	of Church its highest legislature. The arch
	aad State. bishop of Canterbury is the first peer
		in the realm and crowns the king.
The bishops (see EPISCOPACY, IV.) have their
" palaces," and seats in the House of Lords, except
the bishop of Sodor and Man. As for the rest, ex
cepting the bishops of London, Winchester, and
Durham (who always sit), they have seats only after
their appointment to the House of Lords. The
Church does not legislate for itself independently or
directly; it is subject to Parliament. The convoca
tions of Canterbury and York are the two highest
official church bodies. Convocation is assembled
by the king's writ, and can not proceed to make
new canons without his license, nor are its decisions
valid till confirmed by his sanction (see CONVOCA
TION). Judicial business is transacted in three
courts. The lowest is the diocesan Conaistory
Court, presided over by the bishop's chancellor.
Appealed cases go up to the Court. of Arches, the
official head of which is styled Dean of the Arches
(see ARCHES, COURT OF). The last tribunal of
appeal is the king in council, or the judicial com
mittee of the Privy Council. There are three church
censures: suspension (for the neglect of parish
duties), deprivation, and degradation. The two
latter follow upon the disuse of the Prayer‑Book,
teachings subversive of the Thirty‑nine Articles,
simony, or conviction in a civil court. The Court
of Arches alone exercises the right of deprivation.
	In 1888 the first Lambeth Synod was held which
included the bishops of the Church of England and
the Colonies and all the Protestant Episcopal
churches of America (see LAMBETH CONFERENCE;
LAMBETH ARTICLES). As in America, it should be
noted, the opposition of a wing of the Low‑church
party to the Oxford Movement led to the formation
of the Free Church of England (q.v.) as well as
to the introduction into England of the Reformed
Episcopal Church (q.v.). 	D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For a comprehensive list of the literature the fullest treatment is in the British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books, in six parts, under the entry " England." The titles of the moat important recent works (1889‑1905) are collected in the Subject Indez issued by the trustees of the British Museum, under the entry " England," in which a section is devoted to the Church of England. A very necessary volume is C, Gross, Sources and Literature of English History , , to About 1.§86, London, 1900. The reader is referred also to the bibliographies appended to the articles on the individual worthies of that communion in this work, and to each articles as COMMON PRAYER, BOOS OF; THIRTY‑NINE ARTICLES; and WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.
For general treatment the pertinent works of the English historians Lingard (Roman Catholic; able), Freeman, Fronde, Green, Ranks, H. D. Train (Social England, 0 vole., London, 1893‑97, 3d ed. in progress), Gardiner, and Lecky are to be consulted, as well as the monumental Dictionary o/ National Biography. As sources the superlatively important Rolls Series may not be overlooked, as well se the publications of the Camden and Suttees Societies. Bohn'a Antiquarian Library, 41 vole., London, 1848 sqq, contains the medieval English chroniclers and other valuable works. On the Reformation the publications of the Parker Society are to be noted; also Foxe's Acts and Monuments best ed., 8 vole., London, 1843; J. $trype, Annals o/ the Reformation (and other works),

England, Church of	THE NEW SCgA , ,‑gERZOG
11§aglaad and Wales		i$g
27 vole., Oxford, 1822‑28; G. Burnet, Hint. of the Reformation, 7 vole., xford 1865; D. Neal, Hist. of the Puritans, new ad., 2 vole., London, 1843; cf. also F. $eebohm, Oxford Reformers 3d ed., London, 1887; and the general works upon the Reformation.
	On the general history consult: the Opera of Bede;
J. Usaher Exleaiarum Britannieanam anMquitatea, in the
Works, ad. C. R. Elrington, 18 vole, Dublin, 1847‑82;
E. $tilling9eet, Originea Bridannscae, ed. Pantin, 2 vole.,
Oxford, 1842; T. Fuller, Church Hist. of Britain, ad. J.
Nichols, 3 vole., London, 1888; J. Inett, Oripinea Angli
cana•, ad. J. Griffiths, 3 vole., Oxford, 1855 (in continua
tion of $tillingfleet); J. Collier, Eed. Hiat. of Great Britain,
bested., 9 vole., London, 1840 (goes through the reign of
Charles IL); J. Grant, Hist. of the English Church and of
the Sects. . math Answers to Each Dissenting Body, 4
vole., London, 1811‑25 (goes through the reign of George
III.); E. Cardwell, Documentary Annals of the Reformed
Church of England, 16/,8‑1718, 2 vole., Oxford, 1844; G.
Weber, Geachichte der akatholiaehen Ifsrchen and Sekten
von Groaabritannien, 2 vole., Leipeic, 1846‑b3; J. 8. M.
Anderson, Hiat. of the Church of England in the Colonies,
3 vols., London, 1858; G. G. Parry, Hiet. of the Church of
England, 3 vole., ib. 1882‑84; R. W. Dixon, History of
the Church of England from the Abolition of the Roman
Jurisdiction, 4 vole., ib. 1878‑91; A. Martineau, Church
H%at, in England . to the Reformation ib. 1878; R.
Barclay, Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Common
wealth, 2 vole., ib. 1879; E. Churton, The Early English
Church, ib. 1879; J. Stoughton, Hist. of Religion %n Eng
land, iBl,O‑1800, 8 vole., ib. 1881; idem, Religion in
England during the First Half of the Present Century, 2
vole., ib. 1884; C. J. Abbey sad J. H. Overton, The Eng
lish Church in the 18Th Century, 2 vole., ib. 1887; W.
Stubbs, Regiatrum sacrum Anplicanum, Oxford, 1897; a
new ad. of Stubbs' Lectures on Early English Church
Hiat., ed. A. Haseall, appeared, ib. 1908; W. A. Shaw ,
Hilt. of the English Church, iB,#0‑1880, 2 vole., ib. 1900;
J. H. Overton, The Church in England, 2 vole., ib. 1903.
Convenient handbooks are: G. G. Parry, Student's Church
Hid. of England, 3 vole., ib. 1878‑87; A. C. Jennings, Ec
cTeaia Anglicans, ib. 1882; H. Gee, The Elizabethan Clergy
and the Settlement of Religion, Oxford, 1898; H. C.
G. Moule, Evangelical School in the Church of Eng
land; its Men and its Work in the 19th Century, Lon
don, 1901; A. Plummer, English Church Hiet., 1609
170.8 3 vole., Edinburgh, 1904‑07; T. Allison, Lectures
on English Church Hiat .. . . 1708, London, 1908; A.
GaequeL, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries, ib.
1908 (Roman Catholic); $. R. Maitland, The Reformation
in England, New York, 1908; H. N. Birt, The Elizabethan
Religious settlement, a Study of Contemporary Document,
London, 1907 (Roman Catholic); J. H. Overton, The Angli
can Revival, New York, 1907; W. B. Carpenter, Popular
Hilt. of the Church of England, London, 1908; G. R. Bal
leine, A Hint of the Evangelical party in the Church of
England, ib. 1908.
On coundils and church law: D. Wilkins, Conciiia Mapnos Britannia, 4 vole., London, 1737; E. Cardwell, Syrwdalia, a Collection of Articka of Religious Canons and Proceedings of Convocation in the Province of Canterbury, 2 vole., Oxford, 1842; F. Makower, The Constitutional Hist. and Constitution of the Church of England, London. 1895; R. J. Phillimore, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England, ad. W. G. F. Phiitimore and C. F. Jemmett. 2 vole., London, 1895; W. Stubbs, The Constitutional Hist. of Englan, 3 vole., Oxford, 1897; idem, Select Charters of English Court Hiat., ib. 1900; F. W. Maitland, Roman Canon Lam %n the Church of England, London, 1898; H. H. Henson, The National Church; Essays. on its Hist. and Constitution, ib., 1908; Gee and Hardy, Documents.

ENGLAND AND WALES.
Established Church (¢ 1).	Salvation Army, Minor De‑
PreabyteriansandMethodiata	nominations, R.omanCatho‑
(¢ 2). 	lies (¢ 4).
Congregationalists , Baptists, Theological Schools (¢ 5). Calvinistic Methodists (¢ 3).
England and Wales constitute two divisions of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. They are divided into fifty‑two counties, forty in England land twelve in Wales, and have an area of
58,323 square miles and a population (1901) of 32,526,075. The established Church is the Church of England (see ENGLAND, CHURCH oF), but all other religious bodies are fully recognised and tolerated, and no civil disability attaches to any class of British subjects because of their religious beliefs or unbelief. Since no religious census of Great Britain has recently been taken, the statistics of the present article are drawn from year‑books and other sources, so that the figures represent not only different years, but also refer sometimes to England alone, sometimes to England and Wales, and sometimes to the British Isles.
In the Established Church in England and Wales there are two archbishops, thirty‑five bishops, thirty suffragan and two assistant bishops. Under the bishops are thirty‑two deans,
><. Estalr ninety‑five archdeacons, and eight hun‑
lished dred and ten rural deans. For the Church. management of ecclesiastical 8,ffairs, each of the archbishoprics, or " provinces," has a council, or Convocation (q.v.), consisting of the bishops, archdeacons, and deans in person, and of a certain number of proctors as the representatives of the clergy. These councils are summoned by the respective archbishops in pursuance of the king's command. When assembled, they must have the king's license before they can deliberate and also the sanction of the crown to their resolutions before they are binding on the clergy, so that their actual power is extremely limited. The number of civil parishes (districts for which a separate poor rate is or can be made) was 14,900 at the census of 1901. These, however, seldom coincide with ecclesiastical parishes, which, during recent years, have lost their old importance, the ancient parishes having been frequently divided into districts, each of which is virtually an independent parish. Of such parishes there were 14,080 in 1901, including those of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Since 1818 the Church Building Society and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have formed upward of 3 000 new ecclesiastical parishes. Each parish has its church, presided over by an incumbent in priest's orders, and known as rector, vicar, or perpetual curate according to his relation to the temporalities of his parish. Private persona possess the right of presentation to about 8,500 benefices; the patronage of the others belongs mainly to the king, the bishops and cathedrals, the Lord Chancellor, and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The census returns for 1901 gave the number of the clergy of the Church of England as 25,235. In 1905 there were 14,029 incumbents and about 7,500 curates and unbeneficed clergy, while the non‑active list comprised about 4,000. The church accommodation, according to returns by 13 948 incumbents, was as follows: in pariah churches, 5,774,608; in chapels‑of‑ease, 674,038; in mission‑rooms, etc., 733,607; total 7,182,253. The number of communicants was estimated at 2,223,207; of Sunday School teachers at 209,338; of Sunday School scholars at 2,467,902. The gross annual income of the clergy in 1904‑05 was estimated at £4,539,350, and the net income at £3,574,430. The amount of the voluntary coniributiona

ISO	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	=Churchof
		Eaglsad and Wales
in 1904‑05 was put approximately at £8,029,714,
of which £2,290,247 were expended by central
societies, institutions, etc., for home and foreign
missions and other educational and philanthropic
works, while £5,546,029 consisted of funds applied
to local purposes, such as elementary education,
the support of the clergy, and general parochial
work, and £193,437 were for the extension of the
episcopate in England. Of 29,632 churches and
chapels registered for the solemnization of marriage
in 1904, 15,538 belonged to the Established Church
and 14,094 to other religious denominations.
	The Presbyterian Church of England had, in 1907,
twelve presbyteries, 345 congregations, fifteen
	preaching stations, and 85,755 enem
	a. Presby‑ hers. It has a theological college and
	terians sad supports seventy‑eight missionaries
	Methodists. abroad, including thirty‑three women.
	In 1905 the amount raised for all pur
poses was £304,613. Other Presbyterian divisions
in England are the Reformed Presbyterian Synod,
Eastern Reformed Synod, United Original Seceders,
and Synod of the Church of Scotland in England
	(see PRFiSHYTERIANa). Under the general desig
nation of Methodists (q.v.) are included all those
	religious bodies which owe their existence, directly
or indirectly, to the efforts of John and Charles
	Wesley. The moat numerous and influential of
them are the Wesleyan Methodists, the original
	body founded in 1739. They are governed pri
	marily by the Conference and Secondarily by the
	Synods, the latter being semi‑annual meetings of
	the ministers and selected laymen in each district,
	with a chairman appointed by the Conference,
	which is now composed of 300 ministers and an
	equal number of laymen, with a ministerial presi
	dent and secretary elected annually. There are
	likewise quarterly meetings of the ministers and
	lay officers of each circuit. The authority of both
	the latter bodies is subordinate to that of the Con
	ference. They reported for Great Britain in 1907
	2,445 ministers, 19,672 lay preachers, 539,146
	church members, 7,566 Sunday Schools, 133,108
	officers and teachers, 1,000,819 scholars, and 8,520
	churches with seating capacity of 2,326,228. Vari
	ous divisions of Methodists have been formed, the
	most important being (1) the Methodist New
	Connexion, formed in 1797 by Alexander Kilham,
	(2) Primitive Methodists, (3) Bible Christians, and
	(4) United Methodist Free Churches (see METHOD
ISTS).
	The Independents or Congregationalists reject
	episcopacy and presbyteries. In 1907 they had
	fifty‑one county and other associations
	3. Congre‑ in England and Wales, with 4,661
	gationaliats, churches and preaching stations con
	Baptists, taming 1 694,879 sittings; the number
	Calvinistic of ministers in the British Isles was
	Methodists. then 3,253. Of these 238 were tem
	porarily without pastoral charge,
	seventy‑nine were engaged in collegiate and tutorial
	duties, forty‑four were occupied in secretarial work,
	and 378 had retired from the active pastorate be
	cause of old age or ill health (see CONdRE(}ATION
	ALIBTa). The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion,
	with forty‑four chapels and mission stations, is the
outcome of the eighteenth century revival. It is governed by nine trustees assisted by an annual conference of ministers and delegates. The Baptists, like the Congregationalists, are grouped for the most part in associations of churches, the majority of which belong to the Baptist Union, formed in 1813. In England and Wales there were, in 1907, 6,706 churches and chapels and 1,972 pastors. The members numbered 405,244, the Sunday School teachers 57,240, and the Sunday School scholars 564,939. The Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Connexion (see PRESBYTERIANS) is the only church of purely Welsh origin, and embraces a very large section of the Welsh‑speaking population. The form of Church government is Presbyterian, and the Church is in federation with the United Free Church of Scotland and with the Presbyterian Church of England. In 1906 the denomination had 1,411 churches; 1,620 chapels and places of worship; 1,248 ministers and preachers; 5,946 deacons; 189,164 communicants; 3,050 on probation; 27,112 Sunday School teachers; and 195,227 Sunday School scholars. For the concerted movement of non‑conformists against prelacy Bee FREE CHURCH FEDERATION.
The Salvation Army (q.v.) is one of the moat recent religious denominations and one of the moat
successful. In Aug., 1906, the num‑
4. Salvation bar of officers, cadets, and employees
Army,	was 20,077, of corps and outposts
Minor De‑ 7,680, and of local officers 45,320.
nomina‑ Connected with the Salvation Army
tions,	are numerous philanthropic institutions
Roman under various denominations, inclu‑
Catholice. ding 110 rescue houses for fallen women,
132 slum posts, fifteen prison‑gate homes, 183 shelters and cheap food depots for the homeless, 102 workshops and factories, forty‑five labor bureaus, thirteen farms, etc. Among the minor denominations the moat important are the Unitarians with about 350 ministers and 345 chapels and other places of worship. The Society of Friends (q.v.) has 18,466 members in Great Britain, 424 recorded ministers, including over 150 women, and 421 places of worship. The Churches of Christ have 13,844 members and 179 churches in the British Isles, with 153 Sunday Schools, 1,583 teachers, and 16,041 scholars. Tne Moraviana (q.v.) have about fifty congregations and preaching stations. The Free Church of England (q.v.y has twenty‑four ministers, twenty‑seven churches, 1,352 communicants, 8,140 sittings, 361 Sunday School teachers, and 4,196 Sunday School scholars. The Reformed Episcopal Church has twenty‑eight ministers, 1,990 communicants, 6,000 sittings, 250 Sunday School teachers, and 2,600 Sunday School ' scholars (bee REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH). The Catholic Apostolic Church (q.v.) has about eighty churches; the New Jerusalem Church (q.v.) has seventy‑five societies, with 6,063 registered members; the Mormons (q.v.) have eighty‑two churches; and the Plymouth Brethren (q.v.) have twenty‑three places of worship in London and its suburbs. In the United $Ingdoin tnere arc about 196,000 Jews, mainly in London and ether large, towns. They have 200 snnagoguea, with about

Zu	Wales	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
200 ministers and readers. The Jews support their own poor and raise about £150,000 annually for religious and benevolent purposes. The Mohammedans have a mosque. The Greeks have churches in London, Manchester, and Liverpool; the Armenians possess churches in London and Manchester; and the French, Dutch, Swedes, and Swiss have places of worship in London, Norwich, and Canterbury. The Roman Catholic Church has in the British Empire thirty archiepiscopal and 106 episcopal sees, thirty‑four vicariatea, and twelve prefectures apostolic. Including two delegates apostolic, seven coadjutors and seven auxiliary bishops, the archbishops and bishops now holding office in the British Empire number 180.
There are in the British Isles fifty theological schools, divided as follows: Church of England
twenty‑one, i.e., sixteen theological
5. Theo‑ colleges, Aberdare (founded in 1892), logical Cambridge (Ridley Hall, 1881), ChiSchools. cheater (1839), GSlddeadon (1854), Edinburgh (1845), Ely (1876), Isle of Man (Bishop Wilson Theological School, 1897), Leeds Clergy School (1876), Lichfield (1857), Lincoln (1874), Oxford (Wycliffe Hall, 1876, and St. Stephen's House, 1876), St. Aidan's (1846), Highbury (St. John's Hall, University of London, 1863), Salisbury (1861), and Wells (1840‑‑and five missionary colleges,‑St. Augustine's (Canterbury), Islington, Burgh (Lincolnshire), Dorchester (Oxfordshire), and St. Boniface (Warminster). The Methodists have eight colleges, i.e., the Wesleyan Methodists five, Richmond, Didsbury (Manchester), Headingley (Leeds), Handsworth (Birmingham), and Belfast; the Primitive Methodists and the Free Methodists one each at Manchester; and the Methodist New Connexion one at Ranmoor (Sheffield). The Congregationalists have nine,New (London, 1696), Western (Bristol, 1752), Yorkshire United (Bradford, 1758), Hampstead (1803), Lancashire (Manchester, 1816), Mansfield (Oxford, 1886), Nottingham (1863), Memorial (Breton, 1755), and Bangor (1841). The Baptists have seven, Bristol (1680), Bangor (1862), Rawdon (Yorkshire, 1804), Regent's Park (London, 1810), Pastors' (1856), Manchester (1866), and Cardiff (1807). The Presbyterians have a college at Cambridge (Westminster), the Calvinistic Methodists two at Bala and Aberystwyth, and the Unitarians one at Oxford (Manchester), while an undenominational theological school is located at Carmarthen (founded in 1689).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the statistics and details concerning
	the Church of England there are available the annuals:
	The Churchman's Annual; The Official Year‑Book of the
	Church; Nye's Illustrated Church Annual; The National
	Church Almanac„ and Crockford'a Clerical Directory.
	For the other communions recourse moat be had to the
	year‑books of the separate bodies; to the Free Church
	Year Book; The Review of the Churches; The Proceedings
	of the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches;
	The Nonconformist and Independent (a weekly, 1881‑1900,
	continued as The Examiner, 1900 aqq.). Consult further,
	besides the literature under ENGLAND, CHURCH or, and
	that under the articles on the individual bodice: R. Wins
	low, Law Relating to Protestant Nonconformists, London,
	1888; J. G. Rogers, Church Systems of England in the 19th
	Century, ib. 1891; A. S. Dyer, Comparative Table of English
	Nonconformity and the English Church, ib. 1893; H. $.
	8keate, History of the Free Churches of England, ib. 1894;
140
W. Lloyd The Story of Protestant Dissent, ib. 1899; C. $. Horns. History of the Free Churches, ib. 1903; H. R. Haggard, The Poor and the Land: a Report on the Salvation Army Colonise, ib. 1905. Consult also The States. man's Year Book.
ENGLISH, JOHN MAHAN: Baptist; b. at 'lullytown, Pa., Oct. 20, 1845. He was graduated at Brown University in 1870 and Newton Theological Institution in 1875. He was teacher of Latin in the Connecticut Literary Institute, Suffield, Conn., 1870‑72, and of Greek in Denison University, Granville, O., 1874. He was pastor of the First Baptist Church, Gloucester, Mass., 1875‑82, and of the Dudley Street Baptist Church, Boston, 1882. Since 1882 he has been professor of homiletics and pastoral theology in Newton Theological Institution, and was also a lecturer in Andover Theological Seminary in 1895‑96. Since 1903 he has been president of the Northern Baptist Education Society. He has written The Christian Academy and the Education of To‑Day (Hartford, Conn., 1892) and The Present State of the Christian Ministry (Boston, 1899).
ENGLISH LADIES: Correctly called the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, one of the most important and influential of the later female congregations of the Roman Catholic Church. Its origin goes back to the attempt of Mary Ward (b. at Mulwith, 3 m. s.e. of Ripon, Yorkshire, Jan. 23, 1585; d. at Heworth, now included in the city of York, Jan. 20, 1645), daughter of an English Roman Catholic of Yorkshire, to found a female society after the pattern of the Jesuits (see JEaulTa, III). In 1606 she went to St. Omer and joined the Colettines, the severest order of St. Clare, as a lay sister. Dissatisfied with her work and position there, in 1607 she left the convent, with the determination of founding a new community, especially for English women, and successfully established houses at St. Omer and Gravelinea in 1607 and 1609. The members concerned themselves chiefly with the education of girls, and were not bound to strict seclusion. In 1611 Miss Ward adopted the rules of the Jesuits, with the necessary changes to adapt them to women. She spent her time in constant travel in England and the Netherlands, and established houses of her order at Spitalfields, London, about 1611, at Liege in 1617, at Cologne and Treves in 1620 and 1621, and at Rome in 1622. The order did not find favor with the clergy, who charged its founder and its members with insubordination. In 1625 Pope Urban VIII. closed its schools, and in 1628 he decided upon its suppression, which was finally accomplished by bull dated Jan. 13, 1630, and promulgated May 21, 1631. To combat the opposition Mica Ward went to Rome twice, the first time in 1622, when she remained there four years, and again in 1629. In 1626 she went to Munich, where the elector, Maximilian L, allowed her to establish a house, and in 1627 the Emperor Ferdinand provided a foundation for her in Vienna. From 1632 to 1637 she was in Rome, and Urban allowed her to establish a new house there. From 1638 to 1642 she lived in London with a few faithful followers, and thenceforth in her native Yorkshire.

141	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	England and Wales
		Enlightenment
	Though nominally suppressed, Mary Ward's com
munities lived on, perhaps not altogether without
the tacit consent of high ecclesiastical authority.
The company with her at Heworth kept together
and about 1650 removed to Paris. In 1669 Frances
Bedingfield established a settlement at Hammer
smith, and shortly after one at York. The house in
Rome was not given up. The Munich house had
royal favor and from the end of the sixteenth cen
tury was able to plant filiations in South Germany,
in Austria, and in the electorate of Mainz. Its eighty
one rules were approved by Pope Clement XI. in
1703; they were essentially those originally drawn
up by Mary Ward, although all mention of her, as
well as any acknowledgment of a connection with the
"Jesuitesses" was carefully avoided both by the
pope and the members of the order, who were now
called Instittcta Marie or the " Institute of the Eng
lish Ladies." A tendency to honor the foundrese
manifested itself within the order a hundred years
later, and Benedict XIV. by bull of Apr. 9, 1749,
forbade to call her " blessed," and emphasized
the non‑identity of the Institute with all " Jesuit
eeaes." At the same time he settled a controversy
between the order and certain South German bish
ops by placing each house under the jurisdiction
of the bishop of the diocese in which it was located,
	but making the head of the Munich house supreme
over the schools and all matters of visitation. In
	1840 the supremacy of the Munich house (in 1835
	removed three miles from the city to Nymphen
	burg) was limited to Bavaria. The Congregation
	received full papal approval from Pies IX. in
1877.
The congregation includes teachers,	called
	" ladies " (FrBtalein) and lay sisters (" sisters ").
	Both classes take simple vows for life, from which
	they may be released by the pope for canonical
	reasons. The houses are mother‑houses and filia
tions.	The members wear a black dress with
	broad white collar and white bonnet and black
	veil. Their principal work is education, and the
	girls educated by them number several millions.
	They are also occupied with labors for the poor
	and sick. They are, most numerous in Bavaria,
	but are also strong in Austria, and have a house
	in Mainz and in York. There are filiations and
	mission stations in Lombardy, Bucharest, London,
	the East Indies, and elsewhere. Two Irish so
	cieties, the Loreto Sisters (founded at Rathfarnham,
	near Dublin, in 1822 by Frances Ball) and the Irish
	Sisters of Charity (founded in Dublin by Mary
	Frances Aikenhead in 1815, confirmed 1834),
	differ from the Institute of Mary only in name. The
	former have houses all over Ireland and in England,
America, Australia, and South Africa.
	(O. ZScxr.>;ltt.)
	Brstroaairar: Heimbueher Orden and Rongregationen, iii.
	364 eqq. (where the literature is given, p. 384); lives of
	Miss Ward, Miss Ball, and Mica Aikenhead in the Quar
	terly Series, vole. xxxv. and lii., xxxiii., and xcvi. respect
	ively‑of Miss Ward by Mary E. C. Chambers, ed. H. J.
	Coleridge, S. J., 2 vole., London, 1882‑85, and in DNB,
	Supplement, iii. 506‑‑508; of Miss Ball by H. J. Coleridge,
	ib. 1881; of Miss Aikenhead by Maria Nethercott, ib.
	1897‑‑and of Miss Aikenhead by S. A., with an account
	of the foundation of the Inch Sisters of Charity, Dublin,
1879, 1882.
ENLIGHTENMENT, THE.
The Movement Characterised (§ 1). Political Phase (§ 2). Economic Phase (§ 3). Religious and Ethical Aspects (§ 4). The New Knowledge (§ 5). The New Historical Method (§ 8). Philosophy of the Period (§ 7). Literature of the Enlightenment (§ 8). The German Enlightenment (§ 9). Practical Results (§ 10). Its Relation to Theology (§ 11). Close of the Period (§ 12).
[The Enlightenment is a translation of the German expression die Aufklkrung (literally " the Clearing Up "). The rendering " the Illumination " is also sometimes used, while not infrequently the German is transferred without translation.] It signifies a phase of ,historical evolution in Europe which may be characterized as marking the beginning of the modern period of secular culture, in contrast to the theological spirit that constituted the regulating principle of society in the preceding epoch. The Enlightenment must be regarded not
	as a definite movement aiming at a par
z. The	ticular end, but rather as a general trans‑
	Movement formation of the genius of the times,
	Character‑ accompanied by important changes
ized.	in national and social organization,
and the removal of the center of political gravity from the south to the north of Europe. The principles of the Enlightenment are to be met with in the seventeenth century and may be traced further back to the Renaissance; they attained their fullest development in the eighteenth century; they entered on their decay in the nineteenth. Its animating spirit is essentially that of opposition to the supremacy of churchly ideals based on the irreconcilable contradiction between reason and faith, and to the consequent injection of the element of supernaturalism into the practical affairs of life. Its tendency is toward an explanation of the world on the basis of universally valid factors of knowledge and an ordering of life toward universally valid ends, and its most striking characteristics are an unsparing use of critical analysis and a spirit of reforming utilitarianism. To the general and immutable truth of theology it opposes a truth of its own whose sanction it finds in the mind of the individual, and in this r81e of champion against tradition it is subjective, independent, self‑confident and optimistic. But though the Enlightenment was thus the first great movement of opposition to theological dualism, it was not the unconditioned product of the spontaneous action of the human reason, but a historic result of definite facts and circumstances. Its method was determined by ancient tradition and the newly arisen sciences; its content, by that part of historic tradition which it chose to regard as the inalienable possession of the individual mind but which in reality represented only truth attained through development; its essential service consisted in the banishment of supernaturalism from history.
The Thirty Years' War (q.v.), ending with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, was followed by a decline of the religious influence and a corresponding rise of secular interests, which now began to

Enliahteameat	THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG	142
predominate in public affairs and in social life. The animosities between Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist powers gradually disappeared; 2. Political the Northern War brought Orthodox
	Phase.	Russia into the sphere of European
		affairs; colonial growth widened the
arena of political activity by offering new fields
for material development wherein the religious
element was of relative unimportance. Diplomacy
abandoned the religious view‑point and became
Machiavellian with the reason of State as its
guiding principle. Within the states the ancient
pretensions of the Church yielded to the interests
of a society that was rapidly being reorganized
on the basis of commercialism, militarism, and
bureaucracy. Formally, orthodoxy retained its
own and established religions paevailed; yet the
secular principle determined the attitude of the
governments to the Church and toward their
subjects. This is the period of Concordats (q.v.),
of the persecution of the Jesuits and of territorial
church legislation. The theory of sovereignty,
fostered by the revival of the Roman .law and the
Reformation, developed into absolutism, which
in turn subordinated Church to State completely,
and broke the political influence of creed. With
these changes in the conception of the purpose
and authority of the State appeared new theories
as to its nature and origin. Following out the
traditions of Aristotle and Machiavelli, Jean Bodin
(d. 1596) advanced a purely rational origin of soci
ety and in his Colloquium heptaplomeres, widely read
in manuscript (ed. Noack, Schwerin, 1857), devel
oped the destructive effects of such a theory on
the religious power in the State. But it was Gro
tiua (d. 1645; see GROTIBa, Huao) who destroyed
the scholastic dualism of lax natura: and lax diving
and found sanction for the law of nature, the law
of nations, public law, and natural morality in
the human understanding unaided by revelation.
His cause was strengthened by the rise of the mod
ern Stoics in Holland and by Hobbes (d. 1679;
see HOBBEa, Taonses) with his Epicurean teach
ings. Pufendorf (d. 1694), in Germany, and
Locks (d. 1704), in England (see PBFENnORF,
SAMUEL; LOCSE, Joxir), made the new ideas the
common possession of European culture. In this
newly developed theory of the State is the true
precursor of the Enlightenment; for, though it
assumed no radical attitude in the beginning and
maintained friendly relations with the religious
creeds of the time, its result was the destruction
of the theological bases of the prevailing culture.
It exercised a powerful influence on the remodeling
of church law, especially among the Protestants,
marking, as it did, the beginning of ecclesiastical
legislation on purely political principles. It fur
thered the growth. of toleration and attained its
final development in the theory of the freedom of
religion and of conscience, and further still, of
the universal rights of man. Yet so complex
are the sources of the various manifestations which
in their entirety are known as the Enlightenment,
that the Declaration of the Rights of Man by the
French States‑General in 1789 is more immediately
to be traced to the influence of the constitution of
the United States (1783) than to Rousseau's Contrat social (1762).
Parallel with this process of political transformation went a line of cognate economic and social development. The old rigidity of social organization‑the feudal separation of classes‑‑gave way slowly with the development of an extensive world commerce and the rise of industry. The financial needs of the absolute state made it the
friend of the rising commercial and 3. Econom‑ industrial classes for whose protection
	is Phase.	laws are now enacted. The growth
		of economic freedom reacted in turn
upon the development of the individual. The
natural sciences came to the aid of the rising
technical industries, and is this manner an alliance
between the industrial and the learned classes was
effected. The final result was a fluent intermin
gling among the different classes of the population,
revealing itself in the appearance of a powerful
citizen class eager for political, economic, and
spiritual liberty, the inheritors of a new literature
and a new education that was tending to free itself
from theological guardianship. England and Hol
land were the models of this close union of commer
cialism and liberty and as changed political con
ditions had led to the formulation of a new political
theory, so the transformation of economic facts in
Europe brought forth a new economic and social
theory, which, like the new theory of the State,
bore a deep impress of the idea of natural rights.
Bound up for a time with the theological teaching,
it was developed into an independent theory by
the English and French bourgeoisie and became,
finally, antitheological and, to a degree, anti
religious. Its independence was fully established
by Adam Smith (d. 1790) and Quesnay (d. 1774).
The spirit of individual freedom and courageous
optimism appears more prominently in this eco
nomic phase than in any other phase of the En
lightenment. Unrestricted freedom of labor and
of capital became inalienable human rights, and
of all the ideas of the Enlightenment have main
tained themselves longest and affected the world
most.
Along with political and economic changes there is to be noted a transformation in the general spirit of the age, which arose in reaction against
the excesses of religious wars, the 4. Relig‑ burden of established creeds, and the
loos and ceaseless strife of theologians. Out
Ethical of religious conflict in England came
Aspects. the Levelers and Latitudinarians
(qq.v.), and, in Germany, the Calixtines (see Huss, Jomv, HUSarrEB), together with the many attempts at religious union. A powerful cause contributing to the weakening of the religious influence was the patent inefficiency of established creeds as a force for morality. The rise of Pietism (q.v.) prepared the way for the Enlightenment. There comes a revolt against the belief in magic, witchcraft, and other superstitions. A growing spirit of humaneness, of active philanthropy, and of cosmopolitan tolerance, appears, indicated, for example, in the mitigation of the severity of judicial procedure. The tendency to

148	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eniichtenmsat
find a basis for morality independent of religion gains strength. In England and France societies are organized for the improvement of morals and manners; in the universities the elegance of Cicero and Seneca drives out the old scholasticism; and theological narrowness is combated by the spirit of universalism in the Neo‑Stoic teachings of Justus Lipaius (d. 1606), who influenced Grotius, Descartes and Spinoza. The spirit of Humanism and the Renaissance thus persisted in the jurists and the philosophers of France and Holland.
In all these phases of the Enlightenment there appears, as yet, no conscious, thorough hostility to a theology restricted to its own field, but the desire rather to emancipate other branches of human interest from its away. Only gradually does a really independent method of thought arise, conditioned largely by the epistemological and moral theories of Stoicism. The theory of natural law first established its independence; natural religion and natural morality achieved their freedom with greater difficulty. Yet natural religion, in essence, was taught by theology itself and needed but the refutation of the doctrines of hereditary sin and the invalidity of the human intellect in order to gain the overhand over a revelation. Lord Herbert of Cherbury accomplished this in 1624 in his De verizate religiottis. Natural morality was freed from theology through the separation of the lax natures from the lez diving and sanction for it in the human reason was established by Francis Bacon (q.v.; d. 1626) and the French skeptics, especially by Charron in his Sagesse (1605). Bayle (d. 1705; Bee BAYLE, PIERRE) contrasted the universality of the moral instinct with the diversity and conflict between historical creeds. In these different ways Western Europe, in the seventeenth century, strove toward the attainment of an autonomous organon that should constitute a simple and unvarying norm for the guidance of the judgment on the matter of conflicting faiths and moral dogmas.
On the evolution of such a method of thought a profound influence was exercised by the natural sciences and the method which they employed. Two forces are discernible in this development‑
(1) the impetus toward induction 5. The Hew supplied by Bacon and, more than
Knowledge. this, (2) the progress in mathematics and mechanics following the astronomical discoveries of Copernicus (d. 1543), Kepler (d. 1673), and Galileo (d. 164.2). The new knowledge united to the atomism of Gasaendi (d. 1655) established induction on a firm basis and found fullest expression in Newton (d. 1727), Huyghene (d. 1695) and Laplace (d. 1827). The laws of gravitation and inertia were both the basis and the impulse to extensive investigation in the various phases of the physical world. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are the centuries of the great physicists and mathematicians, and on the principles they outlined arse the sciences of optics, acoustics, chemistry, zoology, geology, physiology, and medicine. The influence of the new sciences was enormous. They destroyed the foundations of revelation and theology, and led to
the rise of new philosophic systems aiming at the interpretation and correlation of the results attained by the various sciences, the methods of which were mathematical, marked primarily by clearness of statement and preciseness of definition. The new scientific method entered even the fields of natural law, natural religion, and natural morality. Locks and Condillac made psychology the study of the laws of motion among psychic elements, and Quesnay interpreted social laws after the manner of laws of nature. Voltaire became the apostle of Newton and in France particularly the new sciences were perfected and disseminated. Nor were these in the beginning hostile to religion. The new knowledge showed itself capable of various interpretations. It was found consistent with deism by Locks and Voltaire, with ancient pantheism by Shaftesbury, with mystic pantheism by Spinoza, with spiritualism by Descartes, with theism by Leibnitz, and with materialism by the Encyclopediets (q.v.). Yet the whole aspect of the world of thought was changed. Miracles became impossible, except to the casuist; the earth was removed from its central position in the universe and became only a point in apace; anthropocentrism was destroyed. The spirit of the eighteenth century assumed its characteristic qualities; it became atomistic, analytic, mechanical, practical; entirely on the aide of the known and the evident, entirely opposed to all that was dark, mystic or fantastic.
Second only in importance to the mathematical sciences was the development of a new historical method, universal, secular, and philosophic, as opposed to the theological and antiquarian 6. The New historiography that came before. The
Historical great geog:aphical discoveries of the
	Method.	age made the field of human interest co
		extensive with the world and fostered
the study of history, geography and statistics.
Tradition in state, religion, and law were put to
the test of critical investigation. Machiavelli and
Bodin were followed by the expounders of natural
law whose studies lay in the field of politics and
legal history, and the Deists who gave their atten
tion to religion In manifold ways the French
skeptics emphasized the relativity of the principles
underlying state and religion. This principle of
relativity found its moat ingenious exposition in
Bayle's Dictionnaire laistorique et critique (1696)
and its profoundest expression in Monteaquieu'a
letlrea persanea (1727). A decisive blow at tra.
ditional methods was administered by Bolingbroke's
Letters on the Study arid Use of History (1738‑52).
Voltaire in his Essai sur dea m&‑um et our l'ealmit
des nations (1754‑58) opened the succession of
histories of civilization and universal histories
which established the principle of the relativity
of different civilizations and of the possibility of
explaining history by natural laws. He was fol
lowed by Turgot (d. 1781), Condorcet (d. 1794),
Dupuis (d. 1809), and others in France, by Robert
son (d. 1793), Gibbon (d.1794), and Hume (d. 1776)
in England, and in Germany by Gatterer (d.1799),
Schldzer (d. 1809), Heeren (d. 1842), Meiners (d
1810), J. D. Michaelis (d. 1791), and Spittler (d.

Enlightenment	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	144
1810). If the age of the Enlightenment be called an unhistorical age, it is so only in the sense that it cultivated history not so much as an end in itself as for the purpose of obtaining support for its political and moral theories. And the influence of its investigations was enormous. They destroyed the idea of a history of the world based on Daniel, the Apocalypse, and St. Augustine, opened up vast realms of time, rejected the fall of man as the cardinal point in universal evolution, and created a new type of primitive man. Above all, it introduced a method analogous to the analytical and mechanical method of the natural sciences. It dealt with the individual as the historical unit, as a result of whose conscious, purposive actions social structures arise. And as the enormous diversity of human motive and impulse thus revealed necessitated the establishment of some norm for a unified interpretation of history, such a one was found in natural law, religion, and morality; and all deviations from the norm were ascribed to evil or cunning, to tyranny or priestly hypocrisy, to stupidity or ignorance. And thus historiography, because it had caught the spirit of the Enlightenment, became a powerful instrument for the dissemination of that spirit, though in the first place works may have been written with purposes deistic or materialistic, theological or anticlerical, skeptical or optimistic.
	A new philosophy, opposed both to the Arie
totelianism of the Church and to the rehabilitation
of ancient philosophic systems, now assumes to
outline the fundamental principles of scientific
thought in the theoretical and practical disciplines.
Abandoning the old belief in the Fall and the con
sequent degeneration of the human intellect, it
		grounded itself on the capacities of
7. Philoso‑ the human mind and dared to be as phy of the creative in basic principles as the new
	Period.	sciences had been in their respective
		fields. Philosophy was no longer the
handmaid of theology, but ruled an independent
realm. The creation of a new philosophy was the
work of the great minds of the seventeenth century;
its consequences partly destroyed theology and
partly transformed it. These consequences were
developed in the eighteenth century by the less
original thinkers and litt6rateurs; for though the
great men of the eighteenth century, Hume,
Berkeley, Kant, belonged in part to the Enlighten
ment, their original work first bore fruit in the nine
teenth. Yet the influence exercised by the great
philosophers on the history of philosophy is dif
ferent from that they exerted on the history of
the Enlightenment. Their essentially philosophic
problems were too abstruse and subtle to affect
greatly a popular movement, and it was rather
their secondary contributions that furthered the
progress of the Enlightenment. Thus Spinoza
and Malebranche exercised practically no influence
at all; the influence exercised by Hobbes and Leib
nitz was indirect; while that of Shaftesbury and
others was only partial. Of greater importance,
after Descartes, was the work of Bayle, Locks,
Wolff, Voltaire, and the Encyclopedists. Service
was also rendered by the Deists who directed their criticism against positive religion, and the ethical writers who sought in the new philosophy a basis for natural morality. There came finally the real philosophers of the Enlightenment, the eclectics and popularizers, the exponents of common sense and natural law, whose philosophical importance is small indeed, but whose historical influence was great.
Nevertheless the philosophy of the Enlightenment, in the last analysis, may be traced back to the great philosophic systems. (1) Cartesianism applied the mechanical method to the study of the physical world and the axiomatic process of mathematics to the spiritual. It found ontologic unity in a God who combined in himself physical substance and soul substance. It abandoned everything that was not clear or demonstrable. (2) The sensualism of Hobbes and Locks broke more abruptly with the old metaphysics by discarding self‑evident truths and innate ideas and founding all knowledge on the experience of the senses, and its recasting in the soul; yet they found the idea of God necessary for the working of their world machine. From them proceeded the phyaicotheological arguments for the wisdom and the goodness of an architectonic deity and the treatment of morality on the basis of an empirical psychology which attained to the greatest importance. (3) In reaction against sensualism, Leibnitz, by a method analogous to that of Descartes, established a mechanical world of bodies and a dynamic world of spirits, transforming the old ontology of substances into one of monads. (4) Materialism carried the tenets of sensualism to the extreme by denying the existence of the soul and combating the physicotheological arguments for the existence of God. In Hume and Kant, it is true, the materialism of the new natural philosophy brought forth profound epistemological theories, but the natural sciences on the whole rendered greater services to the revolutionary thought, which attempted, on the basis of the observation of nature and certain elementary data of psychology empirically derived, to create a new metaphysical and ethical system, destined to constitute the precondition for a complete reconstruction of society. Yet to all these contrasting or opposed systems there were common the spirit of antagonism to the theological method, the miraculous and the exceptional, and an undoubting confidence in the power of the intellect to attain knowledge and in power of will to apply it. Especially in the field of ethics the independence of the human conscience was upheld against all supernatural authority, against all revealed systems of sanctions, rewards, and punishments.
It was literature, however, and not philosophy, that really insured the triumph of the Enlightenment. The great fact here to be recognized is the cooperation of three forces, a rising bourgeoisie, a growing independence of thought, and the highly developed literatures of England and France. It was literature that finally overthrew theology and created the vocabulary, the battle‑cries and the very name of the Enlightenment. Holland was the first home of the militant literature of the age.

146	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	NnUshtenmeat
There Bayle published his dictionary and edited his journal (Nouvelles de la r6publiques des lettres,
1884‑‑87), and Le Clerc published his
8. Liters‑ Bibliothkque universelle (1686‑1726). tore of the The real origin of the literature of the Enlighten‑ Enlightenment, however, was in Eng‑ i
meat.	land after the Whig Revolution and
the establishment of the freedom i of the press in 1693. Locks (d. 1'704) and Shaftesbury (d. 1713) were writers of elegance. Pope's Essay ore Man (1733) is a theodicy in the spirit of Shaftesbury. The publication of periodicals dealing with contemporary manners and morals prepared the way for the realistic study of life which Fielding (d. 1754), Smollett (d. 1771), ', Goldsmith (d. 1774), and Sterns (d. 1768) were to carry on with splendid psychological power and absolute freedom from theological predispositions. Defoe (d. 1731) pictured man in a state of nature, and exercised a profound influence on Rousseau and German pedagogy. Bolingbroke (d. 1751) was the first to write philosophic history. The moral theories of the Deists were expounded by Hutcheson (d. 1747), Ferguson (d. 1816), Adam Smith (d. 1790), Wollaston (d. 1724), Price (d. 1791), and Tucker (d. 1799), and the esthetic theories of Shaftesbury were developed by Burke (d. 1797), Gerard (d. 1795), and Hume (d. 1776) who studied the relations between the beautiful and the useful and greatly influenced the German Enlightenment. Richardson's (d. 1761) novels of middle class sentimentality and morals produced an important effect on Voltaire, Diderot, HIopetock, Leasing, and Wieland. The Enlightenment literature in England was not radical, however; extremists, like Toha,nd (d. 1722) among Deists, exercised no great influence, while materialism found in Hartley (d. 1757) and Priestley (d. 1804) only solitary champions. The decline of the Enlightenment in England may be dated from the reaction following the outbreak of the French Revolution.
In France the Enlightenment first gained strength among the dilettante nobility of the court of Louis XIV. from whom it passed to the members of the higher bourgeoisie and the literary class, and then to the great mesa of the Third Estate. From the classic literature which it found ready to its hand it derived precision, elegance, and wit, but also something of the shallowness that goes with these qualities. Newton and Locks were introduced to the French public by Maupertuis (d. 1759) and D'Ar• Benson (d. 1757). The novel and drama of English citizen life were copied by Prwoat (d. 1763) and Deatouches (d. 1754). But the highest development of the Enlightenment literature came toward the middle of the century when in a spirit of extreme radicalism it assailed everything in society, Church, and State. The exponents of the Enlightenment may be divided into three groups which differed appreciably in character and succeeded each other in prominence, though united in aim. (1) English liberalism and deism were advocated with remarkable success by Voltaire (d. 1778) in almost every literary form; his inter eats were predominantly religious, Monteaquieu IV.‑10
(d. 1753) gave his time to history and politics and became the father of pragmatic history and conatitutionalism. (2) The succeeding scientific and materialistic movement was originated by La Mettrie (d. 1751), found its most celebrated exponent in Diderot (d. 1784), and its classic formulation inthe "Encyclopedia" (1751‑80). More purely scientific were Holbach (Systkme de la nature, 1770), Condillac (d. 1780) and his theories of knowledge, Cabania (d. 1808), and Bufion (d. 1788), whose literary charm made him one of the most influential of popularizers of science. (3) A new spirit and tone appears in Rousseau (d. 1778) who expressed the economic theories of the Enlightenment in their deepest and moat abstract form and on the other hand lent to its cold intelligence a romantic warmth and a depth of feeling that widened immensely its range of appeal. Through Mirabeau and Sieyca the ideas of the Enlightenment entered the Revolution.
From England and France the elements of the Enlightenment came to Germany, where, owing to peculiar conditions, its political manifestations were of far less importance than its influence in the fields of religion, ethics and esthetics. Two distinct literary movements marked
9. The the eighteenth century: (1) The real
German literature of the Enlightenment pro‑
Enlighten‑ seeded from the popularized teachings meat. of Leibnitz, through Wolff and Gottsched, and developed on the one hand into theological and legal rationalism, and on the other into the novel and play of middle class morals. (2) The revived humanistic or classic=romantic movement, proceeding from English sources and from the more essential teachings of Leibnitz, passed through leasing to Herder, Winekehnana, Goethe, Schiller, and Humboldt and found expression also in the newer schools of philosophy and the historical and psychological sciences. Leibnitz, Leasing, and Kant belong to both movements; to the Enlightenment, through their practical interests and the results of their popularized teachings; to the second, through the deep and original content of their philosophy which was appreciated only by the minority. Only the former movement is here to be considered, a movement through which Germany assumed its place in the literary world, last, because the theological influence had longest maintained itself in the small German principalities, because science was still subject to scholasticism, and finally because of peculiar political conditions. The first change to be noticed occurred in the sphere of learning where PufendorF (d. 1694) and Leibnitz (d. 1716) ushered in a broad, cosmopolitan treatment of the sciences. The first to gain a wide hearing for the new ideas was Thomasius (d. 1728), who sought to reorganize education after the French model and in 1688 established a periodical similar to those published in Holland at the time. Wolff (d. 1754) slowly drove scholasticism from the universities. The real founders of the literature of the German Enlightenment, however, were Gottsched (d. 1766) who combined the Wolfflan philosophy with French classicism sail translated Bayle, and Gellert (d. 1769) who, writing under

Enlightenment Eaaodine
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
English influences, in poems, lectures, fables, and novels, laid the basis for the moral culture of Germany for many decades. There appeared also imitations of the English periodicals (after 1721) which, though largely theological in tone, continued the connection between literature and the bourgeoisie and sang of the justness of God after the manner of Pope and Thomson. How all‑pervading the theological atmosphere was appears in Klopatock (d 1803) and his imitators, though it is indeed a softened theology expressed in humanistic and poetic form. The break with theology was initiated by Leasing (d. 1781), who found the step essential in his endeavor to create a new culture and a new literature upon the basis of a new attitude toward life. In revelation Leasing discerned only a manifestation of the human mind striving toward truth, which is attainable only by reason, and this theory he elaborated with the assistance of deistic theologians like Spalding (d. 1804) and Jerusalem (d. 1789). At Berlin arose the group under Nicolai (d. 1811) and Mendelsaohn (d. 1786). Their organ was the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, around which sprang up a group of popular philosophers who promulgated theories of natural morals, theology, and esthetics on the basis of Locks, Leibnitz, and Wolff. Wieland (d. 1813) in his philosophical romances contrasted the light French view of life with the heavy idealism of the Germans and thus gained over the Gallicized higher classes to the use of the German tongue. Of the other great figures of literature only the youthful Schiller (d. 1805) had connection with the Enlightenment. Kant (d. 1804), in his practical philosophy, in his morals, law and theology, approached the Enlightenment and lent to its ideas a more formal character. But while Goethe (d. 1832) and Schiller had little to do with the movement, the favor of the public went out to Iffland, Kotzebue and the charm of Jean Paul.
So mighty a development as the Enlightenment could not fail to produce a profound effect on the practical affairs of life. Its double io. Practi‑ result was (1) to strengthen the boureal Results. geoisie and inspire them to demand a share in government and administration and (2) to drive the governments themselves to concession. In England and France the first movement made itself predominant; in the rest of Europe the second was the more conspicuous. Philosophic kings and ministers now appear of the type of Frederick II. of Prussia,, and the espousal of the ideas of reform by the monarchs led in turn to the complete triumph of such ideas. The French Revolution came because the French government lacked the courage and decision to adopt the new ideas. After the Revolution the ideas persisted.. and in the subsequent political reorganization played a prominent part.
In the spiritual realm the most important effects of the Enlightenment appeared in the fields of education and public instruction. Universities were freed from the away of the old theological humanism, citizens' schools and popular schools were established or reorganized, and public instruction was freed from clerical supervision. Other influences
148
like Pietism tended toward the same result, but it was from the Enlightenment that the inspiration came toward the creation of an educational system that, with the supreme confidence of the period, was expected to lead to a higher, happier, more prosperous, and more moral age. The great educational programs of the age emanated from Locke (Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 1693) and Rousseau (mile, 1762), the one outlining the education of a man of the world through experience and reflection, the other the development of man through the unrestrained unfolding of natural powers. The smile, in France, was only a success of the hour, but in Germany it gave the impetus to the great philanthropiniatic movement. Basedow (Metlzodenbuck fur Yitter and Matter der Familien and Yolker, 1770) was followed by Bahrdt, Rochow, Camps, Stuve, and others. Through Zedlitz, minister of Frederick IL, the new ideas shaped the policy of the Prussian government. But as early as the middle of the seventeenth century, the needs of the bureaucracy and the nobility had led to the erection of institutions intended to furnish a new education, not Greek and theological, but modern and practical. Halls (1694) was the type of the new institutions and it influenced greatly the development of philosophic and juristic studies. By the middle of the eighteenth century the theological education had suffered a further loss of prestige as indicated in the erection of the University of Gtittingen (1736), where humanism is found independent of theology. The Yolksschule created by Pietism fell ultimately under the away of the ideas of the Enlightenment, and even Peatalozzi recognized them in part.
	Of the influence exerted by theology on the prog
ress of the Enlightenment mention has already
been made; it was an influence exerted, however,
under compulsion and it advanced the interests
of the Enlightenment without adding anything
		to its content. As a result of the
ii. Its Re‑ subjection in which the Enlightenlation to went was held by theology for a long
	Theology.	time and the necessity for violent
		action on the part of the latter to
achieve its independence, it assumed that negative
and destructive character by which it was so strongly
marked. Even in its affirmative theories the En
lightenment, in its struggles with theology, was
brought to assume the existence of as rigid a truth
as that of its rival. The break between the two
was sharpest in France where the unyielding at
titude of the Church made the Enlightenment
perforce a movement of thorough negation. In
England and Germany, on the contrary, there was
a rapprochement between the two. In the former
country there arose out of the deistic controversy
an apologetic theology (Clarks, Butler, Warburton,
and Palsy) which may be designated as rational
supernaturalism, which here as well as in Germany
carried the spirit of the Enlightenment into the
very heart of the enemy's position. In Germany,
especially, the course of the development was
decided by a compromise between Enlightenment
and theology which was effectual in disseminating
the principles of the former, not only among the

147	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Nall$hteaatsnb
		Ennodlns
learned classes, but among the great masses of the
population. But as its principles were embraced
by members of the higher clergy and by the theo
logical faculties, it became in turn conservative.
	Slowly, however, the inherent contradiction be
tween its principles and the theological dualism
of reason and revelation came to the front. With
time the germ of dissolution entered into the body
of dogma and the new spirit of the times attacked
both the logical substructure and the imposed
superstructure of doctrine. The followers of Wolff
had attempted a compromise without departing
from the paths of orthodoxy, but the Neologues,
under the influence of the popular philosophy,
broke entirely with dogma and sought to restrict
revelation to the Bible, whose contents seemed
more in harmony with natural theology than the
scholastic subtleties of the Church. Only at the end
of the century, however, and primarily under the
	inspiration of Kent's Religion innerhalb der Grerezett
der blossen Yernun f t (1793) did the more radical
	theologians advance to the position of identifying
	completely the religion of ethical rationalism with
Biblical revelation, though still with purely apolo
	getic purposes. But through this apologetic lit
erature the subjective, analytic, and utilitarian
	spirit of the Enlightenment penetrated to the very
	heart of Christian belief, and inevitably led to
	reactionary movements which made common cause
	with other forms of reaction aroused by the spirit of
	the Enlightenment. The theology of the Enlight
	enment was, therefore, a thoroughly apologetic
	compromise on the basis of the principles of the
	Enlightenment. It was a question of the suprem
	acy of the dogma of reason, of the dogma of
	revelation, or of the identification of the two, and
	it was the last solution that theology was driven to
adopt.
	The end of the period of the Enlightenment
	began in different countries at different times.
	The mightiest influences that contributed toward
	its downfall were the political reac
	:a. Close tions amused in England by the
of the	American Revolution and that in
Period.	Europe by the French Revolution.
	At the same time the revolutionary
	movement finally destroyed the political structure
	of the medieval ages and cleared the ground for s
	new political and social organization. The wars
	of the Revolution called into being a new factor,
	the principle of nationality, which came into oppo
	sition both with the spirit of enlightened cosmo
	politanism and with the spirit of enlightened
	absolutism of the preceding period. There entered
	into play at the same time the influence of the new
	German culture which emancipated itself from the
	ideas of the Enlightenment in literature, philosophy,
	and science, created a new attitude toward life,
	and soon came to cooperate with similar tendencies
	in other countries. Fancy and sentiment, a love
	for the humane culture, sympathy for all that is
	psychologically real, characterized this new con
	ception of life which was at one with the Enlighten
	ment in its opposition to supernaturalism, but
	differed from it m its positive appreciation of the
	worth of things. Science, too, lost its character
of abstract subjectivism and militant reform, and
restricted itself to the interpretation of reality.
Finally reaction entered also the field of economic
thought, destroying the individualistic principles
of the Enlightenment. Nevertheless the Enlight
enment has remained an appreciable influence to
the present day, to a minor degree in Germany, to
an important extent in France and the Anglo
Saxon world, where the separation between En
lightenment and supernaturalism is as sharp as it
was a century ago. 	(E. TROELTBCH.)
Biarcooasrav: E. B. Pussy, Historical Enquiry into . . the Rationalist Character . . . in the Theology of Germany, London, 1828; B. Dauer, Geachichta der Podilik, Rudtur and Aufklttrrsng lea 18. Jahrhunderfa, Charlottenburg, 1843‑44; F. A. 8aintee, Critical History of Rationalism in Germany, London, 1849; L. Noaek, hreidsnker in der Religion, Bern, 185355; A. F. Gfrarer, Geachichte lea 18. Jahrhundarte, Schaffhausen, 1862‑84; F. C. Schlosser, Gaachichte lea 18. Jahrhunderta, 8 vole., Heidelberg, 18b8‑1884; K. R. Aagenbaeh, German Rationalism in its Rise, Progress and Decline, Edinburgh, 1865; H. T. Buckle, Hilt. of Civilization is England, London, 1878 (ef. L. ttienne, Le Positivism Bans l'Aiatoirs, Paris, 186$, a criticism of Buckle); J. Tulloch, Rational Theology .
in England in i7th Century, Edinburgh, 1872; Kohn, Aufk1drunoaP, Potsdam, 1873; J. W. Draper, Hiet, of the Conflict between Religion and Science, New York, 1874; idem, Haet, o/ the Intellectual Development o/ Europe, 2 vole., ib., 1876; J. Cairns, Unbelief in 18th Century, London, 1881; L. Stephen, Hist. of English Thought in 18th Cenhsry, ib., 1881; A. Sorel, L'Europa at to rEroolotion, Paris, 1886‑92; R. Eueken, Gruri$s der Gepenwart, Leipei0. 1893; A. D. White, HiaR of the Warfare of Science udt1W'heolopy, New York, 1898; W. E. H. Lecky, HisE. of Rise and In$uerice of the Spirit of Ratianaiiarrv in Europe, London, 1899; 3. F. Hurst, H%at, of Rationalism, New York, 1901; R. Qtto, Naturadistiache and redigilke Weltanaieht, TVbinQen, 1904, Eng. transl., Naturalism and Religion, New York, 1907.
EP7IODIUS, MAGNUS FELIX: Latin author and bishop of Padua; b. at Arles 473 or 474; d. at Padua July 17, 521. His life, until he reached manhood, was secular, and his education was classical. After becoming a convert to Christianity, he delayed making an open profession of faith until attacked by serious illness. With his wife's consent, he separated from her to enter the religious life, and was ordained deacon by Epiphaniua of Ticinum at some date previous to 494. In 498 Ennodius went to Milan, where he took an active part in the schism which then convulsed the Church (see ANesmwslus IL). In connection with this arse the controversy of Pope Symmachue with the antipope Laurentius (see Sxnsmaclws), in the course of which Ennodius defended the pope in his Libellue adversus ear qui contra
I synodum scribers prcesumpserunt, basing the papal power on the privileges of Peter. Remaining at
I	Milan as deacon until 512, he was appointed bishop
	of Padua in 514. He had already accompanied
I~	his predecessor on a mission of Theodoric to the
~~ Burgundian king Gundobad, and in 515 and 517 he was sent by Pope Hormisdas to the court of the Byzantine emperor Anastaeius in an unsuccessful endeavor to reconcile the Eastern and the Western Churches.
As an author Ennodius represents Latin literature in its period of decline. In theology he was a Semi‑Pelagian, and made no attempt to conceal his antipathy to Augustine. In addition to the works already noted, special mention may be

Ev oh6yaod of	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZO(3 	148
made of his numerous, but unimportant, letters,
the Vita Epiphanii epzacopi Ticini (valuable for its
biography of his predecessor), the Vita bead An
tonii (very legendary, in the taste of the period),
the Panegyricus dictus clemerttiasimo regi Theo
dorico, the Eucharisticum de vita (autobiograph
ical), and many dictiones on subjects of minor in
terest. 	(T. F&ltsx>,at.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The works of Enaodius, except the Carmsna, are in MPL, lxiii. The Carmina, Epiatolos, and Panepyricua, ed. F. Vogel, are in MGH, Aud. ant., vol. vii., 1885. A list of editions end literature is given in Potthast, Wepwefiaer, pp. 407‑408, 1291, with which cf. wattenbach, D(iQ, i (1885), 47, 70, 404, ii. 480, i (1893), 48, 72. Consult: Fertig, Magnus Felix Ennodiw and seine Zeit, Passau, 18550; F. Piper, in ZKO, i (1877), 239‑258; B. Hasenstab, Studien zu Ennodiua, Munich, 1890; 8. L6glise, S. Ennodiub et la euprEnwtie au B, sidele, Lyons, 1890; w. Smith, Dictionary o/ Greek and Roman Biography, ii. 19‑20; DCB, ii. 123‑124.

ENOCH.
The$ourceofKnowledge(§1). Similar Legenda(§3) Life and Translation (§ 2). Enoch in Tradition (§ 4).
Enoch is the .name in the Hebrew text of the eldest son of Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9; Ex, vi. 14); a son of Midian (Gen. xxv. 4); a eon of Cain (Gen.
iv. 17‑18) after whom the latter r. The named the first city; and, in the line
Source of of Seth, of the seventh patriarch as Knowledge. reckoned from Adam (Gen. v. 18).
Since the name Lamech also occurs in the lines of both Cain and Seth, and as there is a striking similarity between other names of the two lines, it has been customary since Buttmann (Mythologus, i., Berlin, 1828, pp. 170 aqq.) to regard the two genealogies of Gen. iv. and v. (which furthermore belong to different sources, J and P) as variants of a single account. The resemblance becomes still closer if it be assumed that in Gen. v. Enoch and Mahalalel (= Mehujael of Gen. iv.) have become transposed. Also a relation with the list of the ten primitive Babylonian kings in Berosus can not be denied. Enoch there has his parallel in the seventh king, Enmeduranki, in the sun‑city Sippara. That Enoch also stands in some relation to the sun, is indicated by the 365 years of his life.
This patriarch, in Gen. v., has a thoroughly ethical distinction; " he walked with God " (cf.
Nosh, Gen. vi. 9). This indicates a 2. Life and constant community of life, an unTranslatioa. disturbed, familiar intercourse with
God. Herewith is intimately con‑
nected the most momentous matter that is still extant about Enoch in the ancient source. After a comparatively brief term of life, 365 years, " he was not; for God took him." Obviously something extraordinary is thus recorded. Enoch had suddenly vanished, was no more seen. The expression corresponds to the one used in a similar connection by Livy~ (i. 16) of Romulus, " he was not thenceforth on earth "; the event itself, to the seeking after vanished Elijah (II Kings ii. 16‑17). But the reason is not indefinite; God intervened contrary to the usual course of nature and removed his favored one from the world of appearances. Except for this extraor‑
dinary case, an early departure from life was considered a token of divine disfavor.
Comparisons have been adduced with heathen myths and legends, which relate of the translation
of illustrious men (Hercules, Romu3. Similar lus, etc.). But the brief mysterious
Legends. Biblical notice is essentially different
in that here the ethical community of life on earth with God (the " faith " of Heb. xi. 5) is the manifest reason for the " taking " to God; whereas the legends are based on a physical conception of divinity, whereby the same coalesces with the highest product of nature. There is a parallel in the translation *of Xisuthros in Berosus, inasmuch as this devout worthy after the Flood is translated to the gods as reward for his piety. But this hero corresponds to the Biblical Noah. While here an account is extant which is independent of the Biblical narrative but akin to it, on the other hand the legend adduced by E. Bochart (in Phaleg et Canaan, Caen, 1646), with reference to the ancient king Annakos or Nannakos in the city of Iconium, is questionable on the score of originality. This king is said to have lived upward of 300 years before Deucalion's flood; he is supposed to have predicted the same, and to have tearfully bewailed the lot of men, since after his death they were to be overtaken with destruction. The story is first found in Zenobius (Proverbia, vi. 10), that is, about 200 A.D.; Jewish influence is not improbable.
Concerning the manner of the translation, and the abode and condition of Enoch after it, which the theologians have sought to define more closely, the Bible gives no clue. The context merely stands for the fact that he was taken away from the world of sin and death, and received into closer communion with God, without dying. The view prevalent with the rabbis and in the primitive Church, designates Paradise as his place of abode; others indicate heaven; the Ascension of Isaiah (ix. 9), the seventh heaven. The Arab theologians waver according to the indefinite expression of the Koran xlx. 58 (cf. the Book of Enoch lxxxvii. 3). The New Testament also recognizes a transformation without death (I Theas. iv. 17; I Cor. xv. 51).
Tradition has been all the busier for the meagerness of actual data. By analogy with Noah, it was assumed that Enoch was a preacher of re‑
pentance and herald of judgment. 4. Enoch in (Ecclus. xliv. 16; cf. xlix. 14; Book of
Tradition. Enoch i. 9; Jude 14 aqq.). Later, in
an age of speculation concerning nature and history, people thought to find in Enoch conversing so intimately with God the .actual first vehicle of divinely influenced human discernment, the genuine gnosis instilled by good spirits, in contradistinction to the knowledge conveyed by demons. His name (from the Heb. hanakh, " to consecrate ") seemed to denote the " consecrated " one, from whom authentic solutions were to be expected touching the secrets of this world and the one beyond. Hence he was esteemed no less as the inventor of writing and the sciences, especially starcraft (Eusebius, Praparatio evanyelica, ix. 17; cf. the number 305), than as apocalyptic

149	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Enoch	of
seer (cf. A. Dillinann, Daa Bticlt Henorh, Leipsic, 1853, pp. xxvi. sqq.). In the last centuries before Christ, Enoch was accredited with the entire treasure of contemporary knowledge about God, nature, and history; as was done in the theologically important Book of Enoch (sue PSEUDEPIORAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, IL, 4‑5). With the Arabs, Enoch, or, as they more commonly call him, Idris (" the learned, expert one ") plays predominantly the part of the mediator of higher wisdom and science (cf. d'Herbelot, Biblio>orieretole, Germ. transl., i., Halls, 1785, pp. 624‑825; G. Weil, Biblische Legendert der Muaelmdrtner, Frankfort, 1846, pp. 62‑87); for rabbinic legends cf. J. A. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Juderethum, ii., Konigsberg, 1711, pp. 396 sqq.).
C. VON OaELLI.
BxsLCOOawrar: Besides the literature given in the teat, consult: H. Polsno. Selections from the Talmud. DP. 3437, Philadelphia, 1876; H. E. Ryle, Early Narratirce of Genesis, pp. 90‑91, London, 1892 idem, in Expository Times, iii. (1892) 355; DB, i. 7~4‑708; EB, ii. 129496; JE, v. 178‑179; and Commentaries on Genesis and on Jude.
ElYT13ROliIZ~ATIOR. See B78HOP; POPE, PAPACY, PAPAL SYSTEM.

ENTHUSIASM: An intense moral impulse or au‑engrossing temper of mind. The term as applied to religion designates both a noble temper of mind and moral fervor, and also a misdirected and even destructive intensity of feeling. In the better sense of the term, our Lord was the highest illustration of enthusiasm. His soul was possessed with overwhelming affection for men, and an intense impulse to help them. The apostles were enthusiasts in a good sense. The early monks, St. Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Huss, the Reformers, the early Methodists, are all examples of religious enthusiasm. Heathen religions have had their enthusiasts as well as the Christian.
Christian enthusiasm in the good sense is derived from two motives, love for men and love for Christ. In the bad sense, enthusiasm is almost synonymous with fanaticism, and enthusiasts with zealots. It is fervor of soul drawn from wrong principles, founded on wrong judgments, and applied to wrong ends. Neither selfish nor impure motives necessarily prevail in such a temper of mind, and zeal of activity. Such enthusiasm may proceed from a sincere desire to glorify God. It substitutes fancies for the truth, and in its last stages the disorder of the mind becomes mental insanity.
The term " enthusiasts " has also had a technical sense, as in the Elizabethan period. Jewel, Rogers (Thirty‑reins Articles, Parker Society ed., Cambridge, 1854, p. 158), and others speak of " Enthusiasts " as they do of Anabaptists. During the Commonwealth period, and afterward the term was frequently applied to the Puritans in a tone of depreciation, as by Robert South, who preached a special sermon on the subject, " Enthusiasts not Led by the Spirit of God," meaning by " enthusiasts" the Puritans. See ECSTASY. (Sermons, ed. W. G. T. Shedd, sermons Iv. Ivi, vol. iii., pp. 157190, 5 vole., New York, 1866‑1871.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. Taylor, Natural History of Enthusiasm, New York, 1849; G. Lavington, Enthusiasm o/ Methodists and Papists, ed. R. Polwhele, London, 1833; J. Mackintosh, MiaceUaneoua Works, p. 731, ib. 1851; C. Wesley's Sermon on Enthusiasm is in his Works, ii. 331 eqq.
EftZIIPAS, FRANCISCO DE: Spanish Protestant; b. at Burgos, Spain, c. 1520; d. at Geneva 1570. He was known in Germany by the Grecized form of his name, Dryander, and by the name Eichmann, in France as Ducheane, in Holland as Van Eyck‑all translations of his Spanish name, which means " oakman." He studied in the Netherlands and embraced the Reformation; then visited Wittenberg, where he translated the New Testament from the Greek into Spanish under the eye of Melanchthon. His completed work he took to the Netherlands and published it there (Antwerp, 1543). He dedicated it to Charles V. and presented it in person to the emperor at Brussels. But this procedure was so evidently in the interest of the Reformation in Spain that it could not be permitted to pate unpunished, consequently Enzinas was soon after thrown into prison. He escaped in 1545, and thereafter lived in different places. His brother, Jaime, also embraced Protestantism, prepared a catechism in Spanish setting forth the Evangelical faith, and printed it at Antwerp (1545). He then, in pursuance of his father's directions, went to Rome, where he was burned at the stake, 1548. The third brother, Juan, also became a Protestant, but, settling in Germany, escaped persecution. See SPAIN, THE REFORMATION IN.
B113LIOGRAPHY: MJmoirea de Francisco de Easinaa, 2 vole., Brussels, 1862‑83, cf. ZXIi, aii. (1892); T. MeCrie. His& o/ . . the Reformation in Spain, chap. v., Edinburgh, 1829: H. C. Lea, HiaG of the Inquisition of Spain, iii. 424, New York, 1907; KL, iv. 881‑662.
EON. See GN08TICISM.
E Oft DE L'ETOILE. See EUDO DE STELLA.
EPAO, SYNOD OF: A synod held in Sept., 517, at Epao or Epaone, a village to the south of Vienne, near the present Anneyron, at that time part of the kingdom of Burgundy, where a year earlier the Arian king Gundobad had been succeeded by his orthodox son Sigismund. It was attended by twenty‑four bishops from all parts of the kingdom, on the invitation of Avitua of Vienne (q.v.). Laymen seem to have been present, after their participation had been declared lawful; canon axiv. permitted them to bring charges against any clergy who were justly accused of immorality. The forty canons passed at this meeting should be considered in connection with those of the synods of Agile (506) and Orleans (511; qq.v.). They were intended to do for the Burgundian kingdom what these had done for the Visigothic or Frankish‑though the speedy dissolution of the former made their effect alight. Several of them, however, were included in a later (Spanish) collection of the canons of Agile (though with some modifications in the direction of leas severity), and thus continued to have an influence on subsequent practise. The spirit of Avitus breathes through them all. An important section deals with the inalienability of ecclesiastical property; a more

ED rhraem
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HEItZOG
vigorous repression of Arianism is demanded,
though the return of individuals to the Church is
made easy. It appears that priests and deacons
were married, and that the episcopal oversight
embraced the monasteries. The enforcement of
the rights of bishops corresponds to the treatment
of the metropolitan power. The number of for
bidden degrees for marriage	is increased, in har
mony with older legislation, apparently with an
eye to the case of a royal official who had married
his deceased wife's sister; this led to an attempt
on the king's part to discipline the bishops, and to
a firm pronouncement on their part at the first
Synod of Lyons (before 523), at which eleven of
the members of the Synod of	Epao were present.
	(EDGAR HENNEBE.)
BrnLroa$ApHr: The Acta, ed. R. Peiper, are in MGH,
Acct. ant., vi. 2 (1883), 185‑176, cf. (ed. Meseaen) MGH,
Cormit., i (1893), lb eqq.; Harduin, Coneilia, ii. 1045
eqq.; Hefele, Concilienpeachichte, ii. 880 eqq., Eng. travel.,
iv. 107 eqq.; Neander, Chriska» Church, ii. 191, iii. b, 100.
EPARCHY: Originally the designation of a civil province in the Roman empire, composed of smaller communities, and forming in its turn a subdivision of the dioikesis (see BISHOPRIC). These divisions furnished a model for the ecclesiastical organization; the heads of the smaller communities became bishops, those of the eparchies metropolitans, with their sees in the capital cities, and those of the dioceses exarchs or patriarchs. In the later Greek and Russian Churches, the usage altered and the jurisdiction of an ordinary bishop was called an eparchy. (P. HINacaIUSt.)
EPHESIAlYS, EPISTLE TO THE. See Peal. THE APOSTLE.
EPHESUS. See ASIA MINOR IN THE APOSTOLIC TIME, IV. For the Council of Ephesus, 431 (Third Ecumenical) see NESTORIUS; for the " Robber Synod " of 449, see EUTYCHIANISM, § 6.
EPHOD : An implement used by the priests of the Hebrews to obtain oracles from God. In I Sam. xiv. the Urim and Thummim appear as an accessory of the ephod, especially if (as is probably the case) the Septuagint in verse 41 has the right reading: " Yahweh, thou God of Israel, wherefore e,nswerest thou not thyservant this day? If the guilt be mine or my son Jonathan's, let Urim come forth; if it be the people's, let Thummim come forth." Clearly the Urim and Thummim were two holy lots which were in some close connection with the ephod, and were brought forth by the priest (who put his baud into the bag in which they were kept), or were made to leap out by violent shaking of the bag. From the two passages I Sam. xiv. 41, xxviii. 6 it is evident that in the time of Samuel, Saul, and David it was customary to inquire of God by means of the Urim
and Thummim, or, which amounts to Varieties the same thing, by the ephod; and of Ephod. further, from I Sam. xiv. 3, 18 (R. V., margin), that it was a part of the high priest's duty to carry it with him. The form of the ephod does not appear from these passages. It is doubtless the same thing which appears in I Sam. xxi. 9, where the sword of Goliath is placed
behind it (doubtless as a sacred trophy), in all probability as it hung upon the wall; but this last passage gives no warrant for concluding that it was an image of Yahweh. Besides this ephod which the high priest wore, there is mention of an ephod of linen worn by other priests (I Sam. xxii. 18), by Samuel (I Sam. ii. 18), and by David (II Sam. vi. 14). The ephod to which the Urim and Thummim belonged was therefore not of linen, but probably of some costlier stuff. An ephod which belonged to the high priest's equipment is described Ex. xxv. 7, xxviii. 4, etc.; but it can not be said that this is something entirely different from that which appears in the early accounts. Taken altogether, the references contained in the Old Testament do not permit a very lucid account to be given of the article.
According to Ex. xxviii., the ephod was made of gold, blue, purple, and fine linen, joined with two shoulder pieces and a band. It was apparently an ornament for the breast and had a loose " pocket " (lwshen, a word which is not understood) in which
were the Urim and Thummim. This High‑ pocket, a span square, was made fast
Priestly to the ephod by rings of gold and
Ephod. chains which were carried to rosettes
on the shoulders, the rings being underneath the ephod. The " pocket " was adorned with three rows of precious stones, four in a row, on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes. The ephod, which was rather of the nature of regalia than of ordinary clothing, was worn above an overcoat of blue (cf. I Sam. ii. 18‑19). So far the ephod of the time of Samuel was like that described in the priest‑code.
But it is held that numerous signs indicate another kind of ephod. From Judges viii. 24 it is concluded that the ephod was sometimes an image of deity, since in this case it is stated that the thing became a snare to Gideon and to Israel. Those who support this view see confirmation in Judges xvii.‑xviii.; I Sam. xxi. 10, and in the connection between ephod and teraphim in Hos. iii. 4.
But this view is untenable. That the Ephod not teraphim were images is clear from as Image. I Sam. xix. 13, 16; but it does not follow from the " and " in Hos. iii. 4 that the ephod was also an image. What the two had in common was that both were used as oracles (Ezek. xxi. 21; Zech. x. 2). Judges xviii. 20 speaks against the similarity of ephod and image, and suits better the explanation that the former was something that could be hung about one. And the passage in which Gideon is said to have made an ephod is little more certain. So little is known of what was actually done in that case, what was bought with the 1,700 shekels, and what was the cost of labor, that no sure conclusion is possible. If the passages quoted do not show that the ephods of Gideon and Micah were images, on the other hand it can not be proved that they were not. Still, the ephod was something habitually worn as a duty by the priests, and this does not agree with the supposition that the article was a standing image, as is required by the hypothesis that the sword of Goliath was placed behind such

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
an image (I Sam. xxi. 10). Moreover, supposing that Gideon's ephod was an image, the carrying of such a weight as is stated to have been the amount of the booty was beyond the power of a priest. In all cases but this, the ephod was made to be worn, and the ephod is never mentioned among the forbidden representations. Some auppoae that the gold was used merely as a plating; in that case how massive moat Gideon's ephod have been to require 1,700 shekels to cover it! And another terminology is employed to express such images (Ex. xx. 23, xxxii. 31). It is unlikely, too, that the same word would denote an image and a part of the priest's regalia, while a distinction is made between that and a linen ephod. Duhm's explanation of it as a golden mask which the priest put on is equally untenable (Das Buch Jesaiah, p. 200, Gottingen, 1892). Since other peoples made articles of clothing richly decorated to put on the images of their deities, it is not inconceivable that the Hebrews did the same.
	The etymological meaning of the word is doubt
ful. Generally it is taken from a root meaning
" to draw over," hence " covering." Lagarde con
nects it with an Arabic root meaning " to draw
near to a greater as a mediator," and so makes it
mean " a vestment in which to approach God."
Support for this is found in the Syriac pedhta, from
a root the same as the Arabic mentioned above.
If this be the case, it gives the more reason for re
jecting the meaning " image." See IMAGES AND
IMAGE‑Woxsalr, I. 	(V0. LOTZ.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. C. Foots, The Ephod, in Johns Hopkins University Circulars, Baltimore, 1900; idem, in JBL, 1902, pp. 1‑48; B. Ugolini, Thesaurus ant%quitatam aacrarum, Idi. 785 eqq., Venice, 1744‑89; w. Baudissin, Geaehichfe des altteatamenUichen Prieaterthume, pp. 205 eqq., Leipsic, 1889; P. de Lagatde, in Abhaudlungen der G5ttixiger Geaellachaft der Wiaaenschaften~ 1889, 175; Benzinger, Archr<ologie, p. 382; Nowack, Archhologie, ii. 21 eqq., 118 eqq.; G. F. Moors, Judges, p. 381, New York, 1895: E. 8ellin, BeitrSge zur iaraelitiachen and judiachen Religions‑Geschichte II, i. 119‑120, Leipsie, 1897; A. van Hoonseker, Le 3acerdoce Muitique, pp. 370 eqq., Louvain, 1899; DB, i. 725‑727; EB, ii. 1308‑09; JE, v. 185‑187.
	EPHRAEM (EPH:REM) SYRUS ("Ephraim the
Syrian "; Syriac 'Aphrern) : Theologian, exegete,
and homiliat; b. at or near Nisibis, in the begin
ning of the fourth century; d. probably near
Edessa, possibly in June, 373, but the dates 378
and 379 are also given. His father is said to have
been the priest of a deity or idol named Abnil or
Abizal destroyed by Justinian. He was converted
to Christianity by Bishop Jacob of Nisibis, with
whom he is said to have attended the Council of
Nica'a. He lived at Niaibis until 363, when he
took up his residence near Edeasa as an anchorite.
He is said to have visited Basil of Caesarea, to have
been ordained deacon by him, and to have declined
further ecclesiastical advancement. He went to
		Egypt and there remained for eight
	Life. years, preaching to the monks in their
		own language. Shortly before his
death he appeared as a public benefactor in the
midst of a famine by opening a hospital for the
sick in the monastery. His will forbade his
burial in a church, and directed that he should be
wrapped in his old cloak and laid in the common
cemetery (of. T. J. Lamy in Compte rendu du IV.
congas seienti Pique des Catholiqvzs, Freiburg in Swit
zerland, 1898, and R. Duval, in JA, 1901, Sept.
Oct., pp. 23419). According to the Chronicle of
Edessa his death occurred in June, 373; Jerome
places his death under the emperor Valens. If the
former date be correct, the encomium upon Basil
(d. Jan. 1, 379), ascribed to Ephraem, can not be
by him. All ecclesiastical calendars celebrate him,
the Latin on Feb. 1, the Greek and Syriac on Jan.
28, the Coptic on 14 Epipi (July). At present his
grave is shown in the Armenian cloister Dar Serkis
west of Edessa (cf. C. E. Sachau, Reise in Syrien,
Leipaic, 1883, p. 202).
The works of Ephraem were very numerous, according to Sozomen some 3,000,000 stichoi, a great part of which consisted of sermons and lectures. They do not easily separate into classes, though a provisional division is into exegetical, dogmaticpolemic, and poetical. In the latter branch he is credited with the invention of the " Controversial Hymn," called by Burkitt a " melancholy addition." From the standpoint of the intrinsic worth of the writings it is difficult to explain the great repute of this Father. The value consists in the
fact that the great number of the Exeget‑ productions and their excellent preaical Works. ervation afford many means of in‑
sight into the life and thought of the Church of his period. But Ephraxm was prolix and repetitious, so that there is really little to reward the student for examination of his work. The difficulty in securing data is enhanced by the fact that many works ascribed to him are not his, and much of the work done upon Ephraem has to be done over in the light of better information, especially that gained from the Armenian version of his writings. Thus the examination of the New Testament quotations of Ephraem by F. H. Woods (Sttcdia biblica et ecclesiastics, Vol. iii., Oxford, 1891) was revised by F. C. Burkitt (Ephraim's Quotations from. the Gospel, in TS, vii. 2, 1901). In his exegetical work upon the Gospels his basis was Tatian's Diatessaron (cf. J. H. Hill, Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephraem the Syrian, Edinburgh, 1896). That in his work on the Acts he used a " Western " text has been shown by J. R. Harris (Four Lectures on the Western Text, Cambridge, 1894, pp. 23 aqq.). His Commentary upon Zechariah has been studied by Lamy (Revue biblique, 1897). Burkitt asserts that Revelation is not referred to in Ephraem's exegetical works.
The theological writings are less valuable for their contributions to theology than for their reference to the heresies of the time. In the biog‑
raphy it appears that no less than Theo‑ nine arose in Edeasa during his times logical sad and that he combated them all,
Poetical among them the heresies of Marcion,
Works. Mani, and Bardesanea. The type of
his theology is best seen in his " Sermon on our Lord " (in T. J. Lamy, i. 145‑274; Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2d ser., xiii. 305‑330). This is a treatise on the incarnation; but the language is highly figurative and a clear idea of Ephraem's

Ephraem
Epildeeie	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	162
views is hard to obtain from it. It was for his poetry that he was in ancient times most celebrated, since this gained for him the titles " Lyre of the Holy Ghost " and " Prophet of the Syrians." It was with this as a weapon that he fought against Bardesanes and his son Harmodius. In his hymns he used principally the measure of seven syllables, and the Syrian Church still makes use of his compositions (the " Nisibene Hymns " are in _NPNF, ut sup., pp. 165‑220).
Ephraem was not the founder of a school of theology or exegesis like that of Antioch. It appears that his works were translated into Greek, since Sozomen states that they lose little by being so rendered. Jerome read but one in the Greek, that on the Holy Ghost. Burkitt criticizes Ephraem's theology as giving neither the historical Christ, nor the Christianity of the early Church, nor yet the clearly defined doctrine of post‑Nicene times, and as failing in the point of intellectual serious‑
ness. 	E. NESTLE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief edition of the " Works," begun by Peter Mobsrek (Benedict) and finished by J. 6. A. Aeeemani, was published, 8 vole., Rome, 1732‑48. Other editions are: Opera seZecta, ed. J. J. Overbeck, Oxford, 1885; Carnaina Niriberta, ed. G. Bickell, Leipeic, 1888; Hvmai et Sermonea, ed. T. J. Larry, 3 vole., Mechlin, 1882‑88; " History of Joseph," Paris, 1891; fragments of the " Commentary on the I)iateeearon," ed. J. R. Harris, London, 1895. Trawl. into Germ. are of selected works by P. Zingerle, 8 vole., Innsbruck, 1831‑4b, and by F. Y. Reithmeyer, in Bibliot>ulc der RirchanvtUer, Kempten, 1809. Of Eng. trawl. may be mentioned: Select Works, by J. B. Morris, Oxford, 1847; Repentance of Nineveh, end Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies, by H. Burgess, 3 vole., London, 1853; NPNF, 2d eer., uii. 187‑341. Eng. tranela of ten of his hymns are in B. Pick, Hymns and Pastry of the Eastern Church, New York, 1908.
The sources for a life are: the Encomium of Ephraem by Gregory of Nyees (best); and the briefer notices in 8oaomen, Hiat. ecc1., iii. 18; Theodoret, Hilt. aced., ii. 30, iv. 29; Jerome, Ds roir. ill., 115. The beat discussion of the life in Eng. is in NPNF, 2d ear., uii. 119‑148; valuable, however, is DCB, ii. 138‑144. Consult further: J. F. Geab, in Memorabiliea, ii. 138 eqq., cf. i. 65 eqq., Leipsic, 1791‑98; J. Aleleben, Doe Laban des EDhraem der Sylrers, Berlin, 1853; C. Ferry, S. Itplvrsm poUe, Paris 1877; ICL, iv. 877‑882; Behalf, Christian Church, iii. 928‑. 933.
On the writings consult: J. 8. Aeeemani, BibliotAeca oriantalis, i. 59 eqq., Rome, 1719; C. van Lengerke, Commeafatio cretica d. S. Ephrasmo Syro, Have, 1828; idem, De Ephrasmi . , arts bsrmaneWirn, KSnigsberg, 1831; A. Hasea, S. EDArasni Syri thaolopia, Halls, 1889; Maeeinger, EroanQelii ooncordantia axDoe%tio, Venice, 1878; E. A. W. Budge, On a Fragment o/ a Coptic Version of 3. Ephraim . . . on fha Transfiguration, London, 1887; EDArarmi 3yri commeafarii in spistolw Pauli, Venice, 1893; H. Grimme, Dar StroDhanbau is den Oedicnten Ephraems des SDrars, Freiburg, 1893; T. J. Larry, L'Ex& opee as !'orient au quatrie~mms eipels, iv. 485‑488, Paris, 1893; J. Gwynn, The Apocalypse of S6. John, pp. cii.‑ciii., Dublin, 1894; W. Wright, Short Hist. o/ Syriac Literature , London 1894: R. Duval, La Litibratura arambsnne, Paris, 1895; H. Haring, Die Lehra van der Predipl, Berlin, 1897; NPNF, xiii. 148‑1b2.
EPHRATA COMMUftI1R. See COMMUNISM, IL, 5.
EPICTETUS: Stoic philosopher; b. at Hierapolis (121 m. s.e. of Smyrna), in Phrygia, c. 50 A.D‑; d. at Nicopolie (3 m. n. of Prevesa), in Epirus, c. 120. For a time he lived in Rome as the slave of Epaphroditus, a freedman and favorite of Nero, but later he secured his freedom sad became a courtier of Nero‑ He studied the Stoic philosophy under Musonius Rufus and achieved distinc‑
tion at Rome as a teacher of philosophy. When Domitian drove the philosophers from Rome about 90 A.D. Epictetus settled at Nicopolis, where he taught with great success till the end of his life. He seems to have written nothing himself, but his sayings were recorded by his pupil Flavius Arianus, who did for his master what Xenophon did for Socrates. As reported by Arianus, the works of Epictetus consist of the Encheiridion, a manual of moral teaching, and the " Discourses " in eight books, of which only four are extant.
As a philosopher Epictetus was intensely practical, and his teaching was concerned with the conduct of life, rather than with the problems of metaphysics. His ethics are of peculiar interest because of the similarity between his teachings and those of Jesus. Like other Stoics (see Sxolorsnt) he made virtue the purpose and end of life and identified a virtuous life with a happy life. As this ideal is to be attained largely through asceticism, " bear and forbear " becomes the watchword of a virtuous and, therefore, happy life. To be happy, one must restrict his desires and not meddle with things over which he has no control. The only thing in the world that is absolutely ours is our will. Nothing can break that; whatever we do, we do because we will it. But this will in us is only the divine will; and hence Epictetus deduces all moral laws from the will of God. As rational creatures we have part in the reason of God; we are divine. All that is irrational in the world, external sin and evil, is merely an appearance, and should not affect us. Epictetus lived in accordance with his ascetic teachings and is described as a model of wisdom and virtue.
His works have been edited by J. Schweighriueer (5 vole., Leipsic, 1799‑1800), and by H. Schenkl (Leipsic, 1894; 1898). Among translations may be mentioned that of Elizabeth Carter (London, 1758), which has been revised and edited by T. W. Higginson (Boston, 1865), also those of George Long (London, 1890) and T. W. Rolleston (London, 1888).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early life is by Diogenes LaerEiue in his " Lives of the Philosophers,, (beet edition by H. G. Hiibner, Leipsic, 1828‑31). For a modern appreciation consult F. W. Farrar, Saekere attar God, London, 1888. For further discussion consult F. Ueberweg, OesrhidUe der Philosophic, ed. M. Heinae Berlin, 1898‑97, and in Eng. the translations of the History of Philosophy of Erdmann (London, 1893), and of Windelband (ib. 1893). Alex. E. M. Schranka, Dar Stoiker Epiktet and seine Philoaophia, Leimic, 1885; A. BonhSffer, Epidat and die 3toa. Stuttgart, 1890; idem, Die Ethik du . . . Epsdal, ib. 1894. Other literature is indicated in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Paycholopy, iii. 1, pp. 191192, New York, 1905.

EPICUREAlYI3>Il: The philosophy of Epicurus (342‑270 s.c.), more particularly his ethics. The term is also applied loosely to any hedonistic tendency in morals. Building upon the materialistic metaphysics of Democritus, and the hedonistic teachings of Aristippus, Epicurus reached the view that happiness, or pleasure, is the chief good and the only possible end of rational action. In popular thought Epicureanism has received a crude interpretation not justified by the teachings of its founder. According to Epicurus, pleasure, though

163	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
desirable, is not always to be chosen, for it may lead to pain greater than itself. It is not the pleasure of the moment, therefore, that we are to follow (the view of the Cyrenaics), but pleasure in a larger sense, including the pleasures of the mind, as well as those of sense. The chief good, then, becomes a happy life as a whole, the subatanci of which, in the view of Epicures, is a healthy body and a tranquil mind. He held that some desires are unnatural, others unnecessary. These are to be controlled. He is reported to have said, " If thou wilt make a man happy, add not unto his riches, but take away from his desires."
With Epicures the cardinal virtue is the insight necessary to regulate the desires and thus secure an ultimate preponderance of pleasure over pain. From this virtue all others follow. On the whole, his teaching is hardly less rigorous than that of the Stoics, who expressly made virtue the end of conduct. A virtuous life, Epicures holds, is the condition of a happy life; if one is consistently virtuous, his life can be only one of happiness. He taught a prudential justice. The just man spares himself the annoyance to which an unjust man is subjected by his fellows. Fear of the gods and fear of death Epicures considered superstitions disturbing to a happy life, because, as happy and imperishable creatures, the gods have nothing to do with the affairs of this world. Unlike other philosophers of his time Epicures believed in the freedom of the will. Epicureanism was long popular in Rome and was one of the four philosophical schools endowed by Marcus Aurelius. Through his De natura rerun Lucretius became the chief literary representative of Epicurean philosophy. The teachings of Epicures, revived by Pierre Gaseendi (q.v.) became extremely popular in the time of the English deists and the French encyclopediste.
Bnncoaswra:: P. von Gisycki, Ueber daa Leben and Moralphiloaophis des Epikurw, Berlin, 1879; E. PHeideru EudSmonismua and Epoiamua, Leip®o. 1880: W. Wallace, Epicureanism, London, 1880; W. L. Courtney, Studies in Philosophy, ib. 1882; T. C. Baring, The scheme of Epicurus. ib. 1884; F. W. Newman, Epicureanism, in Miscellanies, vol. iv., ib. 1891: P. Cassel, Epikwoa der Phiioaoph, Berlin, 1892; E. Zeiler, Stoics, BI'
and Sceptics, London, 1892; H. O. Newland. Epicureanism, ib. 1900; J. Masson. Lucretius, Epicurean and Post, ib., 1908; and the general works by A. W. Benn (c Philosophers, ib. 1882), B. Erdmsnn (HisR of Philosophy, ib. 1893), and W. Windelband (Hist. of Ancient Philosophy, ib. 1900). Additional literature is indicated in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary o' Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp. 192‑194, 351‑352, New York, 1905.
EPII3;LLESIS OR INVOCATION: In the strict sense of the term, the liturgical prayer by which generally in the ancient Church, and to this day in the Eastern, the sacramental elements (water, oil, bread sad wine) are consecrated; a prayer in which God is asked to send down the Holy Ghost upon the elements, the assumption being that such a prayer has the mysterious power of bringing the Holy Ghost into such relation with the elements that they become operative for their purpose. Since this purpose is the sanctification of the receivers of the sacrament, a prayer for this also is usually included in the epiklesis. Its position in the liturgy is generally after the thanksgiving and words of institution. As a rule it begins with what
is called the anamneaia or commemoration, followed by the anaphora or oblation, after which comes the epikleais proper. It has a natural affinity with the prayers of consecration in the so‑called Sacramentala (q.v.), but is to be distinguished definitely from them. See HOLY WATER.
The oldest evidence for the epikleais in the form of a prayer of consecration for the baptismal water is found in Tertullian (Debaptismate, iv.); but there is no doubt that it was a constant feature of the baptismal rite in both teat and West throughout the third and fourth centuries. In the West the next oldest evidence is scarcely Gyp‑
In the rian, who speaks only of a " cleansing Baptismal and sanctifying " of the baptismal
	Service.	water (Epiat., lxa. 1), but rather the
		Synod of Carthage of 256, with its
phrase " The water sanctified by prayer." Am
broee asserts (De spiritu sancto, I. vii. 88) that the
descent of the Holy Ghost, effected by the prayer
of the priest, hallows the water, and Jerome (Con
tra Luciferum, vi. and vii.) is unable to conceive
any true baptism without such a descent. Augus
tine bears unmistakable witness to the same usage;
yet he, together with Ambrose, was to a great ex
tent responsible for upsetting the universal belief
in the efficacy of the epikleaia and replacing it, as
the central point in the action of the Eucharist at
least, by the words of institution. In his conflict
with the Donstists be felt obliged to place the con
secrating power less in a prayer of epikleais, which
was clearly in his time not uniform in its wording,
than in a fixed, authoritative formula, such as was
that of baptism, resting upon the words of institu
tion of the sacrament. This opened the way for
a new view of consecration, which in the Eucharist
especially came to be of decisive importance.
It was not long before Augustine's teaching bore fruit. . It is combined with the older view in the pseudo‑Ambrosian treatise De sacramenh's (II. v. 14), and probably determined the inclusion of the words of institution in the epikleais of the sacramentary of Gelasius, a formulary which, with some changes, is still used in the Roman Catholic Church at the benediction of the baptismal water. The corresponding formulary in the Greek Church is a simple epiklesis without the words of institution.
In ths case of the Eucharist, plenty of evidences from the fourth and fifth centuries, both Eastern and Western, attribute the consecration of the elements to the epiklesis; but the agreement is not so universal as in the case of baptism, nor is it safe to assume that the epiklesis was in use from the beginning as a prayer of consecration, which it came to be considered in the East. The oldest witness for the Eucharistic epikleaia is Irena:us, who says (IV. xviii. 5) " The bread which receives the invocation of God is no longer common
In the bread but the Eucharist "; but that Eucharist this phrase can not be pressed is shown by the occurrence in the preceding section of another in which that bread is said to be the body of the Lord " over which thanks have bin given," and the context shows that this giving of thanks (eucharistein) is not to be taken se simply a general term for consecration. The epi‑

Epikleais	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	184
Epiphaniua
	klesis is mentioned again in the second so‑called
	Pfaff fragment of Irenaeus, not much later than his
	time, and by Firmilian of Caesarea (Cyprian, Epist.,
	lxxv.). In the fourth century the evidences be
come more numerous; it is mentioned by Basil
	the Great, most frequently and definitely (as hav
	ing the force of consecration) by Cyril of Jerusa
	lem, again by Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, The
	ophilus, Chrysoatom, and Ephraem Syrus. But
	the moat striking proof of the position which it
	held in the East is the fact that there is not a sin
	gle Oriental liturgy in which it is absent or in which
it is not regarded as having consecrating force.
	The earliest Western authority for the epiklesis
	in the Eucharist is Ambrose (De spiritu sancto, III.
	xvi. 112 and De fide, IV. x. 124), who shows in
	these passages not only his acquaintance with it
	but his belief in its consecrating force. In two
	other passages he seems to attribute this force to
	the words of institution, which only shows how
	little the question was definitely worked out in
	that period. Augustine was hindered by his
	symbolic conception of the Eucharist from fully
	applying Ambrose's ideas on this point to it; but
	certain phrases of his were taken by a later age
	as decisive against the consecrating virtue of the
	epiklesis. It found, however, down to the seventh
	century, authors who still attribcted to it its
	earlier importance, such as Fulgentius of Ruape,
	Optatus of Mileve, Gaudentius of Brescia, and
Isidore of Seville.
	The conclusions indicated by the passages re
	ferred to are confirmed by the oldest Western
	liturgies, which exhibit the epiklesis in universal
	use here as a prayer of consecration for the Eucha
	rist in the fourth and fifi,h centuries,
	Western then either disappearing or altered
	Liturgies. and removed from its original posi
	tion immediately after the words of
	institution. The oldest Gallican liturgies known
	show no trace of this process, whose center‑point
	was probably at Rome. It is true that Gelasius I.
	(492‑496) still knows and approves of the epiklesis;
	but the simplifying and unifying work which won
	the name of reformers of the liturgy for him and
	Gregory the Great eliminated or transformed it in
	the Roman liturgy, whose acceptance in Gaul and
	later in Spain ended by bringing about the same
results there too.
	In conclusion it may be safely said that the
	epiklesis is not primitive, and its origin may be
	attributed to a combination of Biblical terms with
	pagan popular notions. The Scriptural formula
	" to call upon the name of the Lord " (Joel ii. 32,
	quoted Acts ii. 21 and Rom. x.13; Acts ix. 14, 21,
	xxii. 16; I Cor. i. 2) recurs in many types of epiklesis.
	Among the Gnostics the Name (q.v.), as a power
	ful mystic formula, is of the greatest
	Conclusion. importance; its possession enables a
	man to call down the Godhead. Noth
	ing was to be employed in Christian worship which
	haft not been previously " hallowed " from demo
	niac influences; and the Holy Ghost, as the sancti
	fying power, must thus be called down upon the
	creatures of water, oil, bread, and wine‑‑a conclu
	sion the more natural that in the Scriptural narra‑
tives of the baptism of Christ the Holy Ghost had
descended in visible form. The theory that the
definite epiklesis originated in Gnostic circles,
where it was unquestionably widely used, and then
found its way into the practise of the Church, is
incapable of demonstration; it may well have
originated in both about the same time, and had
a more rapid development among the Gnostics.
If it were certain that the extant magical papyri
of the later mystery‑cults were of purely pagan
origin, uninfluenced by Gnostic views, they would
afford more than a heathen parallel for the Chris
tian epiklesis; for in them the words epiklesis,
epikaleisthai are the technical terms for the invo
cation of the Godhead on all kinds of gifts, such as
wine, water, and milk. At least an analogous view
may be clearly shown in later paganism in the
consecration of statues of the gods, for which again
an epiklesis was in use. 	(P. DREwa.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: From the Catholic standpoint: L. A. Hoppe, Die Epikleaia der griechiachen and o»entaliachen Liturgien and der romiachen Konaekrat%onakanon, Sahaffhausen, 1884; J. Franz, Der eucharastiache Konaekratiomment, Wiirzburg, 1875; idem, Die euehariatiache Wandlung oral die EpikLeae, ib. 1880; F. Probst, Salcramente and Sakramentalien T6bingea, 1872; idem, Liturgie des 1,. Jahrhunderta, Mtinater, 1893; idem, Die abendlandiache Mesas vam 6. bia zum 8. Jahrhunderte, ib. 1898; Hefele, Conciliengeachichte, vii. 721, 728 aqq.; KL, iv. 686‑898.
From the Protestant standpoint: P. Zorn, Diaaertatio
. de eVwAqoe&, Rostock, 1705; J. W. F. Hofling, Daa Sakrarnent der Taufe, i. 470 eqq., Erlangen, 1846; G. Anrich, Dag antike Myaterienuxaen in aeinem Einfduea aut daa Chriatentum, Gottingen, 1894.
EPIPHANES. See CARPOCRATEB AND THE CARPOCRATIANa.

	EPIPHAftIUS OF CONSTAftTIA: Greek Church
Father; b. at Basanduk (near Eleutheropolis,
the modern Bet Jibrin, 23 m. s.w. of Jerusa
lem), probably between 310 and 320; d. at sea
403. It is very doubtful whether his parents were
Jews, for while still a youth he lived among the
monks of Egypt, where he came into conflict with
Gnostic heretics and succeeded in expelling some
		eighty members of the sect. In his
	Life. native town he founded a monastery
		and was ordained presbyter by the
bishop of Eleutheropolis. He was possibly a close
friend of Hilarion, although the statements in his
Vita concerning their relations are devoid of his
toricity. But there is no doubt that he was a
faithful adherent of the Nicene Creed, and because
of his reputation for learning and piety he was made
bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and metropolitan
of the island in 357. He established monasticism
in his see, and was so deeply venerated that his
judgment was sought on all sides. Thus originated
many of his works such as his epistle on the per
petual virginity of Mary, his " Fast‑anchored,"
his " Medicine Chest," and his " Twelve Gen‑is."
	Next to his zeal for monasticism, Epiphaniua
was characterized by his orthodoxy. He regarded
Origen as the father of all heresies, and made the
task of his life the crushing of his opponent. His
hatred was based on the fact that Origen was the
source of Arianism and had also received a Greek
training, with which was connected a spiritualism

166
which Epiphanies opposed by a crass realism. He therefore became the leader of a reaction against Origen which assailed all Greek culture within the Church. While on a visit
Opposition	to Jerusalem (probably in 393), he
	to Origen.	contended in the Church of the Resur
		rection against the teachings of
Origen as the root of Arianism until Bishop Johan
nea compelled him to desist. Johannes replied
with a sermon against " anthropomorphism,"
but Epiphanies, though he too repudiated all
anthropomorphiatic doctrines, besought the bishop
to abandon the teachings of his opponent. Some
time afterward he ordained a monk, the brother
of Jerome, priest at Bethlehem, a violation of the
episcopal rights of Johannes which he felt himself
obliged to justify. He had another occasion to
manifest his antipathy to Origen, when Theophilus
of Alexandria came over to his side and sought to
annihilate the followers of his former teacher in
the Nitrian desert. The disciples of Origen took
refuge with Chrysostom, and Theophilua urged
Epiphauiue to convene a synod to condemn Origen
and to send its rulings to him, to Chrysoatom, and
other bishops. Epiphanies eagerly assented, held
the synod, and hastened to Constantinople, at the
invitation of Theophilus, in 402. There, however,
he avoided meeting Chrysostom, but performed
another ordination which contravened ecclesiastical
law and informed the bishops whom he had as
sembled of the condemnation of Origen. After a
fruitless endeavor to secure the expl aeon and ex
communication of the adherents of Origen and the
condemnation of his writings, he left the city in
rage, but died before he reached Cyprus.
The extraordinary reputation of Epiphanies among his contemporaries was due to his union of monastic asceticism with deep learning and zeal for orthodoxy, and he may be regarded as the representative of the tendency of his time to drive paganism at all costs from the positionwhich
Character	it still held. His importance for
and Sig‑ posterity, on the other hand, is found
	nificance.	in the contents of his writings. His
		" Fast‑anchored " affords insight into
the theology of the period, and it contains a de
tailed exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity
and the Resurrection, and polemics against the
Arians, Origen, and others. Far more important
is the " Medicine Chest," which was based largely
on Irenaeus and the lost " Heresies " of Hippolytus.
The other sources of Epiphanies are more difficult
to trace. Once he quotes Clement of Alexandria
as his authority, but shows himself independent
in his discussion of many of the older heresies,
especially the Jewish and Samaritan sects, the
Ebionites, the Valentiniana, and the Marcionites.
With all his limitations, his work remains a valuable
source for the heresies of the fourth century. The
" Recapitulation," which was used by Augustine,
may also have been a separate work of Epiphanies.
His " Weights and Measures " is devoted chiefly
to the books of the Bible, their translations, the
geography of Palestine, and other Biblical subjects.
His "Twelve Gems," on the twelve precious stones
in the breastplate of the high priest, is extant only
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
lop,
Ii.
in two excerpts, one edited by Konrad Leaner (Zurich, 1565), and the other preserved as the fortieth question of Anastasius. The Latin translation of the latter, which is incomplete at the beginning and the end, was first published by P. F. Foggini (Rome, 1750), but the exegesis of the Song of Solomon, also translated by the same scholar, is really an abridgment of a work of Philo of Carpasia. The letters of Epiphanies to Johannes of Jerusalem and Jerome have been preserved in Latin translation, but the Homilies, the Yitte prophetorum, the De 7iumerorum mysteries, and the so‑called Physiologus are spurious.
(N. BoNwEmseH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The editio princepa of the Opera is by J. Hervagius, Basel, 1544; the editions by D. Petaviue, Paris, 1822, and W. Dindorf, Leipaic, 1859‑82 (critical) contain the Vita ascribed to an alleged companion of Epiphanies, Polybius (worthless as a source). Sources for a life are: Socrates, Heat. eccl., vi. 10, 12; $osomen. Heat. eccl., vi. 32, vii. 27, viii. 14; Jerome, De vir. i71., exiv. For more modern discussions of his life consult: A. Gervaiee, Hiatoire de la vie de S. tpiphane, Paris, 1738: DCB, ii. 149‑158 (by R. A. Lipaius, elaborate); Neander, Christian Church, vole. i., ii.; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 928‑933 et passim. For treatment of various phases of criticism consult: B. Eberhard, Die Befheitipuxg des Epiplsaniua am .$Ereite fiber Origenea, Trier, 1850; R. A. Lipaius. Zur Quellenkritik des Epiplaanioa, Vienna, 1885; idem, Quellen der 8.lteaten Kelzergeachiehte, pp. 91 eqq., Leipaic, 1874; A. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeachichte des Urchriateutuma, pp. 80 aqq., ib. 1884; H. G. Voigt, Eine verachollene Urkurule des antimontanieliachen Kamp/ea, ib. 1891; E. Rolffs, in TU, xii. 4, 1895; Krumbacher, Geachichte, pp. 874 aqq.; G. Rauachen, Jahrbvcher der chriatlichen Kirche, pp. 382‑383, 404, 552 eqq., Freiburg, 1897; 1Criiger, History, passim; Harnack, Dogma, especially vol. ii.

EPIPHAftIUS SCHOLASTICUS: A friend and assistant of Cassiodorua (q.v.) at whose request he translated many Greek works into Latin, viz.: (1) the church histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, which he combined into one; under the name of Historic tripartita, it was the most popular compendium on its subject in the Middle Ages; (2) the collection of synodical epistles sent to the emperor Leo I. in defense of the Council of Chalcedon and in condemnation of Timotheus IElurue (generally known as the Codex Encyclius); (3) the commentary of Didymus the Blind on the Catholic Epistles; (4) the commentary of Epiphanies of Salamis on the Song of Solomon. G. KxttGElt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ceillier, Auteura aaah, viii. 524, mi. 102; DCB, ii. 159‑180.
EPIPHANIiTS OF TICINUM: Bishop of Ticinum (Paves); b. at Ticinum 438 or 439; d. there Jan. 21, 496. He was elected bishop in 486 and was consecrated at Milan. He is described as of gracious personality and bearing and of great popularity. In the troublous times that preceded the downfall of the Western empire, Ep.phanius became the advocate and protector of his flock against the barbarian leaders in whose hands lay the fate of Italy. In 471 he went to Rome as delegate of the nobles and populace of Liguria to act as mediator between the emperor Anthemiua and his son‑in‑law the king‑maker Ricimer and succeeded in preventing war, though he could not save Anthemiua from death by the orders of Ricimer in the following year. In 474 he was the

RpIphany
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	168
ambassador of the emperor Julius Nepos at the court of the Visigothic king Euric, whom he persuaded to abstain from hostilities against the empire. In the same year the Heruli under Odoacer attacked Pavia and destroyed the cathedral; but Epiphanius obtained from the conqueror the remission of five years' taxes for the city and devoted himself to its restoration. He stood in the good graces of Theodoric, who sent him on a mission to Lyons in 494 to obtain from the Burgundian king Gundobad the release of his Ligurian prisoners. Epiphanius was the means of bringing back more than 6,000 men to the depopulated fields of northern Italy. There is a tradition that his body was brought to Hildesheim in 962.
(T. FoitaTaxt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Vita by Magnus Felix Ennodius is in MOii., Auct. ant., vii (188b), 84‑109, and in MPL, lziii.
207‑240.
EPIPHANY, FEAST OF THE: A festival celebrated in honor of Christ on Jan. 6, or some day near that date. It is first found among the Basilidians in Egypt, with whom it was the commemoration of the baptism of Christ. This was also the main reference of the festival when its observance became general in the Eastern Church. In some instances the birth of Christ was also commemorated on that day. But this meaning was not retained when, at the close of the fourth century, the Eastern Church adopted the custom of the Western, to celebrate the birth on Dec. 25. The Epiphany festival is first mentioned in the West in the fourth century. It is possible that in Gaul at least the birth of Christ was celebrated on that day; but in later times the celebration in the West generally referred to the worship of the Magi in chronological connection with the celebration of the birth on Dec. 25. References to the baptism occur, nevertheless, down to the Middle Ages, which makes it probable that wherever the festival was celebrated in the West before Christmas was fixed for Dec. 25, it concerned the baptism of Christ. In the Middle Ages the worship of the Magi was retained as the principal fact. Yet mention was also made of the miracle at Cana, and even of the resuscitation of Lazarus. The idea was the manifestation of the glory of Christ, as may be seen from the Roman Gospels for the Sundays after Epiphany which relate his being found in the Temple, the manifestation of his glory at Cana, the faith of the centurion, and the stilling of the tempest. The special functions which marked the day in the East were the preliminary steps to baptism and the blessing of the font, and the announcement of the date of Easter. Among popular customs some remains of the dramatic representation of the coming of the Magi have been retained in certain places.
Luther reverting to the original meaning of the day desired that preachers should refer to Christ's baptism and to Christian baptism in general, and himself preached on that subject. But he did not succeed in imposing his view on the Lutheran Church, which retained Matt. ii. 1‑12 as the Scripture lesson for the day. Before the end of the sixteenth century the celebration of the day was
abolished in some territories; among the Reformed it ceased entirely. Even among Lutherans the festival fell more and more into disuse, as unnecessary, or was transferred to the following Sunday, as in Prussia in 1754. At present there is much diversity of practise: in some parts the day is still kept as a great festival, in others it is a so‑called " half holy‑day," i.e., a day of purely ritual observance, with a church service; in others again it is not celebrated at all, though the following Sundays are still counted as Sundays after Epiphany. The efforts to restore the day are not likely to be successful. It follows too soon after Christmas and it is difficult to give it a special significance in addition to that of the greater festival. A suggestion that the day should be celebrated as a general missionary festival has this against it, that in many places missionary festivals have already been introduced with special peculiarities, and it would be undesirable to interfere with them. Thus only Luther's suggestion would remain, to make the day a baptismal festival. But this suggestion also has little prospect of successful execution. The festival, in our conditions, suffers from the difficulty of retaining the day as an ecclesiastical festival while it has attached to it no generally acknowledged special event to be celebrated. [In the modern Roman Catholic Church, it is the double of the first class, with an octave, and the Anglican Communion has retained it among the greater or "redletter" holy‑days, with especial service appointed.]
131BLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Oripvnea, book ax., chap. iv.; E. Martens, De antiquis eeeZeaioJ ritibua, iii. 42, Venice, 1783; A. J. Binterim, Denkwttrdipksiten, v. 1, pp. 310 aq9., 7 vole.. Mains, 1837‑41; P. de Lagarde. Udrer dar Wsihaarhtafeat, in MittsiiurWen, vol, iv., GtSttingen, 1891; T. Kliefoth, Liturgiache Abhandlunpen, 8 vole., Rostock, 18641; L. Duoheene, Christian Worship, passim, London, 1904; DCA, i. 81721 (a worthy account).

EPISCOPACY.
I. The Roman Catholic Church.
II. The Eastern Church.
III. The Jsneenist Church of Holland and the Old Catholics. IV. The Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church.
V. The Reformed Episcopal Church.
VI. The Moravian Church.
VII. The Lutheran Churches. VIII. The Reformed Churches.
IX. The American Methodist Episcopal Churches.
X. The Historic Episcopate.
Episcopacy is church government by bishops. The purpose of this article is to give a concise statement of the views concerning the episcopal office held by different Christian communions; for the origin of the office, its historic development, and theories of its relative dignity, see POLITY, EcclaslwsTTCwL; for the selection of bishops and their duties, see BIBHOP; see also the articles upon the several bodies named below.
I. The Roman Catholic Church holds to the divine origin sad authority of episcopacy. Its position was distinctly defined by the Council of Trent: " If any one with that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted consisting of bishops, priests and ministers' let him be anathema. If any one with that bishops are not superior to priests . . . or that the power which they possess is common to

padoaa<da aqy 'qamqp aqa jo'8maq aql 01 Son `8ataq
‑Itam aql jo; dsessaaaa pus atqaaisap se alsdoasida
eqp spie8aa main qomqa‑psoag Pus ‑&o7 aqy (Z)
'3[aoiq aqI ol uitq jq8noaq aaus.catoZui siq pas
`PuI ‑q Pu'al‑Qua 3o qaanqp aql .faedoosida ;o qq8ia
ouueyp alnl aqj ;o ant3e3uaeaadai aruaa3xa Isom aqI
asm (9f‑‑MI) Pne7 doqaiqqajV	Vo(I ;o pou.fc
aqI oI sdoqaoq ;o Ijsd at do apeai uotle8atap s
Ines aq aaqm luant3uoa aqI ;o saqamqp pauiio;ate
aq3 ;o notleatpio aqI paziu8ooai "I eauref `puet
‑8nd ;o qamqa aqI ui &I!joqlnv jaaq8iq aqI 8191
es asst sV •qloq usql ieq8tq pus a1suoaetp pug
pooqjaaud aq3 ruoa; jam~sop aapao ue `satlsods
aq3;o aunt aqI ucoi; uaaq snag pug `aae.faqy '(OLBT
'uopao7 `B8 'd `l't6°7oxtl~L 7°.‑7s?H P'uv tuuupoQ /o
4‑u°Q `3‑IS 'H f) ~, uotlat?'?	pspnf ;o aamod
aarea aqj ,;O paesaesod axe saCs°ds aqj ;o sioaeaa
‑one aq3 8maq se „ sdoqetg 'sdoqsiq Sq paatepio
boa .fs3soatai Saw ol Sir
.pttsn sataap pug `aoissa7ane aqowda s3daaoe `spasq ;o aot3tsodnn aqj !q aaer8 ;o aotastnrsnsil 9% 0; eptoq `qamqa aqI ;0 8ataq 619n aqI o3 atqesaadsipm se dosdoascda apie8 ‑as jt Ing •sluameaaes eq3 8aoaie aotlsntpao eaetd uana aou 'ra3ad ‑IS ;o aossaaane atqtnejut aql pug ruqp ;o ream aql so `adod aqI ;o .f3uoq3ne aouadna aqj aztn8ooai Ion swop II 'qasnqp agoqlsa aauiog 9% ;o Isqj sxetttotlrsd pttlaasea m si sled ‑oasoda aqI ;o main agoqjap‑ot8aV aqy (T) •matn qoanqa.peoag Jo ‑moZ 9q3 Pus `main qomqa‑q8111 so attoqjsp‑oi8aV eqj‑`noimdo ;o sasaeta omI Gwai°T X835 lntQll aq7 30 iqwuq3 Iedoastdd ;;°jd afi4 Puw PulI2ud 30 qwnR3 6111 'AI
•notseaaans apol .sods aqj panaaeaid Saql jvqj os '(9L81 '81
paetaaz3tmg so; doqs!q 8oziaH aQ Paqvaaasaoa
SI3nanbaeqna oqm'(EL8T `TI 'gnV) saafuta'2I doqs<g
BnIIsiaaeaoo aalaanaQ ;o doqetq eql `puenog ;o
ns!aasaep aqyuoa; eiapio ataqi pamaas sogoq3ep
PIO aq,L 'aaiog ruoa; noc~soianmaiooxa pnaada
a Xq paai~oa aaeq nq aaurs iana uot3eiaaeaoa mau
qaed uoll‑owwa ;o aIu aqI pasn;ar `03 pattddu
8acaq uo 'sdoqetq agog;ep asmog xoqlo •ucap
‑JW‑V ac 8ntng aaql `uotBqsg ;o doqstg `IatreA
auvW anbta!U1oa uioi; TZLI ut pantaaaa sum eptaaa
‑uup qainQ aqj ;o alsdoastda aqy •.fluoqjns ai
un q o1 iouadne am epounoo Isataaamaa jvqj pule
'ua Sauz ox[ Isqj ptoq 'qamqp aq3 aano aotlatpstml
.isosuiadns pug alenadde no aeql aaoai 8mqVue
adod aqI ol .faap daql '•a•i 'ajedoascda aq1;o .fioaqj
usaine0 aql BaIPIoq ut II uioi; iagtp Inq `dasdooetda
jo &Iljoxftnv GUI
atloq7ea uvwo'tI aq3 q3!&	q9o9 saHoqlg3 PIO
aw Pug PMTIoH io Rwnqo muasaa j aqy 'IH
		•aiatesnia f Pug
'qaoyaV Im.	'atdoagne1saop 'Isea 9q3 ;o
sqaiectled ou o~q ano; aqj gym .flta8tp Tenba uv
8aufdnaao 'aiopaalsuqa aialaaAj ;o qaisoaled aqI
so an q a8patmou:qae ol Spew si Inq `uiopaaisraq0
Uv ;o peaq tenlwtde Aql se adod aqI aztu8oaas
03 8ntsn;ai at qamqp mlg7 aqI azoa3 sluasstP 11
'aotseaaana agolsode ol puv 'aoeJB aq(nsode ;o
aacsetaieaexl aqI ol `.Caedoaetda ;o ar8uo anintp
aq3 0; aetma3lR sPt°q qoxnqo asalss7 aqZ 'II
•p0111100 neatIeA aqZ 3o aomoap aqj Sq esoto a ol lq8nolq SII'saTjat ‑oaqp sem aledoasida aql ;o Syaoqlns tem8uo
6oedoosjaff
	6aeqHjdFg
pas not1otpeunf aqj ;o sauoaql amelnorueiltn Pug nsattts0 aqi JOAO 0122TU19 91qj, ,‑JOjSVj tssaantun pas amaadns aqI Xq papajoad pue paua ‑ql8uaya dHsaa in Siuoqlne tedoastda aiaql Ieql „posse os~‑U pue „`qamqp aqI ;o auttdtastp pug Iuacu ‑uiano8 aqI ol mead Ieql asoqi ui oars pae steaoui P‑ qIP33 oI 2uotaq jvqI sia33'suT IIe » u3 « ‑ol‑d ug „ Xq adod aqI ol aaaarpaqo aapao (•bba ZgZ 'n `spaai0 'geqas :E •ni) eaaaaaQ asays~ aqy 'tmq Sq paldaaae aaqm Slao piten uotleu~isaa ji
ea~sai pue cuaq3 aeodap 01 adod aqj satqeua pus adoqaoq aqI ;o aetjv8oiaid aqI intunt .ftanouas 'III 3aaaoual ;o math atqy •.Cmluao qjaaal3g aqI ut saapeat asome0 iaqio pas aoaia0 Sq pus `aioqnQ auatd se qane 'aft awes aqI ;o simattqnd ~tsdud ‑Ilne aqj Xq paeoddo pas dm3naa qlnaa4jno; aqI ;o Rq Alive aqI m s;atactqnd faded aqj .fq paiea ‑onpa SUM Sloaq3 siqy '(60P 'CL *dd'Z681 '11011111K `ucnynsdvd 'qaupara3‑aaBuHloQ •;a) „ aamod ;o apnlmatd „ 8mneq se ion pas adod aqI Iatsse oI All ‑aoqlne ataql amaaaJ.faql Isqj paaetaap aq (IL9 'AT
.1 `7d111 "!A `'~d) 'I Owl 8utIonb 'III Iuaaonnl .fq palels .fta3tmjap sum adod aq3 ;o sluswses axs edoqsoq aqi zeql .Caoaql aqy ‑(08‑LL ZT) III ooIoqatIvT Xq apes paxg a apem ssm adod aqI Aq adoqatq ;o aoilenugaoa aqy •eatlsode aqi ;o psaq paLutodde .ftantntp aqI ;o ioesaaane aqI pus Iataq0 ;o .ream aqI ev mtq ol laalqns sae sdoqarq ug `Jaw ;o aoseaaans alntpaaann aqI se 'pug sdoqetq;o .fqaistaTq aqj ;o peaq aqI Is sl adod aqy
•iapao Iautlstp a IOU et pas pooqleaud aqj ;o aapio aqI oI s8aotaq doqelq aqI aaql jlaeh Sq aapio xm aq aqsaoavipqne aqp ;I •sa‑totvm. sauapw aqI ut uoaeapqne aqI papnta ‑at (gI2I‑86TT) 'III 3uaa°UUI '(Z '?Tt‑ uotesae) sasolmu aauypco aqI qpm suooeapqns easseta 11 so; 'uot1rolaidaalat pto;oml a ;o atqi1daasns si a8en8ust sat Inq „ saoasap pas `s1saud `edoqatq ;o .fqaae ‑aatq,> aq3 3o suds Iaaay ;o ponnop eqy '(~LOI 'Al `aa8tK 'pa 'q we '•ddns `muquns :E 'nine '~I `, Mmuos"jo) aalaaaeqa Islaaarexaes s IOU suq 1101 uot3eJaaeaoo jeql pug iapao jam
VT a you ff! aced ‑oasyda aqj Isq3 smaTe are8v pug are8v sancnbv esraoqy •aaea8 atqitapat us aajuoa enql pus urep ‑ao ol 3q8u aq1 snag aaore .faql pue papaduy et aaer8 tecaads a aoyioaeaoo aiaq3 ul •saaseod Saql aas.r8 ;o pmt 9q3 at jnq uoiiatpetmt ut .ftaaaax you saoasap pus eisaud ol Jouadns Slum
'(09T 'd '1Yaaiunayxg `8aaqpatig •;a) IOU so aieaud aq1 uioi; wmIatp xapjo ue sae edoqatq aqj iaqlaqm .f1mspaaan ;o aa33eta a si II •siaqla3 iojnqC) aqI Aq oats plat[ main g `(qZ 'on `‑!Jag enoH 'paen7 .pa 9.",x s.pWd lJ jjaqo2l ,'jarj ;o aastd aqj ptoq oqm 'qamqp qj ;o eaapeat aqj„) Peas stq ut pae3s pus salad '38 3o etoseaaana are sdoqscq us Ieql `•ztn 'sa,8V atpptW aqj at 3na[enaid aitnb sees main aaqlouV '(ELE •n 'dHy `t `•dna In 'uscadf0) „ eatlsode aq3 0l paaaane noilentpao snou ‑sain Sq ‑91‑ jet
‑one aletpanroat aql are edoqscq aqy •.ftaetanoa main slql juasaid ,'dolqo!q aqj m s! qojnqo wqj, `(9LE‑‑'YLE 'n `dA1V `8 ['x‑
	. i `.!AX]
ueudA3 ;o spiom aqy •3i inoqlim asnca IOU dea
qamqp aqj !aiaaaiszoes aqj Em qasnqp 91qj 01 roll
‑oases ae ptaq et 6asdooetdd '(L `g Tmcx uoiasae)
„ exuatlium eq mat jai ‑ . . oWrsd oI pug maqI
VIQadO'IaADxal Sf10IJI'Iz!i

Episcopacy Episoopiue
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
is not the only form of government with Scriptural authority (if, indeed, it or any other be recommended by Scripture); but it is the one best adapted to forward the interests of Christ's kingdom among men. The best Anglican writers on this side agree that the episcopate developed out of the presbyterate, and that there are only two orders of the ministry in the New Testament,‑presbyters and deacons. Dr. Lightfoot, bishop of Durham, in his scholarly and exhaustive discussion of the subject (commentary on Philippians, pp. 180‑267), says, " It is clear, that, at the close of the Apostolic Age, the two lower orders of the threefold ministry were firmly and widely established; but traces of the episcopate, properly so called, are few and indistinct . . . . The episcopate was formed out of the preabyteral order by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief of them." And again he says, " The episcopate was formed out of the presbytery." After he was made bishop he stated that his views on the episcopate had been misunderstood. Dean Stanley (Christian Institutions, p. 210) representing the same view, says, " According to the strict rules of the Church derived from those early times, there are but two orders, presbyters and deacons."
This view, which is also held by such men as Arnold, Afford, Jacob, and Hatch, was the view of the divines of the English Reformation. Cranmer, Jewel, Grindal, and afterward Field (" The apostles left none to succeed them," Of the Church, vol. iv., p. vii.), defended episcopacy as the most ancient and general form of government, but always acknowledged the validity of Presbyterian orders. (Cf. G. P. Fisher, in the New Englander, 1874, pp. 121‑172.) Bishop Parkhurst looked upon the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian community; and Bishop Ponet would have abandoned even the term " bishop " to the Catholics, Ecclesiastics held positions in the Church of England who had received only Presbyterian ordination. Such were Whittingham, Dean of Durham, Cartwright, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and Travers, provost of Trinity College, Dublin. It is doubtful whether any prelate of the English Church in Elizabeth's reign held the jure divino theory of episcopacy, though Archbishop Bancroft (d. 1605) seems to have been the first Anglican prelate to avow it. Two of the most elaborate defenders of the Low‑church view in the seventeenth century were Stillingfleet and Ussher, the latter representing the episcopate as only a presidency of the presbyter over his peers; yet the Episcopal Church reordaina all ministers who have not been episcopally ordained, but accepts priests of the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches without reordination.
The orders of the Anglican Church were declared invalid by Leo XIII. in the bull APoslolicve torte of Sept. 13, 1896 (in Mirbt, Quellen, p. 406), the decision being based on certain defects in the form of ordination. Mr. Gladstone's appeal to the pope to hold the decision in abeyance was not heeded. The archbishops of Canterbury and York united in a reply (1897).
V. The Reformed Episcopal Church holds to an, episcopacy of expediency. " It adheres to episcopacy, not as of divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of church polity " (Declaration of Principles, Due. 1, 1873). Its founder and first bishop was George David Cummins (q.v.), who had been assistant bishop of the Episcopal Church in Kentucky.
VI. The Moravian Church deserves separate and special mention, for three reasons. Its episcopate was active before the Reformation on the Continent and in England began; it is in the apostolic succession; and its bishopric in America antedates those of the Episcopal (1784) and Methodist (1784) denominations by forty years, August Gottlieb Spangenberg (q.v.) having been consecrated in Germany, 1744, and exercised oversight in Pennsylvania from 1745 to 1762. The first bishops consecrated in America were the Moravians, Martin Mack, at Bethlehem, Oct. 18, 1770, and Michael Graff, at Bethlehem, June 6, 1773. The first Moraviau bishop was consecrated at Lhotka in 1467 by the regularly ordained Waldeneian bishop Stephen (cf. E. A. de Schweinitz, The Moravian Episcopate, London, 1877; see BOHEMIAN BRETHREN). The British parliament recognized the var lidity of Moravian ordination in 1749. In 1881, however, Bishop Stevens of Pennsylvania reordained a Moravian presbyter, aiming to give him "a more ample ordination." The Moravians recognize the ordination of other Christian bodies as valid, admitting presbyters at once into their ministry (Law Book of the Church, ix. 63). [The medieval Waldenses had a connexional organization with bishops or general superintendents (majores or majorales), ordained if possible by other majores; in the absence of a major, by presbyters. They claimed apostolic succession for their majores. Their authority in ordaining and in exercising discipline was much greater than that of presbyters (cf. B. Gui, Practica Inquiaitionis hereticee pravitatis, ed. C. Douais, Paris, 1888, pp. 136‑137). The Moravian Anabaptists had a similar polity with a single bishop or head of the whole connection.
A. H. N.]
VII. The Lutheran Churches have for the moat part abandoned episcopacy, and where they retain the name "bishop" the authority of the official is regarded as of human bestowment. The parity of the ministry is a fundamental tenet of Lutherans. With rare exceptions (George of Polentz, bishop of Samland (q.v.), and Echard, bishop of Pomerania) the bishops on the Continent, unlike the bishops in England, held aloof from the Reformation. Luther might have had episcopal ordination for the first Lutheran preachers, but, as he distinctly said, be did not want it. He ordained with his own hands the first minister of the new order, his amanuensis, G. RSrer. He pronounced the ministry a matter of expediency, that things may be done in an orderly and decent manner. An officer with supervisory jurisdiction somewhat similar to that of bishop is called inGermany Superintendent (q.v.). The Lutheran Church in Sweden has bishops; a committee was appointed in 1874, by the convention of the Episcopal Church in the

169	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	E iso piue
United Staten, to investigate the validity of its orders, but the convention let the matter drop and no decision was pronounced. There in much doubt concerning the integrity of the succession. Lawrence Peterson was consecrated by Paul Justin, Bishop of Abo, in 1575 Archbishop of Upsala. The evidence for the validity of Justin's consecration is defective. But the confessions of the Swedish Church recognize the equality of the ministry. The bishops of the Church of Denmark have no claim whatever to apostolic succession, although the English bishops of India have recognized Danish ordination. Christian III. in 1536 imprisoned the old bishops; and the new ones whom he appointed were at first called superintendents, and ordained by Bugenhagen.
VIII. The Reformed Churches recognize two orders of the ministry,‑presbyters and deacons. They believe that the bishops of the New Testament were identical with presbyters, and deny that the apostles appointed any successors. They do not deny that episcopacy as a matter of expediency may be justifiable; but they do not concede either its divine origin, or the transmission of grace by the imposition of hands, or apostolic succession, in the AngloCatholic sense. (Cf. the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church, chaps. iii., v., etc.) Calvin supported episcopacy for Poland and acquiesced in it for England. John Knox divided Scotland into eleven districts, for each of which a " superintendent " was to be chosen; his duties were to be those of a missionary supervisor and the idea of a separate order of the ministry was not thought of.
IX. The American Methodist Episcopal Churches have an episcopacy which in neither diocesan nor hierarchical, but itinerant and presbyterial. The bishops constitute an " itinerant general superintendency," and are " amenable to the body of ministers and preachers," who may divest them of their office. They are not a distinct order of the clergy, but only presbyters. The Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States (North) at several of its recent General Conferences has emphatically disavowed that the episcopate is an order; it is only a function. The Methodist Church can not claim apostolic succession if it would. John Wesley after having applied in vain to the Bishop of London to ordain preachers for America, himself ordained the first bishop, Thomas Coke (q.v.), in 1784. The Wesleyan Church in Great Britain has superintendents. The Evangelical Association and the Church of the United Brethren also have an I episcopate. Their bishops are elected for a stated period and not for life.
%. The Historic Episcopate in an expression first used in its technical sense by the Protestant Episcopal Church at its Triennial Convention in Chicago, 1886. The expression occurs in a series of four articles adopted by the Convention which were intended to be a basis for the reunion of Christendom. They were reaffirmed by the Pan‑Anglican Synod at Lambeth, 1888 (see LAMBETH CONFEREIJeE). In the communications which passed between the committee appointed by the Triennial
Convention and the Presbyterian General Assembly
of the United Staten of America, it was found that
the expression meant that there is a special order
of bishops which goes back to apostolic times and
the proposition of union on that basis was declined
(cf. the Minutes of the General Assembly for 1887,
pp. 132‑134, 154‑156, and for 1880, pp. 93‑101;
also C. W. Shields, The Historic Episcopate (New
York, 1894). 	D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Add to the works cited under Blsaora and POLITY, ECCLESIASTICAL, J. Reville, Les Origineadel'6pia‑
enpaz. Paris, 1895.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH, REFORMED. See REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

EPISCOPIUS (BISSCHOP), SIMON: Dutch theologian; b. at Amsterdam Jan. 8, 1583; d. there Apr. 4, 1643. For his gifts and industry shown in the schools of Amsterdam the city authorities made him alumnus, and sent him to the University of Leyden in 1600. There he became master of arts in 1606 and then began the study of theology under Arminius and Gomarus. When the Amsterdam officials wished to make him preacher there, the Calvinists protested. He went to Franeker and heard Johannes Drusius. In 1610 he became pastor at Bleiawyk, after having declined other calls. He took part on the aide of the Remonstranta (q.v.) in the conferences at The Hague (1611) and at Delft (1613). When Gomarua resigned as professor at Leyden the curators nominated Episcopius as his successor and he entered upon his duties as professor there Feb. 23, 1612, with an address De optima regrci Christi irustruendi rations. During the nix years that he held this position he published several works . which were collected after his death in his Opera theologica (ed. S. Curcellaeus and P. van Limborch, 2 vols., Amsterdam, 1650‑65). Festus Hommius, pastor in Leyden, attacked him in Specimen controversiarum Belgicarum (Leyden, 1618) and he was once publicly affronted in Amsterdam.
With twelve other Remonstrant ministers Episcopius was cited to appear at the Synod of Dort and he was one of the leaders of the Remonstranta before that body (see DORT, SYNOD OF). He and the others were banished and for a time he lived in Antwerp, then at Paris and in Rouen, until, after the death of Prince Maurice (1625), the animosity against the Remonstrants in his native land began to diminish and he was able to return to Rotterdam (1626). He wrote much during his exile including the Confessio sine declaratio pastorum qui in fmderato Belgio Remonstrantes vocantur (1622; Dutch transl. by Uytenbogaert, 1621). In Sept., 1630, he consecrated the new Remonstrant church in Amsterdam; in Oct., 1634, he became the head of the newly founded Remonstrant theological seminary there, and filled the position with much honor and renown for nine years, displaying vast energy and exercising a far‑reaching influence. In his Institutiones theologicte (left incomplete; published in four volumes, 1650‑51) he gave a scientific basis to the doctrines of the Remonstrants, in his Apologia pro confessions (1629) he refuted an attack of four Leyden professors upon the

EvIsoopus	THE NEW SCHAFP'‑HERZOG	180
Eponym
Con f easio, and various attacks by Trigland and
others received his immediate attention. With no
less zeal and success he defended the Protestant
faith against the doctrines and practise of the
Roman Catholics.
	In all his writings Episcopiua maintains that
theology is not a speculative but a practical science
and that every conception of faith is without value
when application fails in religious and moral life.
But it moat be granted that his opponents had some
reason to question his orthodoxy. Not only did
he combat the Calvinistic doctrine of predestina
tion, but in his explanation of the dogmas about
the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and original
sin, he deviated from the doctrine of the Reformed
Church. None the less his endeavor to free theo
logical science from ecclesiastical constraint broke
the way for its independent development. He
was one of the greatest theologians of his age and
was generally esteemed for his amiable character.
			H. C. RoaoEt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. a Limboroh, HurtorFa oitm sancti Epis
	copii., Amsterdam, 1701; J. Konynenburg, Loffrode S.
	Epiacopiue, ib. 1791: J. M. 9chrack, LebenebwAreibuno
	non lxrrihmten (islehrkn, ii. 182‑194, Loipei0. 1790; F.
	Calder, Memoirs of 8. Epiempiua, London, 1835; H. C.
	Rogge, Bibliot>resk remous(rantxhe peachriftsn, Pp. x8‑17,
	Amsterdam, 1883.
	EPISCOPUS Ilk PARTIBUS INFIDELIUM. See
BISHOP, TITITLAS.
	EPISTLE: I. The Epistles of the New Testa
ment: Weatc:.tt and Hort's Greek New Testa
ment has 531 pages of text, of which slightly over
		one‑third is taken up by the Epistles.
Importance This is a striking fact, showing that
	and Sig‑ the epistolary element is a significant
	nificance. part of Holy Scripture and decisive
		for the study of the nature and mean
ing of revelation and iaspiration. Since the New
Testament reflects the history and mental perspec
tive of the Christian consciousness out of which it
came, it is also certain that letterwriting played
a large part in the building and development of
the Apostolic Church.
	Other facts found in or near the Apostolic Age
have similar bearing. The letters to the churches
in the Apocalypse of John (chaps. ii. and iii.) are
strong evidence. Their existence as an organic
part of an apocalypse is, in itself, notable. Chris
tianity took the apocalypse from the Jews. For
two centuries it had been in constant use and,
like all abiding literary types, had created for itself
a traditional mold. The prophetic consciousness
of the new religion boldly altered and adapted it.
The New Testament apocalyptiat takes the letter
as a part of his method. His letters are something
more than a form; each had a definite address and,
like a real letter, takes color from actual and local
conditions. This original element in the Christian
Apocalypse proves that letter‑writing had already
played a considerable part in the making of the
new religion's fortune; otherwise, the apocalypt
ist would not have made this use of the epistolary
form.
	The First Epistle of Clement (95 A.D.?) Shows a
Christian congregation manifesting a lively interest
in the affairs of another. Evidently, coreeepond‑
sate was the means whereby the new religion both expressed and intensified its deep common consciousness. The Shepherd of Herman (100‑140 A.D.?) enjoins Clement, the head of the Roman congregation, to send the prophet's outgivings to the other churches. Thus it is evident that the letter satisfied a deep need of primitive Christianity. Religions differ in their power to create a high and sustained common consciousness. It was because the religion of Jesus excelled at this point all competing religions which invaded the Roman Empire in the same period that it eventually conquered. Therefore, the large apace within the Scripture canon occupied by the Epistles illumines the history of the Apostolic Church and the nature of the Christian religion.
The Apostolic letters were in large part written before 70 A.D., while three at least of the Gospels were published after that date. Here, again, is a fact significant for the interior history of the Apostolic Church. The publication of the Gospels corresponds to the need which impels a nation to publish and codify its organic law. The building of the Apoetolikon (the Epistles) accompanies the founding and building of the Catholic Church, while the publishing of the Gospels indicates the deepening self‑consciousness of the Church.
In the founding of the Catholic Church St. Paul played the leading part. It was his ambition as a missionary to evangelize the empire. In the pur seance of that splendid aim he planted churches
	widely scattered over Asia Minor and
The 	Greece, the care of which was on his
Epistles heart night sod day (II Cor. xi. 28).
of Paul Consequently through letters and the
disciples who served him as letter carriers (Timothy, Epaphroditus, Sylvanus, and others) he kept himself in touch with these outposts and sought to shape their development. It is easy, then, to understand why the Pauline letters constitute the main part of the New Tester went Epistles. In the first plane they occupy a large part of the space within the canon. Of the 183 pages given to the Epistles in Weatcott and Hort'a Greek New Testament, St. Paul fills 127 In the second place, the Pauline letters are the only real letters in' the New Testament. The Catholic Epistles are largely homilies; the Epistle to the Hebrews is a theological treatise, with a small personal element (xiii. 23‑25); but the Pauline letters are in large part real letters. The apostle was informed regarding conditions in his churches, and his letters go to the heart of specific problems and needs.
St. Paul used the letter as he used the Greek language, with masterly freedom. His salutation is a distinct literary evolution. Compare it with the salutation of James, which is cast in the lit‑, erary mold of his time. Paul builds up a salutation which becomes an apologetic and doctrinal instrument (Gal, i. 1‑5; Rom. i. 1‑7). His eager, creative mind reaches forward to his conclusion and greets his correspondents with it.
St. Paul's letters are, in a sense, an autobiography. In them he expresses himself with great freshness, surrendering himself to the matter in hand, taking

181	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
color from it while he imposes form upon it. In this way he makes himself the only man of the Apostolic Age who is largely and vitally individual to us and comes before us as a real person. No life of Peter or John can be written which is not mainly generalization and more or less diffuse sermonizing. But a biography of Paul is possible. HENRY S. NASH.
II. Apocryphal Epistles. Bee APOCRYPHA, B.
III. Epistles, in the Liturgical Sense. See PERIcorE; and also EVANI3ELIARIUM; for those in the
ecclesiastical sense see COMMENDATORY LETTERS; DECRETAL6; ENCYCLICAL LETTERS; LETTERS DIMI880RY.
Brsrroonerax: As as aid to penetrating the internal life of the Apostolic Age through study of the Epistles, consult in general the literature on that period cad the works on Introduction to the N. T., especially: E. Reran, Hiat. des origins& du chriatianiame, 7 vols.. Paris, 1883‑82, Erg. trawl., London, n.d. (brilliant, but the conclusions are to be scanned); E. Reuss, Geaehichte der heitigea Sehrifden des N. T., Brunswick, 1887, Eng. trawl., London, 1890 (somewhat antiquated, yet precise sad char in insight); A. C. McGiffert, Hid. of* Chrdatianitb in the Apostolic Age, New York, 1897 (belongs to the Harnaek school); A. Jiilicher, Einleituap in daa N. T., TBbingen, 1901, Eng. trawl., London, 1904 (beat for Introduction); J. Moffatt, Historical N. T., Edinburgh, 1901 (handy); E. von Dobsahiits, Daa apoatoLiache Zeitalter, Halls, 1904, Eng. trawl., London. 1904 (on the religious and social background); P. Wernle, Die Anfttngs uneerer Religion, Tiibingen, 1904, Eng. trawl., Beginnings a/ Christianity, 2 vole., London, 1903‑04 (the doctrinal predominates over the practical and social); W. M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, ib. 1905; J. H. Ropes, The Apostolic Ape in the Light of Criticism, New York, 1908 (beat popular work); H, von 8oden, Bepim rings of Christianity, London, 1908.

EPISTOLIE OBSCURORUM VIRORUM: A se‑, rice of satirical epistles occasioned by the conflict between Johann Reuchlin (q.v.) and the Dominicans of Cologne in the early years of the sixteenth century. They may be regarded as companion pieces to the Clarorum virorum epratole .
ad Johannem Reuchlin, a collection of missives intended to illustrate the support which that great scholar enjoyed among the illustrious men of the time, and to the poem Triumphus Doctoris Rcuchlini, the authorship of which has been attributed in part to Ulrich von Hutten. The first part of the Epistoke appeared in 1514 under the title Epistohe obscurorum viroru.m ad roenerabilem virum Magistrum (?rtuinum Gratium, and comprised forty‑one letters which were increased by seven in the third edition, published in 1516. The second part appeared in 1517 under a slightly altered title and contained sixty‑two letters, to which eight supplementary letters were added in a second edition. In 1689 both parts were published in an amplified form but the added material possesses no inner connection with the original work. Ortuinus Gratius, to whom the greater number of the letters are addressed, was professor of belles‑lettres and philosophy in Cologne after 1506. Devoting his considerable humanistic learning to the service of scholasticism, he drew upon himself the hatred and contempt of the advocates of the new learning, and was characterized by Luther as a " wretched poetaster and a ravening wolf, if not indeed a crocodile." Among the alleged writers of the IV.‑11
letters occur a few names of actual personalities, such as Jakob Hochetraten and Arnold von Tongern, but the great majority like 8chaffamulius, Mistladerius, etc., are obviously comic fictions. In form no less than in contents, the EPistoke are a burlesque of the scholastic literature. The debased Latinity of the theologians is cleverly imitated and their ignorance of and contempt for the ancient learning are contrasted with their firm conviction of their own erudition and mental acuteness. Assuming to be puzzled by the most absurd problems of scholarship and theology, the writers address themselves to Ortuinus for a resolution of their doubts. The moral degradation of the clergy is painted at the same time with a broadness of humor that is undeniably contrary to the taste of a more advanced age. References to the dispute between Reuchlin and the Dominicans are to be found in all the letters, and in the second part the first rumblings of the approaching storm of the Reformation may be heard.
	In spite of the similarity between the two parts
of the Epestolm, the first may be characterized as
showing a more restrained fancy and mode of ex
pression and a less evident desire to indulge in
satire for the mere joy of destruction. The letters
have been assigned, therefore, a double, and, pos
sibly, a triple authorship. The author of the greater
number of letters in the first part and the one
who conceived the idea of the work was Johann
Jiiger (called Crotus Rubeanus), who, born at
Dornheim in 1480, was educated by the Domini
cans, became professor of theology at Cologne in
1506, and rector of the university of Erfurt in 1520.
The chief writer of the second part was probably
Ulrich von Hutten. To Hutten the work had
been attributed from the beginning, but, whereas
he indirectly confessed to the authorship of the
Carmen rythmicale in the second part, he expressly
denied all responsibility for the first. The persons
attacked in the EptstAlte obtained a papal brief
against the authors, publishers, and possessors of
the book, and carried on a vigorous polemic
against the work. It was a Defensio by Pfefferkorn
that gave occasion to the writing of the second
part. 	(FERDINAND COHR$.)
BIBLTOIIRAPHY: The edition which displaces all others is by E. Becking, 2 vole., Leipaic, 1884‑70, containing teat, indexes and commentary; German trawl. by M. Binder, Stuttgart, 1876, Eag. travel., London, 1909. Consult D. F. Strauss, Ulrich van Hutten, pp. 178‑211, ib. 1871, Eng travel., London, 1874.
EPONYM: The personage assumed in folk‑lore and early history as the ancestor of a clan or race or as the founder of a state or city. The term is a loan‑word (Gk, eponymoa, " given as a name "), and is much used in modern investigations into the origins of society. It embodies concisely the results of those investigations so far as they involve that the alleged ancestors or founders were fictitious creations formed in the late mythopeic period in response to inquiry into beginning by the peoples concerned. Thus its use implies that when it was forgotten what were the origins of the Ionians, Eolians, and Acheans, of the Italian peoples and of Rome, Ion, 1Folus and Achseus, Italus and Romulus were put forward to account

EQUitins	THE NEW BCHAFF‑HERZOG	189
Erasmus
for the names of the tribes, peoples and city, though ~,
modern research has seemed to prove that they had
no real existence as persona. While the term epo
nym and the conclusions of research it expresses
have long been commonplaces in secular history,
only comparatively recently have they been applied
to Biblical history. Here the critical school alone
has applied the term and the idea, e.g., to the patri
archs assigned as progenitors of the Hebrew race
and of the several tribes. Thus Heber is regarded
as an eponym accounting for the Hebrew people,
and the same is true of Jacob and Israel and of his
twelve sons. The grounds adduced for thus apply
ing the method are various. In general, it is as
sumed that what is taken as proved for non‑Biblical
races applies with equal force to the peoples named
in the Bible, especially in view of the strong tend
ency manifest there to etymologize in explaining
the names. In particular, the appearance both in
Egyptian and in cuneiform documents of such names
as YakoG‑el " Jacob is god," Yoseph‑el " Joseph is
god," the occurrence of such names as Gad and
Asher as god‑names in non‑Hebraic sources, and
many similar phenomena have been made the basis
for extending to Biblical names the principles of
explanation regarded as fixed and satisfactory in
secular lines of investigation. It hardly needs to
be said that the traditional or conservative school
of Biblical interpretation repudiates the methods
and the results involved	GEO. W. GILMORE.
	EQUITIUS: An early leader of Western monas
ticism. Our knowledge of him is gained from Greg
ory the Great, who got his information from per
sonal friends. Of his date the only thing known
is that he lived in the beginning and middle of the
sixth century. He was abbot of several monas
teries in the province of Valerie, near the Lago
di Fucino in the Sabine Mountains, and ruled also
over certain nunneries. The monks busied them
selves with agriculture and in copying ancient
manuscripts. Although Equitius was a layman,
he preached both in churches and in the streets
of the towns and villages through which he made
missionary journeys. His itinerant activity led
to a conflict with the clergy, who induced the pope
(Gregory does not name him) to summon Equitius
to Rome; but he changed his mind, it is said, as
the result .of a terrifying vision‑probably in reality
through being convinced of the harmlessness of
Equitius, who is honored as a saint on Mar. 7.
		(G. GHtl'rZMACHER.)
Btnraooaera:: The single source is Pope Gregory L, Dia•
	loporum libri quatluor, i., chap. 4, handiest in MPL, Isavii.
	147 eqq~ Consult ASB. March, i. 849‑851: C. Baronius,
	Annalea eccl., ad annum 581, nos. 9‑12, 12 vole., Rome,
	1688‑93; E. Spreitaenhofer. Die Entmirklunp des allm
	bfdnchtuma in ltalicn, Vienna, 1894.
	ERA: This word (Let. sera and era) denotes a
sequence of years reckoned from a definite point
of time, wherein every particular year has its fixed
position by numerical rotation; and the point of
time. from which the era proceeds is termed its
epoch. The word is first used by Isidore of Seville
(q.v.) in the beginning of the seventh century; and
attempts have accordingly been made to derive
it from the Gothic. It has been correlated with
the German Jahr and English " year "; but this is not at all certain, and many deem the more probable origin to be from the Latin tt?ra (plural of as in the sense of " counters," " reckoning ").
Among Christian peoples, the era now generally in use is that which has for its epoch the birth of Jesus Christ; that is, the years are reckoned " after the birth of Christ." This era was certainly brought into general use and probably
The	was invented by Dionysius Esiguus
Christian (q.v.). That is to say, when (in 525)
	Era.	he was making a continuation of the
		ninety‑five year Easter‑table of Cyril
of Alexandria from its expiration in the year 531
after Christ, he did not designate the separate
years of this Easter cycle, as Cyril had done, as so
many yearn after the Diocletian persecution, but
as so many yearn ab incarnatiorte Domini. He
says, " We have been unwilling to connect our
cycle with the name of an impious persecutor
[Diocletian], but have chosen rather to note the
years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ." For the first year of his computation,
Dionyaius assumed 754 of the City of Rome accord
ing to Varro's calculation, following probably
some reckoning already known by his age. By
incarnatio Domini, however, he understood, con
sistently with the phraseology then in vogue, not
the birth of Jesus, but his conception; that is,
the day of the annunciation to Mary (celebrated
on Mar. 25; see ANNUNCIATION, FEAST OF THE).
At the same time, he did not begin his era with this
day, but with the first of January preceding‑in
other words, with the beginning of the year as it
stood accepted in the calendar of Julius Caesar.
Hence " the first of January, 754, of the City of
Rome according to Varro," is the epoch of the era
of Dionysius. This was afterward misunderstood;
incarnatio coming to be identified with natitritas
[and Dec. 25 being the accepted day of Christ's
birth (see CHRISTMAS)], people supposed that
according to the reckoning of Dionysius, Jesus
was born on Dec. 25, 753 w.u.c.‑as though Dio
nysius began his era a week after its proper epoch.
Others supposed that Mar. 25, 753, or Dec. 25,
754, was the date of the incarttatio according to
Dionysius (cf. the works on chronology, e.g.,
C. L. Ideler, Handbuoh der matLematischen and
teehnischen Chronologie, ii. 381 eqq. Berlin, 1826).
Consistently with the practise of making inmrnatio synonymous with nativitas, this era was also designated a natiroitats Domini, post Chriatum natum, or as now quite generally " after the birth of Christ." Other designations are anni eireumciaionie, anni domini swstri Jeeu Christi, anni Christi pratia;, anni grolice, etc.; still again, anni eatutia, anni orbia redernpti, etc. The designation anni tmbaationie was doubtless originally intended to signify so many years after Christ's crucifixion, but is also applied to years after the birth of Christ.
It can not be doubted that Jesus was not born in the year 754 w.u.c. Dionysius, or his‑authority, must have been in error. King Herod, who commanded the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 16‑18) died 750 w.u.o., and Jesus must surely have been born before the death of Herod. But, if we consider the great difficulties of all chronological calculations, and especially the inadequate suxil‑

188	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	7~oWltm8Erasmna
iary apparatus that was available for Dionysius, no reproach is due him for his mistake. On the other hand, no one can seriously think of attempting to alter the Christian era to accord with the correct date of the birth of Jesus, even if this date could be accurately determined. The era is commended by its convenience, especially since the practise has arisen of reckoning backward as well as forward from its epoch; that is, of dating events before its inception, according to years before the birth of Christ (ante Christum natum). This custom came about at a comparatively late date; the well‑known historian and chronologer J. C. Gatterer of Gsttingen about 1780 dated events before the birth of Christ in " years of the world."
World eras, the epoch of which is the year of the creation of the world, have been prevalent in great number. To mention only two, a rather wide
vogue was enjoyed by the world era of
Other	Panodorus, who reckoned 5,904 years
Eras.	from Adam to the year 412 A.D.
(about which time he lived); his years began with Aug. 29, corresponding to the First of Thoth, or the Egyptian new year. Afterward, this era is usually termed the Antiochian, sometimes the Alexandrian. Its new year was also transferred to Sept. 1, in which case the eight latter months of its year 5493 are the eight former months of the year one of our chronology. More important than this is the Byzantine world era, which long served as the standard of computation in the Eastern Empire, in Russia, among the Albanians, Servians, and Modern Greeks. It counts sixteen years in excess of the Antiochian era, though likewise beginning the year with Sept. 1; its year 5509 began with Sept. 1 of the year one before Christ. This era was in use in Russia till 1700; whence it originated appears not to be known.

Attempts to compute the year of the creation of the world on the basis of figures supplied in the Old Testament '(the ages of the patriarchs, etc.), have been made by chronologists almost down to the present time. $caliger and Calviaius hold the year one of our era to be the year 3950 from the creation; Petaviua, the year 3984; Usher, the year 4004; Frank, 4182, Historians once used one or another of these systems in dating events, especially for the time before Christ; thus Gatterer, mentioned above, computed, in his earlier works, according to the world era of Petaviun; in his later ones, according to that of Frank.
Of the eras employed in the Christian Church, two others may be mentioned briefly. The one is the Diocletian, already cited above, which originated in Egypt. Its epoch is the First of Thoth (Aug. 29 of the Julian calendar), of 284 A.D. It numbers the years from the accession of Diocletian, though the first year of Diocletian is not reckoned from the day of his proclamation (Sept. 17), but, in accordance with a generally observed custom, from the new year's day of this year. As this era gained circulation in the Christian Church, it came to be termed, by way of reminder that Diocletian had cruelly persecuted the Christians, sera martgrum. The same era continued in observance, to some extent, as late as the eighth century. Besides this, the Spanish era was prevalent in Spain from the beginning of the fifth century, and in
particular among the bleat Goths. Its epoch is the year 716 A.u.c., or 38 a.c. It is used, among others, by Isidore of Seville in his Historia Gothorum, and traces of its observance occur into the twelfth century.
	All these	chronological systems had to yield,
step by step, to that of Dionysius; and for a long
		time past, it has been the custom
The throughout Christendom to compute New Yeas. in years after (and before) the birth of Christ. In the light of this simple and unequivocal reckoning, it was not advantageous to forego the uniform practise of beginning the year with Jan. 1, as Dionysius had done in agreement with the Roman calendar. As a matter of fact, Jan. 1 appears to have maintained its place as the beginning of the year in civil life everywhere, nor have any calendars been found with a different initial date; moreover, Jan. 1 was named new year's day (see NEW YEAR'S FESTIVAL). Nevertheless other initial dates came into official use; especially Mar. 25 and Dec. 25 were favorite dates for beginning the year in the Middle Ages and down to modern times. [In England the change from Mar. 25 was made by act of 1751.] In the case of Mar. 25, we have still to distinguish between the calculus Pisdnus, which computed from Mar. 25 before our new year, and the calculus Florentinua which computed from Mar. 25 after our new year. Other new year's dates are Mar. 1, Sept. 1, and the Saturday before Easter. Luther computed the year from Dec. 25; so that, for instance, the dating of a letter die innocentum 160 denotes, by our mode of reckoning, Dec. 25, 1529. More detailed information as to these new year's dates is to be sought in text‑books of chronology; a good synopsis is furnished by H. Grotefend in Taschesbuch der Zeitrech7lung (Hanover, 1898), pp. 11 aqq.
CARL BERTHEAU.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the work of Ideler, mentioned in the text, consult Ideler, Lehrbuch der Chronolopis, Berlin, 1829; H. Grotefend, ZeiZrecAnunp der deutachen Mittelauer and der Neuzeil, vole, i.‑ii., 2d part, Hanover, 1891‑98; idem, TaecAenbuch der Zeitmchnunp, ib.1898; F. Ruhl, CAronoLnpie des Miftelaltera and der Nauzait, Berlin, 1897; F. 1i. Ginael, Handbuch der mathamntiechan and techniechan Ckrondopie, vol. i., Leipeic, 1908, The literature under CHRONOLOGY may also be consulted. A voluminous literature might be cited, but it is composed largely of treatment of special topics bearing not too directly upon the subject.
ERASMUS.
Early Life (§ 1)
Studies and Travels (§ 2).
Basis of Literary Activity (§ 3).
Various Works (§ 4).
Attitude Toward the Reformation (§ 6).
Relations with Luther (§ 8).
Doctrine of the Eucharist (§ 7).
Closing Years (§ 8),
	Deaideriaa Erasmus Roterodamus, Dutch human
ist and theologian, was born at Rotterdam, Hol
land, Oct. 27, probably 1466; d. at Basel, Switzer
		land, July 12, 1536. Information as
	z. Early to his family and early life comes from
	Life. a few meager accounts written or
		suggested by himself at a somewhat
advanced age and from many bat vague references
in his writings at all periods of his life. There

Erasmus	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	184
seems good reason to believe that the tone of aelfpity that pervades all these accounts was assumed for purposes at which one may guess, but as to which one can not be certain. He was doubtless born out of wedlock, well cared for by his parents till their early death, and then given the best education open to a young man of his day in a series of monastic or semimonastie schools. All thin early education is made by him in the light of later experience to appear like one long conspiracy to force him into the monastic life, but there is no other evidence for this, and recent criticism has suggested ample motives for his desire to give his life‑history this peculiar turn. Re was admitted to the priesthood and took the monastic vows at about the age of twenty‑five, but there ‑is no record that he ever exercised the priestly functions, and monasticism was one of the chief objects of his attack in his lifelong assault upon the evils of the Church.
Almost immediately after his consecration the way was opened to him for study at‑the University of Paris, then the chief seat of the later scholastic
s. Studies learning, but already beginning to feel
	and	the influence of the revived classic
Travels. culture of Italy. From this time on
Erasmus led the life of an independent scholar, independent of country, of academic ties, of religious allegiance, of everything that could interfere with the free development of his intellect and the freedom of his literary expression. The chief centers of his activity were Paris, Louvain, England, and Basel; yet it could never be said that he was identified with any one of these. His residences in England were fruitful in the making of lifelong friendships with the leaders of English thought in the stirring days of Henry VIII.‑John Colet, Thomas More, Thomas Linacre, and William Grocyn. He held at Cambridge an honorable position as Lady Margaret professor of divinity, and there seems to have been no reason except his unconquerable aversion to a routine life, why he should not have spent his days as an English professor. He was offered many positions of honor and profit in the academic world, but declined them all on one or another pretext, preferring the uncertain, but as ‑it proved sufficient rewards of independent literary activity. In Italy he spent three years (1506‑09), part of the time in connection with the publishing house of Aldus Manutius at Venice, but otherwise with far leas active association with Italian scholars than might have been expected. The residence at Louvain exposed Erasmus to the petty criticism of men nearer to him in blood and political connections, but hostile to all the principles of literary and religious progress to which he was devoting his life. From this lack of sympathy, which he always represented as persecution, he sought refuge in the more congenial. atmosphere of Basel, where under the shelter of Swiss hospitality he could express himself with freedom and where he was always surrounded by devoted friends. Here he was associated for many years with the great publisher Froben, and hither came the multitude of his admirers from all quar‑
ters of Europe,	i
Erasmus's literary productivity began comparatively late in his life. It was not until he had made
himself master of a telling Latin style
3. Basis of that he undertook to express himself
Literary	on all current subjects of literature
Activity.	and religion. His revolt against the
forma of Church life did not proceed from any questionings as to the troth of the traditional doctrine, nor from any hostility to the organization of the Church itself. Rather, he felt called upon to use his learning in a purification of the doctrine and in a liberalizing of the institutions of Christianity. He began as a scholar, trying to free the methods of scholarship from the rigidity and formalism of medieval traditions; but he was not satisfied with this. He conceived of himself as, above all else, a preacher of righteousness. It was his lifelong conviction that what was needed to regenerate Europe was sound learning applied frankly and fearlessly to the administration of public affairs in Church and State. It is this conviction that gives unity and consistency to a life which at first eight seems to have been full of fatal contradictions. Erasmus was a marked individual, holding himself aloof from all entangling obligations; yet he was in a singularly true sense the center of the literary movement of his time. In his correspondence he put himself in touch with more than five hundred men of the highest importance in the world of politics and of thought, and his advice on all kinds of subjects was eagerly sought, if none too readily followed.
Naturally, Erasmus has been moat widely known for his critical and satirical writings, such as the
" Praise of Folly " (Paris, 1509) and
;. Various many of the Colloquia, which appeared
	Works.	at intervals from 1500 on. These
		appeal to a wider audience and deal
with matters of wider human interest. Yet their
author seems to have regarded them as the trifles
of his intellectual product, the play of his leisure
hours. His more serious writings begin early with
the Enchiridiorc Militia Christiani, the " Manual (or
Dagger) of the Christian Gentleman " (1 X03). In
this little volume Erasmus outlines the views of the
normal Christian life which he was to spend the
rest of his days in elaborating. The key‑note of it
all is sincerity. The chief evil of the day, he says,
is formalism, a respect for traditions, a regard for
what other people think essential, but never a
thought of what the true teaching of Christ may be.
The remedy is for every man to ask himself at each
point: what is the essential thing? and to do this
without fear. Forma are not in themselves evil.
It is only when they hide or quench the spirit that
they are to be dreaded. In his examination of the
special dangers of formalism, Erasmus pays his
respects to monasticism, saint‑worship, war, the
spirit of class, the foibles of "society," in the fashion
which was to make his later reputation as a satirist,
but the main impression of the Enchiridion is dis
tinctly that of a sermon. A companion piece to the
Enchiridion is the InsliEutio PrinciPis C.hristiani
(Basel, 1516), written as advice to the young king
Charles of Spain, later the emperor Charles V.
Here Erasmus applies the same general principles

186	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	>EEraman»
of honor and sincerity to the special functions of the Prince, whom he represents throughout as the servant of the people. While in England Erasmus began the systematic examination of manuscripts of the New Testament to prepare for a new edition and Latin translation. This edition was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and was the basis of moat of the scientific study of the Bible during the Reformation period (see BIBLE TEXT, IL, 2, § 1). It was the first attempt on the part of a competent and liberal‑minded scholar to ascertain what the writeraof the New Testament had actually said. Erasmus dedicated his work to Pope Leo X. as a patron of learning, to whom such an application of scholarship to religion must be welcome, and he justly regarded this work as his chief service to the cause of a sound Christianity. Immediately after he began the publication of his Paraphrases of the New Testament, a popular presentation of the contents of the several books. These, like all the writings of Erasmus, were in Latin, but they were at once translated into the common languages of the European peoples, a process which received the hearty approval of Erasmus himself.
The outbreak of the Lutheran movement in the year following the publication of the New Tes‑
tament brought the severest test of g. Attitude Erasmus's personal and scholarly charToward acter. It made the issue between Eu‑
the Refor‑ ropean society and the Roman Church mation. system so clear that no man could
quite escape the summons to range himself on one aide or the other of the great debate. Erasmus, at the height 'of his literary fame, was inevitably called upon to take sides, but partizanahip in any issue which he was not at liberty himself to define was foreign equally to his nature and his habits. In all his criticism of clerical follies and abuses he had always carefully hedged himself about with protests that he was not attacking church institutions themselves and had no enmity toward the persons of churchmen. The world had laughed at his satire, but only a few obstinate reactionaries had seriously interfered with his activities. He had a right to believe that his work so far lied commended itself to the best minds and also to the dominant powers in the religious world. There can be no doubt that Erasmus was in sympathy with the main points in the Lutheran criticism of the Church. For Luther personally he had and expressed the greatest respect, and Luther always spoke with admiration of his superior learning. Luther would have gone to great lengths in securing his cooperation in a work which seemed only the natural outcome of his own. When Erasmus hesitated or reused this seemed to the upright and downright Luther a mean avoidance of responsibility explicable only as cowardice or unsteadiness of purpose, and this has generally been the Protestant judgment of later days. On the other hand the Roman Catholic party was equally desirous of holding on to the services of a man who had so often declared his loyalty to the principles it was trying to maintain, and his half‑heartednesa in declaring himself now brought upon him patmally the suspicion of disloyalty from this aide.
Recent judgments of Erasmus, however, have shown how consistent with all his previous practise his attitude toward the Reformation really was. The evils he had combated were either those of form, such as had long been a subject of derision by all sensible men, or they were evils of a kind that could be cured only by a long and slow regeneration in the moral and spiritual life of Europe. Get rid of the absurdities, restore learning to its rights, insist upon a sound practical piety, and all these evils would disappear: this was the programme of the " Erasmian Reformation." No one could question its soundness or its desirability. Its fatal lack was that it failed to offer any tangible method of applying these principles to the existing church system. This kind of reform had been tried long enough, and men were impatient of further delay. When Erasmus was charged‑and very justly‑with having " laid the egg that Luther hatched " he half admitted the truth of the charge, but said he had expected quite another kind of a bird.
In their early correspondence Luther expressed in unmeasured terms his admiration for all Erasmus had done in the cause of a sound and 6. Relations reasonable Christianity, and exhorted
with him now to put the seal upon his work Luther. by definitely casting in his lot with the Lutheran party. Erasmus replied with many expressions of regard, but declined to commit himself to any party attitude. His argument was that to do so would endanger his position as a‑ leader in the movement for pure scholarship which be regarded as his real work in life. Only through that position as an independent scholar could he hope to influence the reform of religion. The constructive value of Luther's work was mainly in furnishing a new doctrinal basis for the hitherto scattered attempts at reform. In reviving the half forgotten principle of the Augustinian theology Luther had furnished the needed impulse to that personal interest in religion which is the essence of Protestantism. Thin was precisely what Erasmus could not approve. He dreaded any change in the doctrine of the Church and believed that there was room enough within existing formulas for the kind of reform he valued moat. Twice in the course of the great discussion he allowed himself to enter the field of doctrinal controversy, a field foreign alike to his nature and his previous practise. One of the topics formally treated by him was the freedom of the will, the crucial point in the whole Augustinian system. In his De labero arbitrio W arpiRn sine collatio (1524), be analyzes with great cleverness and in perfect good temper the Lutheran exaggeration, as it seemed to him, of the obvious limitations upon human freedom. As his habit was, he lays down both aides of the argument and shows that each had its element of truth. His position was practically that which the Chinch had always taken in its dealing with the problem of sin: that Man was bound to sin, but that after ail he had a right to the forgiving mercy of God, if only he would seek this through the means offered him by the Church itself. It was an easy‑going Semi‑Pelagianism, humane in its practise, but opening the way to those very laxities and perversions which Eras.

$m"°°'	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	188
Erbkam
mus and the Reformers alike were combating. The
" Diatribe," clever as it was, could not lead men to
any definite action, and this was precisely its merit
to the Erasmians and its offense to the Lutherans.
	As the popular response to the Lutheran sum
mons become more marked and more widely spread,
			the social disorders which Erasmus
	7. Doctrine dreaded began to appear. The Peas
		of the	ants' War, the Anabaptist disturb
	Eucharist. antes in Germany and in the Low
			Countries (see ANABAPTISTS), icono
clasm and radicalism everywhere, seemed to con
firm all his gloomy predictions. If this were to be
the outcome of reform, he could only be thankful
he had kept out of it. On the other hand, he was
being ever more bitterly accused of having started
the whole " tragedy." In Switzerland he was espe
cially exposed to criticism through his association
with men there who were more than suspected of
extreme rationalistic doctrines. On this side the
test question was naturally the doctrine of the
sacraments, and the crux of this question was
the observance of the Eucharist. Partly to clear
himself of suspicion and partly in response to de
mands that he should write something in defense
of Catholic doctrine, he published in 1530 a new
edition of the orthodox treatise of Algerus against
the heretic Berengar of Tours in the eleventh cen
tury. He added a dedication in which he affirms
positively his belief in the reality of the body of
Christ after consecration in the Eucharist, but ad
mits that the precise form in which this mystery
ought to be expressed is a matter on which very
diverse opinions have been held by good men.
Enough, however, for the mass of Christians that
the Church prescribes the doctrine and the usages
that embody it, while the refinements of specula
tion about it may safely be left to the philosophers.
Here and there in many vehement utterances on
this subject Erasmus lays down the principle, quite
unworthy of his genius and his position of influ
ence: that a man may properly have two opinions
on religious subjects, one for himself and his inti
mate friends and another for the public. The anti
sacramentarians, headed by (Ecolampadius of
Basel, were, as Erasmus says, quoting him as hold
ing views about the Eucharist quite similar to their
own. He denies this with great heat, but in his
denial betrays the fact that he had in private con
versation gone just as far toward a rational view
of the doctrine of the Eucharist as he could without
a positive formulation in words. Naturally here,
as in the case of free will, he could not command the
	approval of the Church he was trying to placate.
	Thus, as the visible outcome of his reformatory
activities Erasmus found himself at the close of his
			life at odds with both the great parties.
	8. Closing His last years were embittered by con
		Years.	troversies with men toward whom he
			was drawn by many ties of taste and
sympathy. Notable among these was his passage
at arms with Ulrich von Hutten (q.v.), a brilliant,
but erratic genius, who had thrown himself with all
his heart into the Lutheran cause and had declared
that Erasmus, if he had a spark of honesty about
him, would do the same. In his reply, Spongia.
adveraus asperganea Hutteni	(1523), he displays,
better than almost anywhere	else, his skill in twist
ing words and phrases to suit the purpose of the
moment. He accuses Hutten of having misin
terpreted his utterances about reform and reit
erates his determination never to take sides in the
division of parties. When the city of Basel was
definitely and officially " reformed " in 1529, Eras
mua gave up his residence there and settled in the
imperial town of Freiburg‑fin‑Breiegau. It would
seem as if he found it easier	to maintain his neu
trality under Roman Catholic	than under Protestant
conditions. His literary activity continued with
out much abatement, chiefly	on the lines of relig
ious and didactic composition. The most impor
tant work of this last period is the Ecclesiastes or
" Gospel Preacher " (Basel, 1535), in which he
brings out the function of preaching se the moat
important office of the Christian priest, an emphasis
which shows how essentially Protestant his inner
thought of Christianity was.	The same impression
comes from his little tract of	1533 on " Preparation
for Death," in which the emphasis throughout is
on the importance of a good life as the essential
condition of a happy death. For unknown rea
sons Erasmus found himself	drawn once more to
the happiest of his homes, at Basel, and returned
thither in 1535 after an absence of six years. Here,
in the midst of the group	of Protestant scholars
who had long been his truest	friends, and, so far as
is known, without relations	of any sort with the
Roman Catholic Church, he	died. So long as he
lived he~had never been called to account for his
opinions by any official authority of the dominant
Church. The attacks upon	him were by private
persona and his protectors had always been men of
the highest standing. After	his death, in the seal
of the Roman Catholic reaction, his writings were
honored with a distinguished	place on the Index of
prohibited books, and his name has generally had
an evil sound in Roman Catholic ears. The ex
traordinary popularity of his books, however, has
been shown in the immense number of editions and
translations that have appeared from the sixteenth
century until now, and in the	undiminished interest
excited by his elusive but fascinating personality.
	EPHRAIM EMFRTON.
[Ten columns of the catalogue of the library in the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works translated, edited or annotated by Erasmus, and their subsequent reprints. It is a remarkable showing. The greatest names of the classical and patristic world are included, such as Ambrose, Aristotle, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cicero, and Jerome.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The works were edited by Erasmus's friend Beatua Rhenatue, 9 vole., Basel, 1540, and by Le Clerc, 10 vole., Leyden, 1703‑08. The beat edition of the Epiatlea is by P. 8. Allen, vol. i., Oxford, 1908, with which should be put Briefs an Deaideriua Eraamus, ed. L. K. Enthoven, Strasburg, 1908; an Eng. travel. of the Epistles . . , to his Ftfttl‑first Year, Arranged in Order o/ Time, by F. M, Nichols, appeared, 2 vole., London, 1901‑
1904. Elie Colloquies are in Eng, travel. by N. Bailey,
ib. 1878; his Praise of Folly, with his Letter to Sir Thomas
More and a Life is in a handy ed., ib. 1878; his Enehiri
dibn miZitie Chrietiani is in Eng. tranal., ib. 1905, ef. The
Christian'& Manual. Compiled from the Enchiridion, by

187	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Erasmus
		Erbkam
P. W. Crowther, ib. (1818); the Apotluprna of Erasmus
TraneL. into Eng, by Nicolas Udall, 1684 was reprinted,
Boston, England, 1877; there is a school ed. of the Con
viroiale contaquiis, by V. S. Clark, Boston, 1898. The moat
complete bibliography is found in BibZiotheca Eraemiana,
rEpcrtoirt lea aruvrea d'Araame, Ghent, 1893. Consult also
Bib1%otheca Eraamiana, Ghent, 1903, J. M. Baldwin,
Dictionary of Philosophy and Paydvolopy, III, i. 194‑198.
	On the life consult: F. O. 8tichart Erasmus, Leipsic,
1870; H. Durand de Lour, ‑traame, prEcureeur et 'snitia
tcur de 1'eaprit moderns, 2 vole., Paris, 1872; R. B. Drum
mond, Erasmus, his Life and Character, 2 vole., London,
1873; G. Feugbre, ‑Oraamua: Jtuda our as vie d sea ou
roragta, Paris, 1874; J. Meiklejohn, The Reformers, Glas
gow, 1886; F. Heebohm, The Oxford Reformers. London,
1887; M. Dods, Erasmus and Other Essays, ib. 1891; J.
A. Fronde, Life and Letters of Erasmus, New York, 1898;
P. de Nolhae, Araa»u to Italie. ‑Otuda eur un ipiaodt do
la renaissance .... douse leitrea inbdifee d1rasme, Paris,
1898; E. Emerton, Dea%deriua Erasmus of Rotterdam,
New York, 1899; A. R. Pennington, The Life awl Char
acter of Erasmua, London, 1901; E. F. H. Capey, Eraa
mue, New York, 1903; W. H. Woodward, Dsaidsriua
Erasmus concerning !ht Aim and Method of Education,
Cambridge, 1904; J. A. Faulkner. Erasmus the Scholar, Cincinnati, 1907.
ERASMUS, SAINT. See HELPERS IN NEED, THE FOURTEEN.
ERASTUS, THOMAS, ERASTIANISM: Swiss Reformed physician and theologian; b. probably at Baden (14 m. n.w. of Zurich), Switzerland, ,5ept. 7, 1524; d. at Basel Jan. 1, 1583. The name is Grecised from Luber or Lieber. He studied theology at Basel and philosophy and medicine for nine years at Bologna and Padua. 1n 1568 he became physician in ordinary to the elector Palatine, Otto Henry, and professor of medicine at Heidelberg. In 1580 he went to Basel as professor of medicine and became also professor of ethics shortly before his death. He was considered a good physician and upright man, and established a foundation for the education of poor students in medicine at Basel and Heidelberg. As a student of nature he strenuously opposed the astrology, alchemy, and magic of Paracelaus and his school, though he approved of the death penalty for witches. It is as a theologian, however, that he is known and remembered. He was a follower of Zwingli, took an active part in the conferences at Heidelberg (1560) and at Maulbronn (1664), and defended the Swiss view of the Lord's Supper in a book Yom Yerstand der Wort Christi : Das ist mein Leib, and again in a vindication of this work against Johann Mar bath, a Lutheran minister of Strasburg (Heidelberg, 1665). Some years later he had occasion to defend his master's ideas against the Calvinists in a question of church polity. There was a Calvinist party in Heidelberg, headed by Caspar Olevianus (q.v.), which wanted to introduce a purely Presbyterian constitution, with a corresponding church discipline. Erastus strongly opposed the movement, but in vain. He was himself the first victim of the established discipline, being excommunicated on a charge of latent Unitarianism; after five years, however, he was restored. Six years after his death G. Castelvetro, who had married his widow, published a work, written in 1668 and found among his papers, Explicatio gravisaimas questionis utrum uxcommunicatio .
mrsndato nitatur divino an excogitata sit ab hominibus
(Poechiavo, 1689). The book, written after the
fashion of the time in the form of theses, denies that excommunication is a divine ordinance, or that the Church has any power to make laws or decrees; and asserts that to inflict pains and penalties and to punish the sins of professing Christians belongs to the civil magistrates, not to pastors and elders. It attracted much attention and was attacked by Beaa. English translations appeared at London in 1859 and 1682, and again, by R. Lee, at Edinburgh, 1844. Its views were adopted by a distinct party in the Westminster Assembly, headed by Selden, Lightfoot, Coleman, and Whitelocke. Since that time the doctrine of state supremacy in ecclesiastical causes generally goes under the name of Erastianiam; though in its broad sense and wide application this doctrine is by no means due to Erastua or in accord with his views.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. F. Vierordt, Geschichte der Reformation im Oroaahorzopthum Baden, pp. 468 eqq., Carleruhe, 1847; A. Bonnard, Thomas Lraata et la discipline scclhiaatdqut, Lausanne, 1894. For Ersatianiam consult: J. Belden's Table Talk, reprinted Oxford, 1892, and his Hint. of TyOua, London, 1829. The extreme form of the doctrine is found in T. Hobbes, Leviathan, ii~. 42, good edition. Oxford, IS$1. Consult also R. . Wilberforce, Sketch of the Hiat. of Erastianiam, London, 1861.

	ERB%AM, erb'kdm, WILHELM HEINRICH:
Councilor of the consiatory and professor of the
ology at Konigsberg, Prussia; b. at Glogau (35
m. n.n.w. of Liegnitz), Silesia, July 8, 1810; d. at
Konigsberg Jan. 9, 1884. He studied at Bonn,
where he was chiefly influenced by Nitzach and
Bleek, and at Berlin where he was still more
strongly and decisively influenced by Schleier
macher, with whom he was fortunate enough to
come into close personal contact. Under Nean
der's guidance he devoted himself to the study
of church history, and Marheineke introduced him
to a closer study of systematic theology. In 1834
he went to the theological seminary at Wittenberg,
where he made further progress in practical the
ology under the guidance of Rothe, at that time,
director of the seminary. Rothe guided his theo
logical activity by directing his attention espe
cially to Protestant mysticism and the sects
proceeding from it. In 1838 Erbkam established
himself as privet‑docent in theology at Berlin, where
he finally became professor and remained ten years,
lecturing at first chiefly on the history of dogma
and later on church history and systematic dis
ciplines. During these years he was active also
in the practical life of the Church, especially in
preaching. He defended the full and whole truth
of the revelation of the Gospel against the ratiop al
istic unbelief and the half‑believing theology of the
Friends of Light (see FREE CONGREGATIONS IN GER
MwNy, § 1), who about 1840 protested against faithful
ness to the Bible and the confession in the church
as orthodox darkness, and attacked especially the
Evdngeliache KirchPnzeitung and its editor, E. W.
Hengstenberg. In 1847 Er kam followed a call to
Konigsberg, where he taug t church history and
history of dogma, and	beequently exegesis,
dogmatics, ethics, and	bolics. In 1857 he
became councilor of the co ' tory of Konigsberg
and was also chosen rep	ntative of the theo
logical faculty at the general synods of 1875 and

~~"	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	168
1879. His principal work is Die Geschichten der
grotestantischen Sekten im Zeitalter der Reformation
(Hamburg, 1848). 	(DAVID ERDMANNt.)
LRDMAftft, CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH DAVID
German Protestant; b. at G iistebiese, near KSnigaberg, July 28, 1821; d. at Dresden Mar. 11, 1905. He studied in Berlin (1843‑1847), and in 1853 became privet‑docent in theology there. In 1856 he went to Kbnigaberg as professor of theology, and in ?864, to Breslau as general superintendent for Silesia, being at the same time honorary professor at the University of Breslau. He retired from active life in 1900. He wrote Leben and Leiden der ersten Christen (Berlin, 1854); Prima Joannis epistoka argurnentum, nexus et eonsilium (1855); Die Reformation and ihre Mkrtyrer in Italien, (1855); Der Brief des Jakobus erklart (1881); Luther and die Hohenxolleryc (Breslau, 1883); and Luther and seine Beziehungen zu Schlesien, insbesondere zu Breslau (Halls, 1887). He likewise contributed the section on the books of Samuel to J. P. Lange's Theologischrhomiletisches BzTielwerk (Bielefeld, 1873; Eng. tranal. by C. H. Toy and J. A. Broadus, New York, 1877).
ERDOSI JANOS. See BIBLE VERSIONS, B, X, § 1.
EREMITE. See Hrxnam.
ERFURT, BISHOPRIC OF: A Thuringian bishopric established by Boniface in the summer of 741 with its seat at Erfurt. Previous to the erection of this see, Thuringia alone of the German stocks had had no bishopric of its own, being under the jurisdiction of Mainz. The first bishop of Erfurt seems to have been Dadanus, who was one of those present at the Auatrasian Synod of 742, and he was appaaently succeeded by Bonifaae himself. Whether this took place before or after Boniface became archbishop of Mainz is uncertain, but at all events it explains the later association of Thuringia and Mainz. (A. HAUCK.)
From the time of Boniface till the fourteenth century, episcopal acts in the Erfurt district were performed either by the archbishops of Mainz or by visiting bishops delegated for the occasion; but from 1313 to 1807 there was a regular line of coadjutors to the archbishop with their seat at Erfurt. A papal bull of 1821 placed Erfurt under the see of Paderborn.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Rsttberg, RD, i. 351‑352; Hauck, SD, i,
b13‑614; RL, iv. 77o‑772.

ERIGEftA, JOHN SCOTUS. See SCOTUS, E&I(3ENA JOHANNES.
	FRMT.ARD, BISHOPRIC OF: A German bishop
ric established in 1243 by the papal legate Will
iam of Modem, together with the sees of Culm,
Pomesania, and Samland. The cathedral was
founded at Braunsberg (30 m. s.w. of Konigaberg)
by Anselin, the first bishop, in June, 1260, but
twenty years later was transferred to Frauenburg
(41 m. s.w. of Kanigsberg) by Henry I. Among
the famous bishops of this diocese was Eneas
Silvius Piccolomini (1457‑58), afterward Pope
Pius II. 	(A. HAUCK.)
Until 1525 the diocese was under the political
jurisdiction of the Teutonic order. Toward the end of this period it increased in importance; the attempt of the Diet of Lublin (1506) to have it established as the metropolitan see of the Prussian dioceses failed indeed, but in 1512 Julius II. released it from its nominal subordination to the archbishopric of Riga and constituted it an " exempt " bishopric. From 1525 to 1772 it was under Polish jurisdiction, and the bishops were of that nationality beginning with the celebrated Stanislaua Hoaius (1551‑79; see Hosius, STaNlarnus), who was one of the presidents of the Council of Trent. After 1772 it was under Prussian rule. The bull De salute of 1821 united with it the diocese of Samland and five deaneries of Pomesauia.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Monuments hiat. Warmienaia, ed. C. P. Wolky and J. N, 8sage, Mains. 1858 eqq.; Hauck, RD, iv. 853.
ERNEST THE CONFESSOR AND THE REFORMATION IN BRUNSWICK‑LUENEBURG: Duke of Brunswick‑Liineburg, known as "the Confessor;" b. at Uelzen (20 m. s.s.e. of Liineburg) June 26, 1497; d. at Cells Jan. 11, 1546. In 1512 he was sent to the court of his mother's brother, the elector Frederick the Wise, at Wittenberg, and received instruction there from Georg Spalatin; he remained at Wittenberg through the beginning of the Reformation. In 1520 his father, Henry, associated with himself in the government his two eons, Otto and Ernest, and abdicated the same year. By the retirement of Otto in 1527 Ernest became sole ruler. The condition of his domain was not prosperous. Political considerations doubtless furthered the introduction of the Reformation; it offered opportunity to restrict the privileges of the nobles and the clergy and to increase the revenues from church and monastery property. The forerunner of the Reformation in Litneburg was a certain Wolf Gyclop, a physician from Zwickau, who was not free from the Zwickau enthusiasm (see ZWIHALY PROPHETS). Saner men followed him, such as Gottschalk Cruse, Heinrich Bock, sad Matthaus Mylow. Ernest was inclined to move slowly, but in 1525 the Peasants' War gave him occasion to call upon the monasteries for lists of their property and to require them to admit Protestant preachers; he promised the elector of Saxony to stand by the Protestant cause. After an attempt of the Roman Catholic party to reinstate bra father in 1527 had failed, his course became more decided. In July, 1527, the first book of discipline was adopted, drawn up by the preachers of Cells. At a diet in August of the same year it was ordered that " God's pure word should be preached everywhere without additions made by men." Between 1527 and 1530 Lutheran preachers were introduced in moat parishes, and into the monasteries, not in all cases without compulsion. Ernest went to Augsburg in 1530 and signed the Confession. He brought back Urbanua Rhegius (q.v.), who worked for the spread of the Reformation (after 1541 as superintendent) and introduced it into the city of Liineburg. The largest and richest monastery in the land, St. Michael's in Liineburg, accepted the new order after the death of Abbot Boldewin in 1532. Rhe‑

189	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Erdmaaa
		Ernest I.
gius died in 1541 and was succeeded by Martin
Ondermark, who completed the former's work.
	In general it may be said that the preachers
were well disposed to the reformed religion, while
the people held to the old and only gradually
adapted themselves to the new. During the
Schmalkald War the land remained true to the
Gospel. After 1530 Ernest was the most influen
tial prince of North Germany. He sent Rhegius
to Hanover when the Reformation there threat
ened to become revolution and restored order.
In the cities of Westphalia he strengthened the
Protestant party against both the Roman Catholics
and the enthusiasts, although his efforts were vain
in Munster. His influence was also felt in Pom
merania and Mecklenburg, in Hoya, and in East
Friesland. His moat effective work probably was
accomplished by his restless activity for the Schmal
kald League. He induced the North German
cities, Hamburg, Bremen, Brunswick, GiSttingen,
and others to join, and he often became the suc
cessful mediator when a rupture was threatened
between the overcautious elector of Saxony and
the headstrong Philip of Hesse. While Ernest
sometimes used harsh measures to accomplish his
will, and was actuated by a desire to exalt his
position as ruler as well as by higher motives.
yet, on the whole, he was faithful to his motto,
aliis inseruiendo corcsumor.	His four sons at
his death were still minors, but the Protestant
Church of Luneburg was so firmly established
that it could survive the regency and the unhappy
time of the Schmalkald War, and to this day the
church life of Lilneburg bears the character im
pressed upon it by Ernest the Confessor.
		(G. Uahsolurt.)
BIHLIOaa.1P8r: J. G. Bertram, Daa Leben Erneati, Bruns
	wick, 1719; J. K. F. Schlegel, Kirchen‑ and Reformatione
	geechichte van Norddeutachland and Hannover, vol. ii.,
	Hanover, 1829; w. Havemann, Gexhschte der Laude
	Braunaehweip and Liineburg, vol. ii., G6ttingan, 1855;
	lives of Urbanua Rhesus by H. C. Heimbilrger, Goths,
	1861, and G. Uhlhorn, Elberfeld, 1881; A. wrede, Die
	Einfnhrang der Reformation in Lflneburp durcA Heraop
	Ernst den Bekenner, G6ttingen, 1887; G. Uhlhorn, in Zeib
	erhrift den hietmroaehen Yereine for Niedersachsen, Hsn
	over, 1897, pp. 22 eqq.; AD.B, iv. 260 eqq.
	ERNEST, ELECTOR OF COLOGNE. See GEB
sean II.
	ERNEST L, THE PIOUS: Duke of Saxe‑Gotha
and Altenburg; b. at the castle of Altenburg (26
m. 8. of Leipsic) Dec. 25, 1601; d. Mar. 26, 1675.
Early left an orphan, he was brought up in a
strict manner, and gifted and precocious, but not
physically strong, he soon showed traits of the
piety of the time. As ruler, by his character and
governmental ability as well as by personal atten
tion to matters of state, he introduced a golden
time for his subjects after the ravages of the Thirty
Years' War. By a wise economy, which did not
exclude fitting generosity or display on proper
occasions, he freed his land from debt, left at his
death a considerable sum in the treasury, and
reduced taxation. The public security and an
incorruptible and efficient judiciary received much
of his care, and his regulations served as models
for other dates. He did not rise far enough above
his time to do away with torture, though he restricted it, and in the century of trials for witchcraft he yielded to the common delusion, though otherwise not inclined to superstition and a foe of alchemy. He prohibited dueling and imposed the death penalty for a mortal result.
His laws were not conceived in the spirit of modern ideas about individual liberty; they forbade secret betrothals, tried to regulate dress, and extended even to the stable, kitchen, and cellar. Nevertheless his regulations promoted agriculture, commerce, learning, and art. His palace of Friedenstein in Goths was rebuilt, and its collections owe their origin to Ernest; the library became one of the largest in Germany. Churches were built and by his Schulmethodua of 1642 Ernest became the father of the present grammar‑school. It was a popular saying that his peasants were better instructed than the townsmen and nobles elsewhere, and at his death, it was said, no one in his land was unable to read and write. He made the gymnasium in Goths a model school which attracted pupils not only from all German lands, but from Sweden, Russia, Poland, and Hungary. In like manner he fostered the university at Jena, increasing its funds and regulating its studies, with too much emphasis on the religious aide. The same fault attaches to his efforts in church affairs, which won him the name of " Praying Ernest "; but an excuse is found in the fearful demoralization caused by the war. The Bible was his own everyday book and he strove unceasingly to make his people religious after a strict Lutheran pattern. Religious instruction, consisting in catechetical exercises without Bible history, was kept up even to advanced years and not unnaturally the rigid compulsion in some cases defeated its purpose. Ernest's system has maintained itself surprisingly; it still exists legally though somewhat modified or disregarded.
His efforts for Protestantism were not confined to his own land. He interceded with the emperor for his Austrian coreligioniata, and wanted to establish them in Goths. He became a benefactor to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Germans in Moscow and entered into friendly relations with the Czar. He even sent an embassy to introduce Lutheranism into Abyssinia, but failed to accomplish his purpose. His rule of his family is a miniature of his government of his land. The strictest discipline prevailed at court. Its life was simple ahd industrious, regu aced on all aides by religious exercises. Rules were added to rules. No detail was overlooked which could promote the spiritual and physical development of his children, and their religious education was carried to excess. Nevertheless his children all turned out well and Ernest died with the name of "father and savior of his people." Oliver Cromwell counted him among the moat sagacious of princes; in him was embodied " the idea of the Protestant patriarchal prince and of a Christian governor of State and Church truly caring for both." For the edition of the Bible which he planned (the so‑called " Ernestine Bible ") see BIBLES, AMarsmZn, ertn BIBLE SUMMARIES,
I, § 1.	G>coaa LosscaE.

Eraesti	THE NEW 9CHAFF‑HERZOG	170
8rel:ine
	BmLxoaswrav: On the life aoneatt: J. H. Gelbke, Harrop
	Ernst 1. penannt der Fromme, 3 vole., Goths 1810; A.
	Book, Ernst der Fromme, 2 vole., Weimar, 1886; idem,
	in ADB vi. 302‑308. For the educational work: W.
	B6hme, Do& Infmmationneerk Ernst des, Froramm von
	Gotha, Leipeic 1886; idem, Die EraieAunp der Kinder
	Ernst dee Frommen von Gotha. Chemnits, 1887; idem,
	Die plldoQopischen Beebdnsnpen Erna dea Frommen,
	Goths, 1888; A. Braem, Der pofhaieche BrJmtmethodue,
Berlin, 1897.
	ERftESTI, JOHANN AUGUST: Professor of
	theology at Leipaic; b. at Tennetadt (lb m. n.n w.
	of Erfurt), Thuringia, Aug. 4, 1707; d. at Leipaic
	Sept. 11, 1781. His father was preacher and super
intendent in Electoral Saxony.	In 1727 he began
	the study of mathematics, philosophy, and the
	ology at Wittenberg. After two years he became
	tutor at Leipeic, in the house of Stieglitz, councilor
	of war and mayor, whose influence upon his future
	career became decisive. In 1731 he was made
	vice‑principal and in 1734 principal
	As Profes‑ of the school of St. Thomas, at the
sor and	acme time lecturing with great aue
	Teacher. ties on the Latin classics at the uni
versity.	In 1742 he was appointed
	professor extraordinary of humane literature and
	in 1756 received the important chair of pro
	fessor of eloquence. His orations, distinguished
	by their versatile Latin, won him the title of
	" Cicero of the Germans." In 1759 he was trans
	ferred to the theological faculty. He was an ex
	cellent teacher and became a leading personality
	is the university and town. His nature was recep
tive;	he perceived the defects in methods of
	instruction, but he lacked thoroughness, while his
	interest in the subject‑matter and the beauties of
	form caused him to underrate the value of pene
trating criticism.
	Ernesti's importance as a theologian is intel
	ligible from his personal development and the con
	ditions of his time. After the change of confession
	on the part of the sovereign and the court, the
	Lutheran church of Saxony had organized itself
	in a more independent way, and its churchly life
	had a secure bases in the confessions of the Refor
	mation. But, owing to Pietism and the criticism
	of rationalism, the scholastic method in theology
	had to give way to the historical. Ernesti was
	governed by the new spirit. As a
	As Theo‑ well‑trained philologist he perceived
logian.	the defects of a dogmatic exegesis
	and the insufficiencies of a merely
	empirical method of Biblical criticism. On the
	other hand, he was deeply penetrated by a love of
	the Church whose confessional foundations he
	regarded as unshakable, at least in the attenuated
	dogmatics of his time. Thus be maintained on the
	one aide that the Bible must be explained like any
	other book, but on the other hand, as a dogmatician,
	he clung to tradition. He was not conscious of
	trying to harmonize two irreconcilable principles
	in his scientific and churchly thinking; and just
	because as a theologian of the Church he was able
	to satisfy the demands of philological criticism by
	his clear formulae, without infringing upon churchly
	authority, his work denotes a turning point in
	the development of theological science. By his
happy inconsistency he secured an indisputable place for historical criticism in theology.
He laid down his principles in his Inatittttio interpretia Novi Teatamenti (Leipaic, 1781; Eng. trawl., Edinburgh, 1834). In opposition to the mystical and allegorical interpretation of Cocceiua and to unhistorical rationalism he showed that Scripture possesses, only one sense. The work of the interpreter is finished with the establishment of the grammatical or literal sense, i.e., with historical explanation, the means of which are furnished by the science of language. He controverta his own principles, however, by making the positive results of Scriptural interpretation dependent upon the immediate inspiration of the Bible, and the same contradictions appear in his dogmatic works.
In general Erneati strove to be a Biblical theologian who bases his faith upon the grammatical interpretation of Scripture. He rendered great services by showing that Biblical philological interpretation as such may claim an independent position in theology. By his deep studies of the Bible he. avoided rationalism, Pietism, and dead orthodoxy. But he shrank from any thoroughgoing innovation which might in any way interfere with the traditions of churchly life. To increase his influence on the theology of his time he founded the Tleeologische Bibliothek which appeared in two aeries (1760‑69 and 1773‑79), writing himself moat of the contributions. His editions of Cicero, Homer, Xenophon, Tacitus, sad other classical authors were famous, and his OPuacula oratorio (Leipaic, 1762), Opuac2tla philologico‑cri_ tics (1764), and Initia doctrince aolidioris (1736) were much read. His sermons have an academic stamp; their language is cumbrous, and he thinks in Latin, though he writes in German.
(G. HEINRICL)
Brsrroaswra:: W. A. Teller, Verdienate Erneatie um Thoolapie and Religion, Berlin, 783, and the Zustttu to Teller
by J. 8. Semler, Halle, 1783; J. van Vooret, OraGio de Erneatio, Leyden, 180; C. H. Frotecher, Eloqusntdum virorum narrat%onea, i. 81‑129, Leipeic, 1828.
ERNESTINE BIBLE. See BIBLES, ANNOTATED, AND BIBLE 17ITMMARIEB, I, J 1.
ERPEftIUS (VAN ERPE), THOMAS: Dutch Arabiat; b. at Gorkum (22 m. e.s.e. of Rotterdam) Sept. 7, 1584; d, at Leyden Nov. 13, 1624. He studied at Middelburg and Leyden, and then traveled through France, Germany, Italy, and England. Almost immediately after his return, he was appointed professor of Oriental languages at Leyden (Feb., 1613). In addition to his academic activity, his position as royal interpreter kept him in constant touch with the East. His entrance on his professorship was signalized by the publication of his Grammatica arabica (Leyden, 1613), which, like its summary, the Rttdimenta lingtue arabicce (1620), went through many editions and was not superseded until the works of De Sacy appeared, two centuries later. After the death of his patron Josef Scaliger, Erpenius published a posthumous edition of the latter's Proverbiorum Arabicorum centurim dace (1614), while his duties as a teacher resulted in his publication of the first edition of the fables

171	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
		Brokine
of Lokman in his Locmeni aapientia fabuke (1615).
In 1615 he also published his Pauli Apoatoli ad
Romanos epistola, Arabice, which he followed in
the next year with his Novum Domini Noatri Jesu
Christi Testamentum, Arabice (1618). The Gos
pels were based in general on the Greek text,
Acts and the Epistles on the Peshito, and Reve
lation on a Coptic source. In 1819 Erpenius was
appointed professor of Hebrew, and now edited
his Pentateuchus Moms, Arabice (1622), which,
however, like his Grammatica Ebrwa generalis
(1621), possesses but a minor importance. His
edition of the Christian Arabic historian Ibn al
Amid al‑Makin was completed by J. Golius (Hia
toria Saraoenica atectore Georgic Elmacino, 1625),
and in the year after his death appeared his Psalmi
Davidis, Syriace (1625), while C. I'Empereur ed
ited his Grammatica Chaldcea et Syrica (Amster
dam, 1628). 	(A. SoCINt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY' P. $eriveriun, " Manes Eryeniani," Leyden, 1825; Erseh and Gruber, section 1, :aavii. 3b9‑380.

ERRETT, ISAAC: Disciple of Christ; b. in New York City Jan. 2, 1820; d. at Cincinnati, O., Dec. 19, 1888. He was self‑educated from his tenth year, and after laboring as a farmer, miller, lumberman, bookseller, printer, school‑teacher, pastor, preacher, and ,editor, became one of the leading men of his denomination. He was associate editor of The Millennial Harbinger with Alexander Campbell, and from 1866 until his death was editor‑in‑chief of the denominational organ, The Christian Standard, published in Cincinnati. His writings include First Principles; or, The Elements of the Gospel (Cincinnati, 1867); Walks about Jerusalem : A Search after the Landmarks of Primitive Christianity (1872); Talks to Bereans (1875); Letters to a Young Christian (1881); Evenings with the Bile (3 vole., 1885‑88); Life and Writings of George Edward Flower (1885); and Our Position : A Brief Statement of the Plea urged by the People known as Disciples of Christ (1885). BIBLIOGRAPHY'. J. 6. Lamer, Memoirs of Isaac E77‑eU. with 3alect%ona from his Writings, Pottsville, 1894.
ERSKINE, EBENEZER: Founder of the Scottish Secession Church (see PRESBYTERIANS); b. at Dryburgh (30 m. s.e. of Edinburgh), Berwickshire, June 22, 1680; d. at Stirling June 2, 1754. His father, Henry Erskine an English non‑conformist minister (ejected by the Act of Uniformity, 1662; after the Revolution minister of Chirnside, Berwickshire; d. 1698), belonged to the family of the earls of Mar. His mother, Margaret Halcro of Orkney, claimed as ancestor the duke of Albany, son of James V. of Scotland. Both parents were distinguished by piety and holy living. The son inherited their more valuable qualities and somewhat of the high spirit not unbecoming the noble blood which flowed in his veins. He studied at the University of Edinburgh (M.A., 1697), and was licensed and ordained minister of Portmoak, Kinroeashire, in 1703. In 1704 he married Alison Turpie, whose religious experience and devout spirit were the means of giving him his first real " view of salvation." In 1731 he was translated to the more important charge of Stirling, which he occu‑
pied till his deposition from the ministry of the Church of Scotland, in 1740.
As a minister of the national church, no less than after his secession, Erskine's labors were abundant and successful. Few ministers of that day enjoyed greater popularity as a preacher. People came from distances of sixty or seventy miles to benefit by his ministrations; and at the dispensation of the communion it was sometimes found necessary, even in the small parish of Portmoak, to make provision for no fewer than 2,000 participants. His discourses were plain, even homely in style, but were delivered with a certain elevation and dignity of manner which were always characteristic of him.
But it is chiefly as a leader in ecclesiastical affairs, at a critical period of the history of the Church of Scotland, that Erskine was known in his own day, and is remembered. For the full history of the secession of 1733, see PRESBrrESlwNe. Of this first considerable division in the Scottish Church, Erskine is admitted to have been the prime mover. The immediate occasion of the rupture was an act of the General Assembly of 1732, in connection with the vexed question of patronage. The relations of Erskine and his followers to the " ruling party in the Church," however, had been already strained long before this: first, in the so‑called Marrow Controversy (q.v.), in which they were rebuked by the General Assembly; and again in a celebrated case of alleged heresy‑that of John Simson (q.v.), professor of divinity in the University of Glasgow, whose suspension from teaching without deprivation either of status or stipend was regarded by Erskine as a grossly inadequate sentence. In fact, in announcing their secession in the formed protest of Nov. 16, 1733, the four original members of the Associate Synod, as the new body was at first called, expressly ascribed the step which they felt it their duty to take, not to any one act of the Church, but to " a course of defection from our Reformed and covenanting principles."
Among the incidents of Erskine's later years mention should be made of his procedure in the rebellion of 1745. When the rebels occupied Stirling, he not only organized a Secession corps of volunteers in behalf of the government, but acted as their captain, and for his patriotic conduct received the thanks of the duke of Cumberland. It is also to his credit that when the Associate Synod was rent asunder in 1747 into " Burghers " and " Antiburghera " by disputes over religious clauses in oaths administered to burgesses of Scotch cities, he took the side of toleration, and while the Antiburghers excommunicated those who subscribed the required oath, he refused to make non‑subscription a term of communion. On the other hand he showed a narrow spirit in reference to the work of George Whitefield and spoke contemptuously of the " noisy wind " which that " prelatic " preacher had " brought into the land." His published works were sermons and controversial pamphlets, which were issued in several collected editions after his death.
( WmrIsat LzMt. ) HENRY Cowes.

Crekine	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
C172
echatology
BIar.IOassraY: A Memoir, by James Fisher, was prefixed
to the Works of Ralph Erskine, Glasgow, 1764‑88; an enlarged Memoir, by D. Fraser, was prefixed to the Works of Ebenezer Erskine, London, 1826, while the Life arid Diary was issued separately, ib. 1831. Consult Hew Scott, Faeti eccleaia, ScoLicano.•, 5 parts, London, 1871; DNB, zvii. 404‑407; J. Ker, The Erakinea, Ebeneaer and Ralph. Edinburgh, 1881.
ERSKINE, JOHN: Church of Scotland; b. at Edinburgh 1720 or 1721; d. there Jan. 19, 1803. His father was a distinguished member of the Scottish bar, and deferring to his parents' wishes, John Erskine at first applied himself to the study of his father's profession. But a strong predilection for the Church had been early formed and showed itself, even while he was still a student in Edinburgh, in the publication of a theological work which gained him the friendship and correspondence of Bishop Warburton. He became a licentiate of the Church in 1743; and in 1744 he was ordained minister of the parish of Kirkintilloch, near Glasgow. In this laborious country charge Dr. Erskine, from the first, devoted himself earnestly and faithfully to his professional duties. And here, also, he formed those habits of careful preparation for the pulpit which never failed to render his sermons (which are vigorous expositions of Calvinism), if not eloquent, interesting and useful.
At this period of his life he began to maintain friendly intercourse on religious questions with representatives of foreign churches. In an age of bigotry and intolerance‑‑at least among the members of the party to which he himself belongedDr. Erskine was, if no Broad‑churchman in the modern acceptation of the term, a man of wide sympathies and enlightened Christian liberality. In the list of his earliest correspondents were several distinguished ministers of America, among them Jonathan Edwards. The strained relations between Britain and her American colonies distressed him deeply, and he published several pamphlets urging mutual concessions to prevent the war which eventually broke out. Reference has already been made to his friendly relations with Bishop Warburton, and he also corresponded with Bishop Hurd. He was no less friendly with some of the English dissenters, especially Whitefield (who preached in his pulpit at Kirkintilloch) and the Wesleys. His correspondence with members of the Continental Churches was long carried on with difficulty owing to his ignorance of any foreign language except French; but at the age of sixty he gained a competent knowledge of Dutch and German. He advocated and strenuously defended missions to the heathen at a time when both Churchmen and dissenters‑in Scotland at any rate‑were equally indifferent to what is now regarded as one of the chief obligations of the Christian Church.
In 1753 Dr. Erskine was translated from Kirkintilloch to the parish of Culross, and thence he removed, in 1758, to New Greyfriara Church, Edinburgh; after nine years, he went to the Collegiate Church of Old Greyfriars in the same city. Here he had Principal Robertson, the historian of Charles V., se his colleague and, in spite of their differ‑
ences in ecclesiastical politics, as one of his best friends. As an Edinburgh minister, he was called to take a more prominent place in public business than before. As a leader in the church courts, he represented for many years the Evangelical or popular party in the Church. In this position, as in every other, he was far from adopting extreme views; and he enjoyed the respect and esteem of all parties throughout the whole of his long and useful life. His contributions to literature (twenty‑five publications in all) include a volume of Theological Dissertations (London, 1765); Considerations on the Spirit of Popery (1778); and two volumes of Discourses (1798, 1804). He edited and republished various works of Jonathan Edwarde and other Americans.
(WILLIAM LEEt.) HENRY COWAN.
BraLIO6BAPHY: H. M. Wellwood, An Account of the Life and Writings of John Erskine, Edinburgh, 1818; Hugh Miller, Two Parties in the Church of Scotland Edinburgh, 1841• W. and R. Chambers, Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen, ii. 26?r264, Glasgow, 1855; T. MeCrie Sketches of Scottish Church History, Edinburgh, 1875; W. Scott, Guy Maanerinp, chap, gwii.; DNB, avii. 432433.
ERSKINE, THOMAS: Scotch layman, known as " Thomas Erskine of Linlathen "; b. in Edinburgh Oct. 13, 1788; d. there Mar. 20, 1870. He was a nephew of John Erskine (q.v.), was educated in Edinburgh, and practised law from 1810 to 1816; then succeeding to the family estate at Linlathen, near Dundee, he retired from the bar and spent the rest of his life in the care of his property and theological writing. While still a young man, he rebelled at the current Scotch theology, and at length found what he conceived was a better way in which to represent the divine revelation. His views are thus summarized in the Ertcyclopcedia Britannica
The only proper criterion of the truth of Christianity is " its conformity or non‑conformity with man's spiritual nature, and its adaptability or non‑adaptability to man's universal and deepest spiritual needs." The incarnation of Christ was " the necessary manifestation to man of an eternal eonship in the divine nature, apart from which those filial qualities which God demands from man could have no sanction." Faith as used in the Bible is s " certain moral or spiritual condition which virtually implied salvation, because it implied the existence of a principle of spiritual life possessed of an immortal power. This faith could be properly awakened only by the manifestation, through Christ, of love as the law of life, and se identical with an eternal righteousness which it was God's purpose to bestow on every individual soul."
Such views were not " orthodox," and at first subjected Mr. Erskine to considerable adverse criticism. But they gained favor; and he numbered among his intimate friends 'and correspondents some of the finest minds of the century, Thomas Carlyle, Edward Irving, Frederick Denison Maurice, John McLeod Campbell, Bishop Ewing, Norman Macleod, Dean Stanley, Adolphe Monod, and Alexandre Vinet. Maurice and Campbell were indebted to him for those conceptions of the Atonement which have had so great an effect upon later popular religious thought; and it was Campbell's public advocacy of them which led to his expulsion from the Kirk. Mr. Erskine's theology permeated his being, and it was his delight to impress his views upon all whom he met. His sincerity, earnestness,

173	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Erskine
		Eschatology
sympathy, and pure and lofty character gave him
a great influence.	D. J. Vaughan (Contemporary
Review, June, 1878) includes him among four Scotch
men whose influence on English thought has been
wide, deep, and lasting. Monod traced to a talk
with him his deliverance from Socinianism. Vinet
wrote: " Were it allowable to say ` I am of Paul'
and ` I of Apollos,' I should say say'l am of Erskine."'
	His more important writings were' Remarks on
the Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Re
ligion (Edinburgh, 1820; 10th ed., 1878); An Es
say on Faith (1822); The Unconditional Freeness
of the Gospel (1828; new ed., 1879); The Brazen
Serpent, or, Life Coming through Death (1831; 3d
ed., 1879); The Doctrine of Election (London, 1837;
2d ed., Edinburgh, 1878).	Spiritual Order and
Other Papers (Edinburgh, 1871) appeared posthu
	mously, and in 1877 two volumes of Letters, ed.
William Hanna,, with reminiscences by Dean Stan
ley and Principal Shairp.
	(WILLIAM LEEt.) HENRY COWAN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Letters of Thomas Erskine . . . 1800‑18.¢0,
	ed. W. Hanna, with a sketch of his ancestry, earlier
years, etc., Edinburgh, 1877; DNB, xvii. 444‑445.
	ERTHAL, §r"tiil',FRANZ LUDWIG VON: Bishop
	of Wiirzburg and Bamberg; b, at Lohron‑the
Main (26 m. e.s.e. of Frankfort) Sept. 16, 1730;
d. at W iirzburg Feb. 16, 1795.	He belonged to
an old Frankish noble family and was early des
tined for the Church.	He studied theology and
	law at Wurzburg and Mainz, and enlarged his legal
	knowledge in the papal chancery and at Vienna.
	In 1779 he was made bishop of Wurzburg, and a
few weeks later bishop of Bamberg.	The tradi
	tional Wiirzburg policy, confessional considera
	tions, and fear of the dangerous Prussians induced
	him to join the ranks of the imperial party. His
	relations to the Vatican were proper, but he was
	bent on maintaining his own sovereignty against
	both emperor and curia. A child of the time, he
	ruled in accordance with the maxim of enlightened
	despotism, " everything for the people, but every
	thing through the ruler "; yet he was no tyrant,
	but governed as a benevolent patriarch, watching
	over all things, arranging all things, the head of the
	family, living only for his children. It was with
	the greatest reluctance that he ever imposed the
death penalty.	Under his. mild rule the prisons
	were emptied, the finances and the entire civil
	service were regulated, and the poor laws were
	made to accord with the modern principle that
	only the disabled are to be helped and begging must
	cease. Lotteries were abolished and schools‑pri
	mary, intermediate, and high‑were fostered with
zeal and knowledge.	His natural inclination
	toward the practical and useful is apparent in the
	administration of his episcopal office and animates
	his pastoral letters and still more his " sermons for
	the people." These sermons seldom treat of doc
	trine or contain cold philosophical discussions, but
	speak with seriousness and emphasis of Christian
	living in a language somewhat uncouth and heavy,
but of heart‑winning simplicity.	While they are
	not free from allusions to the gracious effects of
	the mystery of the altar or of the mass, on the
	whole they are truly Evangelical, not decked out
with emotional legendary stories, and without con
fessional polemics. He visited his bishoprics,
which constituted a kind of theocracy, as a simple
priest, preaching in the most modest village church,
examining the clergy vigorously and with justice,
and admitting to it only the moat worthy pupils
of his seminary. The active, ascetic, feeble man
wished for no pleasures, and stood alone on the
height of his ruling office, which brought him only
duties and cares. In vain will one seek among the
German Roman Catholic ecclesiastical princes a
more noble personality, a .more worthy priest and
a more earnest Christian. 	D. KERLERt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Leitachuh, Franz Ludwig von Er", Bamberg, 1894; Zum Gedochtnia des Piirstkschoft Franz Ludwig von Erthal, in Archiv des hiatorierhen Vereina van Unterfranken and Aaehafjenburp, vol. xxcvii., Wiirzburg, 1895.
ESARHADDON. See A$aYRIA, VI. 3, § 13.
ESAU. See EDOM; JACOB.
ESCHATOLOGY.
Primitive Views (§ 1).	Significance of Eschatology
Old Testament Doctrine 		(§4).
	(¢ 2).	The Second Coming ($ b).
New Testament Teaching 	The Resurrection (¢ B).
(§3). 	The Judgment (§ 7).
Eschatology (Gk. to eschttta) is the doctrine of the last things. In theology this signifies those events occurring after death which immediately concern man. Without detailed treatment the purpose here is to sketch only the principal lines of the subject.
Belief in some sort of existence after death appears to be a universal characteristic of the
human race, though neither the earlir. Primitive est form nor the precise cause of this Views. Belief among prehistoric peoples is
known. It may have originated in dreams, or have expressed itself in animism, or have been a prolongation of the instinct of selfpreservation (gee COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, § a). From 4000 B.C. the daily life of the Egyptians was saturated with this expectation (cf. the " Book of the Dead "). That the belief was widespread from 1500 to 1000 B.C. is evinced in the great literary religious documents which have come down to us. The Homeric Hades is a gloomy underworld to which all the dead go, there to exist as
I	wretched shades beyond the reach of divine help. The Babylonians knew of " a land of no return' (" Lay of Istar's Descent to Hades," see BABYLONIA, VIL, 3, § 5). The later Zoroastrian literature pictures the destinies of the dead with terrible severity (see ZOROA$TER, ZOROASTRIANISM). Plato (d. 347 B.C.) elaborated his splendid argument for immortality (" PhPedo ")‑a, hope repudiated by the Epicureans, and only in part reaffirmed by the Stoic doctrine of a limited survival after death (see IMMORTALITY).
According to the Old Testament all the dead go
~	to Sheol (see HADES). Thus in some sort immor‑
tality was affirmed; but this belief did
II	z. Old not until the fourth century B.C. em‑
	Testament	phasize individual immortality, in the
	Doctrine.	sense of personal moral development.
		This appears the more strange when
one considers the profound belief of the Hebrews
i in Yahweh, who alone had power to make alive

Rechatology	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	174
(Dent. xxxii. 29; I Sam. ii. 6). This hope centered in national rather than in individual blessedness, which is to be explained by the fact that their evolution had not proceeded far enough for them to draw the consequences of separating the individual from the collective unit of the nation (cf. Ezek. xxxiii.). The Messianic kingdom was to be ushered in by the Day of Yahweh (see DAY or THE LO1iD)‑a day of judgment directed against all evil‑doers. This kingdom was destined primarily for the righteous who might then be living on the earth; the relation of the Gentiles to this kingdom was variously conceived (Hoe. Sri. 2; Isa. xxv. 8' Ezek. xxxvii.). For the pious Hebrews who had died, participation in it was possible only through resurrection, which is clearly presented in two passages (Isa. xxvi. 19; Dan, aii. 2). In the first, communion with God is uninterrupted between death and the advent of the Messianic kingdom; in the second, resurrection of the righteous and the wicked is by an omnipotent act of God. In the Old Testament, however, one looks in vain for anything like a completed doctrine of resurrection (cf. the frequent laments of the Psalms concerning death). The entire eschatological hope reflects the progressive stages of culture attained by the Hebrews, as affected by their developing ethical consciousness and by the spiritual disclosure of God in their history. Growing out of this advancing idea of God as absolute Creator and Lord of all, to whom at length no region of life or of the unseen was closed, was the notion of the worth of those to whom he had given life: they must ultimately share in his blessedness. The strength of this hope, embodied in a crass supernaturalism indeed, was disclosed in the many apocalypses which sprang up from 200 s.c. to 100 A.D. A special development of this hope arose among the Pharisees as they looked forward to a restoration of the theocracy (II Mace.), or as they were influenced by Greek philosophy (Wisdom).
The synoptic teaching deals with the Messianic kingdom. For Jesus the central point of interest certainly lay in this kingdom as eseen‑
3. New tially supernatural and essentially
Testament	future. Just what was the precise
	Teaching.	relation between these two aspects in
		his own consciousness is hard to as
certain. He at any rate never surrendered him
self to the enthusiastic extravagances of contem
porary apocalyptic hope; he laid sovereign stress
on the ethical and spiritual principles of his king
dom. His teaching concerning the kingdom
centers in the parusia, the resurrection, and the
judgment. In the parusia, in which naturally his
own resurrection is presupposed, his advent was to
be sudden and unexpected, although no one knew
the exact hour, not even the Son, but the Father
alone. At one time he appears to look for his
return shortly, again only after long delay. Then
follows the resurrection through which the right
eous enter the Messianic kingdom. The resurrec
tion of the wicked is given as a part of the teaching
of Jesus, but in only two passages (Luke xx. 27‑40;
John v. 28, 29), The judgment is pictured now
according to the program of the Day of Yahweh
(see DAY OF THE LORD) in the Old Testament (see JUDGMENT, DIVINE), now as present and continuous; the principle of it is the light one has received, and one's humane or inhumane treatment of others in whom Christ is immanent. Eternal felicity and communion with God are assured to his followers in the future kingdom. Paul's ddctrine of the future, which bears many traces of his former Pharisaic beliefs, with reminders of the Book of Daniel (chap. vii.), centers in the second advent of Christ (I Theas. iv. 13‑18; II Thess. i. 7, 8). The Lord, accompanied by angels in flaming power, shall make a glorious and terrible descent from heaven, when the dead in Christ shall rise first, the living be transformed, and all together be rapt into the air to meet the Lord, ever thereafter to be with him. The other New Testament writers share the apostle's expectation of the impending advent. Later Paul appears to have experienced a change of view both as to its outer and inner character and as to the time of its occurrence. Before the advent, however, the apostle anticipated three events. (1) The culmination of the power of evil which should be disclosed and overthrown. This included an apostasy, the unveiling of the " man of sin," " the eon of perdition," the " lawless one " (II Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8; of. Satan or Behar, II Cor. vi. 15, and Antichrist, I John ii. 18, 22), and the removal of that which now hindered the full development of the godless one‑either Elijah or the existing Roman authority. (2) The Gentiles and finally the Jews are to be converted (Rom. xi. 13‑27). (3) Believers must suffer violent persecution. With the advent occurs the resurrection of believers, of which the resurrection of Christ was the pledge; all will then be raised, or if only believers, then later perhaps the wicked also (cf. I Cor. xv. 23, 24). The Revelation decides for a double resurrection (chap. xx. 4‑6). Concerning the condition of the dead before the resurrection, we discern an earlier and a later view: according to the first, believers were to be after death as if asleep; according to the second, death ushered them at once into a fuller communion with their glorified Lord. When Christ comes, his followers shall stand before his judgment seat, the wicked be destroyed external nature already redeemed shall be glorified, and he who was the Redeemer surrender his Lordship to the Father, that God may be all things in all men (II Cor. v. 10; II Thess. ii. 7‑10; Rom. viii. 19‑22; I Cor. xv. 24‑28).
Eschatological hopes have profoundly affected the Christian Church in nearly all periods of her history. As 8chleiermacher pointed
;. Signifi‑ out, these hopes are a witness to the cance of Es‑principle of teleology implanted in the
	chatology.	nature of man; the influence of this
		has been to bind men to an ultimately
spiritual interpretation of human life and of the
world as subordinate to it. Immanent in the Chris
tian hope itself is the indestructible pledge of its
complete realization. The Scriptures had em
phasized one point of greatest significance: the
essential unity of the possession and the fulfilment
of redemption. So far as the ethical content of
redemption was progressively apprehended, the

176	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eaohwtolop•
necessity that it be ethically (historically) rather than apocalyptically (magically) realized compelled a new point of view for the whole subject. And if now one still uses the apocalyptic phraseology of the Scriptures, it will be permitted only when one has replaced its external cosmological reference with an ethical and spiritual content. In no case may form and content be identified. That this principle has been violated, the history of the belief will show. In Christian belief, the chief eschatological events are: the second coming, the resurrection, and the final judgment.
The second coming has been conceived of under two general forms: either a visible, glorious appearing of Christ at a moment fixed in the g. The divine purpose, or a silent, gradual
Second	penetration of all social forces by his
	Coming.	spirit, to be either perpetual or con
		tinued until the consummation. There
will thus be such a disclosure of Christ as will render
the divinity of his kingdom unmistakable; this will
meet, with either a completely sympathetic or partly
hostile reception. Preceding or associated with
the advent have been several distinctive features.
(1) The millennium (see MILLENNItTM, MILLENARI
ANISM). The Chiliastic hopes of the early Chris
tians, based on Rev. xx. 4‑6, colored by Jewish
apocalyptic fancies, are rejected by the Alexandrian
Fathers. The millennium was ascribed by Augus
tine to the church militant. At the Reformation
the earlier fancies were revived by the Anabaptists,
receiving a vehement condemnation in the Augs
burg Confession (Art. xvii.). Of the dogmatists
who held that the second coming, general resurrec
tion, last judgment, and end of the world would
occur at the same time, some placed the 1,000 years
and the binding of Satan at about 3G0‑1300 A.D.
More recently Bengel has had many followers in a
refined form of the millennial idea. The pre‑ and
post‑millennialista are distinguished according as
the advent is placed before or after the 1,000 years.
(2) The " Antichrist " has received many inter
pretations, having been identified in the early
church with Nero, among the Reformers with the
Papacy, later with successive forces of evil as op
posed to God, again with systems of belief or with
a social order subversive of the Church, or finally
with an embodied evil principle in conflict with the
Gospel. Here is without doubt an echo of the
Babylonian creation‑story of the conflict of Light
with Tiamat or chaos, the later Jewish thought of
Satan (q.v.), and the fierce struggle of the Jewish
religious people under Judas Maccabeus against
Antiochus Epiphanes (see IhsxoNEANS). (3) The
intermediate state. The teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church concerning this includes the doc
trine of Purgatory and the Limbos of the Fathers:
Purgatory is for those who departing this life in
faith are liable to punitive sufferings for venial sins
or for the vestiges of mortal sins and who must,
before their entrance into heaven, be purified
to be the sooner effected by the suffrages (prayers
and good works) of the faithful, but principally by
the acceptable sacrifice of the altar (Council of
Trent, seas. xxv.). This is not to be confused with
a continued or a second probation. The Limbos
of the Fathers was the abode of the Old Testament saints to whom Christ after his death and before his ascension appeared for their liberation when he took them with himself in his ascent to heaven (Pa. xvi. 10; I Pet. iii. 19; see DESCENT OF CHRIST INTO HELL). This doctrine rests upon the Jewish notion of the dead as in a condition of privation awaiting the appearance of the Messiah to raise their bodies from the ground and call their disembodied spirits from the shades of the under‑world, thus through union of soul and body introducing the risen Israel to a more than earthly prosperity and blessedness. In the Protestant Church the doctrine of an intermediate state has been either rejected or variously conceived. The earlier Protestant writers held that the righteous and the wicked went at once to a place of happiness or misery‑the souls of believers being made perfect in holiness (cf. the Shorter Catechism, Ques. 37; also W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ii. 353, iii. 453, New York, 1889); on the other hand, those who die in their sine were thought of as entering a region where they should behold in God their " perfect and irreconcilable enemy " (cf. J. Edwards, Works, vi. 123, New York, 1830). In their respective conditions both classes remain until the second coming, all waiting for the " Great Assize," at which the earthly deeds of the wicked and possibly of the good shall be `made manifest and judged. Associated with the intermediate state have been several doctrines. (a) The sleep of sods (psychopannychy; cf. I Those, iv. 13‑15; I Cor. xv. 6,18, 20, 51; Acts vii. 60, xiii. 36). Between death and the second coming the condition of the soul will be that of a dreamless sleep (cf. R. Whately, Concerning a Future State, London, 1829). (b) A nucleus of the personality of the unsaved is preserved during the middle state until the judgment, when by a creative act God will reunite soul and body, after which they will be gradually annihilated (cf. Edward White, Life in Chriaet, London, 1875; Bee ANNIHILATIONIBM). (c) The soul being bodiless during the intermediate state is in a condition of " involution," " progressive development " (Martenaen, Christian Dogmatics, Edinburgh, 1865), " deepest retirement " (Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 2 parts, New York, 1872), " spiritual seclusion " (I. A. Dormer, System of Christian Doctrine, 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1880sqq). (d) In the intermediate state, to those who have not in this life definitely rejected Christthe heathen and others to whom knowledge of Christ was impossible‑a probation will be open. This is based on the absolute universality of the Gospel, the indispensableness of faith in Christ as historically revealed for salvation, an unvarying unity of the moral order; finally, if universal salvation is to be affirmed, the offer of grace must be effectually continued in another world (see PROBATION, FBTURE; and UNIVERSALISTS).
According to Schleiermacher, since Christianity is a historical religion and its progress is historically conditioned, those who die without having been reached by the divine call, will, in a future existence, become subjects of a divine influence which will create for them the possibility of entering the society of the redeemed.

Eapentology 	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
><7e
Most of the early Christians held to a resurrection of the same bodies that died‑"the flesh,"
" this flesh "‑in every respect iden6. The Res‑ tica,l with the earthly body. Origen
urrection. sought to give the doctrine an ideal‑
istic interpretation; others would relieve it of its grosser features; while the Gnostics, following the Greek conception of matter in relation to spirit, denied the physical resurrection. The early Protestant view was that the same body laid down at death shall be raised, with the same form as the earthly body and reunited to the soul, so as to be glorious, powerful, spiritual, celestial‑the same body but of different quality. Two other conceptions of the resurrection have been suggested. One, that this occurs for each one at death when he enters at once into another sphere of life; the other, that it is a resurrection from the dead, that it therefore stands for the ethical completion of life in union with Christ, uninterrupted by death, and after death carried to perfection. (See HEAVEN.)
In the early Church judgment was presented in many forma. The Son or the Father was the judge.
Some souls‑those, e.g., of martyraq. The went at once to the felicity of heaven judgment. (Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen);
the Gnostics affirmed this only of the most spiritual persons. The judgment was to be accompanied by alarming physical signs together with a conflagration, in which the world shall be destroyed. The punishment of hell was depicted in bold and sensuous imagery‑some regarding the fire as material (Lactantius, De SPedachdis). Others conceived of punishment as a sense of separation from God. Restorationism was advocated by Origen, but was overcome until long afterward, the opposite view being general‑the eternal duration of punishment. By the scholastics heaven was divided into the firmament of the visible heaven, the spiritual heaven as the abode of saints and angels, and the intellectual heaven as the sphere of the beatific vision. Hell was also partitioned off: the place of devils and the damned; and the various subterranean regions, as Purgatory, Limbos Infantum, and Limbos Patrum. Here and there a voice was heard in favor of Origen's view, but the prevailing doctrine was that of unrelieved eternity of penalty for those dying in mortal sin (cf. Dente's inscription over the gate of hell; " Leave all hope, all who enter," Inferno, canto iii., v. 9). Origen's conception woke to life again in John Scotus Erigena. In the sixteenth century the question suggested by some of the Fathers (Justin, Tatian), whether the soul was naturally mortal or immortal, was once more rained in connection with the doctrine of punishment. Protestant writers, especially those of mystical temperament, pictured the joys of heaven and the pains of the lost with elaborate and either glowing or harrowing particulars of time and place and inner experience, addressed to the feverish imagination and appealing to hope or fear. In more recent times the entire question of eschatology has entered upon a further development. In addition to the doctrine of the endless punishment of those who die impenitent, there are offered two other solutions of this prob‑
lem which take their rise in the Scriptures, having already appeared in both ancient and modern thought‑universal restoration (see Urrlvraserlsz's) and conditional immortality (see ANNIAILATIONlanrt). The theory of evolution has set all former questions in a new light and demanded a reconsideration of them in the light of its principle. In addition to this, the doctrine of universal restoration grounds its hope on the absoluteness of God, the indefeasible continuity of grace, and the indestructible confidence that finally the better self in every man will yield to the divine persuasion and God will succeed in his eternal purpose of redemption. Conditional immortality argues either from an annihilating fiat of God at the judgment or from the well‑known biological law that function determines organism. Since already many living forma which once flourished on the earth, having gradually ceased to adapt themselves to their environment, have perished, the same fate will overtake all souls who refuse response to the ethical and spiritual environment of life. Thus man is " immortable " (S. D. McConnell, Evolution of Immortality, New York, 1901). C. A. BECKWITH.
BISLIOaRerrry: The titles of the older literature, covering
	the non‑Christian religions, are collected in E. Abbot's
	Literature of the Doctrine of a Future Life (appended to
	W. R. Alger, Dealing of the Soul; Critical Hint. of the
	Doctrine of a Future Life, Boston, many editions, e.g.,
	1880, reprinted separately), New York, 1871. The reader
	should consult the literature under the articles mentioned
	in the teat‑e.g., ANNIHILATIONIaM; FUTURE PvxmR
	MENT; HADES; IMMORTALITY; JUDGMENT; MILLENNIUM,
	MILLENARIANISM; PROBATION, FUTURE. The litera
	ture on the eschatology of non‑Christian religions should
	be sought under the articles on those faiths and under
	COMPARATIVE RELIGION. The most important literature
	on the Christian doctrine is mentioned in the text. Con
	sult further: F. Richter, Die Lehre con den Zetzten Dingen,
	2 vole., Breslau, 1843‑44; $. Lee, Eaclwtolopy, Boston,
	1858; W. F15;ke. Die lettten Dinpe, Rostock, 1868; 8.
	Davidson, Doctrine of Last Things Contained in the N. T.,
	London, 1882 (affirms that no consistent doctrine is taught
	in the N. T.); sections 151‑154 of Dorner'e " System of
	Christian Doctrine " is translated by N. Smyth in Dorner
	on the Future State, New York 1883; H. Karsten, Die
	Letzten Dinpe, Hamburg, 1885; C. E. Luthardt, Die Lehra
	eon den letzten Dingen, Leipeio, 1885; F. Kliefoth, Chriat
	liche Eschatoloyie, 1887; J. A. Spencer, Five Last Things,
	New York, 1887; J. M. Greens, The Blessed Dead, Boston,
	1888; J. Fyfe, The Hereafter, Edinburgh 1890; F. G.
	Hibbard, Eschatology, New York, 1890 (deals with the
	doctrine as set forth in the Book of Revelation); H. M.
	Luekoek, After Death, London, 1890; J. Strong, The Doo
	trine of a Future Life, New York 1891• J. Croce, Coming
	Eaclaatologiral Events as Repealed in Holy Writ, London,
	1893: K. Rohr, Die kteten Dinpe, Basel, 1895; G. $. Bar
	rett, The Intermediate State and the Last Things, London,
	1898; 8. D. F. $slmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality,
	Edinburgh, 1898; J. T. Beck, Die Yollendunp des Reichsa
	(iottes, GVtereloh, 1897; R. H. Charles, Critical Hist. of
	as Doctrine of a Future Life, London, 1899 (for Jewish and
	early Christian eschatology); W. B. Brown, Problem of
	Final Destiny, New York, 1900; M. v. Coehem, The Pow
	Lad Things, ib. 1900; J. Make, Life Everlasting, Boston,
	1901; G. Delanne, Evidences for a Future Life, New York,
	1904; H. A. A. Kennedy, Bt. Paul's Conceptions of the
	Last Things, ib. 1904; C. A. Beckwith, Realities of Chris
	tian Theology, Boston, 1908• L Elbe, Future Life do the
	Light of Ancient and Modern Science, Chicago, 1908;
G. T. Feehner. On Life after Death, ib. 1908; L. A. Muirhead, The Eedeatolopy of Jesus, Lodon, 1908: 8. Baring_ Gould, The Restitution q/ AR Things, New York, 1907. Besides these works, the reader may consult also the various treatises on systematic theology, more or lees space being always devoted to the subject; the works on the history of doctrine will guide to the historical study of the topic.

177
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
EsohsEolosy EsDen
ESCOBAR, MARINA DE: Spanish mystic; b. at Valladolid 1554; d. there July 9, 1633. She was a near relative of Antonio Escobar y Mendoza (q.v.), and a pupil and penitent of the Jesuit Ludovico da Ponte, who trained her in the spirit of his order. She attained renown by her extraordinary promotion of prayer of the heart, by her wonderful visions, and as a reformer of the Spanish branch of the Brigittines (bee BRIDGET, SAINT, OF SWEDEN AND THE BRICIITTINE ORDER). Many Roman Catholic writers term her " Blessed" and " Honorable," while Alban Stolz even calls her "Saint."
(O. Z&cgLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The original Vita was by F. Cachupin, 2 vole., Madrid, 1684‑73, Lat. tranel. by M. Hanel, Prague, 1872‑88. Cf. KL, iv. 890‑‑891.
ESCOBAR Y MENDOZA, ANTONIO: Spanish Jesuit; b. at Valladolid 1589; d. there July 4, 1669. He was a scion of a distinguished family of intense piety, and was noteworthy for his asceticism and his energy as a preacher and priest. His literary productivity was enormous, his works filling eightythree volumes. He began his literary career with the epics San Ignacio de Loyola (Valladolid, 1813) and Historic de la Virgen Madre de Dios (1618), but the remainder of his writings are devoted either to exegesis or to moral theology. To the former category belong, among others, In Evangelic Sanctorum commentarii (6 vole., Lyons, 16421648); In. Evangelic temporis comtnentarii (6 vole., 1647‑48); Yetvs ac Novurn Testamentum littzralibm et moralibus coramzntariia illvstratum (8 vole., 16521667); and a number of commentaries on individual books of the Bible, among which special mention may be made of his In Cantica commentarii, sine de Mario Deiparre elogiis (Lyons, 1669). The fame of Escobar is chiefly based, however, on his works on moral theology, of which the Surnmtcla casZCUm conscientiu; (Pampeluna, 1627) is the shortest, the Urtiversct= theolagite maralis receptiores absque life sententio? (7 vole., Lyons, 16526) the longest, and the Iriber theologies moralis viginti‑guattuor Soeietatis Jesu doctoribus reseratus (1664) the best known. The last‑named work summarizes the contributions of Escobar's chief predecessors to probabilistic casuistry. A certain apparent laxity in ethics exposed the author to many attacks, particularly from Pascal in his Lettrea provincutles, while the Roman .Catholic world gradually formed an unfavorable judgment of the work. The parliaments of Paris, Rennes, and Rouen condemned the book to be burned, and modern Jesuits disavow the work more or less completely.
(O. Zsc>iLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. and A. de Backer, BiblioWqrse des Ecrivaina de la comPagnie de Jdaua ii. 172‑178, Brussels, 1853; J. Huber, Der Jeeuitenorden, pp. 282‑31b, Berlin, 1873; H. Hurler, Nontenclafor literarius, ii. 229‑231, Innsbruck, 1893; KL, iv. 892.
ESDRAELOH. See JE2REEL.
ESDRAS: Books of Old Testament Apocrypsa. For I (or III) Esdras, see APOCRYPHA, A, IV., 1; for II (or IV) Eadras, see PBEUDEPICfRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, IL, 7; for the pseudepigraphic V and VI EBdrBa, Bee PBEODEPICfRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, 11.,8.
ESxIL: Archbishop of Lund; b. about 1102; d. at Clairvaux Sept. 6, 1181 (or 1182). He studied at the cathedral school of Hildeaheim, was appointed canon, and later head keeper, at the cathedral in Lund, and in 1134 bishop of Roskilde. There he allied himself with Peder Bodilsen, a powerful lord, and succeeded in forcing King Erik Emune to flee Zealand. The king mustered fresh troops in Jutland, invaded Zealand, and forced the allies to surrender. Eskil escaped with a fine, but when, in 1137, he was elected archbishop of Lund by popular vote, the king refused to sanction his appointment, and the archbishopric remained vacant until the king's death (Sept. 18, 1137), when Eskil was finally invested with the dignity. As archbishop ha took prominent part in the strife for the throne, and on one occasion was compelled to flee after breaking his oath of allegiance to one of the contestants. In 1139 he convened at Lund a provincial synod which was attended by bishops from Sweden, Norway, and the Faros Islands; and during the following years he founded a Cistercian monastery at Herisvad, Sweden (1143), and a Benedictine cloister at Esrom (1144). After having taken part in a crusade against the Wends he visited his friend Bernard at Clairvaux (1152). Upon his return he was met by Cardinal Nicholas Breakspear (afterward Pope Adrian IV.), who had brought the pallium for an archbishop of Sweden, but as no archiepiscopal seat could be agreed upon the pa,llium was left with Eskil. He held it until 1164, when he transferred it to the first archbishop of Upeala. According to the pope's decision the archbishops of Lund were to retain the primacy of Sweden. In 1154, after the death of Bernard, EsIIiI again traveled to Clairvaux, later visiting Rome. On his way horse he was imprisoned by some German knights, and as Emperor Frederick I. refused to intervene a rupture resulted between the emperor and the papal delegates. Eskil reached Denmark in time for the coronation of Waldemar I (1157). He took part in another crusade against the Wends, but in 1159 lost favor with the king, was forced to flee Denmark, and spent seven years at Clairvaux, at length receiving the king's permission to return to his archbishopric. In 1174 the pore refused him permission to retire to a monastery, but in 1177 he renewed his petition with success, and spent his last days at Clairvaux.
(F. NIELBENt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: 8aao Grammaticus, Hiat.
Da»ioa, book aii., ed. G. Waits in MGH, Script, xea, (1892), 43‑181; J. Langebek, Script. rer. Danicarum, consult the Index, ix.' 194‑195, Copenhagen, 1772‑1878. Consult: H. Reuter, Geachichte Alexander des Dritten, LeiPsio. 1880 ‑84; C. F. W. I. Karup, (#eachichte der kathotiachen Kirche in DBnernark, Monster, 1883; RL, iv. 902‑904.
ESKIMOS, MISSIONS TO THE. See EQEDE, HANG.
ESPEft, ZEGER 13ERNELAM VAN: One of the canoeists who endeavored to carry out the principles of the episcopal system of the Roman Catholic Church as developed in France and exercised a great influence on the doctrine and practise developed from that system in the Netherlands and Germany; b. at Louvain July 9, 1646; d. at Amere‑

Essenes	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	178
foort (12 m. e.n.e. of Utrecht) Oct. 2, 1728. He
studied theology and canon law at Louvain, was
made a priest in 1673, doctor of law in 1675 and
professor of canon law in his native city. His lec
tures and elegantly written works soon made him
famous, and from all sides his decisions on canon
law were demanded. His main work, Jus ecclesias
tictcm universum (Louvain, 1700; Cologne, 1702), is
still a treasure for the canonists, although it was
put on the Index in 1704 because he defended the
Jansenists. 	E. SEHLING.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Du Pac de Bellegarde, Vie de van Eapen, Louvain, 1767; F. Laurent, Van Eapen, 3 parts, Brussels,
1860‑63; KL, iv. 904‑905.
ESS, KARL AND LEANDER VAN: Two Roman Catholic Bible translators.
	1. Karl van Ess was born at W arburg (18 m.
s.e. of Padcrborn) Sept. 25, 1770; d. at Huysburg
(30 m. s.w. of Magdeburg) Oct. 22, 1824. His ed
ucation was begun in the gymnasium of the Do
minicans at Warburg, whence he went to the abbey
at Huysburg in 1788; he was made priest in 1794,
and became prior of his abbey in 1801. When the
abbey was closed in 1804, he became priest of the
town of Huysburg and acted as vicar‑general for
Magdeburg, Halberstadt, and Helmstedt. He was
an orthodox Catholic, but at first was so liberal
in tendency that he included a number of Protes
tant hymns in the Osnabriick Hymnal. After the
fall of Napoleon and the rise of Prussia he became
pronouncedly ultramontane and, in a short " His
tory of Religion " published in 1817 on the occa
sion of the celebration of the Reformation, crit
icized sharply the Evangelical churches. His
literary activity includes his part in the translation
of the New Testament with his cousin Leander, Kurze
Geschichte der Abtei Hreysburg (Halberstadt, 1810),
Katechismzcs (1822), and the Kurze Gesehichte der
Religion referred to above. 	E. NESTLE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. C. Folder von Borrommo, Gelehrten and SchriftatelZer‑Lexikon, i. 202. Landahut, 1817; ADB, vi.
377; KL, iv. 908.
2. Johann Heinrich, better known by his Benedictine name Leander van Ees, was born at Warburg Feb. 15, 1772; d. at Affolderbach (20 m. n.e. of Heidelberg) Oct. 13, 1847. He was educated by the Dominicans at Warburg; entered the Benedictine abbey Marienmiinster near Paderborn, 1790; was made priest and pastor at Schwalenberg, 1796. He became preacher for the Catholic Church at Marburg and professor in the university there in 1812; and retired in 1822. He was deeply interested in the dissemination of the Bible, and wrote many pamphlets in which he advocated more frequent use of the Scriptures by the laity. With his cousin Karl he published a German translation of the New Testament (Brunswick, 1807); alone he published the Old Testament in German (part 1, Sulzbach, 1822, part 2, 183G), and with his pupil Wetzer the whole Bible in three parts (1840). In 1821 he prefixed a preface to a work on mixed marriages by a Roman Catholic priest and it was put on the Index Dec. 17, 1821, and two days later the same was done with his translation of the New Testament, though the latter received the commendation of the Roman Catholic faculty at Tiibingeu
and of the vicar‑general of Bruchsal. His edition of the Vulgate was published in three parts (18221824); and of the Septuagint in 1824 (latest ed. by E. Nestle, with Prolegomena and Epilegomena,1887 ) ; in his New Testament he combined the Complutensian and Erasmian readings. In the copies circulated by the BFBS, the prefaces have been removed. Other writings are: Pragmatics doctorum catholicorum Tridentini circa Yulgatam deereti sensum historic (Sulzbaeh, 1801); Pragmatiseh‑kritische Geschichte der Vulgatd (Tiibingen, 1821); Wesenlehren des christlichen Glaubercs and Lebens (1823).
E. NESTLE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. C. Folder von Borromaro, Gekhrten urrd SchrifZateller‑Lexikon, i. 203‑204, Landehut, 1817; H. E.
8eriba, Biopraphiach‑Ziterfiriachea Lexikon, i. 94‑97,
Darmstadt, 1831; ADB, vi. 377 eqq.; KL, iv. 909‑910.
ESSAYS AND REVIEWS: The title of a book projected and edited by Henry Bristow Wilson (q.v.) and published in London Mar. 24, 1860, which occasioned a remarkable theological controversy. It included seven essays by as many authors: The Education of the World, by Frederick Temple; Bunsen's Biblical Researches, by Rowland Williams; On the Study of the Evidences of Christianity, by Baden Powell; Seances historiques de Gereeve, The National Church, by Henry Bristow Wilson; On the Mosaic Cosmogony, by Charles Wycliffe Goodwin; Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688‑1760, by Mark Pattison; and On the Interpretation of Scripture, by Benjamin Jowett.
	With the exception of Goodwin all the writers were
clergymen, and with the exception of Williams and
Goodwin all were Oxford men. The book attracted
little attentionuntiltheappearanceof an anonymous
review in the Westminster Review for Oct., 1860.
Under the title Neo‑Christianity the writer (Fred
eric Harrison) assumed a jubilant tone and wel
comed the essayists to the ranks of liberalism (the
review i$ reprinted in Harrison's Creed o f a lay
man, London, 1907). The clergy now took alarm.
Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford, after warn
ing his clergy against the book in his autumn
charge, took up the controversy in the Quarterly
Review for Jan., 1861. He accused the essayists
of neology, rationalism, and skepticism, and de
nounced them for their dishonesty in holding such
views and remaining in the Church. A petition of
protest was presented to the archbishop of Canter
bury at Lambeth Mar. 13, 1861, signed by 10,000
clergy. Meanwhile, on Feb. 16 there had appeared
in the Times the so‑called " Episcopal Manifesto,"
in the form of a letter from the archbishop of Can
terbury in answer to one of the numerous remon
strances with which the bishops had been besieged;
to it were affixed the names of twenty‑five bishops,
who joined the archbishop " in expressing the pain
it has given them that any clergyman . . . should
have published such opinions." Both houses of
convocation expressed condemnation of the book,
and Williams and Wilson were summoned before
the court of arches, which pronounced final deci
sion in Dec., 1862. Williams was convicted of
denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture and of
holding heretical views on propitiation and justifi‑

179	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Nas
		Resenes
	cation, Wilson of denying the inspiration of Holy
	Scripture and also of denying the eternity of future
	punishment, and both were sentenced to suspen
	sion for one year, with payment of costs. Appeals
	to the queen in council were heard June 19‑~6 be
	fore the judicial committee, which included Lord
	Chancellor Westbury, Lords Cranworth, Chelms
	ford, and Kingsdown, the two archbishops, and the
	bishop of London, each appellant pleading his case
	in person. Lord Westbury finally delivered his
	judgment Feb. 8, 1864. Restricting itself to the
	specific passages cited by the prosecution, the
	court decided that the opinions expressed therein
were not inconsistent with the articles and formu
	lariea of the Church of England. Accordingly the
	judgment of the court of arches was reversed; and
	the appellants were granted the coats of the appeal.
	Some of the points affirmed by the judgment were,
	that it is not penal in a clergyman " to speak of
	merit by transfer as a fiction," or " to deny the
	proposition that every part of every book of Holy
	Scripture was written under the inspiration of the
	Holy Spirit and is the Word of God," or to express
	the hope " that even the ultimate pardon of the
	wicked, who are condemned in the day of judgment,
	may be consistent with the will of Almighty God."
	The decision naturally put a stop to a prosecution
	that had been begun against Jowett in the vice
	chancellor's court at Oxford Feb. 20, 1863.
		The announcement of the judgment started the
	agitation afresh. On Feb. 24, 1864, at the instance
	of E. B. Pussy, the so‑called " Oxford Declaration
	on Inspiration and Eternal Punishment " was pre
	pared and sent to every clergyman of the Estab
	lished Church in England, Wales, and Ireland, with
	a letter adjuring him to sign it without delay. It
	was addressed to the bishops and archbishops, and
	in the course of a few weeks was signed by 11,000
	clergymen. The two archbishops dissented from
	the judgment of the privy council and each stated
	his position in a pastoral letter. On Mar. 16, a
	deputation waited on them at Lambeth Palace to
	present an address signed, it was said, by 137,000
	laymen, who desired to thank the primates for the
	stand they had taken. The bishop of London
	(Tait), who had concurred in the judgment, was
	made the subject of many attacks. In June a
	resolution offered by Wilberforce was carried in
	the upper house of convocation by a vote of eight
	to two (the bishops of London and Lincoln) synod
	ically condemning the book " as containing teach
	ing contrary to the doctrine received by the United
	Church of England and Ireland in common with
	the whole Catholic Church of Christ." After a
	stormy debate, in the course of which A. P. Stan
	ley and others urged strong arguments against the
	measure, the lower house concurred in this resolu
	tion June 24 by a vote of thirty‑nine to nineteen.
	In July Lord Houghton brought this action of con
	vocation before the House of Lords. Lord Chan
	cellor Westbury pronounced it illegal, but not
	worth noticing. " The judgment," he said, " is
	simply a series of well‑lubricated terms, a sentence
	so oily and saponaceous that no one could grasp
	it "; from this characterization originated Wilber
	force's nickname of " Soapy Sam " (see WILBER‑
FORCE, SAMUEL). The judgment of the judicial committee, as a matter of course, became a part of the law of England and was ultimately acquiesced in. With the judgment in the Gorham Case (q.v.) it has established the right of an English clergyman freely to express the opinions he honestly holds. How little this charge of heresy affected their ecclesiastical preferment is shown by the positions three of them subsequently held: Temple became bishop of Exeter (1869), of London 1885, and then archbishop of Canterbury (1896); Pattiaon rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1861), and Jowett, master of Balliol (1370).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature educed by the Essays and Reviews is enormous; a guide to it may be found in $. A. Allibone. Critical Dictionary of English Literature, iii. 2771‑72. Philadelphia, 1891, and many titles ale collected in the British, Museum Catalogue under " Essays and Reviews." Consult: R. B. Kennard, Essays and Reviews; their Origin. History, General haraaer, and Significance, Persecution, Prosecution; the Judgment of the Arches Court, Review o/ Judgment, London, 1883 (" an exposition, a history, and a defense"); H. B. Wilson, Speech before the Judicial Committee of . .
Privy Council, ib. 1863; and A. P. Stanley, in Edinburgh Review, April. 1881.
ESSEftES, es‑sfnz': One of the three Jewish sects of the timeof Christ. According to the testimony of Philo and Josephus, the Essenes, numbering about 4,000, lived in the time of Christ in Palestine, partly in their own colonies by the Dead Sea, in the wilderness of Engedi (Pliny, v. 17), partly in cities (Josephus, War, II. viii. 4). Excluded from the temple in Jerusalem, the Essence formed a community resembling that of a monastic order, entrance into which involved a double novitiate. An applicant spent a year outside of the community, during which its mode of life was hec‑
The No‑ ommended to him. He was provided
	vitiate.	with a spade (symbol of work), an
		apron (to be used at the ablutions),
and a white dress (the robe of the order). During
his second novitiate of two years the candidate was
admitted to the lustrations but not to the meals.
At the end of that period he was admitted to the
order. But before becoming a full member he had
to bind himself by a solemn oath (the last permitted
to him, since the Essenes rejected the use of the
oath elsewhere), in which he promised to honor
God, to exercise justice, to injure no one intention
ally, to obey the superiors, and not to divulge any
of the secrets of the order. Children were also
received into the order to be educated for the
community. The superiors of the order had an
extended jurisdiction; without their command noth
ing could be done. A court consisting of 100 mem
bers judged offenses and could decree exclusion
from the order.
The members had everything in common, and upon entering the order the candidate cast all his possessions into the common treasury. The principal but not the only industry was The Order, agriculture. The mode of life was Practise and very simple. Anointing the body with Doctrines. oil was considered defilement. Slavery was not tolerated, the strictest truthfulness was enjoined. Before the sun arose the members never discussed secular matters.

Eoenss
Ether, Book of
According to Josephus they addressed their " ancient prayers to the sun, as if entreating him to rise." After prayers, work commenced, followed by a meal for which they prepared by ablutions. After the meal they returned to work and at evening reassembled to partake of the evening meal. They observed the Sabbath strictly, rejected bloody sacrifices but sent their oblations to the temple. Of the religious tenets and teaching of the Essenes little is known. They were no doubt Jews. The law was highly esteemed, and was expounded on the Sabbath and punctiliously observed. In this respect the Essenes resembled the Pharisees. According to Josephus they occupied themselves only with the ethical side of philosophy. They believed in the immortality of the soul and in angels; not to divulge the names of the angels was a part of the oath taken by novices.
Esseniam was an enigmatic phenomenon concerning which views differ. The name appears in different forms (Esadioi in Philo, Easenoi in Josephus, Esseni in Pliny), and has been variously interpreted. Some derive it from the Greek hosios, " pious "; others from the Semitic hasse, plural haaain, " pious,"; and others from assays, "physicians "; Salinasius ( according to Josephus, Ant. XIII., xv. 3 ) derived it from the city of Eesa, a
hypothesis adopted by Hilgenfeld.
Theories As difficult as the explanation of the
of Its name is the question of the origin and Origin and nature of Essenisln. Some consider Character. it a purely Jewish development. Others see here extra‑Jewish influences. Within these two views there is another difference of opinion over the peculiarities in which Esaenism differs from Judaism and what influences were at work in its origin. There is no doubt as to the relation of Eseenism to Pharisaism. Schiirer (English ed., IL, ii. 210) thinks that " Essenism is
. merely Pharisaism in the superlative degree." But this is not sufficient to explain the peculiarities. Scholars like Ritschl would explain all peculiarities from the fact that the Essence wished to be a people of priests. Others, like Beatmann and Lucius, think that in the time of the Maccabees the exclusive pious separated from the temple at Jerusalem and formed a community of their own. For a time Hilgenfeld considered the Eesenes Jewish mystics, then again he spoke of Persian or even of Buddhistic influences, but in his later works he returned to his earlier position, and derived them from the original Rechabites (q.v.). Whatever foreign influences were operative, Buddhiatic were not among them, though Persian may have been. The philosopher Zeller has endeavored to prove that Essenism has its parallels in Pythagoriam (Gesehichte der Philosophic der Grieehen, iii. 277 eqq., Leipsic, 1881). Whether it is at all necessary to assume foreign influences depends upon the answer to the question whether Josephus' notes on the anthropology of the Essence are correct. Whereas Essenism as far as its tenets and mode of life .go may be explained from Judaism and may be considered an effort akin to that of Pharisaism completely to attain by isolation purity of life, the Essenic doctrine of man can be explained
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
only from foreign, most probably Pythagorean, influences. But then it can be assumed that other influences also, in which Eesenism differs from ordinary Judaism, came from the same sources. Only scanty notices survive about the history of Esseniam. The first Essene Judas, mentioned by name lived about the time of Antigonus c. 110 a.c. (Josephus, Ant. XIII., ix.). In the time of Christ the sect seems to have been strong, but every supposed contact of Christ with it belongs to the realm of unfounded hypotheses. When and how Esseniam was taken up by Christianity and its adherents were received into the Christian Church is not known. It may be supposed that some joined the Church, though they still retained some distinctive peculiarities. This is probably the kernel of what Epiphanius tells of the Essence and Sampaeeans. In the system of the Clementines Eseenic elements are probably contained.
(G. Ui;r.HOa,Nf.)

Bamoas*ray: The chief sources are: Philo, Quod omnis
Probua fiber, 7tii.‑xiii., Mangey's ed, ii 457‑459, and Apology for the Jews' preserved by Euaebiua, Preeparatio Evanpelica, viii. 11, and Mangey, ii. 832‑834; Jaeephue, War, IL.viii. 2‑13; Ant. XIII., v. 9, XV. x. 4, 5, XVIII. i. 6 (Joaephuewsa in o position to give accurate notices, since he lived near them); Pliny, Hint. not. v. 17. Later literature on the Esaenes is extensive, and is beet given in SchOrer, Geachichte, ii. 558‑559, attar which follows SchOrer's valuable treatment of the subject, pp. 559 584, Eng. transl. IL, ii. 188‑218. Consult: Frankel. in Zeitechrift fair din religi6aen Intereaaen den Judenthuma, iii (1848), 441‑481; A. R.itaehl, in Theolapieche JahrMlrhsr, aiv (1855). 315‑358; A. Hilgenfeld, Jildieche AiocalYDtik. DP. 243‑288. Jens, 1857; idem, ICstaergeachiehte den Urchriatenfhuma, pp. 87‑149, Leipaic, 1884; J. M. Jost, Geschichte den Judentuma, i. 207‑214, Leipsie, 1857; C. D. Ginsburg, The Eaaenea, London, 1884; J. Derenbourg, Hsetoire de la Palatine, pp 188‑175, 480482, Paris, 1887; Clemens, in ZWT, xii (1889), 328‑352; H. Ewald, Hint. of Israel, v. 370 eqq., London, 1874; J. B. Lightfoot, Commentary on Colossians, pp. 82‑98, 349‑419, ib. 1875; H. J. Beatmann, Geachiehte der chriah lichen 3itte, i. 308 eqq., N6rdlingen, 1880; P. E. Lucius, Der Esaeniemus, Strasburg, 1881; A. Lillie, Buddhism in Christendom, or Jesus the Eaaene, London, 1887; Ohle, in JPT, xiii (1887),298‑344, 378‑394, siv (1888), 221‑274, 314‑320, 388‑387; H. Greets, Geaehichte der Juden, iii. passim, Leipsie, 1888; T. K: Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, pp. 918‑421, 448‑449, London, 1891; J. E. H. Thompson, Books Which Influenced Our Lord, pp. 75‑122, 217‑224, Edinburgh, 1891; N. I. Weinstein. Beitrdge our Geachichte der Bader, Vienna, 1892; M. Dedie, Lee Eealmitne, Montaubsn, 1895; A. Regeffe, La Sects den Eeaeniens, Lyons, 1898; DCB, ii. 198‑208; DB, i. 787‑772; EB, ii. 13981400; JR, v. 224‑232.

	ESTES, DAVID FOSTER: Baptist; b. at Au
burn, Me., Oct. 18, 1851. He was graduated at the
University of Vermont in 1871 and Newton Theo
logical Institution in 1874, and studied in Gtit
tingen 1878‑79. He held pastorates at Manchester,
Vt., 1874‑76, Belfast, Me., 1878‑78, and Vergennes,
Vt., 1880‑83. He was then professor and acting
president of Atlanta Baptist College 1883‑88, and
pastor at Holden, Mass., 1888‑91. Since 1891 he
has been professor of New Testament interpreta
tion in Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y. He has
written History o f Holders, Mass. (Holders, Mass.,
1894); An Outline of New Testament Theology
(New York, 1900); and Notes on Greek Grammar
Illustrated from the New Testament (Hamilton
N. Y., 1908).

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Esseaes
Ether, Book of
ESTHER, BOOK OF.
The Name (§ I). The Story (§ 2). Character and Date (§ 3). Historicity (§ 4). The Festival, Its Name and Origin (§ b). Ethics of the Book (§ 8). Its Canonicity (§ 7).
The Book of Esther takes its name from that of the heroine, which is usually derived from the
Persian aztareh (" star "), but is prob‑
r. The ably the same as the Babylonian
Name.	Ishtar. This identification is sup‑
ported by the evident derivation of the name of her protector Mordecai (Heb. Mordekhay, Septuagint Mardochaioa, " one who belongs to the god Marduk "). Though this name is rather strange for a Jew so true to his faith, analogies are not lacking (cf. A. H. Sayee, ` Higher Criticism' caradthe Monuments, p.470,London,1894),
The scene of action is the Persian court in Shuahan in the time of Ahasuerus, i.e., Xerxes. The
narrative tells how the beautiful
z. The Jewess Hadassa,h, " Myrtle," came
Story.	to the court and under the name of
Esther was made the consort of the king. In this position she was able to save her people from threatened destruction. A favorite of the king, Haman, having had a dispute with her cousin Mordecai because the latter would not bow down to him, induced the capricious king to fix a day by lot (Persian par t) on which the Jews throughout the kingdom were to be exterminated. Esther induced the king to favor her people, Haman was executed, and Mordecai took his place in the government. A new edict of the king permitted the Jews to resist the attack, and thus the feared thirteenth of Adar became a day of victory and the fourteenth, in Shushan the fifteenth, a festive day. The festival was called )uurim from the lots. The institution of the celebration is traced to Mordecai and Esther.
The narrative is harmonious and written with dramatic skill. Chap. ix. 20‑28 records that Mordecai reported the events in a letter addressed to the Jews of all the provinces of the kingdom
with the request that they celebrate
3. Charac‑ in future fourteenth. and fifteenth
ter and Adar as festal days, giving presents Date. to one another and alms to the poor.
In this institution of the Purimfestival its name is explained from the lots cast at the beginning of the narrative (iv. 7). This section is a recapitulation of the preceding narrative, forming a fitting end of the roll appointed to be read on the Purim‑festival. Verses 29‑32 are no doubt duplicates and were inserted later than v. 20‑28. The writer drew from oral and probably also from written sources some time after the events, because Ahasuerus and Mordecai belonged to the past (cf. i. 1‑2, x. 1 aqq.). These passages refute the assumption of Clement of Alexandria, and Ibn Ezra, wrongly construing ix. 20, 32, that the book was written by Mordecai; and the authorship is undetermined. The time of composition can be fixed only approximately. Although the time of Artaxerxea I. has been suggested, matter and linguistic
character indicate the latest Persian or the Greek period. The language is permeated by Aramaiema and Persisma, and is otherwise in a state of decay. The book moat belong to the most recent part of the canon. That the author wrote in Persian has no warrant.
The historicity of the narrative has been stoutly questioned. It has been held that the book con‑
tains a number of anachronisms and
¢. H.isto‑ misstatements of Persian customs.
	ricity.	Ahasuerus has been identified with
		Xerxes; and from what is otherwise
known of the voluptuous habits and capricious
whims, of the sudden alternations between favor
and disfavor, and the passionate cruelty and the
adventurous pride of this despot, the identification
is justifiable. Certain other facts, like the Greek
campaigns, tally well with the narrative in Esther.
On the other hand the account of Xerxes' marriage
after the Greek campaign, as recorded by Herodotua
(ix. 108 sqq.), is not in harmony with the story of
this book. Father can not be identified with
Ameatris, whose lofty position makes impossible
the no less distinguished dignity enjoyed by Esther
according to the Biblical narrative. The historic
ity of the narrative is also opposed by the exist
ence of a law according to which the king of the
Persians in his selection of a wife was restricted
to the (seven) noblest families of the Persians
(cf. Herodotus, iii. 84). The question then remains,
how far Herodotus is reliable. These narratives
were certainly orally transmitted with delight,
and moreover passed through a noteworthy literary
redaction. In this way inaccuracies and exaggera
tions might easily creep in. Thus according to ii.
fi‑7 Esther and Mordecai had been deported with
Jehoia,chin, whereas from their age they must have
been [remote] descendants of the prisoners of his
time; the statements in iii. 15, viii. 15 of the sym
pathy of the inhabitants of Shushan for the Jews
are too strong to be true. But the substance of
the history neither stands nor falls with these
details. The main support of the narrative con
sists obviously of the Purim‑feast itself. Outside
of the Book of Esther, the feast is first mentioned
II Mace. xv. 36 se " The Day of Mordecai." On
its origin and celebration cf. also Joaephus, Ant.
XI., vi. 13. The book is considered pure fiction
by ouch modern scholars as Zunz (ZDMG, xxvii.
884 aqq.) and E. Reuss (Geschicf<te des Alten Testa
ments, pp. 581 sqq. Brunswick, 1892‑94).
Since the word pur (" lot "7), the Persian origin of which has not been proved, points to a foreign origin, some have endeavored to trace the Purimfestival as well as the entire narrative to foreign sources: Hitzig recalled the Neo‑Arabic phur, " New‑year " and the Persian intercalary days Purdeghan ; he thought that the basis was in some
event which happened about Newg. The Fes‑ yeas, not in the time of the Acbaee‑
tival, Us menidee but under the rule of the Par‑
Name and thiau Arsacidse, from which language
Origin.	pur, " lot," maycome. Lagarde
	thought that the Purim‑feast is the
	Persian festival in honor of the dead, Farmardigan,
	which was celebrated with joy, the Greek name of

Ether Hook of	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	182
Ethioat Culture
which, phourdigan (used by Menander), coincides
partly with the Hebrew, the original of which was
purdaid instead of Purim, appearing as a variant in
the Septuagint phourdia. Since this is not satisfac
tory, the reference to a Babylonian myth and festi
val has found more favor. Zimmern would trace
a connection of the Purim‑festival with the Baby
lonian New‑year's festival called Zagmuku or
Akftu, and identified pur with the Assyrian puhru,
" totality," " assembly "; the meaning " lots "
might be understood from the fact that at the
assembly of the gods at that festival the destinies
(lots) for the coming year were appointed. As
that festival was celebrated in honor of Marduk,
the name Mordecai indicated that the Hebrew
matter was derived from Babylonian sources.
This Jensen endeavored to prove more decisively
by the equations: Haman = Humba, Humban, the
head of the Elamitic pantheon; Esther = Ishtar;
the wife of Haman Zaras=Kirisa, wife of Humba;
Vashti=Mashti, a Babylonian goddess. The Baby
lonian New‑year myth, with which was blended
the memory of the overthrow of Elamitic over
lordship, was then changed into a legend of the
subduing of the enemies of the Jews. Finally,
B. Meiesner thought of the Sak$en‑festival which
Beroaus records, during which a slave, dressed in a
royal dress, for five days enjoyed high honors,
which suggests Esther vi. 7 sqq. This festival
was originally identical with the Babylonian New
year's festival and was blended by the Persians
with that used among them (cf. the five Fartvardigan
days). On this occasion Ishtar (Esther) came
prominently before Marduk (Mordecai). But in
none of these hypotheses do the date and duration
agree with those of the Jewish festival. Neither
the Persian nor the Babylonian New‑year is in the
middle of the month of Adar. The word pur still
remains unexplained, and the identification with
the Assyrian puhru is doubtful. It is possible that
the Jews may have combined with a foreign festival
the recollection of a national event; but the change
of a myth into a history so full of vigor is not credible.
All their postexilic festivals are based upon his
torical events. On this account scholars like
Ewald and Winer admit a historical kernel of
the Esther‑narrative, and are followed by Bertheau
Ryssel, Riehm, Oettli, and Driver.
	The ethical character of the book was also
attacked, earlier even than its credibility. Greatly
as it was esteemed by the Jews, whose national
consciousness was flattered by the contents, the
Christians became here more aware than in any other
canonical book of the contrast of Christianity and
particularistic Judaism. Luther with his usual
freedom expressed a very adverse opinion, Semler's
judgment was no leas decisive, while De Wette,
			Bleek, and Zunz call attention to the
	6. Ethics spirit of pride and vengeance, and to
		of the	the lack of piety in the book. But
		Book.	these reproaches involve an unjust
			estimate of the facto. The Jews of
the book can not be charged with irreligiousnees
and impiety. Without the consciousness that
God alone could save them and their people from
danger, the fast by which Esther and the others
prepared themselves for their heroic deed had no meaning; without unlimited trust in the faithfulness of the Lord, the heroic words of Mordecai, iv. 13‑14, are inexplicable. The fact that the use of specifically religious language and reference to religious institutions is scanty is not a fault in a book read at a joyous feast, especially when those institutions were not important for the festival itself (cf. Riehm, TSK,1862, pp. 407 eqq.). The book is a product of the time when ancient Israel was about to pass into narrow external Judaism, intent more upon its self‑preservation than upon the fulfilment of its destiny. The character of the events is purely national and recalls that of the Maccabean period, consequently the Purim‑festival can not be equated with the great festivals of Israel, which are more comprehensive.
	The canonicity of the book was challenged by the
Jews, and the observance of the feast was objected
to by eighty‑five elders, as recorded in the Jerusa
		lem Talmud. Among Christians the
y. Its Can‑ opposition was more lasting. In the
	onicity.	Greek Church during the first four
		centuries it was counted by some
(e.g., by Athanasius) among the deuterocanonical
(Apocryphal) books of the Old Testament, but the
Latin Church gave it canonical authority. The
Septuagint placed it at the end of the historical
books, enlarged by many additions (see APOCRYPHA,
A, IV, 2). Jerome placed these additions at the
end of his translation, as " Additions to Esther "
among the Apocrypha. 	C. VON ORELLI.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The befit commentaries are those by A. W. $treane, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1907; C. F. Keil, Leipsia, 1870; G. Rawlineon, London, 1873; F. W. Schultz, Leipaic, 1878; L. M, de $acy, Paris, 1882; E. Berthesu, Leipsic, 1887; $. Oettli, Nordlingen, 1889; A. Scholz, W urzburg, 1890; L. B. Paton, New York, 1908. The works on O. T. Introduction are to be consulted. There are able discussion in: DB, i. 772‑778; EB, ii. 1400‑07; JE, v. 232‑241. Special subjects or phases
are treated in: P. de Lagarde, Abhandlunpen der .~GeeelZsehaft der Wizsenaehaften. GSttingen, 1888; J. 8. Bloch, Helleniatasehe Bestandteile im biblischen 8chrifttum, Breslau, 1877: A• H. Sayce. Introduction to . . . Esther, London. 1885; B. Jacob, in ZATW, x (1890), 241 eqq.; T. K. Cheyne, Founders of O. T. Criticism, pp. 359 eqq., London, 1893; C. H. Toy, in New World, vi (1897), 130145; $. Jampel, Dos Buck Esther out seine Geachichtlichkeit, Frankfort, 1907.
On the Purim festival consult: P. de Lsgarde, Purim, sin Beitrag zur Geachiehte der Religion, GSttingen, 1887; H. Zimmern, in ZATW, a (1891), 157 aqq.; H. Gunkel, 3chJpfung and Chaos, GSttingen, 1895; P. Jensen, in ZA, x (1895), 339‑340; B. Meieaner, in ZDMG, 1 (1898), 298 eqq.; Nowsck, Archnolagie, ii. 194 eqq.
ESTHONIANS, CONVERSION OF THE. See ALBERT OF RIGA.
ETHELBERT (ATHELBERHT): King of Kent, 559 Or 560‑616. See AUGUSTINE, SAINT, OF CANTERBURY.
ETHELDREDA (,ETHELTHRYTH, AUDREY), SAINT: Abbess of Ely; b. at Exning (16 m. w. of Bury St. Edmunds), Suffolk, 630 (7), daughter of Anna, king of East Anglia; d. at Ely June 23, 679. Her father, disregarding her wish to lead the life of a nun, married her in 652 to Tondbert, chieftain of a tribe living among the fens of southern Cambridgeshire, and she received the Isle of Ely as marriage portion from

183	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Bother, Book of
		Ethical Culture
her	husband. After Tondbert's death (655) she
lived in seclusion at Ely till 660, when for political
reasons she consented to a marriage with Egfrid,
eldest son of Oswy of Northumbria, at that
time a boy of about fourteen. Bede says that
although twice married "she preserved the glory
of	perfect virginity." When Egfrid came to the
throne (671), he sought the aid of Wilfrid of York
	(q.v.) to induce her to take her proper place as
queen, but Wilfrid chose to treat the king's wish
as impious and a serious quarrel resulted. About
672	Etheldreda received the veil from Wilfrid's
hands at the monastery of her aunt, Ebba, at
Coldingham. Her husband gave his consent, but
after a year, fearing that she was not secure from
him, Etheldreda fled to Ely. There, helped by her
old friend Wilfrid, she founded a double monastery
and spent the remainder of her life in the strictest
asceticism. From her name, popularly corrupted
into St. Audrey, comes the word " tawdry," used
to characterize wares like those sold at St. Audrey's
fair.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bede, Hint. acct. iv. 19, 20; W. Bright,
	Lectures on Early English Church History, pp. 286‑289,
	Oxford, 1897; DNB, aviii. 19‑21.
	ETHERIDGE, JOHN WESLEY: English Meth
odist; b. on a farm, four miles from Newport, Isle
of Wight, Feb. 24, 1804; d. at Camborne (50 m.
w.s.w. of Plymouth), Cornwall, May 24, 1866. He
was self‑educated, began to preach in 1826, and
continued nearly all his life a circuit preacher.
Nevertheless his scholarship and learning won him
the degree of Ph.D. from Heidelberg in 1847, and
he found time to write books of value, the chief
being: Horse Aramaicce, notes on the Aramaic dia
lects and the Aramaic versions of Scripture with
translations of the Gospel of Matthew and the
Epistle to the Hebrews from the Peshitto (London,
1843); The Syrian Churches, their Early History,
Liturgies, anal Literature (1846); The Apostolical
Acts and Epistles, from the Peshitto, etc. (1849);
Jerusalem and Tiberias . . . a Survey of the Relig
ious and Scholastic Learning of the Jews (1856);
The	Targunts of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel,
etc. (2 vols., 1862‑65). He wrote also biographies
of Adam Clarke and Thomas Coke.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Smith, Memoir o/ John Wesley Etheridge,
	London, 1871; DNB, aviii. 45.
		ETHICAL CULTURE, SOCIETIES FOR
			Origin and Spread of Movement (§ 1).
			American Societies (§ 2).
			Foreign Societies U 3).
			Aims ($ 4).
	The ethical movement had its beginning with
the establishment in 1876 of the New York Society
				for Ethical Culture. The founder was
	z. Origin Felix Adler, who was at the time a
	and Spread lecturer at Cornell University. Un
	of	Move‑ able to identify himself with orthodox
		meat.	Judaism, he felt the need of a move
				ment which should gather together the
increasing number of the unchurched of all creeds
and denominations and unite them on the basis of
ethical endeavor. The key‑notes of his inaugural
address were the appeal to those present to unfurl
a new flag of peace and conciliation over the bloody
j	battle‑grounds where religions had fought in the past; the urgent need of a stronger morality to grapple with moral perils of the hour, and the duty of caring for the weak and oppressed and for the moral education of the young. The motto of the new movement was " deed rather than creed," and it at once undertook practical educational and philanthropic work, such as district nursing, aid to crippled children, tenement‑house reform, the establishment of a free kindergarten, etc. These initial undertakings have expanded and multiplied, although, in accordance with its general pioneering policy, the society has dropped such work as new public bodies have been established to promote. Its educational work has been its first care. The free kindergarten has gradually expanded until the large school on Central Park West includes elementary, secondary, and normal training departments. During the first ten years of its life, the movement spread by attracting to it four men, who, after serving their apprenticeship in New York, went forth to establish other societies. William M. Salter established a society in Chicago in 1882, S. Burns Weston one in Philadelphia in 1885, Walter L. Sheldon a third in St. Louis in 1886, while Stanton Coit, after having founded the Neighborhood Guild in New York (the first social settlement in this country), went to England and became the successor of Moncure D. Conway of South Place Chapel, London, and afterward the founder of several ethical societies in England and ‑the recognized head of the ethical movement there. Contemporaneously with the establishment of the first ethical society by Stanton Coit, there was established in England a London Ethical Society, among whose members were Bernard Bosanquet, Professors J. H. Muirhead, J. S. Mackenzie, G. F. Stout, Mrs. Sophie Bryant, and among other lecturers, Prof. Henry Sidgwick, Leslie Stephen, John Seeley, and Edward Caird. Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt is associate lecturer of the Chicago Ethical Society, which also includes on its staff of lecturers Prof. Charles Zueblin of the University of Chicago and Miss Jane Addams of Hull House. In addition to the four American societies named, there is a society in Brooklyn, N. Y., and branches of the New York society in the Bronx, Harlem, and Washington Heights. The number of the actually enrolled adherents is 2,057, to which the New York society contributes over 1,100. Various scattered adherents are attached to the movement as non‑resident members of the New York society.
The New York society which naturally tends to become a type and model, is governed and administered by a board of trustees numbering z. American thirty and an advisory council of fifty.
	Societies.	In addition to its leader, Felix Adler,
		it has seven associate leaders, viz.,
John Lovejoy Elliott, Percival Chubb, Leslie Willie
Sprague, Mrs. Anna Garlin Spencer, David Saville
Muzzey, and Henry Moskowitz, and as especial
assistant Alfred W. Martin. Among the more im
portant organizations are: the Sunday School, of
which John L. Elliott is the superintendent, and a
system of supplementary ethical classes for young
men, young women, and adults; the Women's Con‑

Ethical Culture Ethics
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ference, numbering about 300, which is largely responsible for the philanthropies of the society, including the District Nursing Section, the Sewing Society, the Visiting Guild for Crippled Children, the Society for the Study of Child Nature, the Young Women's Union, and the Women's Evening Club; and, finally, there is a Young Men's Union of over 200 members which owns and manages a country home where fresh‑air work is conducted, and contributes largely to the Down‑Town Ethical Society and the Hudson Guild. Of these two settlements, or neighborhood houses, on the lower East Side, and in the Chelsea district on the West Side, the first has organized well‑graded classes for the ethical education of the immigrant population; the other is working for the democratic organization of the neighborhood for purposes of self‑help and selfculture. Finally, the classes for adult instruction aim to meet the needs of adolescents, young married people, parents, and teachers. Normal instruction in the methods of teaching ethics is also a distinctive feature of this work.
The American societies are united in an American Ethical Union, which holds annual conferences. Up to the end of 1907 eleven such conventions had been held. The Union is responsible for a Summer School of Ethics, along the lines of that conducted for some years at Plymouth, Mass. It is also taking the initiative in the establishment of a National Moral Instruction League.
	In 1892,	the first German Society for Ethical
Culture was founded in Berlin, the chief leaders
		being Prof. F. von Gizycki and Prof.
3. Foreign Wilhelm Fbrater. Branches were Societies. later formed in other German cities, including Munich, Dresden, Danzig, Freiburg, and in 1904 the Vienna Ethical Society was formed. The movement also took root in Switzerland, societies being formed in Lausanne under Prof. Augusts Forel and others and in Zurich I under Prof. Frederick W. Forster. In France the movement took somewhat different form. In 1891 the Union pour L'Action Morale was started; later it became the Union pour la V&itk. Foremost among those who have been active in the development of the movement is Paul Desjardins. Under the leadership of Prof. Levi‑Morenos the Cireolo per la Culture, Ethico Socials was established in Venice in 1893, and societies later sprung up elsewhere; but they have met such severe church opposition that the movement remains in abeyance. Societies have also been started in Lahore, India; Tokyo, Japan; Auckland, New Zealand, and Johannesburg, Transvaal. It is in England that ethical societies have multiplied most rapidly. Twenty‑eight societies are included in the Union of Ethical Societies, .which has its headquarters at 19 Buckingham Street, Strand, London. Among these are many labor churches, which have a somewhat distinctive character. The Union has conducted a School of Ethics and a Central Ethical Library. It was instrumental in starting the Moral
184
Instruction League, whose aim is to introduce systematic non‑theological moral instruction into all schools. Among the affiliated societies which maintain an independent position are the Ethical Religion Society, conducted by Washington Sullivan at Steinway Hall, London, and the Leicester Secular Society, of which F. J. Could is the leader. In 1896 the first international congress was held at
i	Zurich, when the International Ethical Union was founded. At the third congress held in Eisenach in 1906, the headquarters of the movement were transferred to Berlin, under the secretaryship of Gustav Spiller.
The aims of the Societies for Ethical Culture are variously expressed, but the one thought that is
common to them all is " the primacy
	4. Aims.	and independence of ethics." The
		Basis of Union of the New York
society reads that the object of the society is that
of " increasing among men the knowledge, the love,
and the practise of the right "; the means to this
end being public meetings, the maintenance of a
public platform for the enforcement of recognized
standards of right, the development of newer and
higher conceptions of duty in the quickening of the
moral life; systematic moral instruction of the
young; the promotion of continued self‑education
among adults; general educational reform, with
stress on the formation of character; the earnest
encouragement of all practical efforts tending to
elevate social conditions. It is added that the
supremacy of the moral end is implied as a truth;
and that, interpreting the word " religion " to mean
fervent devotion to the highest moral ends, the
society is distinctly a religious body; while toward
religion as a confession of faith in things super
human, its attitude is neutral, neither acceptance
nor denial of any theological doctrine disqualifying
for membership. The most inclusive statement
expressive of the general spirit of the movement
is that of the International Union which reads:
" The general aim of the Union is to assert the su
preme importance of the ethical factor in all the
relations of life, personal, social, national, and inter
national, apart from all theological and meta
physical considerations." 	PERCIVAL Cavsa.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The leading periodicals are: For America:
The International Journal o/ Ethics (a quarterly); and
Ethical Addresses and Ethical Record (a monthly). For
England: The Ethical World (a bimonthly), Moral In
struction Bulletin (a monthly). For Germany: Ethiache
Kultur (a bimonthly). For France: librca Entretiena.
For Austria: Mitteilungen der 6aterreichiechen EfhiBChen
Oeaetlaehajt. For Switzerland: Eth%ache Anachau. The
literature of the movement consists principally of the fol
lowing works by the leaders: F, Adler, Creed and Deed,
New York, 1878; idem, Moral Instruction o/ Children, ib.
1902; idem, Essentials o/ Spirituality, ib. 1905; idem,
Marriage and Divorce, ib. 1905; idem, The Religion of
Duty, ib. 1905; W. M. Salter, Ethical Religion, Boston,
1889; W. L. Sheldon, An Ethical Movement, New York,
1898; idem, An Ethical Sunday School, ib. 1900; $. Coit,
Neighborhood Guilds, ib. 1892; idem, The Message of Man,
Boston, 1908; W. R. W. Sullivan, Morality as a Religion,
New York, 1899; D. 8. Mumrsy, Spiritual Heroes, ib. 1902.

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
I. Name, Concept, Encyclopedic Poaition, aid Method.
Name (¢ 1).
Relation to Religion (¢ 2).
Dogmatics and Ethics (¢ 3).
Relation of Theological to Philosophical Ethics (¢ 4).
Sources of Ethics (¢ b).
Ethics is that branch of philosophy which treats of the theory and nature of moral obligation, and which determines the rules of right conduct, setting forth the moral relation of man to self and others, and aiming to give a philosophical and practical basis of discrimination between right and wrong.
I. Name, Concept, Encyclopedic Position, and Method: The term "ethics" is derived from the
Greek Jth~ (Sanskrit svadhtt, " selfr. Name. determination "), which connotes in‑
		dividual peculiarity as wed ‑Ah&
	individual customs of a laeraon or n co=mllnitv.
	Originally ethos, as the Ionic form of ethos, shared
	this meaning with the latter, but gradually a dis
	tinction was evolved between the two forms,
	ethos denoting rather external habits, ef~os_‑s~"i~`r~,
	x,_,a.l at~""_~+_.''_t_.ue‑ arr, ' According to Sextus
	Empiricus (" Against the Dogmaticians," i. 16)
	the word " ethics " was first used by Xenocrates,
	though Aristotle writhe pioneer in giving the term
	a rigid connotation. Thenceforth the word was
	frequently used in Greek philosophy, especially by
	the Stoics. Later it occurs in the works of Me
	lanchthon and his pupils, and then in Spinoza;
	while in recent times the term has been affected
	especially by Evangelical theologians of the specu
	lative type. The term " morals " is derived from
	the Latin neos, which, related to modus, denotes
	order, both in the sense of " command " and of
	" habit." Accordingly Cicero used the adjective
	moralis to translate the Greek ethikos, and Chris
	tian theological terminology adopted the phrase
	disciplina (or theologies) rrwralis in the sense de
	fined by Cicero and Seneca. In Roman Catholic
	theology the term " morals " remained by far the
	more customary, but even in the older Protestant
	_philoso h and theology it shared its honors with
	the nam~_		ics." " Morals" was also a fa
	vorite term with the rationalists and the followers
	of Kant, although it is also employed by theolo
	gians of altogether different schools. See MORALITY
	AND MORAL LAW.
The right to existence of a special Christian or theological ethics is justified only on the basis of a
recognition of the essential connection a. Relation between religion and morality. Denial to Religion. of such a view is the result of an ex‑
treme modern ethical empiricism, the principles of which the societies for ethical culture, founded on the basis of non‑religious morality, seek to carry out (see ETHICAL CULTURE, SOCIETIES FOR). However, a certain independence must be granted to morality in its relations to religion; for moral consciousness is wrongly considered dependent on religion when all moral good is regarded as good solely because God commands it. It should rather be said that God can command only what is intrinsically good, and what has its basis
Ethical Culture Ethics
ETHICS.
Method of Presentation (¢ 8).
II. I3iatory. The Early Church (¢ 1). Scholastic Ethics (¢ 2). Early Lutheran Ethics (§ 3). Early Reformed Ethics (¢ 4). Later Protestant Ethics (¢ b).
Kant's school (¢ s).
Bchleiermacher (¢ 7).
Recent Manuals (¢ 8).
Roman Catholic Ethics (¢ 9).
Ethics in England and America (¢ io>.
III. New Testament Ethics.
in his own ethical being. In like manner, a certain degree of independence of religion must be allowed the moral life, since morality draws its material in great part from the manifold relations of human life, which result from the natural, moral, and spiritual nature of the individual, as well as from his relations to his fellow men and to nature. Nevertheless, theoretical and practical attempts to establish a non‑religious morality must be rejected. Here the source of the moral law is sought in external experience, with the result that pleasure is necessarily made the sole motive of conduct. But, since each individual must decide for himself the measure of his pleasure or pain, all objective ethical norms vanish and the moral law loses its essential characteristic of unconditional validity. In opposition to Kant's exaggerated principle of the independence of the moral law, it should be said that the unconditioned basis of this moral law can be found only in an unconditioned moral will and a divine personality. The unconditional character of moral demands presupposes, however, that the end of moral activity is unconditioned and infinite, while only conditioned finite ends can proceed from the natural relations of human life. Consequently, if these ends are to be moral they must be subordinate to an unconditioned end, which can be attained only when man rises in religion above the finite to the supermundane. It likewise follows that only religion gives the necessary power in fullest measure for moral activity, since to call forth this power there must be a collaboration of the two factors which religion alone renders absolutely sure, the consciousness of unconditioned moral obligation, andEhat relation to the unconditioned supreme moral end which transforms duty into personal inclination. Moreover, the desire for moral activity can exist only if there is a belief in the divine government of the world which establishes and maintains a harmony between the natural conditions of human life and the supreme moral end. These statements concerning the dependence of morality on religion, however, apply perfectly only to a religion in which the all‑powerful ruler of the world is at the same time the sum total of all good, while the highest good is a supernatural gift of God which binds man to moral activity. Such a religion is Christianity alone, which, as a perfectly moral religion in the midst of a morally faulty world, can have proseeded only from a revelation of God.
In its position in the .Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, between the two chief divisions of theoretical and practical, ethics belongs not to the latter, which lays down rules for ecclesiastical practise, but to the former, which has as its aim the scientific comprehension of Christianity as a given quantity. Behind the changing external

Ethics	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	188
forma of Christianity there is a permanent and definite content of truth; and it is to this ideal side of Christianity that systematic 3. Dogmat‑ theology devotes itself, while historical
	ics and	theology concerns itself with the history
	Ethics.	of revelation and with the historical
		development of the Christian Church.
Since the content of Christian truth is religious
and moral, the religious elements fall within the
scope of dogmatics, the moral within the domain
of ethics. Accordingly, it is incorrect to regard
dogmatics and ethics, the two components of sys
tematic theology, as a section of historical theology.
Dogmatics and ethics should not, as Schleiermacher
assumed (Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Stu
dixcms, 2d ed., Berlin, 1830), merely present his
torically the doctrines now prevailing in the
Church, but should establish as valid truth the
permanent religious and moral content of all his
torical Christianity, especially on the basis of its
records of revelation.
The peculiar bond between dogmatics and ethics must be judged by the relation in which the subjects of the two departments, the religious and moral elements of Christianity, stand to each other. It becomes necessary, therefore, to avoid any such sharp demarcation between the two as was carried out especially by certain theologians of the school of Kant, who regarded morality as founded simply in man himself and as autonomous, and therefore independent of religion. Christian morality, however, is absolutely ruled by belief in God, revealed through Christ as holy love; and, on the other hand, Christian belief is morally conditioned in that it is connected with repentance and centered on the good and holy God. Consequently, not only are dogmatics and ethics by no means independent of each other, but they have much in common. They must not, however, be confused, as has been done by C. I. Nitzaeh (System der chriatlichen Lehre, Bonn, 1829), E. Sartoriua (Die Lehre roan der heiligen Liebe, Stuttgart, 1861), and others; for both departments of theology have distinctive characteristics, in that dogmatics must proceed from the religious side of the Christian life (in other words, from Christian faith) to God, revealed in his works of salvation; while it is the province of ethics, considering the ethical aide of the Christian life (i.e., Christian morality), to set forth moral good, which is realized in the form of human freedom.
Theological ethics is essentially different from philosophical ethics in that it does not seek to further general human knowledge for the q. Relation benefit of the whole race, but serves of Theo‑ first and foremost the Christian logical to Church. It investigates not human Philosoph‑ morality as a whole, but the ideal ical Ethics. content of truth in historical Christianity; and it postulates not merely intellectual capacity, but also the possession of Christian piety to comprehend the life which proceeds from Christian faith. However, within certain limits, the two systems of ethics must approach each other, in proportion as theological ethics becomes more acientifie, and philosophical ethics more morally earnest. Such points of contact
between theological and philosophical ethics will justify the use of the latter by the former, although there must be an avoidance of any dependence of theological ethics on philosophical, such as appeared in early Christian theology in relation to the Platonic and especially to the Stoic philosophy, since it would be detrimental to Christian morality; while there must be an equal effort to shun any mechanical mixture, such as prevailed in the theology of the Middle Ages between Aristotelian and Christian ethics, since it would be subversive of the unity of the moral life.
	From this determination of the relations of
theological ethics to the other departments of
		theology and to philosophical ethics
g. Sources arise certain points of view decisive of Ethics. for the choice of its sources. It is evident, from the close bond between historical and systematic theology, that the history of Christianity makes accessible essential sources for the history of ethics. Out of the entire history of Christianity, the history of the Church is most important here, in that it extends to the present time; and, since the Church has become a collection of religious bodies divided by their creeds, ethics can not disregard these diversities of sect. It is true that the science need not consider all divergencies, such as those between the Lutherans and the Reformed; but since the difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is a basal one even in the domain of morals, ethics must here assume a confessional character. It must employ the Protestant creeds as the classical expression of Reformation principles, as also other Protestant ecclesiastical literature; but the Bible, as the history of special divine revelation, remains the chief source of all. Theology must consider exhaustively all the various steps by which the component parts of the Bible are connected, both historically and essentially, with the true revelation of salvation, and with its cardinal point, the reconciling and redeeming revelation of God as holy love in Jesus Christ; and it must also weigh the processes whereby these components, connected with the factors just mentioned, receive their divine origin. Thus there arises the need of critical investigation of the Bible itself, as well as of all other portions of historical Christianity, to discover the universally valid concepts of Christianity. The more important, then, does personal Christian consciousness become as a source of ethics. It is, however, incorrect to regard this as the primary source, as does J. C. K. van Hofmann (Theologische Ethik, Nerdlingen, 1878), for the objectivity of Christianity finds in the experience of the individual Christian only an expression which is circumscribed and obscured. Nevertheless, this experience is important in the critical search for Christian doctrine in the Bible, since it facilitates the selection of the permanent religious and moral elements of the Bible, and renders possible their spiritual comprehension. On the other hand, for those elements of theological ethics which it shares with its philosophical counterpart, it must, like the latter, avail itself of a purely intellectual observation of the nature,

187	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ethics
social life, and history of mankind, as well as of a scientific preparation for these observations by means of psychology, political economy, and practical philosophy.
In the matter of method the first question that arises is, whether the presentation should be dogmatic or descriptive. While 6. Method the ethics of earlier Protestantism, of Presen‑ rationalism, and the philosophy of
	tation.	Kant, like their contemporary super
		naturalism, set forth its subject in the
form of moral requirements‑that is, in dogmatic
fashion, Schleiermacher declared that Christian
ethics was a description of that course of con
duct which arises from the domination of relig
ious consciousness as determined by Christianity.
Among those who followed him in this descriptive
method, special mention may be made of J. C. K.
von Hofmann. This method has a sort of justifi
cation as opposed to a purely dogmatic treatment.
The latter has somewhat of an Old Testament
stripe, and corresponds to the character of Roman
Catholic ethics, which is invariably inclined to
separate the moral life from the central root of
belief and dissolve it into a multitude of duties
individually commanded. But the purely de
scriptive method is inadequate; for the moral law
is not, as Schleiermacher supposed, merely a
higher form of the natural law, whose operations
can be described with absolute certainty, but is
specifically distinguished from it in that it does not
work with mechanical necessity, but counts on the
ftPednrr~pt the h„mon 'ww, tl Since the normal
development of the Christian life does not appear
absolutely unimpaired in any Christian, normal
Christian morality is, in part, simply a matter of
moral obligation.
		A second, and not unimportant, methodological
	problem is the arrangement of ethics (cf. J. Kostlin,
	TSK, 1879, p. X22). Formerly ethics was fre
	quently divided into three parts: ethics (the theory
	of Christian morality), ascetical theology (general
	practical rules), and casuistica (considerations of
	individual problems of difficulty). Casuistics must,
	however, be excluded as opposed to Evangelical
	principles; while the K n ian dipiainn sntn DLL
	and applied ethics results in empty abstracti.ns
	or the rst part. Many] Lheo ogr~ans, ~ including
	R. Rothe, P. C. Marheineke, C. Werner, J. P. Lange,
	and Krarup, have applied to Christian ethics
	Schleiermacher's division of philosophical ethics
	into three main categories based on the three
	ethical principles of moral good, virtue, and duty.
	This scheme is, however, peculiarly unsuited for
	Christian ethics, since these three basal principles
can not be developed independently of each other
	in a Christian sense. To proceed from the concept
	of salvation, as does G. C. A. Harless, who makes
	the threefold division of the boon of salvation, the
	possession of salvation, and the assurance of sal
	vation, corresponds in no wise to the character of
	ethics; nor does a division according to the different
	forms of human activity harmonize with the essen
	tial nature of Christian morality. It is equally in
	adequate to make a distinction between internal and
	external, as does Hofmann (similarly C. E. Luthardt,
who distinguishes the person, the intention, and the works of the Christian); or as does Kostlin, who makes the classification on the basis of (1) the life of the inner man, and (2) his external activity. F. H. R. Frank's division, which distinguishes the development of the man of God as related to himself, to the spiritual world, and to the natural world, is influenced too one‑sidedly by the concept of becoming. Far better is H. Weiss's division into (1) premises or factors, (2) the process of formation of Christian morality, and (3) the manifold phenomena of Christian personality both' in the life of virtue led by the individual and in the most important relations of social life. The first two divisions, however, are far more closely connected with each other than with the third, so that it is better to combine them into a first general division, to which corresponds the second special division with its two subdivisions of individual and social Christian morality.
	(Ethics is th~a.„o*,~ r,f conduct. As such it is
	concerned with the ideal as it has been developed
F _E _11. ‑ _ 	__Cus‑t~ _~see CON‑
h oulndi~d_ir ana‑SEZ&F
ic‑i‑ENcim, § 7). Its function is twofold; first to.,
ascertain the highest word on the nature of the goal
of human life; second, to indicate how this may be
reached. If the summum bonxcm is conceived as the
common good, then the end is social and the indi
vidual is both means and end for its realization.
Ethics passes by imperceptible gradations into po
litical science and sociology. In distinction from
esthetics, which deals with judgments of feeling,
ethics is concerned with judgments of ends realized
by the will. It depends upon psychology in its
analysis of the processes through which motives
are constituted and the freedom of the will dis
closed, and upon metaphysics for a view of the
world in which the human ideal takes its place as a
constituent part of reality. Until recently the term
" moral philosophy " was used to characterize this
discipline in Great Britain and America. Of late,
however, the term " ethics " has rapidly gained
ground, and is now almost universally employed to
designate this subject. 	C. A. B.j
II. History: The history of ethics as a science can here be sketched only in outline. In the theology of the early Church ethics
:. The found no strictly systematic presenEarly tation, while the fundamental views Church. of ethics were frequently at variance with the spirit of the Gospel. Together with a morally debasing concept of belief as the receiving of traditional teaching, the tendency arose to enact external legal regulations for the moral life which had thus been robbed of its religious basis. To make matters worse, this legalism was sought only in an ascetic life which renounced the world, so that a double morality, a higher and a lower, was evolved. For the preservation of the moral laws, as well as of traditional doctrine as a whole, a hierarchic organization, united with external authority, was deemed necessary, so that all Christianity was considered essentially a new law. In the West this legalistic tendency was imprinted on the Church under the influence of the Roman spirit. This is first very

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
characteristically shown in the numerous writings of Tertullian, who had received a legal training, and where harsh nature drove him to an extreme ethical rigor; while his views were developed by Cyprian in the direction of a hierarchic ecclesiastical organization. A certain deepening of ethics was then introduced by Augustine, who, in opposition to the superficial and atomistic concept of morality as a whole, and of sin as well, based everything in Christianity on the grace of God. From the hierarchic Church with its outward signs he distinguished the invisible communion of saints as the Church to which the premises of God apply, although he did this in a sense and context which made it possible for him to hark back to popular Catholicism. For him also faith was merely the maintenance of the doctrine of revelation as true, so that it became a ground of righteousness in the eight of God only when proved by hope through love; while the essential work of grace was the magic inflowing of this love, or vindication in the sense of justification, whereby it became possible for man to perform works of righteousness, to follow the supererogatory counsels of monastic asceticism, and thus to merit eternal blessedness. These ethical views of Augustine were accepted by ecclesiastical theology, and appear tolerably complete, although slightly coarsened in the Moralia of Gregory the Great. They were likewise of fundamental importance for the ethics of scholastic theology and the later Roman Catholic Church. Since, however, it was necessary to prove that Augustine's doctrine of absolute predestination, together with the premises which led to his conclusions, could not be reconciled in the long run with the monastic and hierarchic principles represented by Augustine himself and further developed after him, these elements were interpreted in a Semi‑PehLgian sense. The tendency toward an atomiatic ethical point of view was favored, moreover, by the establishment of the confessional, which, after the seventh and eighth centuries, called forth the rich literature of the penitentiaries (Libri pcenitentiales ; see PENITENTIAL Booxs), together with a casuistic ethics. Among the few systematic ethical treatises written during this period, special mention should be made of those of Aleuin (De virtulibus et vitiis and De anima rations).
The age of scholasticism, at its very beginning, sent forth the first works on ethics as a separate
science under its own name‑treatises a. Scholas‑ which were philosophical rather than
tic Ethics. theological, such as the Philosophic
moralis of Hildebert of Tours and the Ethics of Abelard. Of fundamental importance for later scholastic ethics was the ethical portion of Peter Lombard's great treatise on dogmatics, the Sententice. The second book treats of freedom, virtue, sin, the will, the seven deadly sins, and the sin against the Holy Ghost; while the third book includes the theological virtues; faith, love, hope, the four cardinal virtues, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, the ten commandments, and the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. Among the many followers of Peter Lombard by far the
188
most important was Thomas Aquinas, who discussed ethics in systematic form in the second part of his Summa, treating of general ethical problems in the first section, and of specifically Christian morality in the second. The scheme of the concepts and the basis of this system, a mighty one of its kind, is Aristotelian; the superstructure contains essentially the ethics of Augustine. Thomas was opposed, in a sense, even in ethics, by Duns Scotus (Quest. iv. 49), who emphasized as the basis of morality not, like Thomas, the cognizable inner necessity of reason, but rather the divine and human freedom of the will in an entirely abstract sense. With scholastic ethics the moral system of medieval mysticism stood, generally speaking, not in opposition, but in close kinship. Both centered in Augustine and were influenced by Neo‑Platonic concepts; so that both inclined toward a non‑ethical concept of God; both served the Roman Catholic Church, except for certain thoroughly heretical divergencies; both were cultivated especially in the mendicant orders. They were even blended, as by Hugo of St. Victor; or were united in the same individual, as in Meister Eckhart, whose Latin writings reveal him as a scholastic, and his German as a mystic. Even where the representatives of mysticism laid aside scholastic dialectics, as did Johannes Tauler and Thomas A Kempis, their mysticism was but the popular and edifying amplification of the thought which forms the climax of scholasticism‑the conception that the supreme end of man, which leads beyond Christian l.elief, Christian morality, and Christian knowledge, is that form of union with God which is gained through emancipation from the finite and negation of the ego. Only in the influence of mysticism on the religious life, which it rendered internally and actively pious, was there any preparation for the Reformation in the sphere of ethics.
Early Protestant ethics was dominated by the principles of the Reformation, which regarded the blessed conviction of justification by
3. Early faith as the center of all Christian
Lutheran truth, the Scriptures as the proper
	Ethics.	norm of Christian doctrine, and the
		communion of believers united by the
Word of God and the Sacraments as the essence
of the Church. Accordingly, proceeding on these
principles, which here stand in intimate connection
with each other, it sought to purify Christian ethics
from the disturbing elements introduced by Roman
Catholicism. Belief was now changed from an
acceptance of ecclesiastical doctrine to a penitent,
blessed trust in God, revealed as holy love in Christ.
Thus faith became the centralized and morally
powerful source of all Christian life. At the same
time, the Roman Catholic concept of a purely
magical foundation of Christian morality as legal
ism and justification by works was discarded.
Instead of an external command, the source of
ethical knowledge now became the ideal life as set
forth in the Bible, adopted by the Christian con
science, and modified according to the individual.
At the same time the distinction between a higher
and a lower morality, and especially the commen‑

189	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	mmthion
dation of the monastic life, was rejected. Since, moreover, the ethical significance of secular toil and of the natural relations of human society was now recognized, their subjection to the visible Church became a thing of the past. None of the Reformers, however, developed these views into a comprehensive system, although Luther often used them in their basal generality and with strong stress on their religious aspect. His Yon der Freiheit einea Christenmensch.en (1520) contains important fundamentals of ethics, while in the discussion of the decalogue in his Catechism he makes naive statements on individual ethical matters.
A stronger and more specific interest in ethics was shown by Melanchthon, not only in his great work on dogmatics, the Loci, but also in his university lectures on Proverbs and in brief individual treatises on ethical subjects. Nevertheless, he gave a systematic presentation only of philosophical ethics, discussing natural law as given by God. His Epitome philosophice mornlis (Strasburg, 1538) and Ethicce doctrine elements (1550) long formed the basis of instruction in ethics in the Lutheran Church. Melanchthon's school produced the first treatise on Christian ethics in Thomas Venatorius' De virtute Christians lxbri tres (1529), which emphasized the moral power of justification by faith. To the same school belong the Reguhe vitae of David ChytrEeus (1555) and the Ethic& doctrinca libri quattuor of P. von Eitzen (1572), both, strictly speaking, only exegeses of the decalogue. The transfer from Lutheran to Reformed ethics was made by the Enckiridion theologicum of the Dane Niels Hemmingsen (Leipaic, 1568), who was inclined toward Calvinism.
With this school of Melanchthon Reformed theology shared a deep ethical interest, although it was sharply opposed to that school in
4. Early regard to the problem of the freedom
Reformed of the human will because of its doc‑
Ethics.trine of predestination. This com‑
	munity of interest was shown even by
	Zwingli, who developed his ethical views, espe
	cially in his Commentaries de vera et falser religions
	(Zurich, 1525). Much distinguishes him from
	Calvin in the sphere of ethics, such as his concept
	of the Church as a community at once religious
	and civil, his national patriotism, and his joyously
	human type of piety. Nevertheless, Calvin prac
	tically coincides with Zwingli in his general views
of ethics. Calvin'ethica s	.is chiefly to lie found in
	the third book of his Institutio r ' ' is...~`h~,.w
	tidr~te tRAReI. r ~~)~ where a reaarda the Christian
	life~d,V7no era, or,`mnrP specificall~x~ p
	sacrifice in ‑,th_e Christiandenia,g.1 , di~e
~e''m"`o'n'^st'rati 	n the basis
~~,G .o...,._._.._~__._~Q‑
ii.~4Q, thmps. This basal concept gives
his ethics a certain ascetic appearance, while the
~,nceot of love is thrust into the background.
The first fairly complete system of C nstW
that came from the Reformed Church was the
Ethics Christiana of Lambent Daneau (Geneva,
1577). In his Systems ethicte (in Opera, Geneva,
1614) another Reformed theologian, Bartholomaeus
Keckermann, sought to give simply a philosophical
ethics. On the other hand, Amandus Polanus, in
his Syntagma theologise (Geneva, 1610), divided systematic theology into dogmatics proper and ethics; and Keckermann was more explicitly assailed by the Medulla theologica (Amsterdam, 1623) of the Puritan Wi1li=.9mea, who declared that there could be no ethics except what was strictly theological. .A_m~,‑ ~~‑.#endePAy‑‑‑w4w shown b M. An of the A~,demy‑u£..~u~u~,.. m h,s Mm~lo ..~,TOer:o.,.~o (g vole., Saumur, 16521680); but the majority of Reformed ethicists followed Ames in their monotonous exegesis of the decalogue, from which was developed even here a casuistic system (cf. J. H. Aleted's Theologia casuum, Hanau, 1621).
In post‑Reformation theology orthodoxy soon became supreme, laying stress on correct dogmatic
opinion rather than on a living faith g. Later of moral efficacy. Ethics accordingly
Protestant declined sharply and was scarcely Ethics. cultivated, except in the barren form
of ascetical theology. An independent scientific system of ethics in the Lutheran Church was first revived by the Helmsti<dt theologian Georg Calixtus, who, in his Epitome theologice moralis (1634), described the Christian life as the preservation of salvation which had been won, thus bringing upon himself the charge of orthodoxy that he had, in Roman Catholic fashion, asserted that good works were necessary to salvation. Calixtua was followed by Darr, Theodor Maier, Rixner, and Johann Andreas Schmidt, while J. W. Baier's Compendium theologise moralis (Jena, 1698) was conducted more in the traditional channels of orthodoxy. The ethics of the eighteenth century was dominated in great part by the rationalism of the Enlightenment (q.v.); although Pietism early gave a fresh impulse to ethics in its practical aspect by laying stress upon the moral fruitfulness of Christian belief. The influence of this tendency on orthodox theology is seen in J. F. Buddeua' Institution" theologise moralis (1711). Pietism, however, gave but a scanty scientific contribution to ethics; and the offshoots of the Pietistic movement led to unLaturaI distortions of the Christian life and to au intensification of the claim of nature to the sphere of ethics, The attempt was accordingly made to formulate a purely human ethics from the philosophical side, positing as the supreme moral requirement the furtherance of the welfare of society (Hugo Grotius, Pufendorf), or of perfection (Christian Wolf). Gradually these tendencies found their way into theology. In his Theologiache Morsel (1738) Siegmund Baumgarten still retained a supernatural point of view, but gave it a philosophical basis; while in his comprehensive Sittenlehre der heiligert Schrift (5 vole., HelinstAdt, 1735‑53) J. L. von Mosheim earnestly sought to prove that Biblical and Christian ethics correspond to reason and nature. This interest in the reasonableness of ethics soon became dominant in theology; while, despite the endeavors of Biblically minded theologians, such as C. A. Crusius (Moroltheologie, Leipsie, 1772) and J. F. Reuse (Elemerata theologies moralis, Tiibingen, 1767), an ethical eudemoniam spread through German theology under the in‑

Ethics	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	190
fluence of English deism and French materialism. The representatives of this movement included J. P. Miller, Gottfried Leas, and K. F. Bahrdt. J. D. Michaelis followed a similar course in his Moral (3 parts, Gottingen, 1792‑1802), while F. V. Reinhard defended a rationalistic supernaturalism in his System, der christlichen Moral (5 vole., Sulzbach, 1788‑1815).
A new trend in the history of ethics was introduced by tmrnan, Pl Kant, among whose works bearing upon this subject special
6. Kant's mention may be made of the Crrund‑
School.	legung zur Metdphysik der Sitters
	(Riga, 1785), Kritik ‑nor
Vernun t 1788,), and Metaphysische Anfangsgriinde
	r ugendlehre ( Konigsberg, 1797). Through
Kent's energetic emphasis on the mnnnrh+,~„al
necessity of the morA_1Aw, which transcended
all empiricism, the dominant eudemonism was
refuted, and a deeper knowledge of evil became
possible than had been within the capabilities of
the ethics of the Enlightenment. Kent was also
in the right in his view of the autonomy of the moral
law as opposed to external interpretations of moral
authority, even though they be based upon the
Bible; but the harshness with which he defended
his attitude destroyed the proper dependence of
ethics on religion and resulted in a legalistic rigor
ism. Despite such faults, Kent's basal ethical
views were widely accepted in the theology of his
period, not only by rationalistic ethicists, but also
by such supernaturaliats as K. F. Staudlin and
J. H. Tieftrunk; although some, like J. F. Flatt
of Tiibingen, modified them. Through anthro
pological investigations, F. H. Jacobi and J. F.
Fries endeavored further to develop the Kantian
ethics, and they were followed by De Wette,
Baumgarten‑Crusius, and L. A. Ka61er. A dis
tinct .step in advance of Kant was marked by
J. G. Fichte's Siltenlehre (Jena, 1798), especially
in its demand for a desire of the good, and through
its establishment of ethics upon the belief in the
moral governance of the world. Still stronger
was the reaction against the subjectivity of the
period of the Enlightenment in favor of a recog
nition of objectivity in the ethics of Schelling and
Hegel. The former, in his System des transcen
dentalen Idealismus (Tiibingen, 1800) and his
Untersuchungen fiber das Wesen der menschlichen
Freiheit (1809), laid down the principle: "Become
a being, and cease to be merely a phenomenon."
He failed, however, to distinguish the ethical
domain from the province of law, and thus as
cribed too much importance to the State. Still
more one‑sided was the view of Hegel, expressed
in his Grundlinien der Philosophic des Reehts (Ber
lin, 1833), since he discovered ethics, as the real
ization of the rational processes of the world in
general, preeminently in the ordinances of natural
human society, but left the Church no secure
position. In opposition to such metaphysical
bases of ethics, Herbert, in his Allgemeine prak
tzsche Philosophic (Gottingen, 1808) and Analy
tasche Beleuchlung des Naturrechts and der Moral
(1836), sought to establish the science solely on
the facts of experience. According to him, ethics,
as a division of esthetics, is to posit the simplest relations which, as being morally beautiful, evoke pleasure, but whose sources are not to be investigated. Herein Herbert doubtless intended to recognize both the unconditionality and the unity of the ethical, but the former quality was threatened by his fundamentally esthetic point of view, and the latter by the division into individual concepts of relation.
In consideration of these defects of philosophical ethics, it was the more momentous that theological
ethics won its independent impor‑
7. Schleier‑ tance. The most powerful incentive
macher. to this development was given by
Friedrich Schleiermacher, who, in his Monologen (Berlin 1800), emphasized the significance of individuality, and in his Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen Sittenlehre (1803) laid stress on the concept of moral good. Beginning with 1819, be published a series of treatises of ethical content, while after his death his philosophical ethics was edited on the basis of his lectures (Berlin, 1835), followed by his Christliche Sitte (1843). Although the first‑named is divided into the theory of the good, the theory of virtue, and the theory of duty, it discusses only the first part in detail. Here Schleiermacher, influenced by Spinoza and Schelling, considers the good as a union of nature and reason; while the corresponding acts are either organizing (employing nature as a tool) or symbolizing (transforming all into a symbol of reason). This antithesis, however, is crossed by the classification of all activity into general and individual, so that both activity and the resultant good become fourfold. The theological ethics of Schleiermacher is distinguished from his philosophical system especially by the fact that it is based not on reason, but on the Christian consciousness, since it seeks to describe activity arising from the domination of such consciousness, and also explicitly considers sin. This attempt, carried out with masterly skill, to permeate the entire sphere of human activity with the principles of Christian ethics has exerted an influence far and wide. Among more recent theological ethicists, Schleiermacher has been very closely followed by K. A. Riitenick in his Sittenlehre (Berlin, 1832), which forms the second part of his Christliche Lehre fur Kon firmanden. The influence of Schleiermacher and Hegel is likewise manifest, despite the supernaturalistic spirit of the work, in the admirable Theologische Ethik of R. Rothe (3 vole., Wittenberg, 1845‑48), which seeks to transform material nature into a spiritual personality from the point of view of Christian conscience.
An attitude closely akin to the mediating theology is represented by H. Martensen, in his Christe‑
lige Ethik (3 vole., Copenhagen, 1871‑
8. Recent 1878), I. A. Dorner, in his System der
Manuals. christlichen Sittenlehre (Berlin, 1885),
and J. Kostlin, in his Christliche Ethik (Berlin, 1899). A more conservative and Biblical position appears in C. F. Schmid's Christliche Sittenlehre (Stuttgart, 1861), C. Palmer's Moral des Christentums (Stuttgart, 1864), J. T. Beck's Vorlesungen fiber christliche Ethik (3 vole., Giitersloh, 1882‑83), the third (ethical) part of M.

191	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Inman
Kahler's Wissenschaft der christlichen Lehre (Erlangen, 1883), and R. Kiibel's Christliche Ethik (2 parts, Munich, 1896). Strictly Lutheran are G. C. A. Harlesa' Christliche Ethik (Stuttgart, 1842; 8th ed., 1893), A. Wuttke's Handbuch der christlichen Sittenlehre (2 vole., Berlin, 1862), A. F. C. Vilmar's Theologische Moral (3 parts, Giitersloh, 1871), the second part of A. von Oetr tingen's Socialethik (2 vole., Erlangen, 1873‑74; 3d ed., 1882); J. C. K. von Hofmann's Theologische Ethik (Nordlingen, 1878), F. H. R. Frank's System filer christlichen Sittlichkeit (2 vole., Leipsic, 18841887), and C. E. Luthardt'a Kompendium der theologischen Ethik (Leipsic, 1896). The Neo‑Kantianism of A. Ritschl is represented, more or less closely, by W. Bornemann's Unterricht im ChrisLentum (GSttingen, 1891), H. Schultz's Grundriss der evangelischen Ethik (Gbttingen, 1891), W. Herrmann's Ethik (Tiibingen, 1900), Theodor Haring's Christliches Leben (Stuttgart, 1900), and J. Gottschick's Ethik (Tiibingen, 1907). J. Pfleiderer's Grundriss der Glaubens‑ and ,Sittenlehre (3d ed., Berlin, 1886) belongs to the school of liberal and speculative theology.
Among the more recent philosophical ethicists an idealism friendly to Christianity is represented by H. M. Chalybaeus' System der sPekulativen Ethik (2 vole., Leipsic, 1850), I. H. Fichte's System der Ethik (2 vole., Leipaic, 1850‑53),' C. Sigwart's Vorfragen der Ethik (Freiburg, 1886), G. Class's Ideals and Giiter (Leipsic, 1886), F. Harms's Ethik (Leipsic, 1889), and A. Dorner's Des menschliche Handeln, Philosophische Ethik (Berlin, 1895). The influence of Kant is shown in A. Trendelenburg's Naturrecht auf dem Grecnde der Ethik (Leipsic, 1860), H. Lotze's Grundziige der praktischen Philosophie (Leipsic, 1884), Theodor Lipps's Ethische Grundfragen (Hamburg, 1899), and M. Wentscher's Ethik (2 vole., Leipsic, 1901‑05). Herbert's point of view is represented by J. W. Nahlowsky's Allgemeine praktische Philosophic (Leipaic, 1871; 2d ed., 1885), T. Ziller's Allgemeine philosophische Ethik (Langensalza, 1880; 2d ed., 1886), H. Steinthal's Allgemeine Ethik (Berlin, 1885), and W. Rein's Grurulriss der Ethik (Osterwald, 1902). W. Wundt., Ethik (Stuttgart, 1886), and F. Paulsen, System der Ethik (2 vole., Berlin, 1890), show the influence of Positivism and Utilitarianism (qq.v.), and also reflect the teachings of the theory of evolution, as elaborated especially by Charles Darwin, and an ethical relativism conditioned by this theory and represented by H. Spencer's Data of Ethics (London, 1879) and Leslie Stephen's Science of Ethics (1882). Under such influences there has been a wide‑spread tendency, even in German thought, to trace ethical requirements simply to conditions of culture, tradition, inheritance, and utilitarian motives, and to regard them as purely relative. This tendency is represented by Feuerbach's Ueber Spiritualismus and Materialismus (Leipsic, 1866), E. Lass's Idealismus and Positiroismus (3 parts, Berlin, 1879‑84), and G. von Gizycki's Grundxiige der Moral (Leipsic, 1883). This eudemonism has found its antipodal pessimism in J. Frauenatadt's Sittliches Leben (Leipsic, 1866) and E. von Hartmann's Phidtcomenologie rtes sitt‑
lichen Bewusataeina (Berlin, 1878) and Ethische Studien (Leipeic, 1898); while a degenerate offshoot of both tendencies is Friedrich Nietzsche's ethics of the " superman " (Jenseits von Gut and B6se, Leipaic, 1886), which overleaps all moral bounds.
In post‑Reformation Roman Catholic ethics casuiatics first bloomed again through the instrumentality of the Jesuits, who cultig. Roman vated ethics diligently that they
Catholic	might utilize it for advice in cases of
	Ethics.	conscience. Among the moat im
		portant ethical treatises of the Jes
uits special mention should be made of the works
of F. Toletus, Thomas Sanchez, Antonio de Esco
bar, Buaenbaum, Alfonso Liguori, and J. P.
Gury. Their ethics seeks to render itself indis
pensable through its subtly developed casuistry,
and to become popular by its extreme adaptation
to human weaknesses. The latter end is served
by the well‑known Jesuit doctrines of probabiliam,
intention and mental reservation. This elasticity
of Jesuit ethics, together with its Pelagianizing
tendency, was assailed within the Roman Catholic
Church especially by Jansenism, as represented in
Pascal's Pens6es sur la religion (Paris, 1670) and Ques
nel's &flexions morates (1687). The Jansenieta re
garded the love of God, evoked by the operation
of divine grace, as the one root of moral action,
but they were led into gloomy mysticism and ascet
icism by their faulty comprehension of the Pauline
doctrine of justification by faith. Still more
visionary and passive was the ascetic mysticism
of quietism, set forth by the Spaniard M. de Mo
linos (q.v.) in his Guidd spirituale (Rome, 1675) and
modified by F6nelon, but attacked in both forma
by the Jesuits.
With the end of the eighteenth century Roman Catholic ethics also came under the influence of philosophy. The Jesuit B. Stattler, in his Vollatandige christliche Sitrenlehre (2 vole., Augsburg, 1791), adopted the philosophical method of C. Wolff; while his pupil, S. Mutschelle, in his Moraltheologie (2 parts, Munich, 1801‑03), followed Kant, as did F. G. Wanker, G. Hermes, and others. On the other hand, M. Sailer, in his Handbuch der christlichen Moral (Munich, 1818), set forth a Pietistic mystic eudemonism, a similar tendency being shown in J. B. von Hiracher's more scientific Christliche Moral (5th ed., Tiibingen, 1851). Some traces of Schleiermacher's influence are discernible in H. Mee's System der katholischerc Moral (Mainz, 1847), K. Martin's Lehrbuch der kotholischen Moral (Mainz, 1850), and C. Werner's System der christlichen Ethik (Regensburg, 1850); while a more traditional character is maintained in the ethical manuals of H. T. Simar (Freiburg, 1877), F. X. Linsenmann (1879), J. Schwane (1878‑85), and Rappenhoner (1889).
F. SIEFFERT.
[English ethics dates from Francis Bacon (q.v.), who by an empirical method presented the good as the useful. To Thomas Hobbes (d. 1679) the summum bonum was self‑preservation. In the natural condition every man's hand was against his neighbor; the state is therefore necessary. The

THE NEW
SCHAFF HERZOG
two factors of his ethics were egoistic hedonism and absolute social authority. Since Hobbes ethical thought has taken several direc‑
ro. Ethics tions. (1) Intuitionalism, of which in England there is an earlier and a later school. and According to the Cambridge PlatonAmeriea. ista, Ralph Cudworth (q.v.; Eternal and Immutable Morality, London, 1731), Henry More (q.v.; Enchiridion Ethicum, 2 parts, London, 1667), and Samuel Clarke (q.v.; Being and Attributes of God, 2 vols., London, 1704), the intuitional philosophy was applied to ethics (see CAMBRIDGE PLATONIST$). Good and evil are referred to eternal moral ideas a priori. This type of thought was followed by Richard Price (d. 1791; Review of the Principal Questions of Morale, London, 1758), by Thomas Reid (q.v.; Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind, Edinburgh, 1788), by Dugald Stewart (q.v.; Philosophy of the Active and Moral Powers of Man, 1828), and by William Whewell (q.v.; Elements of Morality, London, 1846). To these must be added Henry Calderwood (q.v.; Handbook of Moral Philosophy, London, 1888) and James Martineau (q.v.; Types of Ethical Theory, Oxford, 1885). (2) Utilitarianism or hedonism, deriving from Bacon and Hobbes, does .not flow in a straight course, but in general to it belongs John Locke (see DEISM), who held that happiness was the ultimate motive of moral action. His great contribution to ethics was his doctrine on power (Essay concerning Human Understanding, book IL, chap. xxi., London, 1690) which profoundly influenced Jonathan Edwards (q.v.) in his discussion of the will (A Careful and Strict Enquiry into . . . Freedom of the Will, Boston, 1754). David Hume (q.v.) in his Inquiry into the Principles of Morals (London, 1751) and Adam Smith (d. 1770) in his Theory of Moral Sentiments (London, 1759) resolve the motives to moral action into either utility or pleasure, and find in sympathy the ultimate quality of the moral sentiments. Closely allied with this movement was David Hartley (d. 1757; Observations on Man, London, 1749), who by a physiological and psychological method explained the ethical consciousness by the association of ideas, and showed how from ', the pleasures and pains of sensation are derived
the higher pleasures and pains of imagination, am‑ I bition, self‑interest, sympathy, theopathy, and, finally, the moral sense. Somewhere between the intuitionalists and the utilitarians must be placed Bishop Joseph Butler (q.v.), who in his Sermons on Human Nature alleges three principles of action: self‑love; benevolence; and conscience, which adjudicates between the claims of the other two. Later echoes of this teaching are heard in America, in Nathaniel William Taylor's (q.v.) doctrine of selflove, in Noah Porter (q.v.; Elements of Moral Science, New York, 1885), Mark Hopkins (q.v.; The Law of Love and Love as Law, New York, 1869), and James Henry Fairchild (Moral Philosophy, Oberlin, 1869). The more modern advocates of thoroughgoing utilitarianism are William Paley (q.v.; Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, London, 1785), who derived obligation from the command of another to which one is urged by a violent motive; Jeremy Bentham (d. 1832; Prin‑
eiPles of Morals and Legislation, London, 1789), who holds the summum bonum to be the greatest good of the greatest number, and John Stuart Mill (d. 1873; Utilitarianism, London, 1861), who makes the end to be the greatest amount of happiness altogether. According to Bentham, the sanctions of morality are physical, political, social, religious; according to Mill, they are external of internal. Other writers of this school are Henry Sidgwick (Methods of Ethics, London, 1890) and A. Bain (Moral Science, New York, 1869). (3) Evolutionary Ethics‑a form of
~i	hedonism‑affirms in general that society is a de
	veloping social organism, the end of which is accord
	ing to Herbert Spencer (Data of Ethics, London,
	1879) happiness, according to Leslie Stephens
	(Science of Ethics, London, 1882) health or efficiency,
	according to Samuel Alexander (Moral Order and
	Progress, London, 1889) equilibrium. Progress is
	determined by continuous adjustment of internal to
	external relations (Spencer) or by conflict of idols
	(Alexander). (4) Idealistic Ethics relates conduct
	to a rational ideal from the point of view of the
	source, evolution, sanctions, and principles of action.
	The rational ideal is that of a moral self in social
	union with other selves in a kingdom of personal
	ends. Representatives of this view in Great Britain
	are Thomas Hill Green (Prolegomena to Ethics, Ox
	ford, 1883), Edward Caird (Critical Philosophy of
	Karat, London, 1877), Francis Herbert Bradley
	(Ethical Studies, London, 1876), John Henry Muir
	head (Elements of Ethics, New York, 1892), William
	Ritchie Sorley (Ethics of Naturalism, London, 1885),
	John Stewart Mackenzie (Manual of Ethics, New
	York, 1901); and in America George Trumbull
	Ladd (Philosophy of Conduct, New York, 1902),
	George Herbert Palmer (Field of Ethics, Boston,
	1901; and Nature of Goodness, ib. 1903), J. Royce
	(Philosophy of Loyalty, New York, 1908), and A. E.
	Taylor (Problem of Conduct, London, 1901). (5)
	Teleological Ethics‑a combination of hedonistic
	and idealistic ethics in which the will to live the life
	which belongs to man is the summum bonum‑is
	advocated by Frederick Thilly (Introduction to the
	Study of Ethics, New York, 1900) in reliance upon
	Friedrich Paulsen'sSyatemof Ethics (New York,1899,
	Eng. tranal. of System der Ethik). Allied with this is
	William James's Will to Believe (New York, 1897)
	resting upon the premises of pragmatism. (6) As
	distinguished from Germany, in Great Britain and
	America Christian as compared with philosophical
	ethics has received less attention. The subject has
	been treated under the title Christian Ethics by
	Thomas Banks Strong in the Bampton Lectures for
	1895 (London, 1896), by Newman Smyth (New
	York, 1896), and by William Leslie Davidson (Lon
	don, 1899). 	C. A. B.j
III. New Testament Ethics: There is nn
of rthi~+ho Nam TrQ*~...ort 	qXaWxu
not even a CO'iscious suggestio of the need for system. The clearest evidence of this is given in the lack of unity in Rom. xii.‑xv., the most considerable body of ethical teaching found in the New Testament outside the Gospels. But the conscious need of system belongs to the speculative individual, detached in some degree both from religious emotion and from corporate obligation; and while there is nothing in

198	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	main
the New Testament resembling the Greek systems of ethics, there is none them ~_.~nit.~ in Ne ea‑
at~Inpn+ eti,i(.~ m 1011 lpa dPPwr than thp ntn~+,jpa Of
reflection, due to a creative age which was flush
with rel''ig is f&Ii1x 	ion.
ew eatament ethics, the standard and mold of Christian ethics, is religious to an even greater degree than the ethics of the Old Testament. For the Wisdom literature is in some placers deeply tinged with Hellenism; but the Wisdom mood is notably lacking in the New Testament literature, the apocalyptic and prophetic mood being in complete control. Yet the controlling element of Biblical ethics as a whole is`~fie T an ~rie~oe of divine revelation. 1`e power and wisdom and' goodness of God invade human consciousness, save man from all his doubts and fears, determine the direction and aim of moral passion. The monotheism of the prophet is ethical monotheism. It reveals and defines itself in distinction from Levitical ethics. The essence of Levitical ethics is a fusion of ritual and custom and fixed convention. In its results it gave an appearance of finality to false or imperfect standards of moral value. Against this view prophetism set itself in moral opposition (Isa. lviii. 3‑7; Micah vi. 1,8). The pith of experience is the self‑revelation of the divine unity within human consciousness and in history. It expresses itself in an increasing emphasis on character. While, therefore, Biblical ethics is necessarily a religious ethics, it casts itself in the mold of a supreme moral purpose. Moreover, the personal and the corporate elements of ethics are inseparable so that the experience of the divine unity draws after it a solid confidence in the ultimate triumph of Israel.
The ophetism o	..blew. .:Caetam e~t‑ia.~lsn .
an deb	aaem:^°~1'he unit of thought and feel‑
ing in Hebrew prophetism was the nation (Ezek.
wii., the resurrection of the nation). Judaism .
in s measure shifted the center of gravity. In the
Wisdom literature the mood and mind of the in
dividual seek expression. In the Psalter the indi
vidual finds satisfaction and relief in lyrical poetry.
In Phariseeiam the belief in individual immortality
became a working motive. But along with these
gains went a serious loss. Levitical ethics reas
serted itself. Insistence on rigid religious con‑,
fortuity became the order of the day. And the
pride of orthodoxy joined forces with it in order to
chain the moral genius of Hebrew prophetism to the
chariot of legalism and externalism. John the
Baptist ushered in the revival of prophetism (Matt.
xi. 7‑11). He put himself in moral opposition to
the Levitical ethics of Judaism (Matt. iii. 7‑10;
Luke iii. 7 sqq.). Christ continued and completed
John's work. He took up into his mind and plan
the gains of Judaism, but transcended its spirit and:,
its range. The community founded by him was
a prophetic community (Acts fi. 14 sqq.; Joel ii.
282). It was distinguished by intense corporate ,
consciousness (adelPlaoa, adelplwi, is N. T. outside
the Gospels 251 times; haparatu koiraa, Acts ii. 44, 'I
iv. 32). Hence it was also distinguished by an
impassioned eschatology. Thought and feeling set
with tidal force toward the triumph of Christ's com
	IV.‑13
munity (Parousia). Emotion, wherever found on its high levels, manifests itself in ecstatic visions of the impending kingdom of God (I Cor. ii. 9 sqq.; Speaking with Tongues, Acts ii. 4 eqq.). It is a help to clear thinking to contrast the beginnings and the genesis of New Testament ethics with the development of philosophic ethics in Greece. The work and the position of Aristotle is typical. He was never a citizen of Athens. This typifies the fact that the systematic moralizing of the Greeks does not appear until the state (polia) is in process of decay. Hence Aristotle has a marked tendency toward reflective individualism, toward detachment from corporate interests and ends (cf. his discussion of Friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics; also his definition of God, in terms of the speculative reason, as " thinking on thinking," Metaphysics, xii. 9). Christian prophetiem, on the contrary, is like Hebrew prophetism, though on a higher level. It is instinctively corporate.and eschatologic.
	Inevitably, the key‑word is hope. In the pro
	phetic ethics of the New'I'esfnment hope is not a
	virtue, but the spring of all virtues. Through
	Jesus Christ men are born again into a living hope
	(I Pet. i. 3). They are saved by being brought into
	quickening touch with the hope of the kingdom of
	God (Rom. viii. 24). Christ is God's affirmation of
	the promises made through the Prophets (1I Con
	ii. 20). Through him the redeemed mind and
	heart utter a decisive assent to God's. purpose and
	plan (ib.). The frame and constitution of New
	Testament ethics is a solid and glowing conviction
	regarding the religion and moral issues of history.
	The foundations of Christian hope are laid in faith
	(cf. Heb. xi. 1; Acts xv. 9). Spiritual and moral
	efficiency springs from faith (Rom. i. 17). Faith,
	however, is not primarily an act of the mind; it is
	perception, appropriation, assent, all in one; and
	the man redeemed through Christ by faith affirms
	and proclaims the kingdom of God to be the ultimate
	reality (see FAITH). This aspect of faith makes
	it the root of love. It is a significant fact that the
	Pauline trilogy went through two recensions. In
	I These. i. 3 occurs the order faith, love, hope;
	but in I Cor. xiii. 13 is found faith, .hope, love.
	The Pauline congregations in the midst of Judaism
	and heathenism are threatened with disintegration,
	so the unity of the congregation is the tactical unit
	of the army of the Lord. Love is the constructive
	power and will that makes deep corporate unity
	and fellowship possible (cf. 13om. xii.‑av., I Cor. xii.
aiv., Philippians i. 27‑28).	In the First Epistle of
	John this view is wrought into the fiber of Christian
	consciousness.' Faith, hope, and love are the root
sto 	r"'~"Cht~"~lt`~f'whteh~‑grow.

t e specific virtues. Thu ;~hu.,' bm=lity is ~thensary mood of the redeemed mind looking in upon God in his measureless power and mercy, and looking out upon., the immense task of realizing God's kingdom (Matt. v. 3; I Pet. v. 5; I Cor..iv. 7, viii. 16). It is the mood of all profound Christian experience. Joy is the inherent quality of all thoroughly Christian action, because the will of the redeemed man is held within the will of God (Phil. ii. 12 sqq.) and is strenuously working,toward a supreme end (Phil. iii. 14).. So it becomes a neoee‑

Ethics
Eucharist	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	194
sary quality in Christian expression (Jas. i. 2; Phil. iii. 1, iv. 4; cf. Acts as a Christian epic).
The enduring moral quality of action is expressed in the virtue of hypomone, happily called by Chrysostom " queen of the virtues." The " patientia " of the Latin and the " patience " of the English version are a poor equivalent for the New Testament Greek. " Steadfast waiting "‑for the supreme end, the kingdom of God‑‑comes nearer to it. Since the imminence of that kingdom dominates the prophetic consciousness, the supreme specific virtue is steadfastness in waiting and working for that supreme end (James i. 4; I Thess. i. 3; Rom. v. 4, viii. 25). The words of Jesus (Luke xxi. 19) sum up the matter. The followers of Jesus, through largehearted devotion to the kingdom of God and through steadfastness in doing and bearing, shall enter into perfect self‑possession and eternal life.
HENRY S. NASH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A very extensive and partly classified lint of books is in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, III„ 2, pp. 812‑912, New York, 1905. Other useful lisle are in the works of Crooks and Hurst, Cave and Emery given below. On L, §§ 1‑6, orienting and defining the subject, consult: O. Pfleiderer, Moral oral Religion, Leipsic, 1872; J. H. Device, Theology and Morality, London, 1873; J. KSStlin, in TSK, 1879, part 4; T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, Oxford, 1883; R. B. Fairbairn, Doctrine of Morality in Relation to Grace of Redemption London, 1888; H. Weiss, Einleitung in die chrisUiche Ethik Freiburg, 1889; C. F. G. Heinrici, Encykloyadie, pp. 248 aqq., ib. 1893; G. Simmel, Einleitung in die MoraZwiaaenachaft, 2 vols., Berlin, 1893; G. R. Crooks and J. F. Hurst, Theological Encyclopedia, pp, 481‑49B, New York, 1894; A. Cave, Introduction to Theology, pp. 561‑564 Edinburgh, 1898; C. Slangs, Einleitung in die Ethik, Leipsic, 1901; P. Dupuy, Lea Fondements de la morale, Paris, 1901 L. Emery, Introduction h 1 etude de la theologie, pp, 173‑178, 829‑638, Paris, 1904; O. Kirn, Grundrrsa der theologiachen Ethik, Leipsic, 1908. Introductory matter will also be found in the systems of ethics given below.
For the general history of ethics consult: E. Feuerlein, Die Sittenlehre des ChrieEenthuma in ihren. geachichtlichen Hauplformen, Tiibingen, 1855; J. A. W. Neander, Varleaungen vber die Geachiehte der chriaUichen Eihik, Berlin, 1864; W. E. H. Lecky, Hiat. of European Morals, 3 vols., London 1877 and often; A. B. Bruce, The Moral Osier of the World in Ancient and Modern Thought, New York, 1899; J. Denis, Hist. des theories et des ideea moral" dams Z'natiqaite, 2 vole., Paris, 1879; H. J. Beatmann, Geaehichte der chrisUichen Ethik, 2 vole., NSrdlingen, 18801885; T. Ziegler, Geschichte der chriaUichen Ethik, Bonn, 1881‑87; W. Gass, Geachichte der chrieUicTaen Ethik, Berlin, 1881‑87; L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alien Griechen, 2 viols., Berlin 1882; J. Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, 2 vole., Oxford 1885; H. $idgwiek, Hiat. o/ Ethics, London, 1888; P. Janet, Hiat. de la philoeophae morale et politique, 2 vols, Paris, 1887; C. E. Luthardt, Geschichte der chriatlidtert Ethik, 2 parts, Leipsic, 1888‑93, Eng. traasl., part 1, Christian Ethics Before the Reformation, Edinburgh, 1889; L. Stephen, HiaE, o/ Eng. Thought in the 18th Century, 2 vole., London, 1892; T. Ziegler, Geachichte der chriaUichen Ethik, Strasburg, 1892; C. M. Williama, A Review of the Systems of Ethics Founded on , .
Evolution, London, 1893; O. Title. Von Darwin bia Nietzsche. Ein BucTi EntwickZunpaefhik, Leipsic, 1895; $. E. Moses, Ethics Descriptive and Explanatory, New York, 1901; E. Weatermarek, Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, viol. i., London, 1906; L. T. Hobhouae, Morals in Evolution. Study in Comparative Ethics, 2 vole., ib. 1908; W. Wundt, Ethical Systems, ib. 1908; H. H. $cullard, Early Christian Ethics in the West, from Clement to Ambrose, ib. 1907.
On IL, § 1, consult: A. Rau, Die Ethik Jean, Giessen, 1899; E. Grimm Die Ethik Jeau, Hamburg, 1903; H. F. Erneati, Die Ethik des Apoatela Paulus, Gottingen, 1885; $. 3ladeczek, Pauliniache Lehre fiber do* Moralaubjekt, Regensburg, 1899; A. Thoma, Geachichte der chrlaUichcn
Sittenlehre in der Zeit des N. T., Haarlem, 1879; H. Jaooby, Neuteatamentliche Ethik, K6nigsberg, 1899; T. Jordan The Stoic Moralists and the Christians, London, 1884; G. Ludwig, Tertulliana Ethik, Leipsic, 1885. On IL, § 2: A. Rietter, Die Moral des heiZipen Thomas von Aquinas, Munich, 1858. On IL, § 3: C. E. Luthardt, Die Ethik Lathers, Leipsic, 1875: idem, Melanchthona Arbedten im Gebiete der Moral, ib. 1884. On IL, § 4: P. Lobatein, Die Ethik Calvine, Strasburg, 1877. On IL, § 8: H. Cohen, Kant* Begrfindung der Ethik, Berlin, 1877. On IL, § 7: J. Schaller, Vorleaungen fiber Sehleiermaeher, pp. 181 eqq., Halls, 1844; W. Bender, Schleiermachera Theologie, Ntirdlingen, 1878. On IL, ¢ 9: K. Werner, Geachichte der katholiachen Theologie, Munich, 1864; O. Andrea Die verderbliche Moral der Jeauiten Ruhrort, 1885: H. J. Bestmann, Geachiehte der chrieUichen Sitte, part ii., Ifatholiache Sine NSrdlingen, 1885.
On III. consult: H. Jacoby, NeuteatamenUiche Ethik, KSnigeberg, 1899; W. D. Geddes, The Phaedo of Plato, note K London, 1883; H. F. Erneati ut sup., Gtittingen, 1885; C. E. Luthardt, Die antike Ethik in ihrer peachichtlichen Entwickelung, Leipsic, 1887; idem, Geachichfe der chrisUichen Ethik, part i., ib. 1888; Eng, tranel., Hiat. of Christian Ethics, vol. i., Edinburgh, 1889; E. Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, pp. 158‑170, London, 1888; G. Matheson, Landmarks of New Testament Morality, ib. 1888; T. H. Green, ut sup., chap. v.; C. H. Toy, Judaism and Christianity, chaps. v.‑vi., Boston, 1891; A. B. Bruce, The Moral Order of the World, London, 1899; J. A. Leighton, Jesus Christ and the Civilization of Today, New York, 1907; DB, i. 783‑789; DCG, i. 543‑547: JE, v. 245‑258.
Treatises on ethics other than those mentioned in the text, or translations of acme of those mentioned are: A. Wuttke, Christian Ethics, Eng. tranel., Edinburgh, 1873; E. H. Gillett, The Moral System, New York, 1874; 'H. Marteneen Christian Ethics, 2 vole., ib. 18811883; P. Janet, The Theory o/ Morals, New York, 1883; H. Spencer, Data of Ethics, ib. 1883 sad often; I. A. Dormer, System of Christian Ethics, Eng. tranal., Edinburgh, 1887; H. Calderwood, Handbook of Moral Philosophy, London, 1888; R. L. Ottley, Christian Ethics ib. 1889; W. M. Salter, Ethical Religion, Boston, 1889; C. H. $eharling, ChrisUiche Sittenlehre, Bremen 1892 C. G. A. von Harlesa, Chrdatliche Ethik, Giiteraloh, 1893, Eng. transi. of 6th Germaned., Edinburgh, 1868; W. Wundt, Ethics, Eag. tranal., 3 vole., ib.1897‑1901; W. L. Davidson, Christian Ethics, London, 1899; G. B. Tepe, I reatitutionea theolopia• moralia, 2 vols., Paris, 1899; W. Wallace, Lectures and Essays on Natural Theology and Ethics, Oxford, 1899; J. A. Mackenzie, Manual of Ethics, London, 1900; W. File, Introductory Study of Ethics, New York, 1903; L. Levy‑Bruhl, La Morale et la science des manara, Paris, 1903; E. L. Cabot, Every Day Ethics, New York 1908 H. Rashdall, Theory of Good and Evil, 2 vols., Oxford, 1907; L. Stephen, Science of Ethics, New York, 1907; T. Staler, Manual of Moral Theology, ib. 1908 (Roman Catholic).
ETHIOPIA, ETHIOPIAN CHURCH. See ABY6$INIA AND THE ABYSSINIAN CHURCH.
ETHNARCH: The title of an office which is often mentioned in Hellenistic times. Strabo mentions strategoi, nomdrchni, and ethnarchai among the officials in Egypt in the time of Augustus; and Lucian (Macrobioi, xvii.) speaks of an ethnarch Asandroa made king of the Bosporus by Augustus. Thus it is clear that the title was not one peculiar to the Jews. Among them it probably indicates a degree of independence; at least, according to Strabo (quoted in Joaephus Ant. XIV., vii. 2), that is the position held by the ethnarch of the Jews in Egypt. For the Jews in Egypt the office is an indication that they followed their customs and religion as a special race among an alien people. This comes out in the edict of Claudius cited in Josephus (Ant. XIX., v. 2). While the statement that after the death of an ethnarch Augustus continued the office seems to contradict a statement of Philo (Flacclcrrt, § 10), that after the death of the

196	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ethics
		Eucharist
getxarch (a word practically the same as ethnarch)
Augustus established a germssia, this may mean
only that a gerousia was constituted, presided over
by a plurality of heads. But ethnarch is not sub
stantiated as a general title among the Jews of the
diaspota,.
	It was a title borne by the Hasmoneans (q.v.), in
the first case by Simon. His brother and predeces
sor Jonathan was called by Alexander, son of Epiph
anes, strati3gos and meridarches, titles which im
ply the union of military and civil power. That
Simon had in mind a higher title is clear from the
connection in I Mace. xiv. 28 sqq., cf. xv. 1 aqq.,
and the idea of the titles conferred on him as stated
in I Mace. xiv. 42 is that of hereditary right. In
spite of this, in the case of John Hyrcanun the title
failed to follow succession. The coins of Hyrcanus
I. mention alongside " John the High Priest " the
" Commonwealth of the Jews," or name him " Head
of the Commonwealth of the Jews," from which it
follows that John regarded his office as less than
that of a political ruler, and considered himself the
priestly head of a theocratic state. Yet the sense
of the well‑known anecdote of the encounter with
Eleazar, the spokesman of the Pharisees, in which
the latter asked John to lay aside the high‑priest
hood and be contented with the political rulerahip,
implies the position of ethnarch. His non Ariato
bulus was the first after the exile to take the title
of king, in which he was followed by Alexander
Jannaeus (Josephus, Ant. XIII. xi.‑xii.). Alex
andra also assumed the title of queen, and is so
called by Jonephun. Her son Hyrcanus, when he
retired to private life, passed the title of king to his
brother Aristobulus. Pompey gave to Hyrcanus
the high‑priesthood and also the title of king.
But a later decree of Caesar made Hyrcanus ethnarch
and high priest, the former title as compensation
for the loss of the royal name. Herod obtained
from the Roman Senate the royal title, but his non
Archelaus was only ethna,rch.
	Of special interest is the mention of the ethnarch
of King Aretas in Damascus (II Cor. xi. 32). It in
the Nabataean King Aretas IV. who is meant, and
the ethnarch is not a governor of the Jews but the
ruler of the city. This could have been only in
the days of Caligula or Claudius, since under Ti
berius and Nero Damascus was under Roman con
trol. Paul's flight therefore could not have been
before 37 A.D.	(JOHANNES WEISS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best discussion will be found in Scharer,
	Gearhichte; consult the Indexes. Consult also: J. Deren
	bourg, Hialoire et peograyhie de la Palestine, pp. 87, 4b0
	451, Paris, 1867; H. Graeta, Geachichte der Judea, iii.
	30‑31, 163, 371, 417, Leipsic, 1888.
	ETTWEIPT, et'vain, JOHN: Moravian bishop;
b. at Freudenstadt (40 m. s.w, of Stuttgart), Wiirt
temberg, June 29, 1721; d. at Bethlehem, Pa.,
Jan. 2, 1802. In 1754 he emigrated to America.
In 1772 he led the Christian Indians from Susque
hanna County in Pennsylvania to the Tuscarawas
River in Ohio. He was a friend of Washington,
and devoted himself to the care of the sick soldiers
in the general army hospital at Bethlehem, Pa.
In 1787 he founded the Society of the United Breth
ren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen,
to which Congress granted several townships on
the Tuscarawas, in trust, for the Christian Indians. He was consecrated bishop June 25, 1784, and stood at the head of his Church till his retirement, on account of ill health, in 1801. He prepared a vocabulary of the language of the Delaware Indians, which has been published by the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. T. Hamilton, Hist, of the Unitas Fratrum, in American Church History Series, vol. viii., New York. 1895; idem, Hist, of the Church Known as the Moravian Church, Bethlehem, 1900.
EUCHARIST, yfi'ca‑riat.
Combination of the Evening Agapse and the Morning service (¢ 1).
The Early Liturgical Development (¢ 2).
The Service in Justin's Time and Later (¢ 3). The Oblation (¢ 4).
The Prayers (¢ 5).
The Communion (¢ 6).
Frequency of Celebration (¢ 7). The Elements (¢ 8).
Various Customs (¢ 9).
The Heretical sects (¢ 10).
Eucharist is a term employed for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, especially in the primitive Church, to which the present consideration is restricted. (For the liturgy of the Roman Catholic ChurchaeeMAnn,IL;of theChurchesof the R.eformation, LORD'S SUPPER, IV. For the doctrine of the Lord's Supper see LORD'S SUPPER, I.‑Ill.; MASS, I.; TRANSUBSTANTIATION.) In early Christian literature, however, the word is also applied (1) to the prayer of thanksgiving spoken over the elements (in the East; only once in the Latin Went, Tertullian, De orations, xxiv.); (2) to the elements themselves; (3) by an extension of meaning, to any consecrated element or sacrnmentum‑as in Cyprian, Epist. lxx. 2, to the consecrated oil. The application to the entire celebration of the Lord's Supper continued only so long as it was an actual meal (cf. especially Ignatius), and then reappeared only in the Middle Ages.
The eucharistic celebration of the primitive Church underwent a very important change about the middle of the second century. Originally, either as a common meal or in connection with one, it formed a separate observance which took place in the evening, while the congregation assembled in the morning to hear the Word. At the date mentioned these two were fused into one service, a change which made possible the development of the later mesa (nee MASS, IL, 1, § 1) and still exercises an influence even upon Protestant liturgical conceptions. The first witness for the combination of the Eucharist with the morning service is Justin (I Apd. lxv.‑lxvii., written c. 150). Though the famous letter of Pliny (x. 96, c. 113) attests the prevalence of the older custom in Bithynia, the Didoche (ix., I. Combi‑ x.) at least for Egypt, and Clement nation of (I Cor. xliv.) for Rome, Justin shows the Even‑ the new as universally adopted, even ing Agapee if the old for a while existed alongand the side of it. The grounds for the Morning change have been sought in the accuService. sations of the pagans, who charged the Christians with the commission of hideous abominations at their agapte. But this is an improbable theory; both the evening agapce

Euohariat	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	196
and the pages calumnies still continued after this. It is more likely that both religious and practical reasons brought about the change. The earlier manner of celebrating the Eucharist endangered the unity of the local church, and did not accord with the growing importance of the priesthood. Where these meetings had often been held independently in private houses, the aphorism of Ignatius‑" no lawful Eucharist without the bishop " (Smyrn. viii. I)‑now prevailed. At the morning service the clergy were assembled, the Scriptures were solemnly read; a natural center of unity for the local church was here, and the religious development was met by the change, as well as the practical difficulty of assembling widely scattered members for both services.
In studying the liturgical development, the earliest stage is wrapped in obscurity. Exclusive of the Gospel narratives of the institution (see Loan's SUPPER, Introduction and L), the only sources are I Cor. xi. 20 sqq. and the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth chapters of the Didache. The traditional interpretation of the Pauline passage (still upheld by Harna,ck, Zahn, and others) regards the Eucharist as the conclusion of a meal
x. The taken in common, or agape. A more
	Early	modern view, held by Julicher, Spitta,
Liturgical Haupt, and Hoffmann, holds that the
Develop‑ reference of the passage is to one ain‑
	meat.	gle meal, designated as a whole by the
		name " Lord's Supper." This theory
is borne out by the fact that Ignatius uses the
terms agape and euchariatica indiscriminately for
one and the same sacred feast (Smyrn. viii. 2, vii.
1; Rom. vii. 3; perhaps also Philad. iv.; Eph.
xiii. I ). But this still leaves the question open as
to the manner in which this feast was conducted.
Since Christ had left no precise ritual directions,
the first Christians were free to arrange their Eu
charist as seemed beat to them. The moat natural
thing was to follow the traditions of the sacred
meals of Judaism. Of these the most natural
choice would have been the Passover supper, if it
is assumed that the institution took place on this
occasion; but even with this assumption neither
I Cor. xi. nor the Didache shows any relation be
tween the two, and none is forced upon us by such
passages as I Cor. x. 6, v. 7. It seems more prob
able that a model was sought in the most common
of these observances, the Sabbath meal as it was
celebrated in every Jewish house at the beginning
of the Sabbath on Friday night. We can get an
idea of it from the Mishnah (especially Berd
kot vi.‑viii.), which shows that it was marked by
unity and characterized by the partaking of a
blessed cup and blessed bread. At the beginning
of the meal the cup, blessed with prayer by one of
the family, preferably the father, was handed round
‑though thin blessing might come later, and, in
deed, the cup be dispensed with altogether. Then
the bread was blessed which was broken and eaten
during the meal; and a thanksgiving followed, to
which the company responded with " Amen," and
after the meal, in which no " stranger " might take
part, there was another thanksgiving. The de
pendence of the eucharistic form on this observance
is supported by the Didache, where (ix., x.) is found the same sequence of customs: after the act of reconciliation, the so‑called exomologeais (xiv.), the blessing of cup and bread by a short prayer (ix.), common participation (Gk. emplesthenai, x. I), and a final thanksgiving (x.). The formulas of blessing are indeed purely Christian, but the double blessing of cup and bread, and the placing of the cup first, point clearly to a Jewish origin. Like the Sabbath meal, again, the whole ceremony is one; the contention of Zahn, Weizskcker, and Haupt that the prayers for the agape are found in chapter ix. and those for the Eucharist in x. can not be upheld. The partaking of the consecrated elements was nut (as has been supposed from a misunderstanding of I Cor. xi.) the final but the initial act; it was the blessing of the bread and wine that made the meal " the Lord's Supper." Inquiring how the unity was dissolved, it appears that the reception of the consecrated elements at the beginning became more and more the principal thing, while, on the other hand, the subsequent meal became more and more an agape, or set of charity on the part of the rich believers toward their poorer brethren. This, deprived of its most significant accompaniment, for which the later eutogia (q.v.) offered an insufficient equivalent, gradually decayed and perished, while the Eucharist. lived on with power in its new form, took precedence of the service of Scripture‑reading and preaching, and finally, as the mass, became the supreme act of worship.
But meanwhile, when it was united with the other service, of Scripture‑reading and prayer, it naturally took with it the essential forms which had up to that time constituted it. Some notable changes took place; the two prayers of blessing on the elements were fused into one, and the offering of the bread and wine, by members of the church, now took on the dignity of a liturgical function. What the order of the various parts was at this period we learn from Justin to have been as follows: (1) the kiss of peace;. (2) the
3. The oblation (Gk. proaphora); (3) the euService in charistic prayer of the " president "
Justin's (Gk. proestos), i.e., the bishop, with Time and intercessions, and the response
	Later.	" Amen "; (4) the communion; (5)
		the payment of the congregation's
contribution (sops), and distribution to the poor.
The last was dropped in later times, and a respon
sory (preface) added, which may, indeed, have been
in use as early as Justin, though he does not men
tion it. But the same groundwork continues to
show itself, e.g., in Tertullian and Cyprian. Thus,
too, about 348, Cyril of Jerusalem describes sub
stantially the same order: (1) the washing of the
hands of the bishop and presbyters; (2) the kiss of
peace; (3) preface with Trisagion and Epiklesis,
or invocation of the Holy Spirit; (4) intercessions;
(5) Lord's Prayer; (8) communion; (7) final
prayer. As to the later detailed development, see
MASS, II.
We must now consider more definitely the individual parts of this primitive service. After the kiss of peace (q.v.) came the oblation, which was

197	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Enohariet
performed by the deacons receiving the offerings and carrying them to the bishop. When they were numerous, special tables were necessary to hold them, which stood on each aide of the altar. Besides bread and wine there were present other kinds of food, such as milk, oil, honey, etc., which were used for the support of the poor. These gifts were bleared, and the givers commemorated by name. As the first spontaneous generosity languished and the Old Testament was increasingly taken as a
model, the offering of all kinds of first4. The fruits was insisted on. The disturb‑
Oblation. ante to the service caused by the
bringing of these various offerings gave rise to attempts to limit them, at the beginning of the fourth century, to bread and wine, or other things used in ecclesiastical functions, such as oil for the holy unction, mills and honey for the reception of neophytes, and the like. In the time of Chrysoatom scarcely anything but bread and wine was brought (cf. Augustine, Sean. lxxxii. 3, b), and the offering was not made every Sunday by all the members, but on special festivals and in honor of the departed. The church provided the bread and wine from its own resources.
The central prayer (originally prayers), as is seen from the Didache (ix.), at first contained thanksgiving for both bodily and spiritual nourishment, in free adaptation of the ordinary Jewish formulariea referred to above. Later this prayer was broken by the Trisagion (from Ira. vi. 3), sung by the congregation. Tertullian is the first evidence for this; Origen seems to have known it; in the time of Athauasius it was in general though not universal use, in both East and Went. It arose
probably in Syria, where the liturgies g. The show a really organic connection be‑
Prayers. tween it and the prayer which it
follows. This prayer usually contains a thanksgiving for the benefits of redemption, leading up to a recitation of the words of institution. That these formed a part of the earliest Christian liturgy can not be safely concluded from I Cor. xi. 23 sqq.; but it is possible that the custom was known to Justin, as it certainly was to Origen, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom; and no ancient liturgy has been preserved which does not contain these words. Under the influence of I Cor. xi. 26, there followed what was called the anamnesis or commemoration, and then the anaphora, in which the consecrated elements were offered up to God; and next came the e;ufklesis (q.v.). The actual consecration was never considered to take place through the words of institution alone before Augustine and Ambrose, but was attributed to the entire eucharistic prayerthough the view is also found that the epiklesis has this power. Whether the exomologesis or acknowledgment of sin originally preceded or followed the eucharistic prayer can not be determined; later it came after, and was usually connected with the epiklesis. From the third or fourth century on, a great intercession for the whole church followed. It is found in Cyril of Jerusalem and elsewhere, but not in Tertullian or Cyprian. It also had its origin probably in Syria, as it is not found in the
oldest Egyptian liturgy known. The use of the Lord's Prayer as a part of the liturgy seems to have been known to Tertullian and Cyprian, but is first certainly attested by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysoatom, Augustine, and Jerome. It is not mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions.
The actual communion, as long as the Eucharist had the form of a :cal meal, was accomplished by the passing of the consecrated elements from hard to hand. When it became a formal act, it was prefaced (demonstrably as early as the end of the second century) by the bishop saying, "Holy things to holy persona " (from the Septuagint version of Lev. xxiv. 9; cf. Matt. vii. B). The congregation answered, "One alone is holy," etc., and then approached the altar, where they received the elements in their hands, standing. Great care was exercised to prevent a cram of the hallowed bread or a drop of the consecrated wine falling to the ground; in the reception of the for
6. The mer it was usual to place the left hand
Comma‑ under the right in the form of a cross.
	nion.	The careful washing of the hands be
		fore communion was prescribed; and
Cyril of Jerusalem instructs his catechumens to re
ceive the chalice bowing low. The distribution of
the elements was performed in Justin's time by the
deacons; but this function was withdrawn from
them with the gradual growth of reverence for the
elements and belief in priestly dignity and power.
As s transitional stage, the deacons are found in
some places entrusted with the administration of
the chalice, as the less important. When a definite
formula of administration came in is uncertain,
though there are no traces of one in the apostolic
age. The oldest was the simple statement; the for
mula is Hoc est corpus Christi, Hit est sanguis
Christi. In the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII., xiii.
4) " body of Christ " for the bread, and " blood
of Christ, cup of life " for the cup. In Mark the
Hermit (c. 410) a longer formula occurs: " the
holy blood of Jesus Christ for life eternal"; and in
seventh‑century Gaul a still further expansion,
" May the Body and Blood of our Lord bring to
thee remission of sin and eternal life " (Council of
Rouen, can. ii.). Each communicant answered
" Amen," as an expression of faith. That the
earliest use was to give first the cup and then the
bread is shown by the Didache, and possibly by
Luke xsii. 17 and I Cor, x. 16.
Only baptised Christians could receive the communion; this was a universal principle from the beginning. Heretics, schiamatica, and unreconciled penitents were also excluded, though it was sometimes given to the lapsed when dying. It was the general practise to give it to children. The custom of placing it in the mouth of dead persona must have been deeply rooted, to judge from the number of councils which found it necessary to prohibit it (see COMMUNION OF THE DEAD). Fasting communion is an old and quite universal practise, in fact, a church law, which was referred to apostolic command by Augustine; au exception was made on Maundy Thursday, when the Eucharist was celebrated in the evening. Much emphasis was laid, following Lev. vii. 20 and I Cor. xi.

Eucharist
Evohologion
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
27, upon purity of body and soul as a preparation for communion. Chrysostom, who is specially strong on this point, requires a particular preparation by penance, prayer, almsgiving, and spiritual exercises, lasting for days.
As to frequency of celebration, the most which can be said for the primitive age with any certainty is that it occurred at least every Sunday, and there is plenty of proof for this in the second century. The tendency was toward greater frequency, and days of religious observance (Saturdays, fast‑days, the anniversaries of martyrs) were thus marked. Daily celebration became customary in the West, by the beginning of the third century in Africa, as evidenced by Cyprian; in Rome at
7. Fre‑ least in the time of Jerome, or much
	quency of	earlier if we are to accept as genuine
Celebration. the fragments on Proverbs ascribed
		to Hippolytus. For Spain the same
evidence is given by Jerome; for Gaul by Cassian;
for Milan by Ambrose. In the East (except
Egypt), Sunday and Saturday were the regular
days. But here, too, greater frequency began to
prevail. According to Basil (Epiat. xciii.) the rule
at Caesarea in Cappadocia was four times a week,
and he was anxious to see it daily. In Egypt and
the Thebaid the Sunday celebration remained the
rule for a long time, though an expression of Cyril
of Alexandria implies that by his time the Western
practise was coming in.
	The elements used in the Eucharist were bread
and wine, everywhere throughout the Church.
The bread was common leavened wheat bread,
made in little round loaves, with a cruciform inci
sion to facilitate breaking (see ALTAR BREAD).
The wine, whether white or red, was mixed with
water. Cyprian mentions (Epist. lxiii.) as a wide
spread African custom the reception of pure water
and no wine at all. But this practise, which is
neither primitive nor based on ascetic principles
but simply an exaggerated insistence on the preva
lent custom of drinking no wine in the morning,
never spread further and died out completely.
Milk, honey, and salt were used at various times
(for the salt, cf. the Clementine Homilies, xiv. 1).
The use of milk and honey is first mentioned in
connection with the communion of neophytes. A
		similar custom‑a purification by
8. The honey‑occurs in the Mithra cult; but
	Elements.	it could hardly have come from that
		source into Christian usage if passages
like Jer. xi. 5 and Ezra xx. 6 (cf. also Isa. lv. I )
had not seemed to commend it. From the neo
phytes' communion the custom spread into more
general use; sometimes honey was mixed with the
wine (Council of Auxerre, 585 or 578, can. v.); or
milk was substituted for wine, as in the old Span
ish provinces of Gallacia and Asturia, where wine
was scarce (Fourth Council of Brags, about 675,
can. ii.; cf. also can. lvii. of the Second Trullan
Council, 692).
A regular reception every Sunday was undoubtedly the normal custom of the primitive age. This is evident, if from nothing else, from the statement of Justin (1 Apol. lxvii.) that the consecrated elements were carried by the deacons to the houses
of those who could not be present at the celebration. The practise of the whole congregation communicating, which continued into the third century, disappeared with surprising rapidity in the fourth. Chrysostom complains more than once of the fewness of communicants; Eusebius of
Emesa rebuked those who leave the
g. Various church before the communion, and Customs. such persons are threatened with ex‑
communication by the Apostolic Can‑
ons (ix.) and the Council of Antioch (341, can. ii.). In the East the custom gradually prevailed of receiving the sacrament only once a year, Easter and Epiphany being the most usual days. In the West more frequent communion remained usual. Not a few early councils, indeed, in Gaul and Spain (e.g., Elvira, 305; Toledo, 398 or 400; Agde, 506) threatened with penalties those who abstained from communion; but this was directed against cryptic
sects, whose members came to church, but had their own communion in their secret meetings. For the vessels used in the celebration, see VESaErs,
SACRED.
It seems to have been first in the West that the custom grew up of carrying home either fragments of the consecrated bread or the whole portion received, in special little boxes called arcs (Tertullian, Cyprian). Basil attests the existence of the same custom in Egypt, and it must have spread rapidly. With these particles a sort of domestic celebration would be performed (Council of Laodicea, can. lviii.; of Gangra, about 350, can, x.; of Toledo, 400, can. xiv.). They were also carried about the person as a protection against dangers, as shown by the evidence of Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen. To the sick and to prisoners the Eucharist was carried not only by priests but by laymen and even women.
The commemoration of the death‑anniversaries of the martyrs took place at their graves, and can hardly have consisted in anything but the Eucharist. The custom became more general with the fourth century, and altars were erected over the graves. The practise must also have soon arisen of commemorating the other dead either on the third (ninth, fortieth) day after death or on the anniversary.
As to the eucharistic celebration among the early sects not much information has been handed down. Relatively the most is known about the Gnostics. In the Pistis Sophia a description is given of a function which it is hard to identify as eucharistic or baptismal, so much have the two sacraments been fused into one. Substantially nearer to the practise of the Church are the celebrations described in the Acts Thomce and Acta Johannis; here the Eucharist is an independent function, separate from the agape, and taking place in the morning,
but not connected with the Scripturero. The reading and preaching service; here
Heretical too appear the oblation, the prayer
Sects.	of consecration, the breaking of the
bread, and the administration with a definite formula, to which the receiver responds with " Amen." But there is a doubt how far these originally Gnostic writings have been changed by

199	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eucharist
Euchologion
Catholic revision. The consecration among the Gnostics was effected not by the recital of the words of institution but by a prayer (of thanksgiving in the Acta Johttnnis, of supplication to Christ for a blessing on the feast in the Acts Thomcs, while there is an ePildesis in Irena'us L, xiii. 2 and in another part of the Acts Thomcs). What is known of the Eucharist among the other sects is confined almost entirely to the elements used by them. Water replaced wine very generally outside the Gnostic circles. Epiphanius relates that some bodies (Encrotitce, Apostolici,) used bread, salt, and water; and he and Augustine both say that the Montanists used bread and cheese, without wine ‑‑customs which point to the original status of the Eucharist as an actual meal. (P. DREWt3.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the Roman Catholic aide: C. de Burguera, Enciclopedia de la eucaristia, 7 vole. Eatepa, 190b‑07; E. Mart6ne,Deardiquia eccteeaa•,ritibua,parti.,Antwerp, 1738; J. J. I. D611inger, Die Lehre von der Euchardatie in den drei erstenJahrhunderten, Mains, 1826;F. Probst, Sakramente and Sakramenxalien, TBbingen, 1872; G Bickell, Meaea and Paecha, Mains, 1872; idem, in ZKT, 1880; F. $. Rena, Opfercharaktar der Eucharutie . . . der eraten dre% Jahrhunderten, Paderborn, 1892; J. Wilpert, Frad%o panic, die d7teate Daratellunp den euchariatiachen Op/era, Freiburg, 1895 (cf. G. Fiaker, in GGA, 1898, pp. 885 eqq.); F. X. Funk, Kirabengeechichtliche Abhandlunpen and Untarauchunpan, vol. i., Paderborn, 1897; T. W. Drury, Elevation fn the Eucharist, its Hist. and Rationale, New York, 1907; W. C. E. Newbolt, The Sacrament of the Altar, ib. 1908. From the Protestant point of view: Bingham, Originea, books aiii., xv.; H. Alt. Der chrdaUiche Kultua, i. 184 eqq., Berlin, 1851; T. Kliefoth, Liturgiache Abhandlunpen, iv.v., Schwerin, 1858‑59; A. P. Stanley, Christian Inatitutiona, chaps. iv.‑vi., London, 1881; H. A. KSstVn, Geachichte den chriatlichen Gotteadienatea, Freiburg, 1887; H. Aahelis, Die Blteaten Queuen den orientaliachen Kirchenrachte, in TU, vi. 4, 1891; C. von Weiasacker, Daa apostolische ZettalEer, Freiburg, 1892, Eng. trans]., 2 vole., London, 1894‑95; G. Anriah, Dae antike Myaterienweaen in asinsm Einlluaa auf daa Chriateratum. Giittingen, 1894; A. C. McGiffert. ApostdicApe, pp.88‑89, 536‑537etpaseim, New York, 1897; $. Cheetham, Mysteries, Pagan and Christian, Lectures iii.‑iv., London, 1897; C. Clemen, Der Ureprungdea . . . Abandmahla, LeiPSic. 1898; Hacnack, Dogma, vole. i‑ii.; Neander, Christian Church, i. 323‑335, 847‑849, ii. 381‑389; Schaff, Christian Church, i. 472‑475, ii. 201‑205; Mueller, Christian Church, i. 70, 122, 288 aqq.
From the liturgical aide: F. Probst, Liturpie der drei eraten chriallichan Jahrhunderte, Tiibingen, 1870; C. E. Hammond, Ancient Liturgy of Antioch, Oxford, 1879; Harnack, in TU, ii. 1 and 2, 1888, d. TU, vi. 4, pp. 39 eqq.; F. E. Brightman and C. E. Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1898; Catergian, Die Liturgien bei den Armeniern, Vienna, 1897; F. E. Warren. The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante‑Nicene Church, London, 1897. Consult also the literature under Loan's SUP‑
PER; LITBRaICa; MASS; MOaARAHIC LrrLTRar.
EUCHARIUS, SAINT. See TREVEO.
EUCHELAION, yuk"el‑@'en: In the Greek Church, the " prayer oil," consecrated by seven priests, and used for the unction of the sick, which is counted one of the seven sacraments of the Church, and corresponds to the extreme unction of the Roman Church, but is not limited to cases of mortal illness. See EXTREME UNCTION.
EUCHERIiTS: Bishop of Lyons, where he was born and where he died between 449 and 455: Although married and a father, he retired before 426 to the monastery of Ikrina, where his sons were educated by Hilary, Salvian, and Vincent of Loins. Among his friends were such prominent contemporaries as John Cltssian, Claudianua Mam‑
ertus, and Sidonius Apollinaris. As the author of the De laude eremt:, written between 426 and 429, be advocated the same zealous asceticism which he observed together with his wife, according to the custom of the time, on the island of Lero (the modern St. Marguerite). Other monastic writings were also composed by him, including the Exhortatio ad moncachos, the Sententie ad monachos, and the Admonitio ad virgines, and the despair with which the conditions of the time filled him is expressed in his De contemptu mundi et scsculuris philosopkits. The first book of his Instructiones evidences his knowledge of the Biblical criticism of his period, and the second forma a dictionary of antiquities for the elucidation of the loan‑words in the Bible. The Formula spiritalis intelligentice contains historical, figurative, and analogical interpretations of Biblical designations in the realm of nature and human life. In the Pelagian controversy he seems to have regarded the coexistence of God and man in Christ as analogous with the union of body and soul in humanity, while his deep interest in the heroes of Christendom found expression in the PQ8820 Agaunensium martyrum. His letter to Philo, in which he voluntarily assumed the charge of certain ecclesiastical institutions, like his letter to the presbyter Faustus De locis aliquibus stznctis, is of doubtful authenticity. Eucherius was closely associated with the neighboring bishops, and on Nov. 8, 441, presided with Hilary of Arles over the first Synod of Orange. No details are known of his administration of his bishopric, and even the year of his consecration, which was 434, according to Sigibert of Gembloux, is uncertain.
(EDGAR HENNEgE.)
BIBLIOaaAPHY: The Opera were published by Braesicanue, Basel, 1531; in MPL. 1.; and, ed. R'otke, in CSEL, xxxi., 1894. Sources for a life are: Chronica Gatlica, ed. T. Mommaen, in MGH, Auct. ant., ix. 1 (1892), 882; $slvianua of Marseilles, in the same, i. 1 (1877). 109‑110. 118; Gennedius, De vir. ill., xxviii. Consult: A. Mellier, De vita et acriptia . . . Euchari%, Paris, 1878; A. Gouilloud, Saint Bucher, Lerina et l'Epliae de Lyon au 6. aikcle, Lyons, 1881; W. $. Teuffel, Geachichle derr8m%achenLitera. her, p. 1170, § 457, no. 8, Leipeic, 1890.
EUCHITES. See ME69ALIANt3.
EUCHOLOGIOIP, y>i"ce‑18'ji‑en: A name which in Greek signifies any collection of prayers, but is most usually applied to the Great Euchologion or Prayer‑Book of the Eastern Church, which contains the rites for all the principal ecclesiastical functions. It includes also a great number of benedictions for all the material objects which are commonly blessed in the traditional or catholic system, for the fruits of the earth, and for various callings in life which are supposed to need special blessing. The book is of the highest interest for the study of the Eastern Church, the life of which from the beginning it represents in one way or another. It has been preserved in a number of manuscripts. The first printed edition was that of 1526; the oldest known to be extant is the 1545 edition in the royal library at Munich. Later official editions have appeared in Venice, Bucharest, Athena, and Constantinople; these are the best for scientific study of the Greek Church and its litur‑
gical usages.	(PHILIPP MEYER.)

Auden
	ni
THE NEW 130HAFF‑HERZOG
goo
Bttutoottsrtt:: W. Cave, Script. ecd. historic fiteraria,
Dissertation ii., Oxford, 1743; J. M. Neale, History o1
the Holy Eastern Church, London, 1850; E. Legrsnd,
Bibliopraphie hedihniqice. Psri& 1885: Ktvmbaeher. Oe
reAichte, pp. 858'‑8b9•
ELIDES, yQdz or (Fr.) Od, JEAN, AND THE EUDISTS: French Roman Catholic priest and the Congregation founded by him. Eudes was born at Mezerai, southern Normandy, Nov. 14, 1601; d. at Caen (149 m. w.n.w. of Paris) Aug. 19, 1680. He was educated at the Jesuit college in Caen and at the Oratory in Paris under Bi=rolls, where he was ordained priest in 1626.
Eudes distinguished himself by his care of the sick during times of plague and as a miesioner, and in 1639 became superior of the Congregation of the Oratory at Caen. Four years later, however, he left the Oratorians, and with five companions founded the Congregation of the Missionary Priests of Jesus and Mary, or Eldists, which substituted for monastic vows the vow of strict obedience and received the official sanction of the bishop of Bayeug, in 1644. The object of the Congregation was to provide a corps of educated secular priests for the special purpose of holding missions among the people, and during Eudea's administration of thirtyseven years as superior‑general it spread throughout Normandy and s portion of Brittany, while seminaries were founded on the model of the mother house in Rouen, Evreua, Lisieux, Coutances, and Rennes. Under the immediate successor of Eudes, Blouet de Camilly, additional seminaries were established at Avranches, Dol, 8enlis, and Paris, while under Guy de Fontaines (d. 1727) and Pierre Cousin (d. 1751) the Eudists, together with the Jesuits, strongly opposed Jansenism. Up to the outbreak of the Revolution the Eudists were one of the most respected and influential Congregations of Roman Catholic France, and possessed a college at Paris, in addition to twelve large and five small seminaries, while Father H6bert, the superior of the Paris house, was the confessor of Louis XVI.
Despite the suppression of the Congregation during the Revolution, it was quietly revived in 1800 by Toussaint Blanchard in the seminary at Rennes, and was formally reorganized in 1826. It has consistently maintained its pronounced Ultramontanism, and since the middle of the nineteenth century has been active in foreign missions. Eudes himself not only founded the Congregation which bears his name, but also the Daughters of Our Lady of Charity of the Refuge, the prototype of the modern sisterhoods of the Good Shepherd, and was likewise active in spreading devotion to the hearts of Jesus and Mary, thus preparing the way for the later Congregations devoted to this purpose (see SACRED HEART oir J>flsus, DIDV0170N To). Since 1874 the Eudists have earnestly striven to secure the canonization of their founder. (O. Zbe>i1.Eat.)
Brnztoanwrtt:: C. de Montaey, Le Ptrro Eudes et sea insti‑
tute, Paris, 1889, Eng. ttgnel., 2d ed., London, 1883; A. le 1brb, Lea Yertus du . . . Jean Eudea. Paris, 1872; idem, Les SaerBs Contra d . Jean Eudea, ib. 1891; A. Pinae, La V6mErabk Pdra Endue et we asuroru, Paris, 1901; HelYo4 Ordr,ee ‑aqua. viii. 1b9‑188; Hembueher, Order and Konprepationen, iii. a84‑86, 423. 4bo‑4b1; xL, iv. 9¢r988; Ot><rier, Religious Orders, 14 817.
	EUDO DE STELLA (E Oft, EUOft DE L'ETOILE):
Founder of a heretical sect in France; d. after 1148.
He came from a noble family of Brittany and rose
into prominence there about 1146 as a vehement
opposer of the hierarchy and an exponent of apoo
alyptic views. He appears to have applied to
himself the liturgical formula [Otto of Freising
De (lestia Friderici., 1, chap. 54]" by him (Lat. sum,
which he connected with his own name ion) who
is to come to judge the quick and the dead," gave
himself out to be the Bon of God, and by proph
ecies and feigned miracles gathered some following.
Though a layman and unable to read, he celebrated
mass, elected " angels " and " apostles " from
among his adherents, and bestowed on them high
sounding names like " Judgment " and" Wisdom,"
together with the rank of bishops and archbishops.
They undertook devastating raids for the plunder
of churches and cloisters, and spent their pillaged
treasures, so the narrative runs, in riotous orgies.
In 1148 Eudo was captured, with a number of his
followers. When led for trial before the Synod of
Reims, he vaingloriously appealed to his " divine
mission." He died not long afterward in the prison
of Archbishop Samson of Reims. Some of his ad
herents, who would seem to have spread as far as
Languedoc, were burned at the stake. Hereafter
the sect disappears from history. About the same
period as Eudo's time certain heresies of a Mani
chean character were prevalent in Brittany, but it
is an erroneous deduction from this fact to suppose
that Eudo should be included among the Cathari.
In reality he was a mystic fanatic, who went his
own way. 	Hzsxwrr Haurr.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. U. Hahn, Oeaehichte der Rstaer im bfih telaltsr, i. 483, 8tuttgaft, 1845; C. 8chmidt, Histoiro et doctrine do la sects du Catharee, i. 48, Paris, 1849; H. C. Lea, History o/ the Inquisition, i. 88, New York, 1908; J. J. I. von I)Sllinger, Beitrdye our 3ektaaperchichte, i. 101, Munich, 1890; K. M81ler, Kirdtenpeerhichte, i. 495, Freiburg, 1892; C. Molinier, in Revue historique, liv (1894), 1b8‑181; P. Alphanddry, Las Id1ee morales ehea Iee hEtErodoxes Latina au dlbut du 13s. ai3cle, pp. 102 eqq., Paris, 1904; Hefele, Conciiisnpsxhirhte, v, b18‑817; xL, iv. 882; Schaff, v, I, pp. 482, 483.

EUDOCIA, yu‑d8'ehi‑a, AELIA: Empress of Byzantium and wife of Theodosius II. (408‑450); b. at Athens 394; d. at Jerusalem e. 460. Her original name was Athenais, and she was the daughter of the pagan rhetorician Leontius, she herself attaining wide celebrity as a scholarly defender of the ancient faith. After the death of her father, she is said to have gone to Constantinople to protest to Pulcheria, the sister of the empress, against the provisions of the will of Leontius, but Pulcheria, charmed by her beauty and culture, converted her to Christianity and presented her to her brother as a bride. The marriage is dated in 421, and she bore Theodosius a daughter Eudoaia, who became the wife of the Western emperor Valentinian III. In 438 Eudocia went to Jerusalem and brought back relics which included the two chains of 8t. Peter, depositing one at Constantinople and presenting the other to her daughter at Rome, where it gave its name to the church of St. Peter ad Vincula. Two statute were erected at Antioch in gratitude for Eudooia'e eulogy of the city. Before

801	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Nudes
		$usenins
444 she was again in Jerusalem, where she passed
the remainder of her life, apparently in banishment.
The cause of her disgrace is unknown, although
Malalas ascribes it to an intrigue. It is at least
certain, however, that in the commotion caused
in Egypt and Palestine by the decrees of the Coun
cil of Chalcedon Eudocia took the side of the Pales
tinian monks against the government, her influ
ence being so powerful that Pope Leo wrote her in
453, seeking to change her attitude; and after con
sulting with the famous Simon the Stylite and
Euthymius, a monk of the Syrian desert, she ac
cepted the decrees. In her closing years Eudocia
wrote in hexameters a paraphrase of the Octa
teuch and the history of Cyprian and Justina. The
latter work, portraying the life, conversion, and
martyrdom of a Magian, is of interest as the oldest
poetic form of the Faust‑legend.
		(C. NEUMANN.)
BIHLI068AP87: The fragments of her Carmine were edited
	by A. Ludwiah, Leipaic, 1897. The chief source for a
	life are the Chronicle of John MahVae (bested. by L.
	Dindorf, Bonn, 1831), though that source is romance
	rather than history, and Nioephorua Callietue. Hist. ecc7.,
	av. 23. Consult: W. Wiegaad, Eudoxia, Worms, 1871;
	F. Gregorovius. AtJbenaia. Leipeie, 1882; Gibbon, Decline
	and Fall, iii. 387‑390.
	EUDOXIUS OF GERMARICIA: Arian bishop of
Constantinople, not improperly called the father
of the Arianism which in the Arian churches so
long outlasted the Arian controversy; b. at Ara
biseus (the modern Yarpuz, 50 m. n. of Marash),
in Cappadocia, c. 300; d. 370. He was the son
of a certain Ca;sarius who because of his death as a
martyr is considered a saint of the Roman Church.
During his theological education Eudogus im
bibed the ideas of Lucian the Martyr (q.v.), prob
ably at Antioch; for according to Athanasius (Hint.
Arianorum ad monachos, iv., MPG, xav. 700A,
Eag. travel., NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 271) he belonged to
the followers of Arias in Antioch whom Bishop
Eustathius refused to receive into the clergy be
tween 325 and 330. After the overthrow of Eu
stathius (330) he became bishop of Germanicia (in
Commagene, near the Cappadooian‑Cilician‑Syrian
boundary). He took part in the Synod of Antioch
in 341 as a partisan of the Eusebians; he also at
tended the synod of the Oriental clergy in Sardica
in 343. He first became generally known in 344,
when, as one of the envoys he brought the Formula
maerosticlcos into the West‑a mission for which
his polite and obliging manners must have espe
cially recommended him. He was one of the few
Orientals who participated in the Synod of Milan
in 355. In the following two years he seems to
have remained, like Acacias (see Aceclua op
Cxaea>eA), at the court or in the company of the
court bishops, since he took part in the negotia
tions at the court in Sirmium in 357 in which the
second formula of Sirmium was composed.
	About this time Bishop Leontius of Antioch died,
and Eudoxius immediately returned to the East
and took his place, apparently with the consent of
Acacias, Ureacius, and Valens, not later than the
beginning of 358. As bishop he accepted at a
synod is Antioch the " Formula of Peace " of $ir
mium, but soon showed that he intended to explain
it in the Arian sense. According to Athanasius (De aynodia, xxxviii., MPG, xxvi. 761A), AStius taught Eudoxius the " Arian impiety " about this time, and it is true that the Arianism of Eudoxius in former days was less radical and pronounced, but it is possible that At?tius influenced him at an earlier time. The extreme Arian tendencies of Eudoxius called forth the opposition of the Homoiousians, and this party gained for a short time the upper hand. Emperor Constantius now disowned Eudoxius; apparently he was exiled and retired to his native country. He returned and took part in the Synod of Seleucia in 359. Later he went to Constantinople, under the protection of Acacias, but only after long negotiations and after his renunciation of the teachings of ABtius was be able to regain the favor of the emperor. On Jan. 27, 360, he was enthroned as bishop of the capital. It is true, he broke with Eunomius and AStius, but the enmity between him and the Homoiousians remained and directed the course of his theology and church polity. In the time of Valens, this tendency regained the ascendency. The Synod of Lampsacus is 364 compelled the emperor to choose between the Homoioueians and the Homaeans of the last two years of Constantius. Valens declared himself in favor of the Homaeane, probably not without the influence of Eudoxius.
The most lasting result of the activity of Eudoxius was the Arianism of the Germane; for the Goths did not receive uncompromising Arianism, but that Homaean form of it which was sanctioned at the Synod of Constantinople in 360 and became court religion under Valens. To the council of 381 and the orthodox theologians of that time " Arians " and " Eudoxians " were synonymous conceptions. Eudoxius wrote a " Discourse on the Incarnation," which has perished; certain fragments, attributed to him, may point also to other writings.
(F. Loom.)
Bmraooswret: Scattered references appear is 8oaomen,
HMt. sod., ii. 19, 37, 40, 43, iv. 26; and Theodoret, His&
scel., ii. ?b. Consult: Tillemont, MEmoirss, vol, vi. pas
sim; C. P. Caepari, Alto and neua Quslian sur (#esdvidvfs
den Taufsymbofe, pp. 176‑185, Christiania, 1879; F.
R,eiehe, C)<ronotopia der lststen saha BBcAer,dea Arnmianar
Marcaliinua. Jens, 1889: DCB, ii. 285‑288; RL, iv. 980
982; Hefele, Coneilianpeuhiehte, vol. i., Eng. tram!., vol. ii.
EUGE1fItTS, yu‑jf'ni‑us: The name of four popes.
Eugenics L : Pope 654‑657. He was s Roman and was chosen pope in accordance with the command of the emperor and the exarch to select a successor to Martin L, who had been banished (see MARTIN L; MONOTHELITEB). He was consecrated Aug. 10, 654. Eugenics had already been apocrisiarius in Constantinople sad thus seemed to be fit to bring about a reconciliation with the imperial court in the Monothelite controversy. The apocrieiarii whom he sent to Constantinople concluded peace with Pyrrhus, the patriarch, and under the influence of Peter, the trusted friend of Pyrrhus, the dispute between the MonothPliteo and Dyothelites seemed to be approaching its end. When Peter was appointed patriarch of Conetantinople in 655, he seat, according to custom, an official letter to Eugeniue, announcing his election,

Jngeainm	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	202
which contained no orthodox utterances on the
" operations and wills " of Christ; therefore the
monks of Rome, fearing the invasion of hetero
doxy, protested, and clergy and people took their
aide. Eugenius was forced to promise to repel the
approaches of Constantinople, and the hope of
reconciliation was frustrated. He died June 2 or
3, 657. 	(H. 136HmER.)
Bn3rroaaerax: Libor pontihcalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 34, Paris, 1888, ad. Mommeen, in MGH, Geat. pant. Rom., i (1898), 185; R. Baxmann, Die Politik der P6pate von Gregor 1., i. 177‑178, Elherfeld, 1888; J. Langen, Geachichte der rtimiachen Kirche bia Leo 1., i. 358‑359, Bonn, 1881; Mann, Popes, L, i. 408‑412; Hefele, Conciliengeachichte, iii. 238 eqq.; DCB, ii. 270; Bower, Popes, i. 457458: Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 281.
Eugenics 17.: Pope 824‑827. After the death of Paschalis I. the people of Rome chose as their candidate for the vacancy the deacon Laurentius. But the nobility finally gained the victory, and their choice, Eugenics, archpriest of Santa Sabina, was consecrated and enthroned as Eugenics II. June 6, 824. The emperor Louis acknowledged him, and sent his son Lothair to Rome to settle existing difficulties. The points settled between Lothair and the pope were, in the main, four: (i) the annulment of illegal confiscations which had taken place under the late popes; (2) regulation of the administration of justice and suppression of brigandage; (3) regulation of the relation of subjects to the Frankish empire; (4) regulation of papal elections. The political supremacy of the emperor over Rome was emphasized by Lotheir in every respect. Each newly elected pope had to avow his faithfulness to the emperor before consecration. Nevertheless, Lothair considered the wishes of all parties, the people, the nobility, and the papal court, as far as possible and thus his mission had the desired success; peace and justice were secured for a number of years in Rome. But while the young Lothair tried to emphasize the Frankish supremacy, the old emperor yielded to the pope the general administration of ecclesiastical affairs. In the controversy concerning pictures in the church (824‑826) which was initiated by Emperor Michael II. of Byzantium, the Frankish emperor conceded all authority to the pope. At a synod in Rome, in 826, it was manifest that the papacy had now seized the reins of church government. The pontificate of Eugenics II. makes, at least ecclesiastically, an important advance in the emancipation of the papacy from the
Frankish empire. 	(H. BtSaxER.)
BIBLIOQBAPaY: Li6er pontifccal%a, ed. Ducheane, ii. 89, Paris, 1894; Annalta Einhardi, ad. G. H. Parts, MGH, Script., i (1828), 135‑218; Thegsnus, Vita HZudourici, ed. G. H. Ports, MGH, Script., ii (1829). 585‑803; Jaff€, Regeata, i. 322 aqq.; R. Baxmann, Die Potit%k der Pupate, i. 331‑339, Elberfeld 1888; J. Langen, Geachichte der rbmiachen Kirche yore Leo L, pp. 809‑815, Bonn, 1885; Hauck, KD, ii. 444 eqq.. 489; Bower, .Popes, ii. 202‑208.
Eugenics III.: Pope 1145‑53. He was a Pisan by birth, Bernard by name, had studied under the great Bernard at Clairvaux, and was‑appointed by him abbot of the Cistercian monastery of St. Athanasius near Rome; he was also a cardinal. When Pope Lucius II. died suddenly, Feb. 15, 1145, in the midst of his struggle with the Roman Senate
(see Lucius IL), the cardinals immediately elected Bernard his successor, and he was enthroned in the Lateran as Eugenius Ill., all on the same day. Two days later the senatorial party compelled him to leave the city. A sentence of excommunication pronounced by him against the patrician Pierleone had no effect, and Bernard of Clairvaux, who interceded for him, was unable to pacify
Disorders	the Romans; nor yet could the pope
	in Rome.	induce King Conrad III. of Germany
		to take arms against the insurgent
Romans. Not until Christmas, was Eugenius able
to reenter Rome, after concluding a treaty of
peace with the senatorial party, wherein he recog
nized the Roman Republic under that party's au
thority. A few weeks later, however, he was com
pelled once again to forsake the Lateran.
	At this time Eugenics succeeded in assuming
the leadership in a matter which concerned all
Western Christendom. In consequence of the con
quest of Edessa by the Emir Zengi of Mosul, (Christ
mas, 1144), the Christian seigniories in te East
were gravely imperiled, while from Jerusalem itself
there came urgent appeals for held; furthermore
an Armenian embassy opened up some prospect of
a submission of the Armenian Church to the Ro
man See. The interest of Eugenics III. in behalf
of the East was so strongly aroused that on Dec.
1, 1145, he issued the encyclical Quantum prcede
cessares summoning the king, the nobility and the
people of France to take up the cross, and assuring
		them of ecclesiastical rewards the same
The Second as on the First Crusade. This appeal
	Crusade.	had a brilliant sequel. Louis VII. of
		France, who had long projected a pil
grimage to the Holy Land, was promptly ready;
and even Conrad III. of Germany promised, at the
Imperial Diet of Speyer, Dec. 27, 1146, to support
the cross. That the appeal resulted so effectually
was really due to Bernard of Clairvaux (q.v.). But
the pope profited by it, as is manifest above all in
connection with the synod convened at Reims on
Mar. 21, 1148, and attended by more than four hun
dred bishops. Among the notable measures then
passed (the acts are not preserved) is the declaration
of the invalidity of consecration by Anacletus IL,
and of marriages contracted by priests; as well as
the imposition of the interdict upon the residence
of an excommunicated person. Eugenics felt his
position to be so strengthened that he ventured
to suspend the archbishops of Cologne and Mainz,
and came near excommunicating King Stephen of
England; envoys of King Henry of Germany re
quested of him a brief to the German clerics ex
horting them to stand loyally by his side in his
father's absence. While this synod was yet in
session the pope received news of the discomfiture
of the German and French crusaders; whereupon
he hastily returned to Italy.
Not very favorable conditions awaited him here. Arnold of Brescia (q.v.), who had been received again into the communion of the Church by Eugenics at the beginning of his pontificate, had remained quiet at‑first; but during the Pope's long absence from Rome, he had resumed his reformatory efforts. By his espousal of magnificent plans

208	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ent;enine
for the Eternal City, he had so fascinated the Roman people that a treaty was concluded according to which Arnold pledged
Arnold of himself under oath to defend the RoBrescie. man Republic, and the people on their aide promised to support him. All the attempts of Eugenius to break this bond between Arnold and the Romans were ineffectual. Nor did he succeed, at the close of 1149 and with the aid of King Roger of Sicily, in subduing the Roman Republic by force of arms.
This alliance with the Norman king also exercised an unfavorable influence upon his relations with Conrad of Germany, who, on his side, aroused the pope's suspicion by reason of a compact with the Greek Emperor Manuel. The antipapal party in Rome sought to utilize this tension between Eugeniua and Conrad for their own ends, and endeavored to draw the latter over to their aide, though without success. When the pope through a treaty with the Roman Senate was able to return to Rome, the relations between pope and king assumed, a more favorable turn, since Eugenius supported Conrad in restitution of Duke Wladislav of Poland, his half‑sister's husband. However,
Relations new tensions arose not long afterward. with Ger‑ In France there was an active desire many and for a new crusade to restore the ahatFrance. tered Christian rule in the East; and because the miscarriage of the last crusade was charged against the Greek Empire, the enterprise was to be directed against this power. But this plan was to be executed only in case Roger of Sicily fought on the side of France; and since this contingency in turn presupposed the neutrality of the German king, the undertaking of the crusade depended upon the problematical success of achieving a reconciliation between Roger and Conrad. The attempt miscarried; and at this juncture Eugeniue made a total change of policy, withdrawing his support from the crusading project, and contriving to restore favorable relations with the German king. Their mutual interests drew them still closer together. The pope, unable to master the continually recurring tumults in Rome and again forced to leave the city, desired the king's intervention; and Conrad aspired to the Imperial crown: hence he formed the plan of a march to Rome, which was formally approved by the magnates of the Empire at the Imperial Diet of Wiirzburg, Sept. 15, 1151, and the preparations were begun; but before the appointed term, Conrad died at Bamberg, Feb. 15, 1152. His successor, Frederick L, Barbarossa, adopted the plan, and the German princes, at a new Imperial Diet at Wurzburg (Oct. 13, 1152), swore to support the Roman expedition.
Before it was actually started, however, Eugenius came to such terms with the Romans that he could return to Rome, this time cordially received by Senate and people. There he concluded with the envoys of the German king a treaty which proved highly important in the statecraft of the following years; it was ratified by Frederick at Constance, Mar. 23, 1153. The king promised to conclude peace neither with the Romans nor with
Roger of Sicily without the approbation of Eugenius or his successors; to subject, so far as he could, the Romans to the pope as they Treaty had been subject to him a century between past; to defend against every assailant Eugenius the honor and the regalia of St. Peter and Fred‑ as guardian steward of the Roman crick I. Church. The pope promised to honor the king as son of St. Peter, to crown him emperor, and to proceed against foes of the Empire with canonical penalties. They promised reciprocally to cede no domain in Italy to the Greek emperor, and if he made an incursion there, to drive him out.
	Eugenius died near Tibur July 8, 1153, and was
buried in St. Peter's at Rome. His conduct as
politician was not without address, and the appre
hensions of Bernard of Clairvaux, who dedicated
to him the famous tract De consideratione, were not
realized. He surrendered naught of the papal
authority, and understood how to uphold it. In
his manner of life and in his sympathies he con
stantly showed that he was an old Cistercian.
That he failed to master the Roman revolutionary
movement is not an evidence of incapacity. It
was good fortune for him that he died before the
great conflict broke out between Frederick I. and
the Papacy. 	CARL MIRBT.
BIBLTOaRAPHY: The Epiatolee and Pri.vilepia of Eugeniua III, are in MPL, cvi., clxxx., clxazii. Consult: J. I)elannea, Hint. du poatificat d'EuDbne 111., Nantes, 1737; Jafld, Repeats, ii. 20‑89; G. Bainate, Vita del .•. EuDenio 111.. Piece, 1888; M. Jocham, Geaehiclate des Lebeua des . . Papatea Eupeaiue 111., Augsburg, 1873; F. Gregorovius, Hiat. of the City of Rome, IV., ii. 5f3‑84, London, 1898; J. Langen, Gedchichle der rAmiachen R%rche Won Oregon VIII., Bonn, 1893; J. Jastrow and G. Winter, Deutsche Geachichte in Zeitalter den Hohenstaufen, vol. i., Stuttgart, 1897; Bower, Popes, ii. 477‑485; Milman, Latin Christianity, iv. 244‑282.
Eugenius IV. (Gabriello Conduhnieri): Pope 1431‑47. He came from a Venetian mercantile family and belonged to the Celestine Order. Although he was still young and none too well equipped for the position, he was chosen to succeed Martin V. on Mar. 3, 1431. The history of his papacy is largely that of the Council of Basel, and his importance is in the fact that to him more than to any one else was due the failure of the council and the whole idea of reform by councils. He summoned the council Mar. 12, 1431, but soon repented, for he realized that it might bring great danger to himself. The distrust between pope and council grew steadily on both sides, and culminated in a bull of the former dissolving the council and action by the latter deposing the pope and the choice of Felix V. (q.v.) as his successor (see BAGEL, COUNCIL OF). An event favorable to Eugenius was the union consummated (on paper) in 1439 between the Roman and Greek Churches, whereby his reputation in the West was considerably augmented (see FERRARA‑FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF). He also lived to see Germany, which at first had declared itself neutral between pope and council, range itself on his side. In France be could not annul the so‑called Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges of 1438 (see CONCORDATS AND DELIMITuro BULLS, IIL, 2), but he succeeded in keeping this

Eugipiue
Eunomins
important land faithful to his obedience. He died
Feb. 23, 1447. His successors praised him for
having saved the power of the papacy in difficult
times; and by his victory over the council and by
the union with the Greeks he did really contribute
to the restoration of Ultramontane ideas of the
papacy after they had been shaken by the Great
Western Schism. 	PAUL TecaACKzsT.
BIHLIOVBAPB.Y: The Vita is in Muratori, SeriPtores. III., ii.
888‑878. Consult: A. Masius. Ueba die SteLiunp des
Kamaiduterusrs A. Traversari sum Papst Euyen IV.,
Dtsbling, 1888; M. Birck, Dar KoZner Erabiechof Dietrich . and Papat Eupen IV.. Bonn, 1889: Creighton,
Papacy, ii. 18rr373; Pastor. Popes, i. 282‑381: Milmen,
Latin Christianity, vii. b38‑viii. 98; Bower. Popes, iii.
218‑234; KL, iv. 970 eqq.

EUGTPILTS, yu‑jip'i‑us (EUGIPPIUS, EUGEPIUS, EUGYPPILTS, EGIPPIITS): Monk and ecclesiastical writer; b. in Noricum about 455 or 460; d. between 533 and 543. His life is obscure and the alleged facts given by various writers are to be rejected. Under his name there have been preserved an extract (Thesaurus) from a part of the works of Augustine which circulated in numerous manuscripts during the Middle Ages and was greatly esteemed; some letters, and a biography of St. Severin (q.v.). The latter is his most im~portant work. It is written in a simple style, bare of almost every ornament, and it is this simplicity and nalvetk which have procured universal recognition for the work. Historians have special reason to esteem this biography, as they obtain from an eye‑witness important information concerning a period and part of the Roman empire which otherwise would be unknown. The time is that after Attila's last invasion of Italy and after his death, when Germanic tribes such as the Goths entered Italy, robbing and spoiling, murdering, and taking captives. Only certain fortresses on the right bank of the Danube resisted for some time the attacks of the Germans, especially through the aid of Severin, who warned the Romans of the threatened invasion and gained also the respect of the Arian Germans and induced them to retire. But the downfall of the Roman dominion in Noricum could not long be postponed. Shortly after the death of Severin (482) the time came which had been predicted by him when the last Romans emigrated from Noricum and returned to Italy. In 48? they carried his bones with them, thus fulfilling his lest wish. The remains were finally deposited in 491 or 492 at Lucullanum, on a small island in the Bay of Naples, where a noble woman provided a beautiful burying‑place. There a new monastery was erected for Severin's disciples, of which Eugipius became the third abbot.
During the letter years of the life of Severin, Eugipius was one of his disciples. He witnessed his lest deeds and heard his last admonitions and predictions. He wrote his biography of the saint in the beginning of the sixth century. A distinguished layman, the author of a biography of a monk named Basaua, had asked Eugipiua for material on the life of Severin, with the intention of using it as the basis for another biography. Eugipiue complied with the wish, and wrote down all his own reoollectione and those of his older breth‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
204
ren, arranging them chronologically. Then he hesitated to entrust a layman with his material and finally gave it to Paschasius, a deacon, asking him to write a biography of Severin and give an account of his miracles and predictions. Paschasiue, however, refused, on the ground that no scholarly skill could add to the memorial of Eugipiue. A stranger, he thought, 'might only spoil the representation of the pupil and eye‑witness. Thus there were no changes made in the manuscript. Eugipiua was not learned, especially in secular sciences. His judgment in theological matters is not deep, and he relates miracle after miracle, without the least attempt to explain them. (K. LEIMBAJH'l.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera, ed. J. Herold, appeared Basel, 1542; in MPL, lxii.; and in CSEL, is. parts 1‑2. Consult: M. Bildinger, in Sitaunpaberichta der Wisner Akademie, philoaophiaclo‑hiatoriache Masse, xei (1878), 793814; Wattenbach, DGQ, bth ad., i. 47, 8th ed., i. 44‑49, ii. 501; A. Ebert, Geschichte der chrisuich‑ZateiniacAsn Literatur, i. 431 sqq., Leipeic, 1889; W. S. Teuffel, Gsachichte der r6m%achen Literatur, p. 1288, $ 494, no. 3, Leipaie, 1890; DCB, ii. 27b‑278.
	EUHEMERUS, yfi‑hf'mer‑us (EUEMERUS):
Greek philosopher; flourished about 31600 s. c.
He was possibly a native of Mesaene, though Agri
gentum, Tegea in Arcadia, and the island of Coo
all claimed him. In philosophy he was allied to
the school of Ariatippus of Cyrene. He lived at
the court of Caesander of Macedon, by whom he
was sent on a journey into the region of the Indian
Ocean. On his return he wrote a " Sacred His
tory," the method of which made him famous. In
this work he claimed to have found in Panara?a, the
capital of the (fabulous) island PanchEea, a temple
to Zeus where was a column bearing the register
of the births and deaths of many of the gods. He
professed to take this as a clue and interpreted
myth as history, regarding the gods as eminent
men posthumously deified, thus anticipating the
Spencerian school and giving his name to that
type of interpretation of history and myth called
Euhemerism. The book was attractive in style
and matter, and was translated by the Latin poet
Enniue (Cieero, De natura deorum, i. 42). Only a
few fragments remain, collected in Diodorus Sicu
lus, Bibhothecce historicce, ed. P. Weaseling (Am
sterdam, 1746), in I. P. Cory, Ancient Fragments
(London, 1876), and G. N. Remethy (Budapest,
1889). The work was a subtle attack on pagan
ism, and its method was taken up by the Christian
Apologists (cf. Lactantius, " Institutes," i. 11,
Eng. tranel. ANF, vii. 20‑24‑founded on Eu
hemerus), and continued to be in favor until very
recent times. 	GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gauss, Quwstionea Eeahernerece, Kemper, 1880; R. de Block, Euhbmre: son live et as doctrine, Mons, 1878; valuable notes are to be found in Mdrnoirea de 1'academ%e des inscriptions, vole. viii.. P. xv., xativ. 453. 482. xxv. 1.
EULALIIIS, yu‑1611t‑us: Antipope 41819. For his election and expulsion, see BONIFACE I. He was banished to Campania, where he remained quiet during the pontificate of his successful opponent, after whose death some were found to support again the choice of Eulaliua. He died the
year after Boniface, in 423.	(A. HAUCB.)

Off	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	~usivina
		Ennomiuo
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bower, Popes i. 182‑18T Milman, Latin
	Christianity, i. 198‑199. See also the literature under
	BorrxrrACru I.
	EULOGIA, yu‑18'ji‑a: A	word used several
times in the New Testament, with the general
sense of " blessing." In patristic and ecclesias
tical writers it has a double meaning. The earlier
was that of a definite clerical blessing, which, ac
cording to the Apostolic Constitutions, the deacon
was not to impart, white the	presbyter received it
at his ordination only from the bishop, and the
latter only from other bishops; it was imparted to
the laity in the Eucharist and on other solemn
occasions by the bishop or presbyter. The word
was applied also to the special blessing given to
catechumens or competentes, and to the hallowing
of liturgical materials, such as water and oil; in
the later ritual books it occurs of the marriage
blessing, the setting apart of monks, etc.
	The second and better‑known use of the word
was in a sacramental connection. The use of it
in I Cor. x. 16 was compared with that of eucharis
tesas and eulogesas in Matt.	xxvi. 26, 27, which
were taken as equivalent; and eulogia was em
ployed for the Eucharist itself. In the third cen
tury eulogein was used for the act of consecration
and administration of the	elements (Eusebius,
Hilt. eccl., vi. 43), and numerous passages in Cyril
of Alexandria show that, in his time eldogia meant
either the Lord's Supper itself or the consecrated
bread. But this meaning underwent various mod
ifications. As early as Irenaeus it was customary
for bishops to send the sacrament to other places
in token of unity. The Council of Laodicea for
bids this practise (can. xiv.) on the ground of pos
sible profanation. In the fifth century eulogi.ce
were given even to catechumens and penitents,
who were debarred from the reception of the sacra
ment; but later liturgical writers explain these as
portions of the bread offered at the Eucharist but
not consecrated, only blessed and given as a sort
of substitute for the sacrament to these classes.
This " blessed biead " is what is called antidaron
in the Liturgy of St. Chrysoatom; its connection
with the term under consideration is explained by
the formula of administration found there which
begins with the words " the eulogia of God." This
use of the word was handed down to the modern
Greek Church, and the custom persisted in the
West (Cone. Nannetense, can. ix. 890, where the
priest is to keep such pieces	of bread previously
blessed to distribute after the mass to those who
have not been prepared for communion).
		(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Orbglned, XV., 1V. 3, 8, xVL, vi. 3;
	C. Cracau, Die Liturgic des heiligen Chryaostomua, pp.
	135‑138, GOteraloh, 1890; Von Drewe, in Zedtechrift tar
	praktische Theoiopie, sz (1898), 18‑19; and the lexicons.
	EULOGIUS, yu‑lo'ji‑us,	OF ALEXANDRIA:
Patriarch of Alexandria 580‑607, succeeding John
IV. He was originally presbyter and abbot of the
monastery of Mary in Antioch, and combated the
Monophysite heresy in numerous works, of which
a number were read by Photius (Bibtiotheca, codex
ccxxvi.). O. Bardenhewer has edited, in Greek
and German, excerpts preserved from his work" On
the Trinity" (TQ, lxxviii., 1896, pp. 354‑401).
A sermon on Palm Sunday (Matt. xxi.) and frag
ments of other works were collected by Mai (MPG,
lxxxvi. 2, pp. 2907‑84). Eulogius is revered as
a saint by the Greeks on Feb. 13 and by the Latins
on Sept. 13. 	G. KRf?CiER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. M. Neale, Patriarcliate of Alexandria,
ii. 46‑b2, London, 1847; A. von Gutachmid, in Kleine Schriften, ii. 489‑470, Leipeic, 1890; DCB, ii. 283.
EULOGIUS OF CORDOVA: Spanish martyr; b. at Cordova after 800; beheaded there Mar. 11, 859. He was of good family, was educated for the priesthood, became deacon and presbyter of the Church of St. Zoilus at Cordova, and adopted a life of the strictest asceticism. His grandfather had been noted for hatred of the Mohammedans, and Eulogius's inherited tendencies were strengthened by his teacher, the abbot Speraindeo of Cordova, and by his. intimate friend Alvar (q.v.). Returning home from a visit to Northern Spain undertaken in 848, he found a party among the Christians characterized by a fanatical desire for martyrdom, which they sought by publicly reviling Mohammed. Influenced by Alvar, after some hesitation Eulogius came forward as the apologist of this party, and wrote in glorification of martyrs and exhorting to emulate them. The emir Abdalrahman II. (822‑852), whose policy was tolerant and enlightened, with the support of some of the Christians headed by an archbishop Reccafred (probably of Seville), sought in vain to check the fanatical movement (see CORDOVA). Eulogius was imprisoned for a time, but his literary activity was not interfered with. He was chosen successor to Archbishop Wistremir of Toledo (d. 858), but the emir refused to confirm his election; disappointed and filled with new fanaticism, he sought the death which he had praised in others. Alvar glorified him in hymns and in an account of his life and death (in MPL, cxv. 70:r720). His works include a few letters and a Memorials sanctorum mcartyrum in three books, which is the main source of the martyr history of the time and appears to be a sober and trustworthy narrative of facts; and a Liter aPologeticus sanctorum martyrum, in which he tries to place the Spanish martyrs on a level with those of the early Church and the Mohammedans with the Roman persecutors. With his other works, scholia, etc., they are in MPL, cxv. 731‑912.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ASB, Mar., i. 88‑97; W. von Baudiesin, Eulogies and Alroar, Leipaic, 1872; R. Dozy, Histoirs des Huaulmana d'Eapapne, ii. I‑174, Leyden, 1881; P. Game, Die Rirchangeechi,chte Spaniana, ii. 299‑338, Regensburg, 1874.
EUNOMIUS, yu‑n8'mi‑vs, EUNOMIANS: A heretic of the fourth century and his party. Eunomius was born at Oltiaeris, in the district of Korniaspa, in Cappadocia, close to the Galatian boundary (Gregory of Nyasa in MPG, xlv. 281D; cf. W. M. Ramsay, Historical Geography o/ Asia Minor, London, 1890, p. 264 and map p. 197); d. at Dakora in the district of Caesarea (Sozomen, VIL, xvii. 1; Ramsay, ut sup., 306‑307) c. 393. His father seems to have been a man of education, who took care to give his son the same advantages. There is, however, no very definite information as to his life until 356 or 357, when he came to A6tiue

mmnaomins
Euphrates
in Alexandria, recommended, according to Philostorgius, by the Arian teacher Secundus, who was then in Antioch, whose secretary he had been. He gained the favor of Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch (see Eunoxiua op GERMANICIA), who made him a deacon. When Eudoxius was suspended but not yet banished, Eunomius was sent to the emperor in his behalf, but was taken prisoner by the Homoiousians on the road and banished to Midxa in Phrygia in the autumn of 358. After the Synod of Seleucia, with Aetius, he followed the aemiArian bishops to Constantinople, and took a prominent part in the theological disputations there which ended in the defeat of the semi‑Arians.
Early in 360 Eunomius was made bishop of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, accepting the office, it would seem, partly in the hope of facilitating the recall of his old teacher AStius, while Eudoxius may have hoped to win Eunomius for his conciliatory type of Arianism. Complications followed, but they are hard to trace in detail. According to Theodoret, whose account is followed by Tillemont and HIoae as well as by most modern scholars, the people of
Cyzicua succeeded in inducing EuBishop of nomius to emerge from his doctrinal
Cyzicus. reticence and declare himself; they
then accused him before Eudoxius, who, after long hesitation, deposed Eunomius from his bishopric, and thus determined him to found a party of his own‑at first in Pamphylia, whither he retired. Philostorgiua knows of the accusation of the Cyzicenes, but asserts that Eunomius was wholly cleared; that nevertheless, being unwilling to assent either to the condemnation of AStius or to the decrees of Rimini, he voluntarily resigned his bishopric and retired to his birthplace; that Acacias then calumniated him before Constantius, with the result that he was cited to appear at the synodal negotiations at Antioch in the winter of 360‑361; that Acacias did not press his charges, and the matter was thus postponed to a larger synod, the convocation of which was prevented by the emperor's death. On the whole the latter account seems preferable in that the probably independent narrative of Sozomen is more easily' reconcilable with it than with Theodoret's.
Under Julian the Anomoean party was able once more to raise its head. Eunomius went to Constantinople, and there, in concert with AStius, attempted to establish an Anomaean church. Euzoius of Antioch and even Eudoxius, now bishop of Constantinople, seemed, now that court influence was no longer to be considered, not indisposed to join the more radical Arians; but under Julian's
successors they perceived the danger Breach of such sympathies and drew back.
with the Eunomius and his friends were thus
Semi‑	driven to the formation of an inde
Arians.	pendent ecclesiastical organization.
They consecrated bishops for Lydia, Ionia, Palestine, and Constantinople. From this time (about the end of 363) dates the definitive breach between the conciliatory Arians (Homoeana) anal the Anomaeans. Eudoxius seized with avidity the occasion offered by these proceedings and refused to acknowledge the consecrations, strengthened in
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
his policy by the favor which Valens showed him in the first period of his residence at Constantinople; and Euzoius recognized the logic of events. A15tius and Eunomius left the representation of their cause in the capital to Florentius, and retired, the former to the neighborhood of Mytilene, the latter to Chalcedon. Here they lived for a while without exercisinb ecclesiastical functions. On the proclamation as emperor of Procopius, Eunomius, with whom he had previously had friendly relations, returned to Constantinople with Aetius before the downfall of Procopius (May 27, 366), and remained there after the death of Aetius, which can not have occurred before the next spring. In the winter of 367 Eunomius was banished to Mauretania on account of his relations with the usurper; but influence was brought to bear upon Valens, which resulted in his recall in the autumn of 369.
After this he lived apparently at Chalcedon; but little is known of the last years of his life. Socrates relates that when Theodosius called a conference of the leaders of various religious parties in Constantinople (June, 383) Eunomius represented his associates there. But his cause was hopeless. Immediately before the accession of Theodosius, Gratian had expressly excluded the Eunomians, with the Photinians and Manicheans, from the toleration which he pro‑
His Later claimed. The edict of Theodosius on
	Life.	Feb. 27, 380, had indirectly proscribed
		them, and that of Jan. 10, 381, di
rectly. On July 25, 383, after the conference men
tioned above, the emperor issued a similar edict
against a wider range of heresies. Eunomius, the
only leader to incur personal punishment, was
banished once more. He resided for a time at
Chalcedon, still exercising a certain influence in
Constantinople, was then sent to Halmyris in
Maeaia, and when this place was taken by the bar
barian invaders, to Caesarea in Cappadocia. He
was finally allowed to retire to his estate at Dakora.
His party did not long survive him. Imperial edicts ordered the banishment of their leaders and the burning of their books, and denied them the right of testamentary disposition. And divisions occurred within their own ranks, apparently connected with baptismal customs. The Eunomians did not recognize the baptism or ordination even of the Ariana, and substituted single for trine immersion.
	The importance of Eunomius may be measured
by the number of antagonists he found on the
orthodox side, including Apollinaris, Didymus,
Andronicianua, Theodore of Mopauestia, Sophro
nius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa. Of his own
		works only five are known‑besides a
	Works.	lost commentary on the Romans and
		collection of letters, a small apologetic
book (the one controverted by Basil, Apollinaris,
and Didymus), written probably soon after 360; a rejoinder to Basil, written just before the tatter's death; and an " Exposition of the Faith," probably taken from the last‑named to some extent, about 383. Epiphanius says that Eunomiua and his followers went more widely astray than Arias; but this is a mistake. Arias was an Anomcean; and the agen‑

207	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	E°n°'°t~
		Enphratss
	nasia [denial of the generation of the Son and in
	sistence on his creaturehood] which was the essential
	mark of the Eunomian doctrine of God was taught
also by Arius in the same way.	The thought of
	Eunomius is clearer and supported by closer meta
	physical and epistemological reasoning; but this in
volves no essential variance.	(F. LOOF6.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources of information are: Socrates, Hiat.
	eccl., iv. 7, 13, v. 10, 24; Sosomen, Halt. eccl., vi. 28, 27,
	vii. 8, 17. (both in Eng. transt. in NPNF, 2 eer., vol.
	ii.); Theodoret, Hint. eccl., ii. 29; Gregory of Nysea,
	" Against Eunomius " (in NPNF, 2 ser., v. 33‑313).
	Consult: Tillemont, Mi~nwirea, vi. 501‑516; C. H. G.
	Rettberg, MarcelLiana, GSttingen, 1794; Fabricius
	Harles, Bibliotheea Oreeca, ix. 207‑214, Hamburg, 1804;
	C. R. W. Kloae, Gtachichte and Lehre lea Eunamiua, Kiel,
	1833; F. Kattenbusch, Daa aPoatoiiaehe Symbol, i. 347
352, Leipaic, 1894; F. Diekamp, Die GoEtealehre des .
	Gregor you Nysaa, MMnater, 1898; A. Hahn, Bibliothek
	der Symbols, pp. 148, 280‑281, Breslau, 1897; Neander,
	Christian Church, ii. 444‑452 et passim; Harnack, Dogma,
iii.‑iv.; DCB, ii. 288‑290; literature under ARIANISM.
EUPHEMITES. See MESSehlwrls.
	EUPHRATES, yu‑fr@'tiz: The greatest river of
	western Asia, mentioned in Gen. i. 14 as one of
	the four rivers of Eden. Thereafter it finds fre
	quent mention, either by name or by epithet, in
the Old Testament.	It is sometimes called simply
	" the river" (Gen. xxxi. 21), and even °` river,"
without the article (Isa. vii. 20, Heb. text).
	The Euphrates is formed by the union of two
	small streams at about lat. 39° n. and long. 39° e.
	in the Armenian Mountains. The larger of these
	two streams, the Kara Sir or western Euphrates,
	rises on the Domli Dagh, northeast of
	Its Course. Erzerum. The other, the Mural Su
	or Eastern Euphrates, a charming
	mountain stream, rises on the Ala Dagh, not far
	from Lake Van. At their junction above Keben
	Maden they form a noble river 120 yards wide. At
	no point in its long course is the river finer than
	here. From this point the river flows south for a
	short distance, and then bends in a great westerly
	course around the Musher Dagh, and pierces the
	Taurus range with many sharp bends. At this
	part of its course the Euphrates seems destined to
	discharge its waters into the Mediterranean at the
	Gulf of Alexandretta, but the way is blocked by
	the Amanals and the Lebanon, and the river as
	sumes a southeasterly course which is maintained
	to the Persian Gulf. It is this lower course which
	is the historic river, known to all the great peoples
of Western Asia.
	The tributaries of the Euphrates, after the union
	of the Kara Sir and the Mural Su are few. The
	most important are the Sajur (Assyrian Satigura
or Sagura) which enters from the west about lat.
	36° 40'; the Belik (Assyrian Balikhu), from the
	east and north in long. 39° 9'; and, most impor
	tant of all, the Khabur (Assyrian Haburu) entering
	from the northeast in lat. 35° T, long.
	Tributaries 40° 30'. From the Khabur to its
	and Size. mouth, a distance of 800 miles, the
	Euphrates receives no tributary, and
	in the lower part of its course shows a marked
	tendency to split up into different channels. When
	it receives the Khabur it is 400 yards wide and
eighteen feet deep. 	From that point it begins to
diminish in volume. At Irzah or Werdi, seventyfive miles lower down, it is 350 yards wide and of the same depth; at Hadiaeh, 140 miles belo^' Werdi, it is 300 yards wide and of the same depth; at Hit, fifty miles below Hadiseh, its width has increased to 350 yards, but its depth has been diminished to sixteen feet; at Felujiah, seventy‑five miles from Hit, the depth is twenty feet, but the width has diminished to 250 yards. From this point the contraction is rapid and striking. The Saklowijeh Canal is given out upon the left, and some way farther down the Hindiyeh branches off upon the right, each carrying, when the Euphrates is full, a large body of water. The consequence is that at Hillah, ninety miles below Felujiah, the stream is no more than 200 yards wide and fifteen feet deep; and at Lamlun, eighty‑five miles lower down, it is reduced to 120 yards wide with a depth of no more than twelve feet. Some of the channels which take water out of the river afterward return to it again, but it never again attains its earlier greatness. The channel from Kurnah to El Khitr was found by Colonel Chesney to have " an average width of only 200 yards, and a depth of about eighteen or nineteen feet, which implies a body of water far inferior to that carried between the junction of the Khabur and Hit."
The Euphrates, and also the Tigris, has a flood season exactly as the Nile has. This fact is perfectly clear and indisputable, though Herodotus directly asserts the contrary. The inundation is indeed not so great as that of the Nile, but it is
regular and extensive. The river beInundation. gins to swell very slowly about the
beginning of March, and gradually increases until the highest point is reached about the end of May, when the waters stand about thirteen feet above low water. At this point the river remains for about a month, sinks slightly toward the middle of July, and then more rapidly till September. At the junction of the Khabur the river is described as " spreading over the surrounding country like a sea." The slow and regular rise of the river made it exceedingly valuable for irrigation, of which the Babylonian people fully availed themselves. Along the banks were constructed brick walls provided with breakwaters to divert and control the swift current at its rise. Sluice gates controlled the rise so that the eastern bank received an inundation equal to the west, while canals almost innumerable diverted the retreating waters, and prevented the overflow from damaging the cultivable area. Furthermore, the water was retained in sufficient quantity to supply an irrigation system, far back from the river, after the fall of the river. This entire system is now a vast ruin. The river rises and falls as it uills, and sweeping far over the western bank, turns the country into a desolate morass. The harm of this is both positive and negative. It makes impossible any such great ingathering of grain as was usual when this great valley was the world's granary, and it fills the land with a dangerous miasma.
The Euphrates and the Tigris originally reached the Persian Gulf by separate estuaries, but they now unite and form the Shatt‑al‑Arab. It is be‑

In bin: of Cleeaarew	THE NEW BCHAFF‑HER,ZOG	BOB
lieved that the Persian Gulf once extended 150 or perhaps even 200 miles farther north than at present, and the formation of alluvial land continues at the rate of about a mile in seventy yearn.
The whole course of the river is about 1,780 miles, and it is navigable for small vessels for about 1,200 miles. It has been well said that the " upper region of the Euphrates resembles that of the Rhine, while its middle course may be compared with that of the Danube, and its lower with the Nile." See ASSYRIA, IL, 12; BABYLONIA, IL, §11‑2. ROBERT W. ROGERS.
Bran.roossrar: F. R. Chesney, Expedition for the Survey
of the . . . Euphrates, London, 1850 (the beat); W. K.
Loftus, Chaddma and Busiana, ib. 1857; A. H. Layard,
Nineveh and Babylon, shape. zxi.‑mi., ib.1887; G. Raw‑
lineon, Harodotua, Essay ix., London, 1875; F. Delitsach, We dap das Paradise 7 pp. 189‑170, Leipeio. 1881; $chrader, %A T, pp. 28‑28, 122, 148, 239, 359, 528; DB, i. 794; ED, ii. 1427‑29.
EUSEBIUS, yu‑M'bi‑vs: Pope 309. His pontificate lasted only from Apr. 18 to Aug. 17, after which, in consequence of disturbances within the Church which led to acts of violence, he was banished by the tyrant Maxentius, who had been the sole ruler of Rome since Apr., 308, and had at first shown himself friendly to the Christians. The difficulty arose, as in the case of his predecessor Marcellus, out of his attitude toward the Lapsed (q.v.), which represented the milder standpoint. He died in exile in Sicily, and was buried in the cemetery of Calixtus, his successor Damasus placing an epitaph of eight hexameters over his tomb; the epithet " martyr " contained in them is not to be taken in the strict sense. (E11QAR HENivE,=.)
BIHLIOanAYHY: Liber pontiAcadie, ad. Ducheene, i. 187, Paris, 1888, ad. Mommeen, in M(iH, Oest. pant. Ram., i (1898), 4b; A3B, Sept., vii. 286‑271; F. X. Kraus, Roma sotterranea, pp. 181 eqq., Freiburg, 1879; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, L, i. 297‑299, London, 1890; Bower, Popes, i. 41: 1LL, iv. 997‑999.
EUSEBIUS OF ALEXANDRIA: An author to whom are attributed certain extant homilies which enjoyed some renown in the Eastern Church in the sixth and seventh centuries. Their homiletical merit does not rise above mediocrity, and nothing is known of the author. At all events, he was not s patriarch of Alexandria, as is affirmed in as early biography (MPG, lxxxvi. 1, pp. 297‑310), written by one Johannes, a notary, and stating that Etisebius was called by Cyril to be his successor in the episcopate. The discourses belong probably to the fifth or sixth century, and possibly originated in Alexandria. They deal with the life of the Lord and with questions of ecclesiastical life and practise, which they resolve in a moneaticascetic way. Their literary character is not quite clear; while moat of them are adapted for public delivery, not a few bear the character of eccleeisstical pronouncements. They are printed in MPG, Ixxxvi. 1, pp. 287‑482, b09‑536, except four included among Chrysostom'a works. The fragments preserved in the so‑called Sacra parallels are to be found in K. Hall's Fragments v6rniciinischer KircTtenvkter (T U, new aeries, v. 2, Leipsic, 1899), pp. 314‑332. A homily concerning the observance of Sunday is attributed by Zahn (see be‑
low) to Eusebius of Emesa.	G. KH$(iEH.
Brtutoaasrav: J. C. Thilo, Ueber die 3chriften du b'uaedriua roan A7axandrien and du Eusebiue roan &mesa, Halls, 1832; T. Zahn, in ZICW, v (1884). b18‑b34; G. Morin, 3e•nto de dominicat observations. Uns ancienna adaptation dative d'un sermon attribu6 h Euadbe d'Aiexarudrie, in Revue BWdidine, 1907, pp. 530 eqq.; Ceillier, Autaura , viii. 383‑384; DCB, ii. 30B‑307.
		EUSEBIUS (BRUNO) OF ANGERS: Bishop of
	Angers; d. Sept. 1, 1081. He is first met with as
	bishop of Angers at the synod of Reims in 1049,
	and for a long time had been an adherent of Beren
	gar's doctrine of the Lord's Supper (see BERENOAI3
air TOUR$). As such he was regarded by Berengar
	himself and by his opponents Dietwin of Lidge,
	Durand of Troarne, and Humbert. But when he
	recognized the strength of the opposition, he
	favored a compromise; at any rate he advised
	Berengar is 1054 to swear to the formula presented
	to him. Nevertheless Berengar considered him
	his friend many years later and requested 'him to
	silence a certain Galfrid Martini or to arrange a
	disputation. In his reply Eueebius not only re
	gretted the whole controversy, but also stated that
	he would abide by the words of Holy Scripture, ac
	cording to which the bread and wine after the con
	secration become the body and blood of the Lord;
	if one asks how this can take place the answer
	must be that it is not according to the order of
	nature but in accordance with the divine omnipo
	tence; at any rate one must be careful not to give
	offense to the ,plain Christian. The epistle is a
	downright renunciation of Berengar in case he
	should still maintain his view. In favor of the
	supposition that Eueebiua changed his opinion
	from deference to the count of Anjou, the decided
	opponent of Berengar and his doctrine, it can be
	adduced that he did not defend Berengar against
	the hostilities of the court, and that for a long
	time he aides with this violent prince. It is also
	possible that the fact impressed itself upon Euee
	bius that the religious consciousness of the time
	more and more opposed Berengar. Our knowledge,
	however, is too fragmentary to pass a very accurate
	sentence. 	S. M. DEUTaCH.
Brszroartsre:: G. E. Leeaina,• Beren(tarsua Turoneneie (Wake, ad‑ Lsahmsnn‑Maltashn, viii. 331 eqq., 12 vote., Leipeic, 18b3‑57); $. Sudendorf, Berengariua Turoneneis, pp. 92 eqq. et passim, Goths, 1880; L. Schwabe, 3tudien sur Ouehichte den sweiten AbendmaAiesbeite, LaiDm0. 1887: J. Schnitzer, Bersngar roan Tours 75 eqq.. Munich, 1890; idem in Der RatlwIik, 1892, 544 aqq.; BrBoking, in Dauteche Zeitaehrift fOr Geachichtnoiasenscha/t, v (1891), 382 vi (1892), 232; ZRG, ui (1891), 189; Neander, Christian Church, iii. b08‑b17. EU3EBIUS OF CESAREA.
I: Life.
Becomes Prominent in the Ar3an ConEroverey (§ 1). II. Works. Works on Biblical Tent Criticism The " Chronicle " (§ 2). The " Church History " (§ 3).
Minor Historical Works (§ 4). Apologetic sad Dogmatic Works (§ 6).
Exegetical and 11(<ieoellanaoue Works (§ 8). III. Estimate of Eueebiua His Doctrine (§ 1).
His Eaaellenciee and Limitations (§ 2).
Eueebius of Caeearea (often called Euaebiua Pamphili, "Eusebius [the friend of] Pamphilus "; see PADiPHILUH). bishop of Cajearea in Palestine, the father of church history, was born about 275 or

909	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8nsebiue
		N.M.: of 08essrea
280, place unknown; d. at Caesarea (?), at the latest
340, most probably May 30, 339.
		I. Life: Little is known of his youth. He be
came acquainted with the presbyter Dorotheua is
Antioch and probably received exegetical instruc
tion from him. In 296 he was in Palestine and
saw Constantine who visited the country with
Diocletian. He was in Caesarea when Agapiua was
bishop and made the acquaintance of Pamphilus,
who became his intimate friend. With him he
pursued studies which seem to have related chiefly
to the preparation of a correct text of the Bible,
with the aid of Origen's Hexapla, and commen
taries collected by Pamphilus. In 307 Pamphilua
was thrown into prison, but Eusebius continued
his intercourse and studies. The fruit of their
common labors was an apology for Origen in which
Pamphilua and Euaebius collaborated, which was
finished by Euaebius after the death of Pamphilua
and sent to the martyrs in the mines of Phaeno in
	Egypt. (see below, IL, § 5). After the death of
	Pamphilus, Eusebius seems to have gone to Tyre
and later to Egypt, where apparently he first suf
fered persecution. The charge that he purchased
his liberty by sacrificing to the gods is unfounded.
		Euaebius is next heard of as bishop of Caesarea.
He succeeded Agapius, whose time of office is not
known, but Euaebius must have become bishop
soon after 313. Nothing is known about the first
years of his official activity, but with the begin
	ning of the Arian controversies he becomes prom
inent. Arius appealed to him as his protector, and
from a letter of Eusebius to Alexander it is evi
dent that he aided the exiled presbyter (see ARIUS).
When the Council of Nicaea met in 325, Eusebius
was prominent in its transactions. He was not
					naturally a leader or a deep thinker,
	z. Becomes but as a very learned man and well
	Prominent trained in history, at the same time a
			is the	famous author who enjoyed the ape
	Arian Con‑ cial favor of the emperor, he came to
		troversy. the front among the 300 members of
					the council. The confession which he
	proposed became the basis of the Nicene formula
	(see Nicxn, COUNCIL OF). Eusebius was variously
	implicated in the further development of the
Arian controversies, as, for instance, in the dispute
	with Eustathius of Antioch (q.v.). Eustathius
	combated the continually growing influence of
	Origen and his allegorizing exegesis, seeing in his
	theology the roots of Arianism. Eusebius, on the
	other hand, was an admirer of Origen, and em
	ployed the same principles in his exegesis. Euata
thius reproached Eusebius for deviating from the
	Nicene faith, and was charged in turn with Sabel
	lianism. Euatathius was accused, condemned and
	deposed at a synod in Antioch. The people of An
tioch, always prone to disturbances, rebelled against
	this action, while the anti‑Eustathians proposed
	Eusebius as the new bishop, but he declined.
		After Eustathius had been removed, the Euse
	bians proceeded against Athanasius, a much more
	dangerous opponent. In 334 he was summoned
	before a synod in Cxsarea; he did not attend, how
ever, distrusting his opponents. In the following
year he was again summoned before a synod in
				IV.‑14
Tyre at which Eusebius presided. Athanasius, divining the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the emperor. The emperor called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. At the same synod, another opponent was successfully attacked. Marcellua of Ancyra (q.v.) had long opposed the Euaebiana, and had only lately protested against the reinstitution of Arius. He was accused of Sabellianiam and deposed in the beginning of 336. Constantine died the next year and Eusebius did not long survive him.
II. Works: Of the extensive literary activity of Eusebius, .z relatively large portion has been preserved. Although posterity suspected him of Arianism, Euaebius had made himself indispensable by his method of authorship; his comprehensive and careful excerpts from original sources saved his successors the painstaking labor of research. Hence much has been preserved which otherwise would have been destroyed. The literary productions of Euaebius reflect on the whole the course of his life. At first he oceupigd himself with works on Biblical criticism, under the influence of Pamphilus and probably of Dorotheua of the School of Antioch. Afterward the persecutions under Diocletian and Gslerius directed his attention to the martyrs of his own time and the past. And this led him to the history of the whole Church and finally to the history of the world, which to him was only a preparation for ecclesiastical history. Then followed the time of the Arian controversies, and dogmatic questions came into the foreground. Christianity at last found recognition by the State; and this brought new problems‑apologies of a different sort had to be prepared. Lastly, Eusebius, the court theologian, wrote eulogies in praise of the first " Christian " emperor. To all this activity must be added numerous writings of a miscellaneous nature, addresses, letters, and the like, and exegetical works which include both commentaries and treatises on Biblical archeology and extend over the whole of his life.
Pamphilus and Euaebius occupied themselves with the text criticism of the Old Testament (Septuagint) and especially of the New Testament. An edition of the Septuagint seems to have been already prepared by Origen, which, according to
		Jerome, was revised and circulated by
	r. Works	Euaebius and Pamphilus. For an eas
	on Biblical	ier survey of the material of the four
	Text 	Evangelists. Eusebius divided his edi‑
Criticism. tion of the New Testament into para‑
graphs and provided it with a eynoptical table so that it might be easier to find the pericopes which belong together (see BILE TEXT, IL, § 4).
The two greatest historical works of Eusebius are his " Chronicle " and his " Church History." The former (Gk. Pantodape historic, " Universal History ") is divided into two parts. The first part (Gk. Chronographia, " Annals ") purports to give an epitome of universal history from the sources, arranged according to nations. The

Ensebine of Ceeearea
Eusebine of Emesa
second part (Gk. Chronikoi kanones, " Chronological Canons ") attempts to furnish a synchronism
of the historical material in parallel z. The columns. The work as a whole has
" Chron‑ been lost in the original, but it may
icle."	be reconstructed from later chronog‑
raphists of the Byzantine school who made excerpts from the work with untiring diligence, especially Georgiua Syncellus. The tables of the second part have been completely preserved in a Latin translation by Jerome, and both parts are still extant in an Armenian translation, but these translations do not possess great value on account of numerous interpolations. The " Chronicle " as preserved extends to the year 325. It was written before the " Church History."
In his " Church History," Eusebius attempted according to his own declaration (L, i. 1) to present the history of the Church from the apostles to his own time, with special regard to the following points: (1) the successions of bishops in the principal sees; (2) the history of Christian teachers; (3) the history of heresies; (4) the history of the Jews; (5) the relations to the heathen; (fi) the martyrdoms (L, i. 1‑3). He grouped his material according to the reigns of the emperors, presenting it as he found it in his sources. The contents are as follows: After a detailed introduction, which
treats of Jesus Christ (book i.), comes 3. The the history of the apostolic time to
" Church the capture of Jerusalem (book ii.);
History." then the following time to Trajan
(book iii.); books iv. and v. treat of the second century; book vi. of the time from Severus to Decius; book vii. extends to the outbreak of the persecution under Diocletian; book viii. treats of this persecution; book ix. brings the history to the victory over Maxentius in the West and over Maximinus in the East; book x. relates the reestablishment of the churches and the rebellion and conquest of Licinius. In its present form the work was brought to a conclusion before the death of Crispus (July, 326), and, since book x. is dedicated to Paulinus of Tyre who died before 325, at the end of 323 or in 324. This work required the most comprehensive preparatory studies, and it must have occupied him for years. His collection of martyrdoms of the older period (see below, § 4) may have been one of these preparatory studies. The authenticity of Eusebius's " Church History " is beyond dispute. Every new discovery shows anew the conscientious, careful and intelligent use of the libraries of Caesarea and Jerusalem.
Before he compiled his church history, Eusebius edited a collection of martyrdoms of the earlier period and a biography of Pamphilus. The mar tyrology has not survived as a whole, but it has been preserved almost completely in parts. It
contained (1) an epistle of the con4. Minor gregation of Smyrna concerning the
Historical martyrdom of Polycarp; (2) the mar‑
Works.	tyrdom of Pionius; (3) the martyr‑
doma of Carpus, Papylus, and Agar thonike; (4) the martyrdoms in the congregations of Vienne and Lyons; (5) the martyrdom of
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Rio
Apollonius. Of the life of Pamphilus only a fragment survives. A work on the martyrs of Palestine in the time of Diocletian was composed after 311; numerous fragments are scattered in legendaries which still have to be collected. The life of Constantine was compiled after the death of the emperor and the election of his sons at Augusti (337). It is more a rhetorical eulogy on the emperor than a history, but is of great value on account of numerous documents incorporated in it.
To the class of apologetic and dogmatic works belong: (1) the " Apology for Origen," the first five books of which, according to the definite statement of Photius, were written by Pamphilus in prison, with the assistance of Eusebius. Euaebius added the sixth book after the death of Pamphilus. We possess only a translation of the first book, made by Rufinus; (2) a treatise against Hierocles (a Roman governor and Neoplatonic philosopher), in which Eusebius combated the former's glorification of Apollonius of Tyana in a work entitled " A Truth‑loving Discourse " (Gk. Philalethes logos); (3) and (4) the two prominent and closely connected works commonly known by the Latin titles Prteparatio evangeliea and Denwnstratio evangelica, the first attempts to prove the excellence of Christianity over every pagan religion and philosophy. The Pra?paratio
5. Apolo‑ consists of fifteen books which have
getic and been completely preserved. Euse‑
Dogmatic biua considered it an introduction Works. to Christianity for heathen. The Demonstratio comprised originally twenty books of which ten have been completely preserved and a fragment of the fifteenth. Here Eusebius treats of the person of Jesus Christ. The work was probably finished before 311; (5) another work which originated in the time of the persecution, entitled " Prophetic Extracts " (Eklogai prophetikai). It discusses in four books the Messianic texts of Holy Scripture; (fi) the treatise " On Divine Manifestation " (Peri theophaneias), dating from a much later time. It treats of the incarnation of the Divine Logos, and its contents are in many cases identical with the Demonstratio evangelica. Only fragments are preserved; (7) the polemical treatise " Against Marcellus," dating from about 337; (8) a supplement to the last‑named work, entitled " On the Theology of the Church," in which he defended the Nicene doctrine of the Logos against the party of Athanasius. A number of writings, belonging in this category, have been entirely lost.
Of the exegetical works of Eusebius nothing has been preserved in its original form. The so‑called commentaries are based upon late manuscripts copied from fragments of eaten,. A more comprehensive work of an exegetical na‑
b. Exeget‑ ture, preserved only in fragments, is ical and entitled " On the Differences of the Miscellane‑ Gospels" and was written for the purous Works. pose of harmonizing the contradictions in the reports of the different Evangelists. It was also for exegetical purposes that Eusebius wrote his treatises on Biblical archeology,

211	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eusebine of Ceare,res
		Eusebine of Emesa
viz.: (1) a work on the Greek equivalents of He
brew Crentilic nouns; (2) a description of old Judea
with an account of the lots of the ten tribes; (3) a
plan of Jerusalem and the temple of Solomon.
These three treatises have been lost. A work en
titled " On the Names of Places in the Holy Scrip
tures," an alphabetical list of place names, is still
in existence. Further mention is to be made of
addresses and sermons some of which have been
preserved, e.g., a sermon on the consecration of
the church in Tyre, and an address on the thirtieth
anniversary of the reign of Constantine (336). Of
the letters of Eusebius only a few fragments are
extant.
	III. Estimate of Eusebius: From a dogmatic
point of view, Eusebius stands entirely upon the
shoulders of Origen. Like Origen, he started from
the fundamental thought of the absolute sover
eignty (monarchic) of God. God is the cause of
all beings. But he is not merely a cause; in him
everything good is included, from him all life orig
inates, and he is the source of all virtue. He is
the highest God to whom Christ is subject as the
second God. God sent Christ into the world that
			it may partake of the blessings in
		I. His	eluded in the essence of God. Christ
	Doctrine. is the only really good creature, he
			possesses the image of God a_^_d is a ray
of the eternal light; but the figure of the ray is so
limited by Eusebius that he expressly emphasizes
the self‑existence of Jesus. Eusebius was intent
upon emphasizing the difference of the persona of
the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of
Jesus to God (he never calls him theos) because in
all contrary attempts he suspected polytheism or
Sabellianism. Jesus is a creature of God whose
generation, it is true, took place before time. Jesus
is in his activity the organ of God, the creator of
life, the principle of every revelation of God, who
in his absoluteness is enthroned above all the
world. This divine Logos assumed a human body
without being altered thereby in any way in his
being. The relation of the Holy Spirit within the
Trinity Eusebius explained similarly to that of the
Son to the Father. No point of this doctrine is
original with Eusebius, all is traceable to his teacher
Origen. The lack of originality in his thinking
shows itself in the fact that he never presented his
thoughts in a system. He lacked a leading idea.
	The limitations of Eusebius are closely connected
with his gifts. His time justly considered him its
moat learned man. A list of the sources he used
for his church history would show what an amount
of work had to be done to elaborate and sift the
mass of material. But the learning of Eusebius
can not be measured with that of Origen. Origen
was a productive spirit, Eusebius a compiler. Euse
			bius, however, distinguished himself
z. His Ex‑ by his carefulness. A man like Euse
	cellencies bius was not without weight in the
		and	time when barbarian nations began to i
Limitations. invade the Church in large masses.
			In the time which followed nobody
excelled him in learning. Church historians were
able to copy him, but they could not supply his
place. As a writer he can not be highly estimated.
His style is without grace and brilliancy, his phraseology often monotonous, and his rhetoric cumbrous. (ERwIN PREU$CHEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The earlier works on Euaebiua are noted is Fabriciue‑Harlea, BibZiotheca Graces, vii. 335 aqq., Hamburg, 1801; Haroack, Litteratur, i. 551‑b88 (cf. IL,i. 70 eqq.) contains a full account of the separate writings, with some mention of editions; important prolegomena are contained in NPNF, 2d ear., vol, i. Of his works the only relatively complete edition is MPG, xix.‑xxiv, (omits the writings which exist only in Syriac, the Topics sad many important fragments); the edition by G. Diadorf, 4 vols.. Leipeic, 1507‑71 is practically a selection. Of the " History " the editio princepa was by Robert Stephen, Paris, 1544, and contained the Praparatio and the Demonatratio, as well as the Vita Conatantini; an edition was issued with a Lat. transl. by H. Valesius, Paris, 1659; one of the best is by F. A. Heinichen, Leipeic, 1827‑28, 2d ed., 3 vole., 1888‑70, the latter containing the Vita Conatantini, Panegyricua, and the Oratio ad aanctoram uetam of Constantine; E. Burton issued an edition, 2 vols., Oxford, 1838, 1845, reprinted by W. Bright, 1872, 1881 (the last a handy edition). The Migne ad. is a reprint of the text of 8chwegler, Tiibingen, 1852. The beat is the ed. still is progress under the care of a commission of the Prussian Academy, Berlin, 1902 eqq. The " History" in Syriac was edited from the M38. of W. Wright, with a collation of the Armenian version by Dr. A. Marx, Cambridge, 1898. The " History " has been translated into nearly all the European languages. The version which has been moat current is English is by C. F. Crusd, Philadelphia, 1833, often reprinted in the United States and Great Britain, and is in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library. This is superseded by A. C. McGiffert in NPNF, 2d aer., vol. i (accompanied by full prolegomena and notes so copious that they make the volume a complete history of the Ante‑Nicene period. The same volume contains the Vita Conatantini and Panegyricua translated with prolegomena by E. C. Richardson). of the Chronicoa the one edition of note is 3choene's, Berlin. 1875 (with valuable prolegomena); it was published in the Armenian version by Mai and Zohrab Milan, 1818; the Lat. version of Jerome was issued by J. J. Sbaliger, Leyden, 1806, and the Bodleian MS. was published in collotypebyJ. K. Fotheringham, Oxford, 1905; J. B. Aucher published it in Armenian, Greek and Latin, Venice, 1818; T. Gaiaford edited the Praparatio in Gk, with a Lat. version, 4 vols., Oxford, 1843, and the Demonelratio, also in Gk. and Lat., ib. 1852; the O,somaeticon was edited by F. Larsow and G. Parthey, Berlin, 1882, and by P. de Lagarde, Gottingen, 1870. An Eng tranal. of the Pra,yaratio is by E. H. Gifford, 2 vole., Oxford, 1903, and of the Theophania or Divine Manifestation of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, fromtheSyriac, by S. Lee, Cambridge, 1843.
The " Life " by Jerome is in De vir. ill., lxxxi. Consult W. Cave, Lives of the . . Fathers of the Church, ed. H. Cary, ii. 95‑144, Oxford, 1840. The editions of the " History " generally contain a life and discussions of the literary and other activities of Eusebius (especially valuable is A. C. MeGiffert in NPNF, ut sup.), and the Church Histories devote considerable apace to the subject (e.g. Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 871‑879). DCAB, ii. 308‑348 is the fullest of the encyclopedia articles (cf. KL, iv. 1001‑07); indispensable is the article by E. Schwartz in the Pauly‑Wissowa, heal‑Encykloptidie der dassischen Adtertunasvrissenachajl, Stuttgart, 1893 sqq.
On special phases of the subject consult: C. G. Haenell. De Eusebio Caaareenai, GSttingen, 1843; J. H. Newman, Ariana o/ the 4th Century, London, 1871• V. Hely, Euaebe de Ceaaree, Paris, 1877; A. von Gutaehmid, Unterauchungen fiber die ayrieche Epitome des euae6iachen Canones, Stuttgart, 1886; A. Halmel, Die Entatehung der Kirchengeachichte den Euaebiue, Essen, 1898; W. Lefroy, Lectures on Eccl. Hint., London, 1896.
EUSEBIUS OF DORYLIEITM. See EumrcH‑
IANI$M, § `Z.
EUSEBIUS OF EMESA: Bishop of Emesa;
d. about 360. He came of a noble family of Edessa.
Having received his first instruction at Edessa, he

Eusebine of Emesa Eustasine
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
went to Palestine, where Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis became his teachers. But he soon turned from their allegorical elucidation of Scripture to the exegetical principles of the school of Antioch. From Antioch. he went to Alexandria, where he sought to provide the philosophical foundation for his knowledge. He returned to Antioch prior to 340, having already won such a name for himself as exegete and orator that in 341 the Synod of Antioch designated him successor to the deposed Athanasius. Eusebius, however, shrank from the difficulties of this position, and he was made bishop of the small city of Emesa in Phenicia, where be spent the rest of his life. At first the Emesans took offense at his extensive learning, which embraced magic and'astrology, and for a short time he was compelled to flee to Laodicea. His biography was written by his friend George of Laodicea. Only a brief extract from this work has been preserved (Socrates, Hilt. eccl., ii. 9; Sozomen, Hist. eccl., iii. 6).
Jerome (De vir. ill., xci.) mentions writings of Eusebius against Jews, pagans, and Novatiana, besides ten books of commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians and homilies on the Gospels. Theodoret (Ilcer., L, xxv. 26) mentions polemical works against Marcionites and blanicheans; and Philoxenus of Mabug (.Assemani, Bibliothecd Orientalis, ii. 28) certain discourses and a work on faith, which is possibly the source of the dogmatic fragments preserved in Theodoret's Eranistes (Dial., iii.). Further, some exegetical fragments survive in catenae (MPG, Ixxxvi. 1, pp. 545‑562), and a fragment from a Lenten sermon (W. Wright, Catalogue of tF.e Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, ii. 837, London, 1871. Thilo (Ueber die Sehriften des Eusebius von Alezandrien and des Evsebius von Emisa, Halls, 1832, pp. 64, 79), showed that the first two Latin. homilies of those published by Sirmond (Opuacula XIV. Etcsebii Pamphili; Paris, 1643) under the name of Eusebius of Caesarea, directed against Marcellus of Ancyra, are probably by Eusebiua of Emesa. On the other hand, the Latin homilies attributed to Eusebius by Gagnaius (Paris, 1547) and Fremy in 1554 (cf. Bzbliotheca maxima patrum, 28 vole., Lyons, 16771707, vol. vi. 618‑622) are works of Western (Gallican), authors.
	Meager as the extant fragments of Eusebius are,
they attest him to be a writer of no mean ability,
and Jerome (Le.) depreciates him unjustly. He
was one of the most influential leaders of the great
theologians of Antioch, not only in his manner of
exposition, but also in his Chriatology. He was
averse to dogmatic disputations, and saw in verbal
strife the main reason for ecclesiastical ruptures.
In his tendency to maintain the older incomplete
ness of dogma against the progress of doctrinal
definition he felt himself allied with semi‑Arianism
whose leaders included moat of his friends and
teachers. 	G. KROGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY; Fabrieius‑liarlea, Bibliotheca Grdca, vii. 412 eqq., Hamburg, 1801; Ceillier, Auteura aacr&, iv.
318‑319; DCB, ii. 358‑359.
EUSEBIUS OF LAODICEA: Bishop of Laodicea in Syria in the third century; d. there before
268. He was originally a deacon in Alexandria,
where he distinguished himself during the Valerian
persecution by his piety, his care for the captives,
and his burial of the dead. A few years later in
the Roman siege of Brucchium, a quarter of Alex
andria, he and Anatolius secured permission for all
non‑combatants to withdraw under safe‑conduct,
and shortly afterward (263?) both went to Syria to
take part in the controversy involving Paul of
Samosata, bishop of Antioch. There he was ap
pointed bishop of Laodicea, succeeding Socrates,
but died before the synod which finally condemned
Paul, which was held in 268 (?). Jerome's Chron
icle, however, states that Eusebius was famous as
a teacher about 274, and that he was succeeded by
Anatoliua in 279. 	(EDGAR HENNEgE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early source 19 EUaBbiu6, Hist. ECCt., vii. 11, 32, NPNF, 2 aer., vol. i. Consult: Tillemont, Jsirnoarea, iv. 304; M. Le Quien, Origins chrdaEianua, ii. 792, Paris, 1740; J. M. Neale, Patriarchate of Alexandria, i. 77, London, 1847; DCB, ii. 359.

EUSEBIUS OF 1QICOMEDIA AND CONSTANTINOPLE: Bishop of Berytus, in Phenicia, then of Nicomedia, where the imperial court resided, and finally of Constantinople (as early as 338), where he died 341. Distantly related to the imperial house, he not only owed his removal from an insignificant to the moat splendid episcopal see to his influence at court, but the great power he wielded in the Church was derived from that source. With the exception of a short period of eclipse, he enjoyed the complete confidence both of Constantine and Conatantius; and it was he who baptized the former May, 337. Like Arias, he was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, and it is probable that he held the same views as Arias from the very beginning. He afterward modified his ideas somewhat, or perhaps he only yielded to the pressure of circumstances; but he was, if not the teacher, at all events the leader and organizer, of the Arian party. At the Council of Nimes, (325) he signed the Confession, but only after a long and desperate opposition. His defense of Arias excited the wrath of the emperor, and a few months after the council he was sent into exile. After the lapse of three years, he succeeded in regaining the imperial favor; and after his return (in 329) he brought the whole machinery of the state government into action in order to impose his views upon the Church. See ARIANISM.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources (contradictory and impossible of reconciliation) ace: Athanaeius "Against the Ariane" and " Apology," both in Eng tranal. in NPNF 2 aer., vol. iv.; Socrates, Hist. eccl., books i.‑ii., and Sosomen, Hist. ecct., books i. ii., both in NPNF, 2 eer., Yol. ii.; Theodoret, Hist. eccl., i. 4‑9, in NPNF, 2 aer., vol. iii. Consult: w. Bright, Hint, o/ the Church, 311‑451, Oxford, 1860; idem rat%oaa o/ $t. Athanaaiua, . . with Account of his Life, London, 1873; J. A. Newman, Ar%aru o/ the 4th Cant., ib. 1878; DOB, ii. 360‑387 (detailed).
EUSEBIUS PAMPHILL See EU$EHIU$ OF ClESAREA.

EUSEBIUS OF SAMOSATA: Bishop of Samo. sata; d. at Douche, in Syria, June.22, 380. He took part in the synodical deliberations at Antioch in the winter of 360‑361, and appears among the Homoean and HomIEOUSian bishops who in 363,

213	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eusebins of Emeea
		Euotaeius
at a synod held under Meletiug of Antioch, accepted
the formula homoousios. He seems to have been a
member of the right wing of the Eastern opposition
party, in substantial agreement with Meletiua (q.v.),
like whom he became, after 363, a representative
of neo‑Nicene orthodoxy. He was in close rela
tions with Basil, whose elevation to the see of
Caesarea he did much to further, to whom in later
conflicts and in his relations with the West he was
a faithful friend up to the time of his banishment
in 374. He was sent first to Cappadocia and then
to Thrace, where he lived through the Gothic war,
his return being made possible by the death of
Valens. He was at the synod held in Sept., 379,
nine months after Basil's death. According to
Theodoret he was killed at Douche, whither he had
gone to attend the consecration of Bishop Marie,
by a stone thrown by an Arian woman, on which
ground he was honored as a martyr. Some other
details of his life, as given by Theodoret, are ob
viously legendary. But this may safely be said to
his credit‑that he is one of the few bishops of the
fourth century of whom nothing but good is known.
		(F. Loo>TsJ
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: The " Letters " of Gregory
	Nasianmen anti of Basil, in NPNF, 2d ear., vole. vii.
	viii; Theodoret, Hint. eccl., ii. 27‑28, iv. 12, v. 4. Con
	sult: ASB, June iv. 235‑242; V. Ernst, in ZKG, avi
	(1898), 82B‑884; F. Loofa, Euatathiua von Sebaate and
	die Chrorwlopie der Basiliua‑Briefs Halls, 1898; DCB ii.
	389‑372.
	EUSEBIUS OF THESSALOlYICA: Bishop of
Theasalonica c. 600. He wrote a polemic work in
ten books against one Andrew, a monk belonging
to the AphthartodocetEe. That the Eusebius to
whom Photius (Bibliothecd, codex clxii.) ascribes
the work wag Eusebius of Thessalonica is clearly
shown by one of a number of letters which Gregory
the Great wrote to this Eusebius (Epist., xi. 55
G. KR7a(3ER.
131BLIOGRAPHY: Ceillier, Auteura saa&, s. 527; DCB, 373
	374.
	EUSEBIUS OF VERCELLI: Bishop of Ver
celli, one of the most determined opponents of
Arianism in the reign of Congtantius; d. 370. He
was a Sardinian by birth; but what the traditional
Vita relates as to his parents, his baptism by Pope
Eueebius, his ordination by Pope Marcus, and his
consecration by Pope Julius I. is either false or
untrustworthy. All known is that he was a
reader in Rome, and sent from that position to be
bishop of a city entirely strange to him, probably
some time before 354. He was the first bishop of
Vercelli, besides which Novara, Ivrea and Tortona
seem to have been under his jurisdiction. Prac
tically nothing is known of his administration
before 354, unless Tillemont's conclusion from the
words of Ambrose (El piat., Ixiii.) may be accepted,
that the erection of a quasi‑monastic house in
Vercelli, in which Eusebius lived with his clergy,
belongs to that period. This, at least, Ambrose
says definitely, that Eusebius was the first in the
West to combine the life of city clergy with monas
tic discipline. After the Synod of Arles (353),
Liberius of Rome desired to gee the weak concession
of his legates repaired by another synod, and Euse
biua was a member of the embassy, headed by
Lucifer of Cagliari, which approached the emperor with a petition to that effect. The new synod was held in Milan, probably in the spring of 355. Eusebiug at first remained away; and when he appeared, in company of the Roman legatee, the synod had practically reached its conclusion. Eusebiug, required to assent to the condemnation of Athanasius, asked for 'a discussion of the faith of the council, declaring himself willing to agree to any action which should be prefaced by an acceptance of the Nicene decrees. Dionysius of Milan was about to subscribe such a document when Valens snatched the pen and paper from his hand and withdrew with his party to the palace. The outcome of the proceedings for Eusebius was his banishment, first to Scythopolig in Palestine, then to Cappadocia, and finally to the neighborhood of Alexandria. After Julian's accession he took part in the Alexandrian synod of 362, and then went as a special envoy to the church of Antioch, where he was unable to prevent a schism, as Lucifer had already consecrated Paulinus. Not long after, he returned to Italy, where, with Hilary of Poitiers, he took a decided stand against the few Arians found in the West, especially Auxentius, the bishop of Milan. The legend which attributes his death to atoning at the hands of the Arians, although his epitaph calls him a martyr, is untrustworthy.
(F. LOOFg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The three " Letters " of Eusebius are in Gallandi, Bibliotheca, v. 78, and in MPL, aii. Sources for a biography are: Jerome, De twr. i11., xavi.; Socrates, Hiat. eccl., iii. 5‑G, 9, and Soaomen, Hiat. eecl., iv. 9, v. 13 (both in NPNF, 2 ser., vol. ii.). F. Ughelli, Italia sacra, iv. 747‑748, Venice, 1719; Tillemont, MEmoirea, vii. 529‑583, 771‑780, Venice, 1732; DCB, ii. 374‑375; KL, iv. 1013‑15.
	EUSTACHIUS, yu‑gt5'ki‑us	(EUSTATHIITS),
SAINT: According to a late tradition, a Roman
martyr who, with his family, was put to death in
118. Before his baptism he was called Placidus,
and he is said to have been converted by a vision
as he was hunting in the forest, of a cross between
the antlers of the stag he was pursuing, while a
voice cried to him: " Why persecutest thou me? "
After being exposed in vain to the lions in the
amphitheater, Euatachiug and his family are said
to have been burned to death in an oven shaped
like a stag. In the Western Church the martyr
dom of Eugtachiug had been commemorated on
Sept. 20 since the early Middle Ages, while the
Greek Church appoints Nov. 20 for this feast.
A basilica of St. Eustachius existed in Rome in
the eighth century and apparently even in the time
of Gregory the Great, and relics of the saint were
taken thence to various places, including St. Denis
and Paris. Eustachiue is the patron saint of
Madrid, and he is also one of the fourteen " helpers
in need " (q.v.), being the special protector of
pious hunters. 	(O. ZScxtERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ASB, Sept., vi. lf)G‑137; AfLfilBGt4 BOllandiana, iii. 88‑112, Paris, 1884; Nicephorus Calliatus, Hist. cal., iii. 29; M. Armellini, Le Chieae di Rome, pp. 234238. Rome, 1887; F. Gregorovius, Geachichte Roma, iii. 578‑583, Stuttgart, 1895‑9G. Eng. transl., iii. b53‑558, iv. 420, 458, London, 1895‑98; DCB, ii. 380‑381.
EUSTASIUS, yu‑st5'shi‑us. Second abbot of Luxeuil; d. 629. He was of noble family, nephew

Enetaeins Euthalius
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
of Bishop Mietiua of Langres, and as discipulus et minister stood in close connection with Columban himself after being received into the monastery at Luxeuil. After Columban had been driven from Luxeuil, Eustasius aided him in his missionary activity by Lake Constants (see COLUMBAN). It is possible that Columban appointed him his successor in the restored mother cloister. At any rate Eustasius was abbot there from 614 with the sanction of King Clothair II. and had supervision over the monasteries connected with Luxeuil. According to the representation of his biographer, who knew him personally, Eustasius was a learned, eloquent, and active man. The bishops Donatus of Besangon, Aichar of Tournai, Chagnoald of Leon, Ragnachar of Basel, the abbots Amatua of Remiremont, Waldebert of Luxeuil, Agilus of Resbais, and the abbess Burgundofara of Faremoutier were his pupils; St. Salaberga was won by him for the spiritual life. He changed nothing in the order of Columban and zealously followed the penitential regulations of the latter (see COLUMsAN). He retained the Irish form of the mesa, the tonsure, and daily discipline, as may be seen from the charges made against him by Agreatiua (Vita Cohcmbani, ii. 9), but as the Irish celebration of Easter disappears from the charges, it is probable that he ultimately abandoned it. Eustasius also labored for the conversion of heretical and heathen natives; he succeeded in making the Wariskians, dwelling on both sides of the middle Doubs, who followed Bonosus (q.v.), adherents of the Catholic Church. With Agilua he undertook a missionary journey to the Bavarians, but met with slight success. His anniversary is given by Jones as Apr. 29, but in the Martyrologaum Hieronymianum (ASB, Nov., ii. 38) as Apr. 2p.
OTTO wIEEBA$a.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The one source is the life by the Abbot Jones, in book ii., chaps. 7‑10, of the Vita Columbani, printed in MGH, Script. rer. Merov., iv (1902), 119‑130, and in ABM, ii. 108‑111, cf. pp. 302 aqq., 405 eqq. Consult: 3. Riezler, Geachichte Bayerna, i. 77, Goths, 1878; Rettberg, KD, ii. 188; Hauck, KD, i. 286 et passim; DCB, ii. 381.
EUSTATHIANS. See ME3aALIANa.
EUSTATHIUS, yu‑st5'thi‑us, OF ANTIOCH: Bishop of Antioch; d. probably c. 337. He was apparently a native of Side in Pamphylia, was bishop of Beraea about 320, and was transferred to Antioch before the first Council of Nicaea. He was one of the few decided anti‑Ariana in the East, and carried on a literary polemic against Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.) which made him well hated by the unorthodox party. They succeeded in effecting his deposition in 330, and he was banished to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died and was buried. Jerome says that " he composed many works against the doctrine of the Ariana "• but only one is preserved entire, De Engastrimytho contra Origenem (beat edition by Jahn, T U, ii. 4, Tiibingen, 1886). Fragments are preserved of a De anima mentioned by Jerome ; of another work in eight books Contra Arianos ; of treatises on Prov. viii. 22 and ix. 5; of one on Melchiaedek; of two In irtscriptiones psalmorum ; and of expositions of certain separate psalms. The commen‑
tary on the first part of Genesis (MPG, xviii. 705
1066) is generally considered spurious, and the
" Liturgy of St. Eustathius " (ib. 697‑704) is
hardly more authentic. 	(F. LooFa.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources for a life, by no means reliable, are collected in L. Allatius, Eustathii in. Hexaemeron commentarius, pp. 112‑142, Lyons, 1629. Tillemont, M& moirea, vii. 21‑31, 646‑656; Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Grceca, ix. 131‑149, Hamburg, 1804; J. Fessler, Institutionea patrolopi,ce, i. 427‑431, Innsbruck 1890; DCB, ii. 382‑383. An In Lazarum, Mariam et Martham homilia Christologica, attributed to Eustathius of Antioch, was published, Paris, 1905.

EUSTATHIUS OF SEBASTE: Bishop of Sebaste (Bebasteia, the capital of Armenia prima, the modern Sivas); b. at Sebaste c. 300; d. after 377. He seems to have been the son of Bishop Eulalius of Sebaste. His early theological education was influenced by the teachings of Arius, but he kept aloof from the dogmatic dissensions of his time, being attracted entirely by the ascetic ideal. He became presbyter, but on account of his ascetic tendencies fell out with his own father, who excluded him from the communion of prayers (Sozomen, IV., xxiv. 9; Socrates, IL, xliii. 1). Some years later he was censured by a synod at Caesarea, probably for the same reason. Eusebiua of Constantinople deposed him, but the number of his disciples increased. A synod at Gangra, about 340, investigated the complaints against Eustathius. His disciples were accused of denying salvation to married persons, of favoring their separation from each other, of holding objectionable meetings, of wearing unbecoming garments, of accepting payments in kind which were due to the Church, and of other misdemeanors. Eustathius himself seems to have been free from eccentricities, and his reputation apparently deterred his opponents from attacking him directly.
Of the next thirteen years nothing is known except that Eustathius became bishop of Sebaste about 356. He is heard of again after the return of Basil to his native country. Basil had also been won for the ascetic ideal, and Eustathius seemed to him the incarnation of monastic virtue. For about a decade and a haif, until 372 and 373, they were united by the most intimate friendship and agreed also in doctrine. Eustathius had relinquished his Arianism long before; being averse to all dol,ma,tic extremes, he took the part of the Homoiousians. He was present at the Synod of Ancyra in 358 and was one of the envoys who were sent to the court. The followers of Acacius, however, brought it about that a synod in Melitene, probably in the same year, deposed him from his bishopric, not for dogmatic reasons, but on account of his conduct; there had probably been brought forward complaints like those in Gangra. Meletius of Melitene, later bishop of Antioch, at that time a partizan of Acacius, became his successor. But later Eustathius was one of the Homoiousian deputies who represented the cause of the majority of Seleucia at the court. Like the other deputies he accepted the formula of Nicxa in Constantinople, but he fearlessly expressed his own convictions in the negotiations, and when he was deposed on that account, he did not acknowledge the fact

215	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Eustasius
		Euthalius
and dared to oppose his enemies in sermons and
open letters although the favor of the court was
evidently on their side. When under Jovian and
in the first period of Valens the Homoiousian
party gathered again, Eustathius was one of its
most energetic leaders, and when the edict of
Valens in 365 again expelled all bishops who had
been deposed under Constantius, Eustathiue as
deputy of several Homoiousian synods went to
Rome in 366 and testified to his own and their
consent to the Nicene Creed. Nevertheless a rup
ture took place in 373 between Eustathius and
Basil since the latter had become a friend of Mele
tius of Antioch, the former opponent and rival of
Euatathius. There was also a dogmatic difference
between them concerning the Holy Spirit. Eusta
thiua considered the Holy Spirit neither created nor
divine, but kept aloof from both extremes and
became the leader of the Pneumatomachi (see
MACEDONIANS AND THE MACEDONIAN SECT) In Asia
Minor. He made the impression in large circles of
an attractive personality and an efficient preacher,
as the leader of the first monks, and as the founder
of one of the first hospitals (in Sebaste).
		(F. LooFS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources of knowledge are Socrates, Hiat.
	ecc1., ii. 43, and $oaomen, Hiat. eai., iii. 14 (both in
	NPNF, 2d aer., vol. ii.). Consult: Tillemont, Mezrnoirea,
	vol, ix.: H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, Cambridge,
	1882; F. Loofs, EuatatTtiua von Setwate and die ChronoZogia
	der Basitiua‑Brie/e, Halls, 1898; DCB, ii. 383‑387 (een
	eorioue); KL, iv. 1017‑19.
	EUSTATHIUS OF THESSALOr1ICA: Greek met
ropolitan; b. at Constantinople, early in the
twelfth century; d. at Thessalonica between 1192
and 1194. He seems to have been originally a
monk in the cloister of St. Floras in Constantinople,
as well as deacon of St. Sophia and teacher of
rhetoric, and he likewise held the court position
of Master of Petitions. In 1175 he was appointed
bishop of Myra in Lycia, but before his consecration
the emperor made him the successor of Constan
tius as metropolitan of Thessalonica, a position
which he held for the remainder of his life. About
1180 the emperor Manuel protested formally
against the formula of abjuration in which the God
of Mohammed was anathematized as a " wholly
hammered God " (theos holosphuros, i.e., the mas
sive, compact, not begetting and not begotten God),
considering it blasphemous and offensive to con
verts from Islam. Eustathius, however, boldly
opposed him at a synod and justified the anathema,
though without losing favor at court. During the
siege and sack of Thessalonica by the Normans
under William II. of Sicily (1185), the metropolitan
remained at his post, protecting his flock and check
ing the fury of the conquerors, as he himself re
counts in his De Thessalonica urbe a Nornttnnis
ctepta. Despite this, he met with much opposition,
and he may even have been driven from his see
for a time, thus accounting for the fact that some
of his works were written elsewhere than in Thessa,
lonica. As monk, bishop, theologian, and author,
Eustathius rose superior to his contemporaries,
and he opposed with all his might the formalism
which threatened the welfare of his Church, writing
in this spirit his treatise " On Hypocrisy " as well
as his still more important " Consideration of
Monastic Life." He was the author of many other
works, including a famous commentary on the
Homeric poems. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His De Theaealonica is in MPG, exxxvi. For his other works and literature on them, and his life, consult Krumbacher, Guchichte, pp. 536‑541.
EUSTOCHIUM. See PAULA.

EUTHALIUS, yu‑thb'lf‑us: The putative author of certain matter introductory to the Epistles of Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and the Acts, comparable to the Maaorah of the Old Testament. As pointed out by Dean Robinson, the material has grown gradually. First a new system of writing the New Testament books was adopted from the schools of grammar and rhetoric; to facilitate the public reading in service, only so much was put in one line as could be pronounced in one breath, in place of the lines of equal length without punctuation or word division of the older manuscripts (tt, B, A, C). Jerome did the same for the Latin text and Hesychius of Jerusalem in the sixth century for the Greek prophets. The first " Euthaliua " supplied about the middle of the fourth century tables of chapters and of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, with three prologues to the Epistles and Acts, including biographical and chronological researches. In 396 a short account of Paul's martyrdom was added and perhaps other parts of the work, as the Stichometry (q.v.) and the collation with the famous Codex Pamphili at Cwsarea, also the division of " the Apostle " into fifty‑seven lections (Gk. anagntseis). The so‑called hypotheseis (argxcmenta), short introductions to each book, originally a part of the pseudo‑Athanasian Synopsis acriPturce sacrce, were afterward incorporated in the Euthalian apparatus in most Greek manuscripts and in the commentary of the so‑called Oecumenius.
According to Zaccagni " Euthaliua " was a deacon of Alexandria when he edited the Pauline epistles (458), and bishop of Sulks (an unknown Egyptian city, perhaps Paelche) in the time of Athanasiua II. of Alexandria (489‑496) when he published the Acts and Catholic Epistles. This theory was based upon a chronological datum found in only a few manuscripts of the Martyrium Pauli and now generally held to be a late addition. Ehrhard supposed " Euthaliua " to be an intentional alteration of " Evagrius " (found in Codex H and a Naples MS.), made when Evagriua Ponticua (q.v.) came to be suspected of heresy. Von Soden proposed a new solution of the problem. There was a Bishop Euthaliua of Sulci in Sardinia in the seventh century whose confession of faith, composed in the time of the Monothelite controversy, Wobbermin discovered in a manuscript of the Lawra, while von der Golta found a quasidevotional monologue, Eis emtztiton, of the same in a manuscript of Chalcis, identical with the so‑called " Prayer of Euthalius " contained in many Armenian Bibles. Von Soden accordingly conjectured that all the Eutbalian apparatus originated in the seventh century. His theory

Enthymina	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	218
Eutyohianiem
has been severely criticized	(cf. F. C. Conybeare in
ZNTW, v., 1904, pp. 39‑52; T. Zahn, NKZ, xv.,
1904, pp. 305‑330, 375‑390; J. A. Robinson, in
JTS, vi., 1905, pp. 87‑90), and neglects late inves
tigations, such as Robinson's convincing argument
that the oldest materials must have existed before
396 and Von Dobachiitz's induction from the Syriac
versions that the work in its fuller form lay before
Philoxenus of Mabug when he translated the New
Testament into Syriac in 508. Either there must
have been another Euthalius older than the bishop
of Sulci (to whom perhaps the title " bishop of
Sulci " was given by confusion with the latter),
or the seventh century Euthalius used the work of
an unknown earlier writer, adding perhaps some
new matter of his own.
	Only a full examination of all New Testament
manuscripts and the versions can throw new light
on the question. A new edition of the Euthalian
apparatus is needed, as Zaccagni's first edition was
based on only a few manuscripts. A greater diffi
culty is that of reconstructing the true text used
and approved by Euthalius. What is called the
Euthalius Codex in Tiachendorf is but a single manu
script of comparatively recent date.
		E. vow Dosec>3tY'rz.
Brarroaaerar: The material is collected in L. A. Zaoosgni,
	Collectauea monumentorum roeterum eccleaiee, i. 401‑708,
	liv.‑xevi., Rome, 1898, and thence reprinted with many
	faults and without the prolegomena in MPG, laaxv.
	819‑790. Consult DB, Supplement vol., pp. 524‑529
	(essential); Ialinger, Die Verdienak des Euthaliua um den
	neutestamentlachen Bibelkxt, Hof, 1887; W. Bousaet, in
	TU, xi. 4, 1894; F. C. Conybenr, On the Codex Pamphili
	and the Date o/ Euthalius, in the Journal o/ Philology,
	axiii (1895), 241 eqq.; J. A.	Robinson, Euthaliann, in
	TS, iii. 3, Cambridge, 1895; T. Zahn, in TLB, 1895, pp.
	593 eqq., 801 eqq.; E. von Dobschfits, Euthaliuaatud%en,
	in ZKG, six (1898), 107‑154; H. von 6oden, Die 3chri/ten
	des N. T., i. 837 eqq., Berlin, 1902.
	EUTHYMIUS, yu‑thf'mf‑us, ZIGABEftITS (ZIGA
DENUS, ZYGADENUS):	Byzantine theologian;
d. near Constantinople after 1118. Of his life few
details are known, except that he was a monk at
a cloister in the vicinity	of Constantinople. A
Latin translation of his commentary on the Psalms
was published by Philippus Saulus (Verona, 1530);
the Greek original was edited by A. Bongiovanni
in the fourth volume of the works of Theophylact
(Venice, 1754‑63). The commentary on the Gos
pels appeared in a Latin translation by Johannes
Hintenius (Louvain, 1544), the Greek text remained
unpublished until C. F. Mattai's edition (Leipsic,
1792); the commentary on the Pauline Epistles
was first edited by N. Kalogeras at Athens in 1887.
Other exegetical writings on the Catholic Epistles,
letters, an elegy on the death of Euatatbius of
Thessalonica, and a controversy with a Saracen
philosopher exist only in manuscript. In his com
mentary on the Gospels, which is superior to that
on the Psalms, Euthymiua follows in general the
ancient authorities, especially Chryeostom, al
though he shows some independence. Allegorical
and mystical interpretations are occasionally
borrowed. On the whole, he is inferior in exegetical
precision to Theophylact.
	The dogmatic work of Euthymiua was written
at the instance of the emperor Alexius and from him
received its name of " Dogmatic Panoply " (ed.
P. F. Zinus, Venice, 1555; M. H. Gregoras, Ter
govist, 1711). It consists of two sections, or
" titles," and of twenty‑four others devoted to the
refutation of various heresies. The accounts of the
Bogomilea, Masailians, Armenians, Paulicians, and
Mohammedans are of value, despite falsehoods
and perversions. The attack on the Roman Catho
lic doctrines is concerned chiefly with the proces
sion of the Holy Ghost and the use of unleavened
bread. Much of the book is a mere compilation
of the Church Fathers down to John of Damascus,
and is important solely as containing excerpts
from such obscure authors as Leontiua of Byzan
tium, Anastasius of Sinai, Theodore the Studite,
and Maximus. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life and writings are beat discussed by N. Kalogerea in his edition of the Commentaries on the Pauline Letters by Euthymius, 2 vole., Athena, 1887, and in Athenaion, ix (1880), 255‑284, x (1881), 331‑382. Consult also: W. Cave, Script. ercl. hint. literaria, vol. ii., Oxford, 1743; G. Ullmann, in TBK, vi (1833), 883874; Krumbaeher, Geaehichte, pp. 82‑85 (life and list of works and editions), et passim.

EUTYCHIAftISM, yu‑tik'i‑an‑izm.
Compromise Between Alexandria and Antioch in 433 (§ 1). The Beginning of Strife (§ 2). The " Robber Synod " of Ephesus, 449 (§ 3). The Council of Chalcedon, 451 ($ 4).
Eutychianiam was a Christological heresy of the fifth century, taking its name from Eutyches, an ascetic, of strict monastic training, for thirty years superior of a monastery near Constantinople. The history of the struggle of the orthodox party with Eutychea up to the Council of Chalcedon is an unhappy chapter in church history, not alone because court cabals had a considerable share in it, but because it was less a struggle for purity of doctrine than for ecclesiastical power, turning to a large extent on questions of decisive importance in the development of the Alexandrian and Roman patriarchates and in the position of monasticism and of learning in the Church. As a chapter in the history of ideas, it offers one of the most confused and unedifying pictures in the whole of dogmatic development. This is not to adopt Harnack's view that the Monophysitiam of Cyril was the legitimate outcome of Greek Chriatological development, or to pass judgment upon the ultimate solution adopted by the council, which, under the influence of the West, was the most rational then possible; it is simply an expression of distaste for the theological ignorance, thoughtlessness, and lack of conscience of which the history of the controversy is full.
The story begins in 433 with the union enforced by court influence between the parties of Alexandria and Antioch (see NEaTORtU6, § 6) which had only concealed the opposition between their Christological teachings. It was, however, not without its effects. It was fatal to those who had refused to condemn Nestorius (q.v.), and compelled the submission of such men as Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata. It forced Cyril to take his stand in defense of formulae which had been worked out by the school of Antioch and could not be so

$1?	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Enthymino
Entyohianism
easily fitted in as some zealous Alexandriana then
desired. It tended rather to favor the acceptance
		of two natures in Christ. It is true,
	:. Com‑ there was in the East no theology
	promise with which these formulas were al
	between together harmonious. They corre
Aleaadria sponded to the traditions of the
	and West, where it was possible to assert in
	Antioch the same breath the unity of the person
	in 433. and the duality of nature. In the West
		the conception of the single personal
ity of Christ had, with unphilosophical simplicity,
attached itself to the historic Christ, and thus pre
vented the assertion of two natures, for the pur
pose of emphasizing both the divinity and the
humanity, from working out philosophically so as
to endanger the conception of the unity, and the
consequent intelligibility of the person of Jesus.
In the East the word prosbpon, the nearest equiva
lent for the Latin persona, had by no means a
wholly parallel sense. In its technical meaning
it had been employed since the triumph of the later
Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, as a synonym of
hypostasia, though it could also be employed in the
original signification, to denote a phenomenon, a
figure presented to the senses, or the form under
which either one or more hypostases are presented.
It was thus very useful as a compromise formula.
Both parties, however, accepted the compromise
as an earnest of complete victory, the patriarch of
Alexandria hoping in this for more than the mere
triumph of the Alexandrian Christology. Since the
days of Athanasius this see had acquired a position
in the East which could inspire an ambitious bishop
with the hope of dominating his rivals both at
Antioch and Constantinople. This ambition was
abundantly possessed by Cyril (see CYRIL OF ALEX
ANDRIA), and nothing else explains his acceptance
of the compromise. Peace, however, endured as
long as John of Antioch and Proclue of Constan
tinople as well as Cyril lived; but it became less
secure each year as the extreme tendencies on both
aides came into play. This was especially the case
on Cyril's side. It was not unnatural that some of
his partizans, incapable of comprehending his fine
distinctions, should push his Cbristology into what
was practically Monophysitism. The proceedings
against Neatorius for a while kept the opposition
party quiet‑‑though the moat prominent theolo
gian on that aide, Theodoret, remained true to the
fundamental principles of the school of Antioch.
As time went on still more zealous upholders of the
Antiochian views appeared among the bishops of
Asia Minor. In 435 Ibas, who had censured the
dogmatic position of Cyril and the synod of Ephe
sus and supported Theodore of Mopsuestia, became
bishop of Edessa. In 441 or 442 John of Antioch
was succeeded by Domnus, a more ardent partizan
of the traditions of that see; this Domnus, between
443 and 447, filled the bishopric of Tyre, contrary
to the canons, with a man who had been twice
married, Irena'us, formerly a friend of Neatorius
and exiled on this account about 435. After the
death of Proclus (446), the see of Constantinople
was filled by Flavian, who had indeed accepted the
union but still came from the Antioch party. Cyril
died in 444 and was succeeded by Dioecurus, much
less important as a theologian, but still more un
scrupulous in his struggle for supremacy, and will
ing to avail himself of monastic fanaticism and
obscure intrigues to win the favor of both populace
and court. The time was favorable to his purposes.
The feeble emperor Theodosius (408‑450), since the
downfall of his sister Pulcheria's influence about
440, had been under that of his favorite Chry
saphius, who was in close relations with the Alex
andrian party, especially with the aged presbyter
and archimandrite Eutychea, who was among the
moat influential members of that party. Born in
378, Eutyches had acquired the reputation of an
honorable and pious man, but was uneducated and
unfamiliar with the laws of thought. As a veteran
monk, and a zealous foe of Nestorianiam, he counted
as one of the heads of the monastic or Alexandrian
party. He was accordingly a useful instrument in
the hands of Dioscurua, whose principal agent in
Constantinople he was after the death of Proclua.
	On Feb. 17, 448, the emperor renewed the edict
against the Nestorians, and decreed the deposition
of Irenaeus of Tyre; and about the same time
intrigues against Bishop Ibas began at Edessa in
which Eutychea had a hand. Both parties now
felt that the decisive conflict was approaching.
Domnus showed no signs of recognizing the depo
sition of Ibas, and maintained a close alliance with
Theodoret, who had just before thrown down the
		gauntlet to the Alexandrian party
	2. The Be‑ in his Eranistes; and certain clerics
	ginning from Edessa who had come to Anti
	of Strife. och with charges against their bishop
		were detained there as prisoners. On
the other aide Dioacurus arrogantly censured Dom
nus, and Eutychea invoked the aid of Leo of Rome,
asserting that the Nestorian heresy was being
revived. The case of Ibas was discussed by a
synod at Antioch in the summer of 448; Theodoret,
who seems to have come to Antioch to attend it,
was ordered by the emperor to return to his dio
cese and remain there. Possibly to the late summer
belongs the unsuccessful attempt of Domnus to
discredit Eutyches as an Apollinarian heretic.
Probably through court influence, Irenaeus was
replaced in September by Photius, who at once
came out on the Alexandrian side. The accusers
of Ibas, who had now gone on to Constantinople,
had better success there than at Antioch; they
obtained a decree from the emperor calling for
a rehearing of their case before three bfshops, two of
whom at least were known as antagonists of Ibas.
All seemed to be going well f^r Dioscurus when a
renewed accusation against Eutychrs provoked
him to attempt to reap his harvest before it was
ripe. This new charge was nominally brought by
Bishop Eusebius of Doryla?um, who, from what is
known, seems to have had little sympathy with the
Antioch party, though he was not an avowed ad
herent of the other side. To his moderate views
some thoughtless expressions of Eutyches on a
point of dogma may have seemed dangerous, and
it is possible that personal dislike helped to deter
mine his attitude‑at least Eutyches asserted
afterward that Eusebius had long been his enemy.

Eutychianism	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	`zls
Eutyohiue of Constantinople
However that may be, he appeared at a local synod
held by Flavian of Constantinople in Nov., 448,
with a charge against Eutychea which named him
in general terms as a heretic. Eusebius succeeded
in forcing the synod to summon Eutyches before it.
He returned answer that he was unwilling to leave
his monastery; that he adhered to the decrees of
Nicaea and Ephesus; but that he declined to be
bound by expressions taken at random from the
Fathers, preferring to follow the Scripture, which
was a more certain rule of faith than all of them.
He denied ever having taught that the Divine Word
had brought his body with him from heaven; he
acknowledged " one nature of God made flesh,"
and that Christ was at once perfect God and per
fect man, though his body was not homoousios
with ours. The synod now sent a more formal
summons to Eutyches, which had to be twice re
peated before, on Nov. 22, he at last appeared,
escorted by a military guard and a large number
of monks. His heterodoxy was not long in mani
festing itself to the assembly. Attempts were
made to find a way out of the difficulty, and for a
moment he seemed to yield; but his settled con
viction was expressed in the words " I confess that
our Lord was born of two natures before the union."
The council found Apollinarianism and Valen
tinianism in his admission, deposed him from his
priestly and monastic offices, and excommunicated
him. This condemnation, of course, did not touch
the Chriatology of Cyril himself; but many of the
Alexandrians thought as Eutyches did. The blow
was thus a heavy one for them and there is no doubt
that it was the cause of the energetic counter
stroke represented by the Synod of Ephesus in 449.
Of the intervening events it is known only that
Eutyches attempted to set aside the condemnation
and to win to his defense a number of prominent
bishops, including Leo of Rome and Peter Chrysolo
gus of Ravenna, and probably Dioscurua and others
in the East; that he made the most of his favor
at court; and that he asserted a falsification of the
acts of the Constantinopolitan synod and induced
the emperor to order an investigation of his charge.
Flavian, who was forced to satisfy the emperor of
his orthodoxy by a special confession of faith, also
sought help abroad, and Leo of Rome took a
decisive stand on his side in a brief of May 21, 449.
	The discontent of the Alexandrians, however,
was so decided that they induced the emperor to
call a new ecumenical council at Ephesus for Aug.
1, of the same year. Everything was prepared for
		a triumph of Dioscurus, whom the
	3. The emperor designated to preside over
	Robber the council; but the completeness of
	Synod of his triumph was impaired by Pope
	Ephesus, Leo, who developed in a famous
	449. letter to Flavian of June 13, sent by
		his legates with another to the council,
the Western doctrine of the two natures in its essen
tial variation from the Alexandrian with a clear
ness that was fatal to the permanent maintenance
of the latter. The number of participants in the
" Robber Synod " of Ephesus was never higher
than 138. Two imperial commissaries were pres
ent; Eusebius of Dorylaeum and Flavian of Con‑
stantinople found themselves placed by the emperor himself in the position of accused parties, while Eutychea was summoned almost as accuser. The first period of the synod's session, Aug. 8‑18, was occupied with the rehabilitation of Eutyches and the deposition of Eusebius and Flavian. Among the tolerably certain facts are the unsuccessful demand of the Roman legates to be allowed to preside, and their failure to have the epistle of Leo to Flavian even read; their repeated protests against this so‑called invasion of the rights of the Roman see; and the unsparingly masterful manner in which Dioscurua conducted the whole affair. The tumultuous scene described by Gibbon, which had given its opprobrious name to the synod, rests upon partizan accounts and can be shown inaccurate in detail. The proceedings of the second period, Aug. 20‑22 (7) from which not only Eusebius and Flavian but also the Roman legates were absent, resulted in a number of depositions. Among others Ibas, Irenieus of Tyre, Theodoret, and even Domnus of Antioch were deposed and excommunicated as Nestorians.
	The decision of the synod was received with
approval at court, but by no means wholly so
throughout the East. Yet Dioscurus had on his
side, besides court favor, the sympathies of moat
of the Eastern bishops, and Flavian's place at Con
stantinople was soon taken by Anatolius, an Alex
andrian partizan. The only hope for a revision
of the settlement lay in the West, whither Theo
doret and Flavian now turned. But for the moment
		even the influence of Rome was un‑
4. The availing. The synod in Rome on
	Council	Oct. 15, 449, rejected the decrees of
of Chalce‑ Ephesus, and Leo attempted in vain,
	don, 451.	through his ovm letters and those of
		the Western emperor to procure from
Theodosius II. the calling of a new synod in Italy.
The death of Theodosius in the next year brought
about great changes. The power was now in the
hands of Pulcheria, who had already been won over
to Leo's side. Anatoliua held a synod the same
autumn at Constantinople which declared its
agreement with Leo's epistle to Flavian, which had
already found increasing assent in the East. Leo
was not able, however, to secure that the new
general council should be held in the West; and
it finally sat at Chalcedon, across the Bosphorus
from Constantinople, Oct. 8 to Nov. 1, 451, attended
by about 600 bishops. The presidency, in a par
liamentary sense, was held by the imperial commis
saries; but the papal legates, recognized by the
council as representing the spiritual head of the
Church, took the lead among the ecclesiastics and
presided formally when the imperial commis
saries were absent.
Dioscurua had secured his triumph at Ephesus largely through the strength of‑ his Egyptian following; the emperor guarded against a repetition of this by ordering him to come alone to Constantinople. He had a private audience with the new emperor, Marcian, Pulcheria's husband, in the presence of Anatolius and others, which was intended to bring him to an accommodation‑but without success. He soon recognized that the cause was

lost; and his downfall was not. long in following. He appeared in the council practically as an accused person, while Theodoret, whom he had deposed at Ephesus, took his seat under the full protection of both pope and emperor. At the close of the first session the commissaries declared that Dioscurus himself and five of his principal supporters at Ephesus must be deposed, which took place in the third session, though a direct charge of heresy was avoided. He was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died in 454. The five other bishops were restored to good standing in the fourth session. As to the dogmatic question, which the council treated with some hesitation, nominally out of respect for the First Council of Ephesus, after two epistles of Cyril (iv. and xxxix.) and Leo's to Flavian had been acknowledged, Anatolius was directed to draw up a proposed new definition. This, which was apparently decided in its expressions on the point of one person out of two natures, was approved by the majority at the fifth session; but the Roman legates threatened to take their departure and have a new council called in Italy if Leo's epistle was not closely followed. The majority was disinclined to yield until an imperial order forced them to appoint a new committee on definition, of which the legates were now members. The result of this work was laid before the council at the same session, and solemnly proclaimed, Oct. 25. This was from the dogmatic standpoint a complete victory of West over East; the council's definition is only intelligible in the light of Western Christology. After an introduction affirming the Nicene and so‑called Constantinopolitan creeds, which it declares sufficient as general creeds, it proceeds, with the purpose of avoiding Nestorian and Monophysite perversions of the mystery of the Incarnation, to recognize the epistles of Cyril and Leo named above as orthodox expositions of the creed, and then to give a lengthy and precise restatement of the one person of the Lord in two natures. It is not difficult to see that the terms of this definition and the recognition of Leo's epistles go beyond Cyril's teaching; but the members of the council attempted to forestall objections by persuading themselves of their agreement with both, and of each with the other. The formulas of Chalcedon were acceptable to Western minds, with their firm hold on the single person of the historic Christ without danger of obscuring either of the two natures, the divine or the human. But it was not a real settlement of the question for the East, and the action of the council, for all its pacific intent, was but the beginning of new strife (see MONOPHY$ITE6). Eutyches, the nominal originator of the controversy, was not expressly anathematized at Chalcedon; he was considered to have been already sufficiently condemned by Flavian, by Leo, and by the synod held under Anatolius. But after the council two imperial edicts of the year 452 enforced the ecclesiastical condemnation of his party by the usual civil penalties. Eutyches himself was banished, and the last heard of him is in a letter of Leo, Apr. 15, 454, requesting his removal to a more distant place on the ground that he still continued to deceive the
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Eutyohianism
Eutychiua of Constantinople
unwary in his original place of banishment. See
CHRISTOLOGY, IV. 	(F. LOOFS.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for a history are the Acts of the Synods, printed in Manai, Concilia, vole. v. vii., cf. ix. 659‑702 (a summary of the whole affair in vii. 1060 eqq.); Hefele, Conciliengeachichte, ii. 317 aqq., Eng. tranal., iii. 186 sqq.; S. G. F. Perry, Second Synod of Ephesus, Acts, Dartford, 1881 (with Syriac text and sources): Theodoret, Hiat, eccl., passim. Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2 ser., vol. iii.; idem, Eraniatea, in his Opera, ed. Schulze, vol. iv., Halls. 1774; Gelasius, Gesta de nomine Acacii, ed. Thiel, Epiatolo: Romanorum ponlificum, i. 510‑519, Braunaberg, 1868; G. Hoffmann, in Sehrilten der Univeraittit zu Kiel, vol. xx., 1873.
Consult Tillemont, Memoirea, xv. 479‑719; W. A. Arendt, Leo der Grosse, Mainz, 1835; E. Perthel, Papat Leo's 1. Lebeu and Lehreu, Jena, 1843; Wm. Bright, Hiet. o/ the Church, pp. 313‑451, Oxford, 1860; I. A. Dorner, Person of Christ, IL. i.‑ii., Edinburgh, 1862; W. Cunningham, Historical Theology, i. 311‑315, ib. 1863‑ P. Martin, Le Pseudo‑Synods . . d1pUae, Paris, 1875; A. Ehrhard, in TQ. Ixx (1888), 179‑243, 406‑450, 623853; Neander, Christian Church, ii. 560‑569; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 734‑740; Moeller, Christian Church, i. 419‑422; Harnack, Dogma, iv. 197 eqq.; DCB, ii. 404412 (very full).
	EUTYCHIANUS, yt3‑tik'i‑a"mss: Pope 275‑283.
His name occurs in the lists of bishops of Rome
between Felix and Caius, and a pontificate of
eight years, nine months, and three days is assigned
to him. Nothing at all is known of the events
which marked it; but it may be mentioned that the
tablet which covered his grave in the so‑called
" vault of the popes " has been discovered (cf.
F. X. Kraus, Roma sotterrarted, Freiburg, 1879,
154). 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontifcca.lis, ed. Mommaen in MGH, Gest. pont. Rom., i (1898), 38; Bower, Popes, i. 37‑38.
	EUTYCHIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (also known
by the Arabic name Said ibn Batrik): Melchite
patriarch of Alexandria Feb. 7, 933 to May 11, 940;
b. in Fostat (the modern Cairo) 876; d. 940.
Before entering upon the clerical estate he had been
a physician, and had also pursued historical studies.
As patriarch, he had to endure severe conflicts
with the Jacobite Copts. His writings in Arabic,
only in part preserved, are of medical, theolog
ical, and historical content. His principal work
is the " String of Pearls " (Arab. Nazm al yctu'ahir),
i.e., " Compend of History." It is a narrative
from the creation of the world to 938, and comprises
Biblical, profane, and ecclesiastical history. It
contains many remarkable data, otherwise un
known, and valuable contributions to the history
of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The edition
of Edward Pococke (2 vole., Oxford, 1654‑5(i),
is reprinted in MPG, cxi. 889‑1232; and in 1906
a new edition by L. Cheikho, in Arabic and Latin,
was begun in the Corpus scriptorum Christianorurra
orientalium (Paris). 	G. KRtiGER.
Brarrocnernr: E. Renaudot, Hiatoria patriarcharum Alexandnnorum, pp, 346 sqq., Paris, 1713; F. W iistenfeld, Geachichle der arabiachen Aerzte, p. 52, GSttingen, 1840; A. von Gutaehmid, in Kleine Schriften, ii. 399‑‑400, 486. Leipsic. 1890; Ceillier, Auteura sacrea, xiii. 45‑46.
EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE: Patriarch of Constantinople; b. in Phrygia c. 512; d. Apr. 5, 582. He became monk and abbot at 4masia in POntus, and in 552 went to Constantinople as his bishop's ambassador. Here he so effectually combated the Antiochian theology, and made

Evagrius
Evangelical Alliance	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	220
such an impression on the emperor Justinian that
the latter, upon the death of the patriarch Mennas
(Aug., 552), appointed him patriarch of Constan
tinople. He played a great part in the Three
Chapter controversy (q.v.); presided at the Fifth
Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553); con
ducted the consecration ceremonies for St. Sophia
(562); but finally fell into disfavor with the em
peror, whose aphthartodocetic [maintenance of per
petual virginity of Mary and denial of the reality
of the human birth of Jesus] leanings he was
unwilling to tolerate; and on Jan. 22 or Apr. 12,
565, he was exiled to his former cloister. He was
thence recalled by Justin IL, in 577, as successor
to the patriarch John III. Scholasticus. He is
honored by the Church as a saint. Of his writings,
only fragments of a sermon on the Eucharist are
preserved (MPG, lxxxvi. 2, pp. 2392‑2401), in
which the Greek Fathers' symbolic‑dynamic view
of the Eucharist reached its climax. His intimate
friend the presbyter Eustratius, wrote his T rbiography
(MPG, lxxxvi. 2, pp. 2273‑2390). G. aRfYGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ASB Apr., i. 648; Evagrius, Hiat. eccl.; John of Ephesus, Exl. Hiat., third part, ed. w. Cureton, Oxford, 1853; Ceillier, Auteura eacria, xi. 352‑358; DCB, ii. 414‑416.
	EVAGRIUS, 7f"v8‑grf'vs, PONTICUS: Nitrian
hermit b. at Ibora, a small town of Pontus,
near the capital Amasia, year unknown; d. after
400. He was the son of a presbyter in Ibora.
Basil the Great appointed him lector, and Gregory
Nazianzen made him deacon. When Gregory left
Constantinople (3817), Evagrius remained in the
capital under his successor Neatorius. Because of
a love affair with a noble lady he went to Jerusalem
where he entered the circle of Melania, the friend of
Rufinua (q.v.), and was sent by her to Egypt into
the Nitrian desert to recover from serious illness,
probably acute mental depression induced by
his experiences. There he spent two years on the
rtwns Nitrite, then fourteen years in the colony
of hermits called Kellia, earning his living by pen
manship. His works are all monastic. Definite
criticism of them is as yet impossible since the Greek
writings published under his name are at beat only
excerpts. Gennadius (De vir. ill., xi.) gives a list
of them: (1) " Suggestions against the Eight Prin
cipal Sins " in eight books, essentially a compila
tion of Bible texts intended to work like amulets
against certain sinful thoughts. (2) A collection
of " One Hundred Sentiments " for uneducated
anchorites, and one of " Fifty Sentiments " for
educated anchorites. (3) A guide to the common
life for monks. (4) A writing dedicated to a nun.
(5) " Opinions " for monks, which Gennadius pro
nounces " ° very obscure." These works may be
identified with five mentioned by Socrates (Hilt.
eccl., iv. 23). The doctrine of Evagrius can not
be judged on the basis of the existing material.
Connections with the Cappadociana [Basil, Gregory
Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyasa] are probable not
only on account of a passage quoted by Socrates
but also because of the whole course of his edu
cation. He belonged to that small number of prac
tical ascetics who as educated men were able to
indicate monasticism and asceticism philosoph‑
ically, hence the reputation which he enjoyed in the desert among the colonies of ascetics who were mostly uneducated men. His predilection for Origen became fatal to him. In the later Origenistic controversies the doctrine of Evagrius was condemned, and from the seventh century his name with that of Origen and Didymus is placed among the archheretica. (ERWIN PREUSCHEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The beat collection (far from complete) of his writings is in Gallandi, Bibliotheca. vii. bbl‑58i, reprinted in MPG, xl. On his Syriac works consult w. Wright, Cataloue of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum London, 1870‑72. On his life and work: Tillemont, Menwirea, 2d ed., x. 388 sqq.; Fabriciue‑Harlea, Bibliotheca Greeea, ix. 284, Hamburg, 1804; E. Nestle, in ZDMG, 1878, pp. 485 aqq.; O. ZSekler, Evagrius Pontikua, Munich, 1893; idem, Aakeae and Monchtum, i. 253 eqq., Frankfort, 1897; J. A. Robinson, in TS, iii. 3 (189b).

EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS:	Early church
historian; b. at Epiphania, Coele‑Syria, c. 536;
d. after 594. He received careful training in the
schools of the grammarians and rhetoricians and
settled in Antioch as a lawyer (hence his surname,
Scholasticus). Here he assisted the patriarch
Gregorius (569‑594) in drafting briefs reports, and
decrees, and successfully defended him at Con
atantinople (589) when he was arraigned on the
charge of grievous persecutions. From the Emperor
Tiberius he obtained the rank of a quaeator; from
Mauritius, that of a prefect. He is known chiefly
for his " Ecclesiastical History," in six books,
which is a continuation of Socrates, Sozomen, and
Theodoret, extending from the Council of Ephesus
(431) to the twelfth year of the reign of Mauritius
(593‑594). It is one of the chief sources, espe
cially for the history of contemporary theological
controversies, though it also takes account of the
wars with the Persians and other barbarians, and,
like other Byzantine chronicles, contains notices
of all sorts of remarkable events (calamities, con
flagrations, earthquakes, etc.). Evagrius made
good use of his original sources (Euetathius of
Antioch, Procopiua of Caesarea, John Malala, John
of Epiphania Menander Protector, Zacharias
Rhetor and others), and his judgment is discreet
and impartial. Ecclesiastically	orthodox, he
strictly abides by the synodical decisions, and
censures, in particular, every deviation from the
Chalcedonian dogma. Even his great predecessor,
Eusebius is not quite proof against his criticism;
though Evagrius concedes that Euaebius led his
readers close to the true faith, even if be did not
teach them strict orthodoxy. The best edition of
the history is that of J. Bidez and L. Parmentier,
The Ecclesiastical History of Evttgrius, with the
Scholict (London 1898); Eng. tranal. in Bohn's
Ecclesiastical Library in the volume with Theodoret
(London, 1854). 	G. KRfTC3ER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fabricius‑Harlea, Bi'Sliotheca Grow, ix. 284 eqq., Hamburg, 1904; Ceillier, Auteura aaa5e, xi. 415‑41B; DCB, ii. 423‑424; C. de Boor, in ZKG, v (1881), 315‑322, vi (1883), 482 aqq.
EVANGELIARILTM (i.e., cwtlngeliarium volume., " Gospel book "; evaregeliarius, with liter or codex
understood, is found more rarely): A book containing the appointed Gospel lectiona for church service. The collecting of the Gospel writings
	&		t1.*:„.~''i,.	.	..	Z	j,.!	;.‑k.,AV	,	,

221	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	E°°S''ln'
Evangelical dllianoe
under the name euangelion dates back to the earliest age of the Church (cf. Zahn, Kanan, i. 161 sqq.). At first separate rolls (volumirea) were united; then codices (manuscripts in which the leaves lay consecutively like a modern book) were made. This form coincides with the traditional history of the New Testament and sacred Scriptures generally, during the first centuries (cf. Victor Schultze, Rolls and Codex, in Greifstoalder Studien., Giiteraloh,1895, pp. 149 aqq.). The subsequent rise of the Pericopea (q.v.) from the fourth century on led either to the attachment of an appendix to the Gospel book, in which the canonical lectiona were tabulated (lectionarium, euangelistarion, in the narrower sense), or to the formation of a new book, whose contents were exclusively the prescribed Gospel lectiona. The usual designation for such a book in the West came to be evangeliarium, in the East, euangeliatarioit (in the wider sense). Combined with the epistolare (i.e., ePistolare volumen, " the Epistle [book]," Gk. apostoloa, juraxajuostolos, " the Apostle "), which grew out of a similar process, and contained the remaining portion of the New Testament, the evangeliarium constituted the lectiorcarium or ledionarius (in the wider sense; Gk. anagnifstikon [biblion], biWon apostolihon).
Even as early as in the fourth century, the religious and ecclesiastical appreciation of the evangeliarium rose to such a degree that people regarded the same as typifying Scripture generally. Thus it was used in the administration of oaths, and it gained an established place in the ceremony of ordination, being either solemnly delivered to the candidate for orders, or held over his head during the act of blessing. Copies written in small script were worn by women and boys as a charm about the neck. It was applied to the relief of the sick, and ecclesiastical ordinances insured for it the same veneration as was accorded to sacred images. In public worship, in processions and other ecclesiastical observances, reverence was shown toward it in various ways.
This being the popular state of mind, the zealous cooperation of art is a matter of course. Beginning even in the fourth century, covers ornamented with costly stones and ivory carvings (cf. Victor Schultze, Archliologie der altchristlichen Kunst, Munich, 1895, pp. 258 aqq.), purple parchment, gilt and silver script, and miniature painting, come into vogue on a scale of lavish luxury. The Carolingian era continued the practise, and it was tenaciously conserved by the medieval era proper. Ivory carving, enameling, and other fine arts were more and more extensively brought into requisition; and along with descriptive illustration, there is developed the art of initial painting, while marginal decoration reaches its highest perfection during the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance (cf. H. Otte, Kunstarchaologie des deutschen Mittelatters, i., Leipsie, 1883, pp. 171 aqq.; F. X. Kraus, Geachichte der christlichen Kunst, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1896‑1900). Embroidered cloths (camisice evangeliorum), or artistic eases (capsce), served as protection against wear. Thus the history of the Gospel textia closely connected with religious and ecclesiastical customs and with the history of art. VICTOR SCHULTZE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult, besides the literature mentioned in the text: C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, ii. 887‑777,
Leipaic, 1890; DCA, i. 740‑745, ii. 9b3‑987, 1008‑1b,
and the literature under BIBLE TExT, II.

EVANGELICAL ADVENTISTS. See ADVENTIaTS, 1.
EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE.
Foundation and Constitution (¢ 1). Branch Alliances (¢ 2). The Week of Prayer (¢ 3). Conferences, National and General (¢ 4). Appeals for Religious Liberty (¢ b).
The Evangelical Alliance is a voluntary asso‑
ciation of Evangelical Christians of different
churches and countries to manifest and promote
the union of Christian believers and advance the
cause of religious liberty. It was founded, after
several preparatory meetings and conferences, espe
cially one at Liverpool in 1845, in an enthusiastic
		gathering held in Freemason's Hall
	I. Founds‑ in London, Aug. 19‑23, 1846. Eight
	tion and hundred Christians were present
	Constitu‑ Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Inde
	tion. pendents, Methodists, Baptists, Lu
		therans, Reformed, Moravians, and
others, including, from Great Britain, Edward
Bickersteth and Lord Wriothesley Russell (Angli
can), Jabez Bunting and William Arthur (Wea
leyan), Drs. Chalmers, Candlish, Norman McLeod,
and Thomas Guthrie (Presbyterian), Drs.. Steane,
and Baptist W. Noel (Baptist), Thomas Binney,
John Angell James, and Dr. Leifchild (Independ
ent); from France, Adolphe Monod and G. Fisch;
from Germany F. W. Krummacher and Prof.
Tholuck; from Switzerland, Prof. La Harps; and
from the United States, Samuel H. Cox and Will
iam Patton. Sir Culling E. Eardly presided, and
became the first president of the British branch.
Nine doctrinal articles were adopted, as follows:

1. The divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.
2. The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
3. The Unity of the Godhead, and the Trinity of the Persons therein.
4. The utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the Fall.
b. The incarnation of the Son of God, his work of atonement for the sins of mankind, and his mediatoriel intercession and reign.
8. The justification of the sinner by faith alone.
7. The work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner.
8. The immortality of the soul the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked.
9. The divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

These articles were not intended to be a binding creed or confession, but simply as expression of the essential agreement of Evangelical Christians whom it seemed desirable to embrace in the Alliance. Some have regarded the statement as too liberal, others as too narrow (art. 9 excluding the Quakers), while still others would have preferred no doctrinal statement, or at beat only the Apostles' Creed. The American branch, at its organization (1867; see below, § 2), adopted the nine London

Evangelical Alliance	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	222
Evangelical Association
articles, with the following explanatory and quali
fying preamble:
	Resolved, That in forming an Evangelical Alliance for the
United States in cooperative union with other branches
of the Alliance, we have no intention to give rise to s new
denomination; or to effect an amalgamation of Churches,
except in the way of facilitating personal Christian inter
course and a mutual good understanding; or to interfere in
any way whatever with the internal affairs of the various
denominations; but simply to bring individual Christians
into closer fellowship and cooperation, on the basis of the
spiritual union which already exists in the vital relation of
Christ to the members of his body in all ages and countries.
	Resolved, That in the same spirit we propose no new
creed, but taking broad, historical, and Evangelical catholic
ground, we solemnly reaffirm and profess our faith in all
the doctrines of the inspired word of God, and in the con
aensua of doctrines as held by all true Christians from the
beginning. And we do more especially affirm our belief in
the divine‑human person and atoning work of our Lord aged
Savior Jesus Christ as the only and sufficient source of sal
vation, as the heart and soul of Christianity, and as the
center of all true Christian union and fellowship.
	Resolved, That, with this explanation, and in the spirit
of a just Christian liberality in regard to the minor differ
ences of theological schools and religious denominations, we
also adopt, as a summary of the consensus of the various
Evangelical Confessions of Faith, the Articles and Explana
tory Statement set forth and agreed on by the Evangelical
Alliance at its formation in London, 1848, and approved by
the separate European organisations.
	Branch Alliances have been formed in Great
Britain, Germany, France, Holland, Switzerland,
		Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Greece, and
	2. Breach ernong the missionaries in Turkey,
	Alliances. Egypt, and India; also in the United
		States, Canada, Australia, Brazil,
Mexico, and among the Protestant missionaries in
Japan and China. There is no central organization
with controlling authority; and the General Alli
ance appears in active operation only as it has met
in its general conferences (see below, § 4). The
various national branches are related to each other
as members of a confederation with equal rights.
The British organization, being the oldest and
largest, and having a house and salaried officers
who devote their whole time to the work, has been
the most influential; the Continental branches are
more elastic, and confine themselves to occasional
work. The " Evangelical Alliance for the United
States " or the American branch, was organized
at the Bible House, lyew York, Jan. 30, 1867 (a
previous attempt having failed on account of the
antislavery agitation before the Civil War), with
William E. Dodge as president. Its first official
communication was made to the Fifth General Con
ference of the Alliance, meeting at Amsterdam, Aug.,
1867, and was a report on the " State of Religion
in the United States of America " prepared by
Prof. Henry B. Smith, of Union Theological Semi
nary, New York, chairman of the executive com
mittee of the American branch. Mr. Dodge re
mained president till his death (1883) when he was
succeeded by his son William E. Dodge, Jr. Drs.
S. Irenaeus Prime and Philip Schaff were the first
corresponding secretaries. The American branch
at once became a vigorous organization and pre
sented an invitation to the Alliance in session in
.Amsterdam to hold its next meeting (1873) in New
York, which was accepted.
	The Alliance has sought to accomplish its work
in three ways, by means of the annual Week of Prayer, by conferences and by appeals for those oppressed by religious persecution. At a conference at Manchester, 1846, a resolution was
adopted urging the "members and 3. The friends of the Alliance throughout the
Week of world to observe the week beginning
Prayer. with the first Lord's day of January in
each year as a season for concert in prayer on behalf of the objects contemplated by the Alliance." Later the scope was widened in answer to an appeal from the English and American missionaries in India. It has become a fruitful means for promoting Christian union and the spread of the Gospel at home and abroad. A program is issued several months in advance of the date by the British organization, and sent to the branch Alliances for their revision and adoption. Each branch adapts it to the conditions and wants of the country which it represents, and gives it publicity. Fifty‑nine programs have thus far been issued. In more recent years the American branch has acted independently in preparing a program of its own. The subjects chosen for prayer have included union with Christ, home and foreign missions, the nations and their rulers, the home, and Christian institutions such as the Young Men's Christian Association, schools and Sunday Schools.
The British organization from the beginning has held an annual conference in October in some city
of England. The American branch 4. Confer‑ has held conferences in Pittsburg ences, Na‑ 1875, Detroit 1877, St. Louis 1879, tional sad Washington 1887, Boston 1889, and
General. at Chicago in connection with the
Colombian Exposition 1893. The German branch has held national conferences at Berlin 1894, Cassel 1896, Essen 1898, Heidelberg 1900, and Hamburg 1905. It is managed by a committee of twelve, one of whom represents the Methodists in Germany. The Continental and other branches meet less regularly. Far more important, however, are the General Conferences convened at intervals according to circumstances. They have an international as well as interdenominational character, and may be called Protestant ecumenical councils, with the important difference that they do not settle dogmas or canons of discipline, and claim no legislative authority. They have been held in the great capitals, and arranged by the branch in whose bounds they meet, with the cooperation of all the sister branches. They last from seven to ten days, and are spent in prayer and praise, brotherly communion, and free discussions of the leading religious and social questions of the age. Eleven International Conferences have been held in the following cities: London in 1851, the year of the first great International Exhibition; Paris, 1855; Berlin, 1857; Geneva, 1861; Amsterdam, 1867; New York, 1873; Basel, 1879; Copenhagen, 1884; Florence, 1891; London, 1896 ‑the diamond jubilee‑and 1907.

The Conference held in New York Oct. 2‑12, 1873, drew together m friendly conference and communion representative Christians from many parts of Europe and from Asia and Africa, se well se from all parts of the United

223	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Evangelical Alliance
Evangelical Association
States and Canada. Dr. Philip Schaff made four journeys abroad to awaken interest in the gathering and to invite chosen speakers. He presented the matter before church diets including the Old Catholic Congress, before the faculties of universities and selected groups of clergymen, also in audiences with the German Emperor and Air. Gladstone. Among themoreeminentspeakera from abroad, all clergymen and doctors of divinity, unless otherwise stated, were Joseph Angus (Baptist), R. Payne Smith, W. H. Freemantle, Stanley Leathea, and Rev. C. D. Marston (Anglican), John Stoughton and Joseph Parker (Independent), Wm. Arnot, John Cairns, and Robert Knox (Presbyterian), all of Great Britain; Georges Fiech, E. F. Cook and T. Lorriaux of France; I. A. Dorner, Theodor Christlieb and W. Krafft of Germany; Profs. C. Pronier and J. F. Astir and Franck Coulin of Switzerland; Cohen Stuart from Holland; Prof. M. Prochet from Florence; M. Kalopothakes, M. D., from Greece; and Revs. Antonio Carrasco and Fritz Fliedner from Spain. The Rev. Narsyaa Sheshadri, a converted Brahman of high caste, was one of the most interesting figures of the conference.
The seventh conference (Basel, 1879) was not so large and imposing. The eighth conference (Copenhagen, 1884) took the alliance to distinctly Lutheran ground and brought the strict Scandinavian Protestantism into fellowship with the churches of other lands. The conference at Florence (1891) gave an impulse to Italian evangelization. The tenth conference (London, 1896) was a jubilee meeting commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Alliance.
	The Alliance has appealed against religious per
secution in a number of instances through the press
		and deputations of influential public
	g. Appeals men, and while the appeals have not
	for Relig‑ always accomplished their immediate
	ious purpose, they have had a considerable
	Liberty. moral influence in favor of a more
		general adoption of the principles
of religious liberty. It successfully exerted its
influence for the release of the Madiai family in
Florence, 1852, who were punished for reading the
Bible and holding religious meetings; for the
release of Matamoras, Carrasco, and their friends,
who, during the reign of Queen Isabella, in Spain,
were thrown into prison and condemned to the
galleys for the same cause, 1863. It aided in in
ducing the sultan of Turkey to abolish the death
penalty for apostasy from Mohammedanism in his
dominions after the Crimean War, 1856. It inter
ceded for the Methodists and Baptists in Sweden,
1858, which country has since abrogated the penal
laws against Roman Catholics and Protestants not
belonging to the Lutheran Confession. It sent in
1871 a large deputation to the Czar of Russia
(then at Friedrichshafen) to plead for the oppressed
Lutherans in the Baltic Prov;.nces. Among the dele
gates from the United States were Philip Schaff
and William Adams of New York, Bishop McIlvaine
of Ohio, and the laymen William E. Dodge, Gurus
Field, and Nathan Bishop. It sent a similar depu
tation to the embassy from Japan, on its visit to
the United States and the courts of Europe in
1872, to remonstrate against the persecutions of
Christians, mostly Roman Catholics, in Japan. It
has not forgotten the Nestorians in Persia, who
appealed to the Alliance for protection against the
oppression of a Mohammedan government. It
prepared a memorial to the Czar on the persecution
of Baptists in Southern Russia, 1874. At the
seventh General Conference a deputation was
appointed to wait on the Emperor of Austria in
behalf of certain Christians in Bohemia, who were
debarred the liberty of holding even family wor‑
ship; and the request was granted by the special interposition of the emperor. In the last few years efforts have been made to secure a more enlightened and humane treatment of the Stundists in Russia and the Armenian Christians in Asia.
A new kind of work has been undertaken by the British and German branches in cooperating in the maintenance since 1905 of an Alliance School at Steglitz near Berlin to train students for religious work in Russia. (PHILIP SCHAFFt) D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Proceedings of the Liverpool meeting of 1845 and of the General Conferences at London, Paris, Berlin, Geneva, Amsterdam, New York, Basel, Florence, and the London jubilee conference of 1898, were all published in English, moat of them also in French, German, and Dutch, in the cities where they were held. Of these publications especially valuable are the volumes relating to the Conference at Amsterdam by Rev. P. Steane, those at New York (1873 and 1884) by Schaff and S. I. Prime, that at Basel by J. Murray Mitchell, at Florence by R. A. Bedford, and at London by A. J. Arnold, and of the Washington, Boston and Chicago meetings. Among publications of the American branch are its Reports, 18671905, the Narrative of the State of Religion in the United Slates by Prof. H. B. Smith, presented to the Amsterdam Conference, 1867, the similar Narrative presented by Philip Schaff to the Basel Conference, a Report on the AZZianeeDePutation to the Czar of Russia, 1871, and the Reunion o/ Christendom by Philip Schaff, 1893, the author's last literary work. The British branch publishes yearly Reports, a monthly periodical, Evangelical Christendom, 1847‑99, The Evangelical Alliance Quarterly, 1899‑1908, and the bimonthly Evangelical Christendom. 1908 eqq. For brief but somewhat unsatisfactory historic accounts of the Alliance consult Rev. James Davis in the Proceedinga for 1874, and A. J. Arnold, in the Jubilee volume, London, 1897. Consult also Life of Philip Schaff, N. Y., 1897, pp. 252‑274, 332 aqq., 340 aqq. The President and Corresponding Secretary of the American branch is Rev. Leander Chamberlain, D.D., The Chelsea, W. 23d St., New York. The office of the British branch is 7 Adam $t., Strand, London. and its secretary is H. Martyn Gooch.
EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION: An ecclesiastical body which originated as a result of the evangelistic labors of Jacob Albright (q.v.), who began preaching in 1796 among the Germans in Eastern Pennsylvania. The first organizations among his converts were formed in 1800. The first general meeting took place in 1803, which acknowledged Albright as a minister of the Gospel, and solemnly ordained him by the laying on of hands, in accordance with the precedent in Acts xiii. 1‑3. Albright was a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with whose doctrine, polity, and spirit he was fully in accord. But he was compelled to organize, much against his own purpose and will, because the leaders of the Methodist Church did not wish to do work at that time among the Germans of this country. In 1807 the first regular conference was held, in Kleinfeltersville, Pa., composed of the ministers and officers of the Church, twenty‑eight in number. Albright was elected bishop and authorized to compile a Scriptural creed and a plan of organization, but he died May 18, 1808, leaving this work unfinished. George Miller, an excellent writer, John Walter, an eloquent preacher, and John Dreisbach, a man of uncommon gifts of organization and leadership, carried the work forward. In 1809 a second conference was held, at which the book of discipline begun by Albright and completed by George Miller, was adopted and the name, " The So‑called Albright People," was

Evangelical Association Evangelizatioa
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
agreed upon. In 1816 the first delegated General Conference was held, at which the name, " The Evangelical Association," was adopted. A publishing house which had been founded by John Dreisbach in New Berlin, Penn., was made an institution of the Church. The work of the denomination was at first exclusively German. But it gradually turned into English, while now it labors in a number of languages and nationalities.
The Evangelical Association is Arminian in doctrine, connectional in organization, and episcopal in government. The governing bodies are: (1) The Quarterly Conference, composed of the ministers and lay officers of a charge and prided over by the presiding elder of the district. It meets four times a year, manages the affairs of the charge and recommends candidates for the ministry. (2) The Annual Conference, which has administrative jurisdiction over a prescribed territory. At its sessions a bishop presides and assigns the preachers to their charges. It licenses and ordains preachers and acts coordinately with the General Conference in the enactment of constitutional law. (3) The General Conference, meeting every four years, and consisting of the bishops, general officers, ministerial delegates chosen by the Annual Conferences upon a basis of one to every fourteen members, and lay delegates to constitute about one‑third of the entire body. This is the supreme governing, legislating, and judicial body of the Church. It makes laws in concurrence with the members of the Annual Conferences, elects the bishops and general officers, and is the final court of appeal.
A controversy of several years' duration led to the secession of about 50,000 members and the organization of the United Evangelical Church (q.v.) in 1891. The Evangelical Association in 1907 consisted of twenty‑seven Annual Conferences, twenty‑two in the United Staten, one in Canada, two in Germany, one in Switzerland, and one in Japan. It has 131,437 members; 1,58? ministers, itinerant and local; 2,232 Sunday‑schools with 23,977 officers and teachers and 165,192 scholars; 1,201 Young People's Alliances with 39,143 members; 2,219 organized congregations; 1,854 church edifices with an estimated value of $6,340,966; 722' parsonages valued at $1,264,618. Its total property is valued at $7,942,740.03. Its people contributed $250,000 for missions and $1,476,771 for all purposes in 1906. It has a publishing house in Cleveland, Ohio, and a branch in Stuttgart, Germany. Ira educational institutions are North Western College, Naperville, Ill., with four buildings, an endowment of $250,000, twenty‑five professors, and 450 students; Union Biblical Institute, at the same place, with an endowment of $50,000, and forty students; Schuylkill Seminary, Reading, Penn., with $50,000 endowment; the Preachers' Seminary in Reutlingen, Germany; and the Correspondence College with headquarters at Reading, Penn. It has an orphan home at Flat Rock, Ohio, taking care of 150 children, three old people's homes, one in Philadelphia, one near Buffalo, N. Y., and one in Chicago, and a deaconeesea' home and hospital it Chicago. IL has missions in Japan
and China. Der christliche Botachafter, Th Evangelical Messenger, Das evangelische Magazin, and The Living Epistle, all published in Cleveland, Ohio, are the church periodicals. S. P. SPRENO.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Yeskel, Jacob Albright and his Colaborera, Cleveland, Ohio, 1883; idem, History of the Evangelical Association, 2 vole., ib. 1892‑94 (comes down to 1850): idem, The Life of Bishop Joseph Long, ib. 1898; W. W. Orwig, History of the Evangelical Association. ib. 1858; 8. C. Breyfogel, Landmarks of the Evangelical Association, ib. 1887; $. P. Sprang, Life and Labors of Bishop John Seybert, ib. 1888; idem, in American Church History Series, xii. 383 eqq., New York, 1894; A. 8tapleton, Annals of the Evangelical Association of North America and History of the United Evangelical Church, Harrisburg, 1898; the Discipline of as Evangelical Association, editions from 1809‑1903.
EVANGELICAL COUNSELS. See CONBILIA EVANCIELIt:A.

EVtNG~LICA	( SO
	N~SOCIETY OF GENEVA CIATVALIQUE DE GEAVE ) : 	The
	oldest of the Continental Evangelical societies;
	founded in 1831 for the diffusion of sound doctrine
	throughout Switzerland and France. It has a theo
	logical school at Geneva, supports numerous mis
	sionaries, pastors, and colporteurs, and is dependent
	upon voluntary contributions derived not only from
	Switzerland, but also from other parts of Europe
	and even from the United States, which produce
	an annual income of about 260,000 franca. It is
	undenomina,tional, having as its confession of faith
	substantially the creed of the Evangelical Alliance
	(q.v.). It is the product of the revival attending
	the labors of Robert Haldane (nee HALDANE, JAMES
ALEXANDER, AND ROBERT).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R6citaetaouveniradequalqusa•unaduouroritra (published on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary, 1881); and the " Annual Reports."

EVANGELICAL UNION: 1. The Evangelical Union of Scotland: A religious body formed at Kilmarnock, Scotland, May 16, 1843, at a meeting attended by four ministers, one evangelist, and eight elders, representing three churches and two preaching stations. The ministers‑James Morison of Kilmarnock, his father Robert Morison of Bathgate, John Guthrie of Kendal, and Alexander C. Rutherford of Falkirk‑had been virtually expelled from the Secession Church for holding the doctrine of an unlimited atonement and protesting against the condemnation of James Morison (q.v.) by the Secession Synod. The distinctive doctrines affirmed were " the universality of the atonement, the universality and moral nature of the influences of the Holy Spirit, and the simplicity of faith, which, by means of its object, Jesus Christ, as made known in the Gospel, brings peace to the conscience and purity to the heart." The Independent ecclesiastical polity was adopted, each church to be complete in itself. The membership of the union was soon increased and an impetus was given to its work by a number of churches, ministers, and etudentsJohn Kirk, Fergus Ferguson, Peter Mather, William Bathgate, and others‑who were dissociated from the Congregational Union of Scotland for holding views similar to those of James Mormon (nee FERGUSON, FERGUS). It was not intended originally to be a sect or a separate denomination,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Evangelical Association Evangelization
but revival meetings held over the whole country and the wide preaching of the doctrines of the Union led to the formation of churches and this necessitated organization. A theological academy was instituted with James Morison as first professor, and John Guthrie was added as colleague in a few years; other professors were appointed later and the classes were comparatively large. The business of the Union was carried on by an Annual Conference and the committees it appointed.
	The influence of the Union was far in excess of
what might have been expected from its members.
Ministers and laymen zealously expounded their
views in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrines of
the Westminster Confession, and numerous tracts,
pamphlets, and books were issued from the pub
lishing house and circulated widely. The Christian
News (weekly) was started in 1846 and continued
for sixty years. The Evangelical Repository (quar
terly) was commenced in 1854 and continued for
thirty‑four years. A monthly Forward existed for
seven years and the Day Star and Dew Drop had
a large circulation for half a century. The members
of the Union were among the pioneers of the tem
perance movement in Scotland. All of its clergy
and ninety per cent of its members were total
abstainers and no liquor dealer was allowed to
join any of the churches. In 1896 the churches
of the Union‑more than ninety in number
united with the Congregational Union of Scotland,
securing their historical position by a prefatory
note placed at the head of the constitution of the
united body which states, among other things,
that they were moved and encouraged to seek
union " in order to effective cooperation in extend
ing the Kingdom of God and proclaiming the Gos
pel of Jesus Christ, through whose person and work
as God Incarnate, and the saving and sanctifying
grace of God, the Holy Spirit, God the Father in
his love has made provision for, and is seeking
the salvation of all men." A few small and unim
portant churches still retain the name Evangelical
Union. 	WILLIAM ADAMSON.
2. For the German " Evangelical Union for the Preservation of German Protestant Interests," see BLIND, EVANGELIaCHER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Ferguson, Hiat. of the Evangelical Union,
Glasgow, 1876; Evangelical Union Jubilee, ib. 1892; J.
Ross, H%at. o/ Congregational Independence in Scotland,
ib. 1900.
EVANGELIST: A word which occurs three times in the New Testament (Acts xxi. 8; Eph. iv. 11; II Tim. iv. 5); not found in the Septuagint and other Greek versions, in the Apostolic Fathers, or in the Didache, and not in classical Greek use. It is from the same root as the words translated " Gospel " (Gk. euangeliore) and " to preach " (euangelizomai). In Eph. iv. 11 evangelists are enumerated along with apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, but thin does not mean that they were a distinct order of church officials. Deacons, presbyters, and apostles (Acts viii. 25; I Cor. i. 17; etc.), all might exercise evangelistic functions. Timothy, the bishop‑presbyter, was exhorted to " do the work of an evangelist " (II Tim. iv. 5); and Philip, one of the seven deacons at Jerusalem, is IV.‑15
called an evangelist (Acts viii. 5, axi. 8). The evangelists are to be regarded as itinerants, traveling from place to place. This was the case with Philip, who preached in Samaria, expounded the word to the eunuch on his way to Gaza, and then labored in C>I'sarea and the cities round about (Acts viii. 40). They acted independently (Acts viii. 4), but largely as " fellow laborers " and assistants of the apostles, accompanying them on their journeys, and laboring under their direction. Theodoret (Ad Eph. iv. 11) was the first to restrict the term to itinerant preachers, and aJcumenius applied it for the first time strictly to the authors of the Gospels. The term is used at the present time in both these senses. In later liturgical language the name was given to the reader of the Gospel for the day.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. ZSekler, Diakonen and Eroasigelialen,
	Munich, 1893; T. Zahn, Miaeionamethoden im Zeitaltar
	der Apoatel, Leipsio, 1888; J. Reville, Lea Originea de
	Z'6piacopaE, Paris. 1889; C. von WeiasLeker, Apostolic
Ape, 2 vole., London, 1894‑95; DB, i. 795‑797.

EVANGELIST MISSIONARY CHURCH. See METHODISTS, IV., 9.

EVANGELIZATION.
Meanings of the Term (¢ 1). Evangelization in Roman Catholic Countries (§ 2). In Greco‑Russian. Mohammedan and Heathen Lands ($ 3). Local Societies in or beside the Churches (14). The Movement in Germany (§ 5).
	Evangelization is the announcement of the divine
message of salvation and consequent awakening to
a saving faith (Matt. xi. 5; Acts xvi. 10, xvii. 18;
Rom. x. 15; I Cor. i. 17; I Pet. i. 12). The agent
is called an evangelist in the New Testament (see
EVANGELIST). In the original sense evangelization
		was the mission work done on the basis
	>;. Mean‑ of the universal testimony of the faith
	ings of the ful and in the strength of a special
	Term. grace. In a narrower sense since the
		time of the Waldensians and John
Wyclif the word is employed to express the efforts
to counteract and correct the declension during the
Middle Ages from apostolic ideals of Christian liv
ing. Later the content of the word came to be the
efforts made in the service of the Church as one of
the blessings of the Protestant Reformation to
preach the pure word of grace and to stimulate to
higher individual and community life and to larger
activity in Christian service. Another use of the
word makes it express an unofficial activity, within
the Evangelical national Churches, essentially re
lated to the work of home missions. This article
will deal with evangelization in the last two senses.
	Evangelization as a reform has its area of opera
tion in lands belonging to the Roman Catholic or
Greek faiths or where either by Mohammedanism
or a returning heathenism the Church has been
overcome. In Italy the Waldenaian Church is the
central agent in evangelization, possessing seven
teen parishes in the home valleys, forty‑four
church organizations, fifty‑seven mission stations,
several schools, a theological seminary, a union for
promoting the spiritual and temporal well‑being

Ivsngeli$stion	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	226
	VMS
of scattered Waldenaiana, and an orphan asylum
in Rome.	The synod has also under its care three
	organizations of the Free Church in Milan, Bari, and
Mottola. The Evangelical Church of Italy (for
	merly the Fry Church) has existed since 1870
				and reports twenty organizations and
	s. Evangel‑ 119 preaching places. German Evan
	ization in gelical organizations are found in
		Romsa	Venice, Milan, Florence, Naples,
		Catholic Genoa, Bologna, Rome (since 1820),
	Countries. San Remo, and elsewhere. The pas
				tors have held since 1880 a yearly
conference, and are for the moat part under the
direction of the Prussian Evangelical Council.
The organizations in the different cities have local
institutions of value, such as societies for men and
for women, homes for young men, homes for the
	aged, for seamen, and the like. The Wesleyan
Methodists have thirty‑six organizations, the
Methodist Episcopal Church (American) has
	twenty‑eight, and the Old Catholic five. The
British and Foreign Bible Society maintains thirty
	colporteurs, and the Evangelical Book and Tract
	Society in Italy is doing its peculiar work. In
	Spain and Portugal there are German Evangelical
	organizations in Lisbon, Barcelona, Malaga, and
Aurora, and the Anglican Church is represented in
Madrid by a congregation having its own church.
The work of the German Evangelical Church in
Madrid is prospering and employing various agen
cies. The circulation of the Scriptures is proceeding
	rapidly. See ITALY; SPAIN; PORTUGAL; and for
France, Belgium, Austria, and Hungary see the
articles on those countries.
		In Russia the work of evangelization is sternly
	repressed (cf. R. Krause, Ein Stuck %irchen‑ and
	Lebensgeschichte aus den deutach‑ruesischen Ost
	aeeprovinzen, Giiteraloh, 1893; H. Dalton, Der
Stundiemus in Ruasland, ib. 1896). In St. Peters
	burg the Evangelicals find more toleration and dis
	play considerable charitable activity. Pastoral
work among the Lutheran communities in South
				Russia and the Caucasus is made
			3. In	difficult by the great distances. In
		Grew‑	the Balkans the Evangelical eommu
		Ruesian, pities and interests need reenforce
		Moham‑ menta. The Germans have a station
	medan, and at Belgrade, established in 1860, and
		Heathen at Sophia and Ruatchuk there .are
		Lands	also stations. Baptists have recently
				undertaken work in the region. In
	Rumania the Germans have nine stations, and in
	Turkey one in Constantinople and one in Salonika.
	In Greece since 1898 recognition has been granted
	to the Greek Evangelical Church. In Asia Minor,
	principally through American agencies, the old
	Armenian Church was aroused to new life. But
	because of this very activity and also in conse
quence of the reports concerning the existence of an
	Armenian revolutionary party, Mohammedan fanat
icism has almost succeeded in annihilating the
results (cf. J. Lepaius, Arwne»ien and Europa,
Berlin, 1896). Hope is entertained, however, that
the Evangelical agencies, especially those of a
	charitable character will succeed in reinstating
	better conditions. In Palestine congregations of
the German Evangelical Church are found in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Beirut. The United Brethren are also active there, while asylums, hospitals, and schools are employed effectively. Egypt is occupied by agencies from England and Germany. The Presbyterian Church and the German Evangelicals are active in Brazil and work is carried on also in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela. See the articles on the countries named.
Even within the Protestant Churches there come lapses from faith and a declension of ethical standards; new zeal then develops in the membership, and organizations outside of the regular ecclesiastical agencies, having an Evangelical character, come into existence. Out of German Pietism arose societies of a charitable sort having as their object the saving of abandoned children and the dissemination of the Scriptures and of Christian literature. Preaching by laymen of the standing of Zinzendorf, Tersteegen, Bogatzky, and M. Hahn, drawing largely from the inspiration of Reformation sources, has had a large influence upon the quickening of Christian life, and also upon the development of . the " Innere Mission." Eng‑
;. Local lish Methodism is an example of a
Societies in kind of evangelization which was car‑
	or beside ried on outside the agencies regu
the 	larly employed, working through such
	Churches.	means as Sunday Schools, city mis
		sions, and itinerant preaching. An
other example of the same kind is the " Innere
Mission " of Germany, seconding the regular work
of the established churches (see INNL%E MI86ION).
Local societies have also engaged in special work
in their own fields in Stuttgart, Basel, Baden,
Elberfeld, and other places. In Norway the
peasant H. N. Hague (q.v.) was instrumental in
forming a society for carrying on work of this
character in France, where evangelists, preachers,
and colporteure were maintained for a number of
years. In Holland for fifty years the " Netherland
Protestant Union " worked in concert with the
Reformed Church of that country. In France the
McAll Mission (q.v.) has accomplished work not
merely in Paris but throughout France in stimu
lating the sending of preachers, Bible‑women, and
teachers to some fifty‑seven places. The work of
Moody and Sankey and of Pearsall Smith are not to
be forgotten. Emulation of the Methodist methods
of working aroused in Germany such men as Zie
mann, Baedeker and Von Schlumbach to labors of
the same kind. As a result of the appeal of Dr.
Christlieb Evangelical societies were organized in
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for the appointment
of lay evangelists whose work should be the stimu
lation of the Church to new life in the matter of
saving souls. Similar results followed in Germany,
and institutes for the training of men for the work
were founded.
1n Germany the growing importance of this kind of labor stimulated the Central Committee of the "Inhere Mission" in 1888 to take council with its friends and supporters concerning the Evangelical activity of laymen in the kingdom of God, its need, and its limitations. The coneluaion was reached that, in view of the fact that large numbers of the

227	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Evangelization
Evens
people are not reached by the ordinary ministrations of the Church, there is necessitated an extraordinary method not bound by the usual limitations under which ecclesiastical operations are
conducted. In case ordinary methods $. The are not suited to any particular need,
Movement the matter shall not go by default by in Germany. deferring to the usual agencies. While
regularly trained candidates in theology are to be kept in mind for the propagation of such work, well‑equipped laymen are not to be rejected, especially if their gifts are suited for the labor. Only experience can determine whether the institutions for training evangelists are suited for the development of this kind of activity. At any rate, such institutions must be under official supervision. Evangelical operations are not, as a rule, to be regarded as anything but the response to a special need. The regular agencies of the Gospel are to be stimulated, not dwarfed into inactivity. Meanwhile the movement has been widely extended. In official gatherings of the churches the question ha‑9 been discussed what should be the attitude toward the unofficial and free attempts to evangelize. The Conference of Pastors of the Lower Rhine district in 1894, the Saxon Union for the Inhere Mission in 1894‑95, the Sleswick‑Holstein Union, the Eisenach Conference in 1896, and the General Synod of 1897 have all discussed various phases of the question. The good results often flowing from these methods of free evangelization have been recognized and the acknowledgment made that reenforcement should be added. To the officials of the Church in their own departments these recommendations have been made for appropriate action in the prosecution of their labor.
(P. RAHLENBECK.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Schneider, Evangeliaation and Gemeinachatteptiepen, Gateraloh, 1897; R. Krause, Bin Stiicac Kirchen‑undLabenageachichte, ib. 1893; J. MOller, DieEvangelieation unter den Entkirchliehten, Leipaia, 1895; H. Dalton, Der Stundismua in Ruealand, Giitersloh, 1898; J. Lepaius, Armenian and Europa, Berlin, 1898; O. Marker, Die Evangeliastion, Stuttgart, 1898: E. Bunks, KirchZiche Evanpeliaation, Hamburg, 1899; T. Hardeland, Evangeliaationafrage, Leipsic, 1899: E. Gtaebenteich, Zur Evmngaiieationatrage, Eisleben, 1900.

EVANS, CHRISTMAS: Welsh Baptist; b. at Ysgaerwen, near Llandysail (15 m. e.s.e. of Cardigan), Dec. 25, 1766; d. at Swansea July 19, 1838. Through the death of his father, a shoemaker, he was left destitute at the age of nine. After six unhappy years spent with his mother's uncle he became a farm hand. Through the influence of David Davies, a preacher and school‑teacher,. he joined the Presbyterian church at Llwynrhydowen and soon afterward began to preach. In 1788 he joined the Baptist church at Aberduar and in 1789 was ordained pastor at Lleyn. In 1792 he went to Anglesey, where for many years he ruled over the Baptist churches; his salary was seventeen pounds a year. For a time he was a victim of the " Sandemanian heresy," but later he regained his orthodoxy. Finally the churches of Anglesey rebelled against his despotic government, and in 1826 he went to Caerphilly. In 1828 he removed to Cardiff, and in 1832 to Carnarvon, his last pas‑
torate. Evans was a man of ardent piety and a great and powerful preacher. His brethren called him the " Bunyan of Wales." His Sermons have been frequently published in Welsh (Eng. transl., with memoir, by Joseph Cross, Philadelphia, 1854). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographies have been written by: D. R. Stephens, London 1847; D. M. Evans, ib. 1883; E. P. Hood, New York, 1901. Consult also DNB, zviii. 57‑b8.
EVANS, JOHN: 1. Non‑conformist; b. at Wrexham (25 m. s. of Liverpool), Wales, c. 1680; d. in London May 16, 1730. He was ordained at Wrexham in 1702 and remained there as pastor of a new Congregational church till 1704, when he went to London as the assistant of Dr. Daniel Williams, whom he succeeded in 1716. In London he threw in his lot with the Presbyterians. He frequently presided at meetings of dissenters and was admired for his tolerant views. He published a number of sermons, completed Matthew Henry's commentary on Romans, and, intending to write a history of non‑conformity, gathered much of the material subsequently used by Daniel Neal (q.v.) in his History of the Puritans. Evans is best known by a series of sermons entitled, Practical Discourses concerning the Christian Temper (4th ed., 2 vole., London, 1737; edited with a life, by J. Erskine, 1825).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Erskine, Brief Account of John Evans, D.D., Edinburgh, 1802; M. Noble, Biographical Hiat. of England, iii. 148, London, 1808; Walter Wilson, Hset. and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches, ii. 212‑221, 4 vole., ib. 1808‑14; Robert Williams, Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Welshmen, Llandovery, 1852; DNB, xviii. 85‑88.
2. Baptist; b. at Usk (11 m. s.w. of Monmouth) Oct. 2, 1767; d. at Islington, London, Jan. 25, 1827. After studying at King's College, Aberdeen, and at the University of Edinburgh (M.A., 1791; LL.D., Brown University, 1819), he went to London to take charge of the morning congregation of General Baptists in Worship Street. He was ordained pastor May 31,1792, and served the church till his death. An illness in 1815 deprived him of the use of his legs, and after that time he had to be carried to his pulpit. In 1795 he opened a school at Hoxton Square (later at Islington) which be maintained for thirty years. Of his forty or more writings by far the most popular was his Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World (London, 1795; 15th ed., revised, 1827). The book was translated into various languages, and during Evans' lifetime more than 100,000 copies were sold. For the copyright he received tt~n pounds. Other works are, A Preservative against the Infidelity and Uncharitableness of the Eighteenth Century (1796); a sequel to the above mentioned book; An Attempt to Account for the Infidelity of the Late Mr. Gibbon (1797); An Essay on the Education of Youth (1798); Complete Religious Liberty Vindicated (1813); and The Christianity of the New Testament Imperishable and Impregnable (1819). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Robert Williams, Biographical Dictionary of Eminent IVelahmen Llandovery, 1852; S. A. Allibone. Critical Dictionary of Eng. Literature, i. 567, Philadelphia, 1891; DNB, xviii. 66‑87.
EVANS, LLEWELYN :OAN: Presbyterian; b. at Treuddyn, North Wales, June 27, 1833; d. at

Evanson	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	228
Evolution
Bata (43 m. s.w. of Liverpool), Merioneth, Wales, July 25, 1892. He studied at the Welsh Presbyterian College, Bala (1846‑49), and at Racine College, Racine, Wis. (B.S., 1854; B.A., 1856), and was graduated at Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, 0., in 1860. He was pastor of the Lane Seminary Church, 1860‑63, and professor in Lane Seminary until 1892, of church history, 1860‑63, of Biblical literature and exegesis 1863‑71, of the Old Testament 1871‑75, and of the New Testament after 1875. In 1892 he accepted a call to the Welsh Presbyterian College, but died four months afterward. He was a member of the Wisconsin legislature in 1856‑57 and corresponding editor of The Christian Central Herald 1363‑66. He translated and edited O. Zbckler's commentary on Job (New York, 1874); a posthumous volume of sermons Preaching Christ (1893) has a memoir by his colleague in Lane, H. P. Smith.

EVANSON, EDWARD: English clergyman; b. at Warrington (16 m. w.s.w. of Manchester), Lancashire, Apr. 21, 1731; d. at Colford (4 m. n.w. of Crediton), Devonshire, Sept. 25, 1805. He studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge (B.A., 1749; M.A., 1753). After having officiated for several years as curate at Mitcham, Surrey, he was given the vicarage of South Mimms in 1768, and in 1769 also that of Tewkesbury. The following year be gave up South Mimms for the vicarage of Longdon, in Worcestershire. For questioning the divinity of Christ and altering the liturgy in conformity to Unitarian views a prosecution was instituted against him. First tried before the bishop of Gloucester, Jan. 16, 1775, the case was appealed to the Court of Arches, then to the Court of Delegates, and finally quashed on technical grounds in 1777. Evanson was very popular with his parishioners, and they subscribed freely to pay his expenses. In 1777 he gave up his charges and a few months later opened a school at Mitcham. After his marriage, in 1786, he purchased an estate at Blakenham, Suffolk, and later preached to a Unitarian church at Lympston. He was the author of The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists (Ipswich, 1792), in which he rejects the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and other parts of the New Testament; Arguments against and for the Sabbatical Observance of Sunday (Ipswich, 1792), a result of a controversy with Prieatley; and Reflections on the State of Religion in Christendom (London, 1802), which he considered his most important work; also Sermons, with a memoir (2 vols., London, 1807), containing the Easter sermon of Mar. 31, 1771, which led to his prosecution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gentleman's Magazine, ii (1805), 1233; Neat Harvard, Narrative of the Origin and Progress of the Prosecution in Tewkesbury, London, 1778; DNB, xviii 78‑79 (where further literature is indicated).

EVARESTUS„ (ARISTUS): According to the lists of the biAhops of Rome, successor of Clement and predecessor of Alexander, about the beginning of the second century. Nothing is known about him, and his existence is doubtful.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Harnack, Litteratur, IL, i. 144 sqq.
EVE: The name of the first woman, according to the Book of Genesis, where her creation is described (ii. 18‑24), introduced by the soliloquy of YahwehElohim: " It is not good for the man to be alone; I will create for him a help as his counterpart." Then God orders the animals to pass before Adam in pairs for review, that he may realize his utter loneliness and crave for the companionship of his own kind. While Adam is in a trance, God takes one of his ribs (so Eng. versions) and from it forms the woman. It is thought by some that the word rendered " rib " means any independent, separable part of the body,‑a meaning favored by the usage of the word as " annex " in I Kings vi. 5; Ezek. xli. 5‑7. Be this as it may, the point of the story is that the woman is not created independently of the man, but from that which has been taken from him. In I Cor. xi. 8‑9 Paul lays emphasis upon this. Originally created as one, destined for personal relation with God, later man becomes husband to the woman who proceeds out of him. " This is at last," he cries, beholding her, " bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." Recognizing her kinship to him, he names her in contradistinction to himself as " man " (Hebr. ish), the " female man " (Hebr. isshah). The historian adds, that for this reason (namely that woman has been created out of and for man) man will forsake father and mother and cling to his wife and thus become one flesh with her. Since ish can be a contraction of issh (=insh), the possibility of an etymological connection between ish and isshah is not to be denied offhand (cf. Strack on Gen. ii. 23).
It is further said: (1) that Eve was tempted into disobedience and induced her husband to commit the same sin (Geh. iii. 1‑7; cf. II Cor. xi. 3; I Tim. ii. 14); (2) that she was punished by the pains of childbirth and her dependence on her husband (Gen. iii. 16); (3) that Adam relying upon God's promise of the victorious seed, gave her the flame Hatvwah (" Life ") as the " mother of all living'; (Gen. iii. 20); (4) that she welcomed the birth of her first‑born in happy surprise at the divine gift of grace with the words, " I have brought forth a man with the help of Yahweh" (Gen. iv. l). (W. VOLCKt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Smith, Kinship, p. 177; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 308, London, 1885; T. NSldeke, in ZDMG,
xlii (1888), 487; JE, v. 275‑276.
EVERETT, CHARLES CARROLL: Unitarian; b. at Brunswick, Me., June 19, 1829; d. at Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 17, 1900. He was educated at Bowdoin College (B.A., 1850), and after completing his studies at the University of Berlin was successively tutor (185.3‑‑55) and professor (1855‑57) of modern languages at Bowdoin, being also librarian during this entire period. He then entered the Harvard Divinity School, from which he was graduated in 1859, and in the same year became minister of the Independent Congregational (Unitarian) Church at Bangor, Me., where he remained ten ,years. From 1869 until his death he was Bussey professor of theology in Harvard Divinity School, and after 1878 was also dean. He wrote: The ,Science of Thought (Boston, 1869, new ed., 1890); Religions before Christianity (1883); Fichte's Science of

229	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Evanson
Evolution
Knowledge (Chicago, 1884); Poetry, Comedy, and Duty (Boston, 1888); Ethics for the People (1.891); Gospel of Paul (1893); Ethics for Young People (1894); and the posthumous Essays Theological and Literary (1901); Immortality and other Essays (1902); and Psychological Elements of Religious Faith (New York, 1902).
	I.	Scope of the Term.
III. Darwin's Greek Predecessors.
		Anaximander and Epicurus (§ 1).
		Heraclitas and the Stoics (¢ 2),
		Empedoclea and Democritus(¢3).
		Plato and Aristotle (¢ 4).
EVERLASTING GOSPEL. See JOACHIM OF FIORE.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. See APOLOGETICS.
EVIL‑MERODACH. See BABYLONIA, VI. 7, § 3.
EVOLUTION.

III. Medieval Views.
Augustine, Erigena,andCusa (¢ 1).
Giordano Bruno (¢ 2).
IV, The Theory in Modern Philosophy.
Descartes, Leibnitz, Herder (¢ 1).
Kant, Schelling, and Others (¢ 2).`
seventeenth and eighteenth century philosophers in a sense still nearer to the modern, seem to have gained their full import first in England. They are now used also by French and German writers, and designate what forms an important, if not the central, point in the modern conception of the world.
II. Darwin's Greek Predecessors: Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It
1. Anaai‑ mere its appearance early in Greek
wander
and philosophy, and maintained its posiEpicurus. Lion more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modern theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in his footsteps, there are rudimentary sua gestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends.
If the mechanical view is to be found in these philosophers, the teleological occurs in Hcraclitus, who conceivestheprocess asarational development, in accordance with the Logos, and names steps of the process as from igneous air to 2. Heraoli‑ water, and thence to earth. The
tus and Stoics followed Heraclitus in the main the Stoics. line;; of their physics. The primal principle is, as with him, igneous ai1Lr only that this is named God by them with much greater definiteness. The Godhead has life in itself, and develops into the universe, differentiating primarily into
Evolution (or Evolutionism) is the view that the whole world and all it contains was not established once for all, but that it is in a state of perpetual motion and development.
I. Scope of the Term: As a metaphysical theory evolution is distinguished from the doctrine of Emanatioli (q.v.) by the fact that according to the latter the primal principle remains unchanged in quantity and quality in spite of every efflux and development proceeding from it; while according to the theory of development in its logical completeness nothing is excluded from the process of development or change‑‑not even the original principle itself, if any such is assumed. Another point of difference is, that in the doctrine of emanation the development proceeds by various stages from the highest to ever lower stages, while evolution works continually toward what is higher and more perfect. Both these theories, and especially the latter, are opposed to that of creation, according to which the whole world and the matter contained in it are the products of a free and conscious act of God; and they are opposed equally to the sort of dualism, in the main Platonic, which conceives a permanent world of ideas in contrast with a mutable matter still to be formed and derives the visible phenomena from the influence of the former upon the latter. In a narrower biological sense evolution often means the development of organic beings from inorganic matter, and their further descent from one another. In the views of the evolutionistic school two different tendencies are to be distinguished. One is teleological, or more broadly organic, which deduces motion and change from internal causes or purposes inherent in the things,subject to the process. This view is found not seldom in the older philosophers, and also in the modern, especially the German idealists. The other may be called the mechanical, since it ascribes the changes to external causes. This is the view chiefly held by modern evolutionists.
The terms evolution and development in this sense are of comparatively recent origin, and when they first make their appearance relate not to the entire universe but to some special partial process. The doctrine, however, which is now meant by them, appears in the early stages of Greek philosophy, and traces of it may be found in Oriental thought. The terms evolution and evolutionism though found in a partially analogous sense as early as Nicholas of Cuss, and in Leibnitz and other
8chleiermacher and Hegel (¢ 3). Lamarck and Darwin (§,4). Haeckel, Fouill6e, Guysu (§ 5). Herbert Spencer (¢ 6). Modifications of Spencer (¢ 7).

Evolution	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	880
two kinds of elements‑the finer or active, and the coarser or passive. Formation or development goes on continuously, under the impulse of the formative principle, by whatever name it is known, until all is once more dissolved by the ekPyrbaia into the fundamental principle, and the whole process begins over again. Their conception of the process as analogous to the development of the seed finds special expression in their term of logos slrermatilcos. In one point the Stoics differ essentially from Heraclitus. With them the whole process is accomplished according to certain ends indwelling in the Godhead, which is a provident, careful intelligence, while no providence is assumed in Heraclitus.
Empedocles asserts definitely that the sphairos, as the full reconciliation of opposites, is opposed, as the superior, to the individual beings brought
into existence by hatred, which are S. Emped‑ then once more united by love to oDemooa the primal essence, the interchange
	rime.	of world‑periods thus continuing
		indefinitely. Development is to be
found also in the atomiatic philosopher Democritus;
in a purely mechanical manner without any pur
pose, bodies come into existence out of atoms, and
ultimately entire worlds appear and disappear from
and to eternity. Like his predecessors, Democritus,
deduces organic beings from what is inorganic
moist earth or slime.
Development, as well as the process of becoming in general, was denied by the Eleatic philosophers.
Their doctrine, diametrically opposed 4. Plato to the older thoroughgoing evolu‑
and	tioniam, had its influence in determin‑
ing the acceptance of unchangeable ideas, or forma, by Plato and Aristotle. Though Plato reproduces the doctrine of Heraclitus as to the flux of all things in the phenomenal world, he denies any continuous change in the world of ideas. Change is permanent only in so far as the eternal forms stamp themselves upon individual objects. Though this, as a rule, takes place but imperfectly, the stubborn mass is so far affected that all works out as far as possible for the best. The demiurge willed that all should become as far as possible like himself; and so the world finally becomes beautiful and' perfect. Here we have a development, though the principle which has the most real existence does not change; the forms, or archetypal ideas, remain eternally what they are.
In Aristotle also the forms are the real existences, working in matter but eternally remaining the same, at once the motive cause and the effectual end of all things. Here the idea of evolution is clearer than in Plato, especially for the physical world, which is wholly dominated by purpose. The transition from lifeless to living matter is a gradual one, so that the dividing‑line between them is scarcely perceptible. Next to lifeless matter comes the vegetable kingdom, which seems, compared with the inorganic, to have life, but appears lifeless compared with the organic. The transition from plants to animals is again a gradual one. The lowest organisms originate from the primeval slime, or from animal differentiation; there is a continual
progression from simple, undeveloped types to the higher and more perfect. As the highest stage, the end and aim of the whole process, man appears; all lower forms are merely unsuccessful attempts to produce him. The ape is a transitional stage between man and other viviparous animals.. If development has so important a work in Aristotle's physics, it is not less important in his metaphysics. The whole transition from potentiality to actuality (from dynamis to enteleciaeia) is nothing but a transition from the lower to the higher, everything striving to assimilate itself to the absolutely perfect, to the Divine. Thus Aristotle, like Plato, regards the entire order of the universe as a sort of deification. But the part played in the development by the Godhead, the absolutely immaterial form, is less than that of the forma which operate in matter, since, being already everything, it is incapable of becoming anything else. Thus Aristotle, despite his evolutionistic notions, does not take the view of a thoroughgoing evolutionist as regards the universe; nor do the Neoplatonists, whose highest principle remains wholly unchanged, though all things emanate from it.
III. Medieval Views: No more absolutely than with Plato and Aristotle was the idea of evolution
accepted by patristic and scholastic 1. Angne‑ theology and philosophy, both on ac‑
tive,	count of the dualism which runs
Erigena,
and Cuss. through them as an echo of the two
	great Greek masters, and on account of
the generally accepted Christian theory of creation.
However, evolution is not generally denied and
with Augustine (De civitate dei, xv. l ) it is taken as
the basis for a philosophy of history. Erigena and
some of his followers seem to teach a sort of evo
lution. The issue of finite beings from God is
called analysis or resolutio, in contrast to the reversio,
or dei ficatio, the return to God, who once more
assimilates all things. God himself, although
denominated‑the beginning, middle, and end, all
in all‑remains unmixed in his own essence, tran
scendent though immanent in the world. The
teaching of Nicholas of Cuss, is similar to Erigena's,
though a certain amount of Pythagoreanism comes
in here. The world exhibits explicitly what the
Godhead implicitly contains; the world is an ani
mated, ordered whole, in which God is everywhere
present. Since God embraces all things in him
self, he unites all opposites: he is the complicaEio
omnium contradictoriorum. The idea of evolu
tion thus appears in Nicholas in a rather panthe
istic form, but it is not logically carried out.
In spite of some obscurities in his conception of the world Giordano Bruno is a little clearer. According to him God is the immanent first cause in
the universe; there is no difference bet. Giordano tween matter and form; matter, which
°' includes in itself forms and ends, is the source of all becoming and of all actuality. The infinite ether which fills infinite space conceals within itself the nucleus of all things, and they proceed from it according to determinate laws, yet in a teleological manner. Thus the worlds originate not by an arbitrary act but by an inner necessity of the divine nature. They are

2.°.1	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Evolution
nature naturata, as distinguished from the operative nature of God, nature naturans, which is present in all things as the being of all that is, the beauty of all that is fair. As in the Stoic teaching, with which Bruno's philosophy has much in common, the conception of evolution comes out clearly both for physics and metaphysics.
IV. The Theory in Modem Philosophy: Leibnitz attempted to reconcile the mechanical‑physical and the teleological views, after Descartes, in his Principia Philosophic?, excluding all purpose, had explained nature, both lifeless and living, as mere
mechanism. It is right, however, to 1. Des‑ point out the Descartes had a meta‑
oartes, physics above his physics, in which
Leibnitz the conception of God took an important
Herder. place, and that thus the mechanical notion of evolution did not really include everything. In Leibnitz the principles of mechanics and physics are dependent upon the direction of a supreme intelligence; without which they would be inexplicable to us. Only by such a preliminary assumption are we able to recognize that one ordered thing follows upon another continuously. Iv is in this sense that the law of continuity is to be understood, which is of such great importance in Leibnitz. At bottom it is the same as the law of ordered development. The genera of all beings follow continuously one upon another, and between the main classes, as between animals and vegetables, there must be a continuous sequence of intermediate beings. Here again, however, evolution is not taught in its most thorough form, since the divine monad, of God, dose not come into the world but transcends it.
Among the German philosophers of the eighteenth century Herder moat be mentioned first of the pioneers of modern evolutionism. He lays down the doctrine of a continuous development in the unity of nature from inorganic to organic, from the atone to the plant, from the plant to the animal, and from the animal to man. As nature develops according to fixed laws and natural conditions, so does history, which is only a continuation of the process of nature. Both nature and history labor to educate man in perfect humanity; but as this is seldom attained, a future life is suggested. Leasing had dwelt on the education of the human race as a development to the higher and more perfect. It is only recently that the significance of Herder, in regard to the conception and treatment of historic development, has been adequately recognized. Goethe also followed out the idea of evolution in his zoological and botanical investigations, with his theory of the meter morphosia of plants and his endeavor to discover unity in different organisms.
Kent is also often mentioned as having been an early teacher of the modern theory of descent. It is true he considers the analogy of the forma
which he finds in various classes of 2. XantI organisms a ground for supposing
SChelling, that they may have come originally and others. from a common source. He calls the hypothesis that specifically different beings have originated one from the other " a daring adventure
of the reason." But he entertains the thought that in a later epoch " an orang‑outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking‑in short, that he may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture." Here, indeed, important ideas of Darwin were anticipated; but Kent's critical system was such that development could have no predominant place in it.
The idea, of evolution came out more strongly in his German idealistic successors, especially in Schelling, who regarded nature as a preliminary stage to mind, and the process of physical development as continuing in history. The unconscious productions of nature are only unsuccessful attempts to reflect itself; lifeless nature is an immature intelligence, so that in its phenomena an intelligent character appears only unconsciously. Its highest aim, that of becoming an object to itself, is only attained in the highest and last reflectionin man, or in what we call reason, through which for the first time nature returns perfectly upon itself. All stages of nature are connected by a common life, and show in their development a conclusive unity. The course of history as a whole moat be conceived as offering a gradually progressive revelation of the Absolute. For this he names three periods‑that of fate, that of nature, and that of providence, of which we are now in the second. Schelling's followers carried the idea of development somewhat further than their master. This is true especially of Oken, who conceives natural science as the science of the eternal transformation of God into the world, of the dissolution of the Absolute into plurality, and of its continuous further operation in this plurality. The development is continued'through the vegetable and animal kingdoms up to man, who in his art and science and polity complexly establishes the will of nature. Oken, it is true, conceived man as the sole object of all animal development, so that the lower stages are only abortive attempts to produce him‑a theory afterward controverted by Ernst von Baer and Cuvier, the former of whom, standing somewhat in opposition to Darwin, is of great interest to the student of the history of the theory of evolution.
Some evolutioniatic ideas are found in Krause and Schleiermacher; but Hegel, with his absolute idealism, is a more notable represents, S. Sohleier‑ five of them. In his system philosophy
	macher	is the science of the Absolute, of the ab
		solute reason developing or unfolding
itself. Reason develops itself first in the abstract
element of thought, then expresses itself externally
in nature, and finally returns from this externaliza
tion into itself in mind. As Heraclitua had taught
eternal becoming, so Hegel, who avowedly accepted
all the propositions of the Epheaian philosopher in
his logic, taught eternal proceeding. The differ
ence between the Greek and the German was that
the former believed in the flux of matter, of fire
transmuting itself by degrees into all things, and
in nature as the sole existence, outside of which
there was nothing; while the latter conceived the

Evolution	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	232
abstract idea or reason as that which really is or becomes, and nature as only a necessary but transient phase in the process of development. With Heraclitua evolution meant the return of all things into the primal principle followed by a new worlddevelopment; with Hegel it was an eternal process of thought, giving no answer to the question as to the end of historical development.
While Heraclitua had laid down his doctrine of eternal becoming rather by intuition than on the ground of experience, and the entire 4. Lamarck evolutionary process of Hegel had andDarwin. bin expressly conceived as based on pure thought, Darwin's epoch‑making doctrine rested upon a vast mesa of ascertained facts. He wee, of course, not the first to lay down the origin of species one from another as a formal doctrine. Besides those predecessors of his to whom allusion has already been made, two others may be mentioned here: his father, Erasmus Darwin, who emphasized organic variability; and still more Lamarck, who denied the immutability of species and forma, and claimed to have demonstrated by observation the gradual development of the animal kingdom. What is new in Charles Darwin is not his theory of descent, but its confirmation by the theory of natural selection and the survival.of the fittest in the struggle for existence. Thus a result is brought about which corresponds as far as possible to a rational end in a purely mechanical process, without any cooperation of teleological principles, without any innate tendency in the organisms to proceed to a higher stage. This theory postulates in the later organisms deviations from the earlier once, and that these deviations, in so far as they are improvements, perpetuate themselves and become generic marks of differentiation. This, however, imports a difficulty, since the origin of the first of these deviations is inexplicable. The differentia of mankind, whom Darwin, led by the force of analogy, deduces from a species of apes, consists in intellect and moral qualities, but comes into existence only by degrees. The moral sensibilities develop from the original social impulse innate in man; this impulse is an effort to secure not so much individual happiness as the general welfare.
It would be impossible to name here all those who, in different countries, have followed in Darwin's footsteps, first in the biological 6• field and then in those of psychology,
Fonlllee, ethics, sociology, and religion. They
Gu"n' have carried his teaching further in several directions, modifying it to some extent and making it fruitful, while positivism has not seldom come into alliance with it. In Germany Ernst Haeckel must be mentioned with his biogenetic law, according to which the development of the individual is an epitome of the history of the race, and with his less securely grounded notion of the world‑ether as a creative deity. In France Alfred Fouill6e worked out a theory of idea‑forces, a combination of Platonic idealism with English (though nQt specifically Darwinian) evolutionism. Marie‑Jean Guyau understood by evolution a life led according to the fundamental law that the most
intensive life is also the most extensive. He develops his ethics altogether from the facts of the social existence of mankind, and his religion is a universal sociomorphism, the feeling of the unity of man with the entire cosmos.
The most careful and thorough development of the whole system took place in England. For a e. Herbert long time it was represented princi‑
Bpeneer. Pally by the work of Herbert Spencer,
who had come out for the principle of evolution even before the publication of Darwin's Origin o f Species. He carries the idea through the whole range of philosophy in his great System of Synthetic Philosophy and undertakes to show that development is the highest law of all nature, not merely of the organic. As the foundation of all that exists, though itself unknowable and only revealing itself in material and mental forms, he places a power, the Absolute, of which we have but an indefinite conception. The individual processes of the world of phenomena are classed under the head of evolution, or extension of movement, with which integration of matter, union into a single whole, is connected, and dissolution or absorption of movement, which includes disintegration of matter, the breaking of connection. Both processes go on simultaneously, and include the history of every existence which we can perceive. In the course of their development the organisms incorporate matter with themselves; the plant grows by taking into itself elements which have previously existed in the form of gases, and the animal by assimilating elements found in plants and in other animals. The same sort of integration is observed in social organisms, as when nomadic families unite into a tribe, or subjects under a prince, and princes under a king. In like manner integration is evident in the development of language, of art, and of science, especially philosophy. But as the individuals unite into a whole, a strongly marked differentiation goes on at the same time, as in the distinction between the surface and the interior of the earth, or between various climates. Natural selection is not considered necessary to account for varying species, but gradual conditions of life create them. The aim of the development is to show a condition of perfect balance in the whole; when this is attained, the development, in virtue of the continuous operation of external powers, passes into dissolution. Those epochs of development and of dissolution follow alternately upon each other. This view of Spencer suggests the hodos anS and hodos kdto of Heraclitus, and his flowing back of individual things into the primal principle.
Similar principles are carried out not only for organic phew wens but also for mental and social; and on the basis of the theory of evolution a remarkable combination of intuitionism and empiricism is achieved. In his principles of sociology Spencer lays down the laws of hyperorganic evolution, and gives the various stages of human customs and especially of religious ideas, deducing all religion much too one‑sidedly from ancestor‑worship. The belief in an immortal " second self " is explained by such phenomena as shadows and echoes.

233	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Evolution
The notion of gods is supposed to arise from the
idea of a ghostly life after death. In his Prin
ciples o f Ethics he attempts a similar compromise
between intuitionism and empiricism, deducing
the consciousness of duty from innumerable accu
mulated experiences. The compelling element in
moral actions, originally arising from fear of re
ligious, civil, or social punishment, disappears
with the development of true morality. There is
no permanent opposition between egoism and al
truism, but the latter develops simultaneously
with the former.
Spencer's ethical principles were fruitfully modified, especially by Sir Leslie Stephen and S. Alex7. Xodifica, ander, though with constant adherence
bone of to the idea of development. While
	Spencer.	the doctrine of evolution in Huxley
		and Tyndall is associated with ag
nosticism, and thus freed from all connection with
metaphysics, as indeed was the case with Spen
cer, in spite of his recognition of the Absolute as
the necessary basis for religion and for thought,
in another direction an attempt was made to com
bine evolutionism closely with a metaphysics in
which the idea of God was prominent. Thus the
evolution theory of Clifford and Romanes led them
to a thoroughgoing monism, and that of J. M. F.
Schillerto pluralism. According to the last‑named a
personal deity, limited in power, exists aide by side
with a multitude of intellectual beings, who ex
isted before the formation of the world in a cha
otic state as absolutely isolated individuals. The
proms of world formation begins with the decision
of the divine Spirit to bring a harmony of the cosmos
out of these many existences. Though Spencer's
influence in philosophical development was not so
great in Germany as in England, the idea of devel
opment has continued in recent years to exert no
little power. Space forbids more than a mention
of Lotze'a teleological idealism; Von Hartmann's
absolute monism, in which the goal of the teleo
logical development of the universe is the reversion
of the will into not‑willing; Wundt's metaphysics
of the will, according to which the world is a devel
opment, an eternal becoming, in which nature is a
preliminary stage to mind; and Nietzsche's indi
vidualism, the final point of which is the develop
ment of the superman. 	(M. HEINZE.)
V. Relation to Modern Theology: When the Darwinian hypothesis was first broached in Great Britain and America it caused nothing less than a panic in nearly all circles of religious thought. The fear was that if it was true it must result in the transformation of all religious values. Here and there it was indeed advocated by distinguished scientists and theologians in the interests of faith, but it was for the moat part met by fierce and prolonged opposition. The following beliefs became the center of interest and have remained such until the present day. (I) The Biblical account of the creation: whether it had a beginning; whether God was the Creator, or the world was eternally in process of becoming; further, whether the Genesis story could be harmonized with geology, astronomy, biology, archeology, and other sciences. (2) The Biblical account of man; whether he was wholly and imme‑
diately created by God, or, even if his body was organically related‑to the animal world, his mind was a direct creation, or finally, whether both body and mind shared in the development from lower forms of life. (3) Concerning man's personal history: whether be began in a state of " original righteousness " from which he fell only to be recovered by a miraculous intervention, or started low down, at the outset scarcely to be distinguished from the highest existing animal consciousness. (4) Involved in man's personal history was a profound modification of the origin and development of the idea of God from the lowest fetishism or animism through polytheism to ethical monotheism (see COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1), of the idea of the Scriptures as not inerrant and infallible, halt as recording the stages through which man's consciousness has passed in its apprehension of the ethical and religious meaning of life, and of the entire ra.lge of Christian beliefsprovidence, sin and evil, the person and work of Christ, the Christian life, the Church, and the future. A similar change of values has occurred in other regions of thought. (5) In psychology and ethics (q.v.) the static has given place to the genetic and historic point of view. (6) In apologetics (q.v.) for the traditional conception of prophecy as predictive and miracles as out of relation to natural law has been substituted the spiritual and dynamic doctrine of man and the world. (7) The philosophy of religion has found in comparative religion the key to its interpretation of religion as a fact of universal human experience. (8) While the uniqueness of Christianity is recognized‑now more than ever before‑its organic relation to pre‑Christian types of experience is the subject of exhaustive inquiry and its development as a system of beliefs, institutions, and ideals becomes more clearly evident to students of its history.
Since evolution as a scientific theory is only a method according to which at any given period existing conditions have come into being, it does not primarily concern the grounds of reality. It is atheistic only when as a philosophy it reduces the world‑ground to a system of mechanical necessity (see ATHEISM). When, however, the ultimate reality is conceived as a power realizing rational ends in the universe, evolution is affirmed as the uniform method by which this power fulfils its purposes (cf. B. P. Bowne, Theism, New York, 1902).
C. A. B.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: From the philosophic standpoint for ancient and modern periods best for consultation are the works on the history of philosophy by E. Zeller (Die PhiZoaophie der Griechen), Tiibingen, 1844, latest ed., 1892, Eng. transl., 1897; W. Windelband, Freiburg, 1590‑92, Eng. tranal., New York, 1893; F. Ueberweg, 10th ed, by Heinze, Berlin, 1903‑07, Eng. transl. of 4t6 ed., London, 1875‑7B; J. E. Erdmann, 2 vols., Berlin, 1895‑96, Eng. tranel.of earlier ed., 3 vole. London, 1892‑98. Forthe modern period: F. Bowen, Modern Philosophy, New York, 1877; K. Fischer, Geachichte der neueren Philosophie, vol, i., Heidelberg, 1897, Eng. transl, of earlier ed., New York, 1887.
For philosophy of the representatives of thought mentioned in the text consult: G. TeichmOller, Studien zur Ceachichte der Begri ffe, pp. 1‑70, 545‑588, Berlin, 1844 (on Anaximander); W. Wallace, Epicureanism, LonAnn, 1880; F. Lassalle, Die Philoaophie Herakleitoa, Berlin, 1892; P. Tannery, Go Coanwganie d'EmPMocle, m Revue philoaophique, xxiv (1887), 285‑300; A. Brieger,

wolatlon
Esolneion, Bight of
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Die Urbswapunp der Atone and die Waifentatehung be% Leukippua and Demokrit, Halle, 1884; W. Peter, Plato and Platonism, London, 1893; C. Baeumker, Daa Problem der Matuie in der priuhiechan Philoeophie, pp. 210232, Miineter, 1890 (on Aristotle); A. Gardner, Studies in John !he Scot (Erigena), London, 1900; F. J. Clemens, Giordano Bruno and Nicolaua Cuaanua, Bonn, 1847; J. Uebinger, Philoaophie du Nimlaus Cueanua, Wilraburg, 1881; L. Kuhlenbeck, Giordano Bruno .... seine Weltanschauung, Leipeie, 1890; J. P. Mahaffy, Descartes, Edinburgh, 1880; A. Foucher de Careil, Leibnis, Dea• caries et Spinoza, Paris, 1883; F. J. Schmidt, Herder's panfleeistiseha Weltanschauung, Berlin, 1888; I. Kent, Alh pemeine Naturpeachichte, ed. A. von Oettingen, Leipaic,1898; E, von Hartmann, Schellinp'spoaiMvePhiloaophis a7a Einheit von Hegel and 3ehopenhauer, Berlin, 1889. A review of the subject is H. F. Osborn, From the (Yaks to Darwin, vol. i., London, 1894.
For the modern doctrine the pivotal work is C. R. Darwin, Origin of Species, London, 1859, and often, of. his Descent of Man and Selection in Relation do Sex, latest ed., 2 vole., New York, 1905. For the United States the theory was set forth by J. Fieke, Outlines of Cosmic Phiioaophy, 4 vole., new ed., Boston, 1903, cf. his Darwinism arid Other Essays, ib 1884. Consult further: St. G. Mivart, On the Genesis of Species, London, 1871; A. R. Wallace, Contributions !o the Theory of Natural Selection, London, 1871; idem, Darwinism, ib. 1889; idem, Studies Scientific and Social, ib. 1900; G. J. Roman, Darwin and After Darwin, Chicago, 1882; J. Le Conte, Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought, New York, 1888; A. Weiamann, Studies in the Theory of Descant, London, 1882; idem, Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems, ib. 1889; J. Croll, Philosophical Basis of Evolution, ib. 1890; J. MeCoeh, Religious Aspect of Evolution, New York, 1890; H. Macqueary, Evolution of Man and Christianity, ib. 1891; E. Caird, Essays in Literature arid Philosophy, Glasgow, 1892; A. J. Dodson, Evolution and Religion,. London, 1893; H. Cslderwood, Evolution and Man's Place in Nature, ib. 1898; T. H. Huxley, Evolution and Ethics, ib. 1894; D. $. Jordan, Factors in Organic Evolution Boston, 1894; E. P. Evans, Evolutioreal Ethics, London, 1898; F. W. Headley, Problems of Evolution, ib. 1901; E. Haeckel, Evolution of Man, ib. 1905; M. M. Metcalf, Theory of Organic Evolution, ib. 1905; J. $aouller, Law of Evolution, Its True Philoaophimi Basis, ib. 1905; A. Weismann, Evolution Theory, 2 vole.,ib. 1905; N. C. Anderson, Evolution at the Human Soul and the Future Life Scientifically Demonstrated, $t. Paul, 1907; R. H. Frane6, Der heutipe Stand der darurin'achen Fragen, Leipeia, 1907; G. Paulin, No Struggle for Existence, No Natural Selection, Edinburgh, 1908; E. B. Poulton, Essays on Evolution, New York, 1908.
On V. consult: (1) J. W. Dawson, Origin of flee World, New York, 1877; A. WincheV, Doctrine of Evolution, ib. 1874; B. F. Tefft, Evolution and Christianity, Boston, 1885; C. B. Warring, Genesis i. and Its Critics, New York, 1887; E. Clodd, Story of Creation, London, 1888. (2) J. W. Dawson, cat sup.; H. Drummond, Ascent o/ Man, New York, 1894; J. M. Tyler, Whence and Whither of Man, ib. 1898; H. W. Corm, Method of Evolution, ib. 1900. (3) C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. ii., Philadelphia, 1885; J. M. Baldwin, Development and Evolution, New York, 1902. (4) E. Caird, Evolution o/ Religion, Glasgow, 1893; A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration, in Presbyterian Review, 1881, pp. 225 eqq.; G. T. Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, NewYork,1883; A. B. Bruce, Providential Order of the World, ib. 1897; G. Jones, Aeant through Christ, ib: 1900; M. Dods, The Bible, Its Origin and Nature, ib. 1905; J. Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, ib. 1908. (b) H. R. Marshall, Instinct and Reason, ib. 1898; J. M. Baldwin, cat sup.; J. T. Gulick, Evolution, Racial and Habitudinal, Washington, 1905; E A. Weatermarek, Origin and Development a( the Moral Ideas, vol, i., London. 1908. (0) A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, Edinburgh, 1892; G. B. Foster, Finality of the Christian Religion, Chicago, 1908. (7) A. Menaiee, Hilt. of Religion, London, 1895; E. Caird cat sup.; G. T. Ladd, Phil, of Religion, New York, 1905. (8) C. H. Toy. Judaism and Christianity, Boston, 1890; E. Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, London, 1890; A. Barnaek, What is Christianity? ib. 1901; W. A. Brown, Essence o/ Christianity, New York, 1902.
EWALD, GEORG HEINRICH AUGUST: Ori‑
eataliet and Biblical scholar; b. at G6ttingen Nov. 16, 1803; d. there May 4, 1875. His father was a cloth‑weaver. Having been thoroughly prepared in the gymnasium of his native town, he studied classical philology, Orientalia, and theology at its university. After spending two years as teacher in the gymnasium at WolfenbUttel, he returned to G6ttingen in 1824 as repetent in the theological faculty. In 1827 he became extraordinary professor; ordinary profeasorin1831; in 1833, member of the Society of Sciences; in 1835, titular professor of Oriental languages and member of the honorary faculty. In 1838 he was made doctor of theology by the faculty of Copenhagen. Notwithstanding his extensive professorial activity he found time for ample production. Besides works on the Hebrew and Arabic languages, the moat important of which is the Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprache des allen Bundza (5th ed., Leipsic, 1844; Eng. tranel., from the 2d ed., London, 1836; of part iii.syntax‑from the 8th ed., Edinburgh, 1879), there may be mentioned is this period, Comrnerttariua in apokalypsirt Joltdnnia (1828) and Die poetischen Bother den alien Bundes (4 parts, GSttingen, 18351839). He contributed also to several periodicals. These works are the product of strictly scientific researches, careful and at the same time generously proportioned. Ewald's importance was conceded willingly, and his renown was large. But this fortunate season had a sudden check; in 1837 he was dismissed from his public position because, with some of his colleagues, he had addressed a memorial to the board of university regents in Hanover, expostulating against the arbitrary repeal, by act of King Ernst August, of the liberal constitution of 1833.
After sojourning four months in England, Ewald accepted a call to Tilbingen, where he worked until 1848 as professor, first in the philosophical, subsequently in the theological faculty. His productive activity during this period was confined mainly to the Biblical sciences. Among other works he issued Die Prophetert den Alters Bundea (2 vole., Stuttgart, 1840f11; Eng. transl., 5 vole., London, 1875‑81); Geachichte des Volkea Israel (7 vole., GSttingen, 1843‑59; Eng. transl., of vole. i. iv., 5 vole., London, 1867‑74), a work of permanent value on account of its careful use of the sources. His dismissal from G6ttingen having been hailed as an event of political consequence, Ewald unfortunately felt himself prompted to publish impassioned polemical writings, which embittered him personally, and drove him to a morbidly exaggerated estimation of himself. His irritability also injured him with his TUbingen colleagues, among whom he especially antagonized F. C. Baur, with both spoken and written vehemence.
In 1848 Ewald, at his own request, was reinstated at GtSttingen. From this time forth he labored particularly upon the New Testament writings, in express opposition to Baur and Strauss. He occupied himself especially with pseudepigraphy, proceeding from foundations laid by his earlier investigations. His comprehensive scholarship is faithfully reflected in his JoJtrbuchef' der btbliac)le» Wiaaen‑

235
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
schaft (12 vole., Gtittingen, 18495). Unhappily
his sensitiveness and testiness continually increased.
He interfered in every event of state and church
life, and published his views thereon in prefaces
and postscripts to his books. He had taken part
in founding the Protestant Union (q.v.) in 1863;
nevertheless he subsequently withdrew from the
same, on failing to carry through a manifesto that
he had planned against the Prussian government.
His sharp expressions of opinion in political affairs
had already brought him into repeated conflict
with the government. When in 186? he refused
the oath of allegiance to the king of Prussia, his
removal from the philosophical facultywas effected
by a ministerial rescript. Through subsequent
utterances he also forfeited, in 1868, the right of
delivering lectures. From 1869 he represented, in
the Imperial Diet, the capital city of Hanover.
Not even the victories of German arms in 1870‑71,
and the restoration of the Empire, prevailed to
efface his bitterness in the political domain. Yet
with all this he continued a diligent laborious
scholar, and still published extensive works; in
particular, Die Biicher den Neuen Bundes iibersetzt
and erklart (Gottingen, 1871‑72), and Die Theologie
den Alters and Netten Bundes (4 vole., Leipsic, 1871
1876). The latter work contains‑with rather
tedious exposition, it is true‑his aggregate view
of Biblical religion. 	CARL BERTHEAU.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G6ainger gekhrte Naehrichten, 1875, pp. 340344; A. Dillmann, in Im neuen Reich, V., i (187b). 778788; ADB, vi. 438‑442; T. W. Davies, Heinrich Ewald, Orientalist and Theologian, London, 1903.
EWALD (HERMANN AUGUST), PAUL: German Protestant; b. at Leipsic Jan. 13, 1857. He studied in Erlangen and Leipaic (Ph. D., 1881), and from 1880 to 1882 was a member of the clergy staff of St. Paul's, Leipsic. In 1883 he became privat‑docent at the university in the same city, and associate professor in 1887. In 1886 he went to Vienna as professor of the New Testament in the Protestant faculty of that city, and in 1894 to Erlangen as professor of dogmatic theology and New Testament exegesis. He has edited G. B. Winer's Komparative Darstellung der Lehrbegriffe der verschiedenert christliehen KirchenpaTteien (Leipsic, 1882), and has written Der Ein floss der stoischciceronianischen Moral auf die Darstellung der Ethik bei Ambrosias (Leipsie, 1881); De vocis syrteideseos aped scriptorea Novi Testamenti vi ac potentate (1883); Die Hauptprobleme der Evangelienfrage (1890); Der geschichtliche Christus and die synoptinchen Evangelien (1892); Ueber das Verhkltnis der systematischen Theologie zur Sehriftwissensehaft (1895); Ueber die Glaubenswiirdigkeit der Evangelien (1897); Religion and Christentum (1898); Wer war Jesus (`(1899); Der Christ and die Wissensehaft (1903); and Kommentar zu den Briefen den Paulus an die Ephesier, Kolossier, and Philemon (1905).
EWING, FIIYIS: One of the founders of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church; b. in Bedford County, Va., June 10, 1773; d. at Lexington, Mo., July 4, 1841. He early removed to Davidson County, Tenn., and subsequently to Logan County, Ky. His education was limited,
Evolution
Exclusion, Right of
but under the influence of revivalist preachers he offered himself as a candidate for the Presbyterian ministry. About 1800 he was licensed as a probationer and in Nov., 1803, was ordained by the Cumberland presbytery. The Kentucky synod did not recognize this ordination and in 1806 dissolved the Cumberland presbytery. As a result, Ewing, with two others, organized on Feb. 4, 1810, the first presbytery of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (see PRESBYTERIANS). In 1820 he removed to Missouri, settling first in what is now Cooper County. He soon built up a large congregation at New Lebanon, which still flourishes. In 1836 he went to Lexington, Lafayette County, Mo., where he labored till his death. He published Lectures art Important Subjects in Divinity (Nashville, 1824).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. R. Coseitt, Life and Times of Rev. Finia Ewing, Nashville, 1853; R. Beard, Biographical Sketches of , , , Early Ministers of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 2 vole., ib. 1867; J. B. Lindaley, Sources and Sketches of Cumberland Presbyterian Hilt. in Theological Medium 1877‑78; R. V. Foster, in American Church History Series, xi. 259, 288, 288.
EXACTIONS (Exactiones tallice): In canon law, taxes of an extraordinary sort, either entirely new, or old taxes levied at a higher rate. They are essentially illegal, and were forbidden as early as the Third Council of Toledo (509). When levied, valid ground (manifests ac rationabilia causa) must exist, and they must be limited to the indispensable requirement (moderatum auxilium).
EXARCH: A title applied to the head of an ecclesiastical province, whose rank, historically, was equivalent sometimes to that of Patriarch (q.v.), sometimes to that of Metropolitan or Archbishop (qq.v.). Cf. Bingham, Origines, IL, xvi. 5, xvii. 1‑2, where the synodical decisions are given.
EXCLUSION, RIGHT OF (Exclusiva): In the wider sense, the right of a sovereign or secular official to veto the nomination of a candidate for an ecclesiastical office. In the narrower and more usual sense, the ius exclusivte is the right to exclude a candidate for the papacy who is unacceptable to the power exercising it. The constitutional influence of the emperors on papal elections ceased in the eleventh century; but since the fifteenth the great Roman Catholic powers (the Roman‑German Empire, Austria, France, Spain) have, as a matter of fact, attempted to exercise a certain influence in the direction of what appeared to be their interests by means of cardinals devoted to them, and to exclude undesirable candidates by getting together so many votes for their own that the others failed of the necessary two‑thirds. As this practise became publicly recognized, since the seventeenth century it has developed into a formal assumption of the right to exclude from election one candidate for each power, by a declaration made before the termination of the balloting through a cardinal authorized for the purpose. Besides the powers named Naples and Portugal claimed this right. Though it was not exercised at the election of Leo XIII., at that of Pius X. in 1903 the emperor of Austria attempted to enforce it against Cardinal Rampolla,. It was understood, however,

Exclusive Brethren	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	238
Exegesis or Hermeneutics
that the Sacred College paid no heed to it, and that
there was little prospect of its being allowed at
any future election.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject has been especially studied
	by L. wahrmund, in Daa Auaechlieaaungarecht . . . bei
	den Papatwahlen, Vienna, 1888; Excluaionsrecht bei den
	Papatwahlen, ib. 1890; Die Bulls "lEEerni patria filiua,"
	ib. 1894. Consult further: N. Wiseman, Recollections of
	the Last Four Popes, pp. 358, 416, London, 1858; J. B.
	8agmiiller, Die Papattoahlbullen and daa ataatliche Recht
	der Exkluaiva, Tiibingen, 1892; idem, Neueate Ltiaunga
	verauche in der Frape . . . der Exkluaiva, Freiburg,1898;
	L. Lector, Le Conclave. Origins, hiatoirc, organisation,
	Paris, 1894.
	EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN. See PLYMOUTH
BRETHREN.
				EXCOMMiTNICATIOft.
		Early Practise (¢ 1).
		The Lesser and Greater Excommunication (¢ 2).
		Various Legal Provisions (¢ 3).
		Changes Introduced by the Reformation (§ 4).
	Excommunication is the exclusion of an offender
from full church fellowship, which may occur as a
means of discipline in varying degrees. On the
basis of various passages of Scripture (Matt. xvi.
19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23; I Thess. v. 14; James
v.1F; I John i. 8 sqq.; v.16; II Cor. v. 18 sqq.; for
the old Testament ban, see LAW, HEBREW, CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL), the Church of the earliest times
undertook to punish grievous sinners by such
exclusion, and either refused entirely to restore
them to its fellowship or restored them only after
they had attested their sorrow by penance (q.v.).
After the Councils of Ancyra (314) and Nicaa (325),
			four stages of penance developed
	L Early	through which the offender had to pass.
	Practise.	During the first year he lay prostrate
			and weeping in the vestibule of the
church and begged those entering in to pray for
him (Gk. prosklausis ; Lat. fletus). Next, com
monly for three years, he had a place in the back
of the church, with the unbaptized catechumens,
where he was allowed to hear the reading of the
Scriptures (akroasis ; auditio). Then he was al
lowed to enter the body of the church, and to pray
prostrate, while the bishop and the faithful inter
ceded for him (hypoptosis ; gems ftezio, substralio).
After further penitential exercises, he was allowed
to pray standing, with the rest of the congregation,
and to be present at the most sacred portion of the
liturgy, the missa ftdelium, from which the cate
chumens were excluded (systasis ; cmesistentia).
Only after the completion of this long process was
he restored to full communion. Originally this
discipline was applied also to sins which had given
no public scandal, until Pope Leo I. forbade them
to be publicly confessed (450), after which public
penance was only applied to open sins‑the graver
ones in the manner described, the lesser ones with
out exclusion from the fellowship of the faithful,
but still so as to atone for public scandal, and cov
ering the exclusion from the missa fidelium. Both
of these methods are called peen. medicinales by
Augustine; their application belonged to the bishop,
whose action must be recognized by his brother
bishops, and could be reversed only by himself.
	In the Frankish kingdom, after the institution of
the Synodal Courts (q.v.), penitential discipline
was placed in their charge, when once the testes
synodales had established the existence of an open
scandal. By degrees the old distinct stages of
penance, which had at first been accepted also in
the West, fell into disuse in the Frankish kingdom.
Finally public penance practically ceased, and the
exclusion from the sacraments became regularly
		(as it had been exceptionally) an
	a. The independent measure of discipline,
Lesser and becoming known as the lesser excom
	Greater munication, while the old exclusion
	Excom‑ from all blessings and graces of the
munication. Church was called the greater. In
		the view of the canon law these form
the general means used by the ecclesiastical body
for the maintenance of its discipline. Both pre
suppose a cause which is both public and grave.
None can be excommunicated but living, baptized
persons who have the use of reason. The bisl_flp
has the right of excommunication over those who
belong to his diocese, though his sentence is valid
also outside of it; a prelate with quasiepiscopal
jurisdiction, such as a papal legate, has it in the
territory for which he is commissioned; and the
pope for the Church at large. The power of recon
ciliation is vested in the same person, and it requires
as a condition the promise of obedience for the
future. Excommunication is either juris or hom
inis, i.e., prescribed by law or pronounced at the
decision of an authorized person in a case not
explicitly covered by the law. It is divided again
into excommunicatio latce sententice, where it takes
		effect ipso facto upon the commission of
3. Various a specified offense, or ferendtr sententice,
Legal Pro‑ where it follows an express judicial de
	visions. cision. The latter class requires two
		warnings at least. Ignorance of the law
excuses from the former, and to be effective it must
be definitely proclaimed. The lesser excommunica
tion deprives a person of the sacraments; the greater
cuts him off from all rights‑the mass may not be
celebrated in his presence, he can not hold a bene
fice., exercise jurisdiction, or take part in an eccle
siastical election, and Christian burial is denied him;
intercourse with the faithful is prohibited except
in certain specified cases. Since the time of Gregory
IX. the term Anathema (q.v.) has been applied to
the solemn declaration of the greater excommuni
cation (cf. the form in the Pontifecale Ilomanurrt).
	The canon law expects that the State will give
effect on its side to the social consequences of
exclusion from Christian fellowship. The extent
to which the civil governments of the Middle .ages
were subservient to the power of the Church over
society may be seen in the way they responded to
such appeals; thus the Emperor Frederick lI. in
1`?13 and 1219 and Henry VII. in 1230 expressed
their willingness to inflict the ban of the Empire
		upon any excommunicated offender
¢. Changes who was still recalcitrant at the end
Introduced of six weeks after his sentence. These
by the Ref‑ conditions prevailed down to the
	ormation. Reformation; but in the countries
		where it prevailed a great change took
place. The greater excommunication, as being
a secular punishment, was not recognized by the

237	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Exclusive Brethren
		Exegesis or Hermeneutics
Reformed Church; the lesser was retained as a measure of instructive discipline, generally in the hands of the pastor, although Luther and others held that Scripturally it ought to be administered by the whole Christian community; but it was felt that if the pastor admitted an unworthy person to the Lord's Sapper, he became partaker of the sin, and so the power of exclusion was left in his hands. The method of procedure prescribed by the German Reformers was public only for public sins, and always based on Matt. xviii. 55 sqq. Since the abolition of private confession did away with the warning of priest to penitent, it was made before church‑members summoned for the purpose, preferably the elders, and followed by a prohibition to approach the communion‑table and sometimes a withdrawal of other rites as well, including betrothal; but this was not necessarily public, unless the offender was obstinate, when he might be cut off from the Church in the presence of the whole congregation. The consistories always took part in the proceedings at one stage or another; and after the middle of the sixteenth century, as they had inherited many of the other episcopal powers, came to monopolize this, leaving the pastor
EXEGESIS OR HERMENEUTICS.
III. Historical Review of Exegetical
		Principles and Methods.
	Transition from Dogmatic to Hio
		tori cal Principles (§ 1).
	Origen (§ 2).
	The Antiochian School (§ 3).
	Later Patristic Methods (§ 4).
	The Middle Ages (§ 5).
	The Reformation (§ 6).
	Post‑Reformation Theories (§ 7).
	Exegesis as Affected by History
		(§ 8).
Employment of Analogy and Hy‑ IV. The Forms of Interpretation of
	pothesis (§ 4).	Scripture.
Stylistic Exegesis (§ 5).	Glosses and Scliolia (§ 1).
I. The Conception and Problem of Biblical Exegesis.
Exegesis a Necessary Science ( § 1).
Relations to Criticism and Philology (§ 2).
Exegesis and Dogmatics (§ 3).
Exegesis and Theological Science
	($ 4)•
II. The Method.
Three Kinds of Exegesis (§ 1).
Philological Exegesis (§ 2).
Historical Exegesis (§ 3).
only the duty of publishing the sentence. The
greater excommunication practically died out in
the seventeenth century, and the lesser fell very
much into disuse with the growth of rationalism.
It is, however, obvious that no religious community
can hope to enforce its regulations which does not
possess and if necessary use the powerof excluding
members who persistently refuse obedience to
them. The modern Roman Catholic Church main
tains the position taken in the canon law, in this as
in other regards, though considerable modifications
have taken place in practise, especially as a result of
the constitution Apostolic& sedis of Pius IX.
(1869), which removed a number of the cases of
excommunication late sen.tentice, while enforcing
discipline vigorously in some other respects. See
CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 	(E. FRIEDBERG.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gingham, Originea, books xvi.‑xvii.; E. Martbne, De antiquis eccleaice ritibua, 3 vole., Antwerp, 1736‑37; N. Marshall, Penitential Discipline, London, 1714, Oxford, 1844; F. Kober, Der Kirchenlxinn, Tiibingen, 1857; J. Fessler, Der Kirchenbann and seine Folgen, Vienna, 1860; P. Hinsehius, Kirchenrecht, §§ 243‑297, Berlin, 1869; H. C. Lea, Studies in Church Hist., Philadelphia, 1883; DCA, i. 638‑642 (able); S. Mandl, Der Bann. Briinn, 1898; EB, i. 468‑469.
Biblical exegesis or hermeneutics is the first of the four departments of theological science (interpretative, historical, dogmatic, practical); its function is the interpretation of Scripture.
I. The Conception and Problem of Biblical Exegesis: That the oral and written tradition coming from the past may continue to be a vital and spiritual possession necessitates both understanding and appropriation of the sense. Understanding is achieved either directly by simple apprehension, or mediately by a process. In the latter case, the object is approached methodically that it may be learned in its limits, essence, and causes. To understand whatever heritage the past produced under conditions which no longer exist, correct insight is needed into the disparity of past and present. And when such a heritage
r. Exegesis has acquired a certain authority a Necessary either as a model (classical literature)
	Science.	or as a norm of right living (the
		Corpus yuris) or as the source of
Christian inspiration (the Bible), the necessity for
assurance that a correct understanding is reached
is the motive for constructing a theory of expo
sition. Out of this grew the technical term " her
meneutics," first used by Plato as expressing the
Their Type
Commentaries and (§ 2).
Translation and Paraphrase (§ 3). V. History of Exegesis.
Prepatristic Exegesis (§ 1).
Patristic and Medieval Exegesis (§ 2).
Exegesis Since the Reformation ($ 3).
German Exegesis in the Nineteenth Century (§ 4).
Modern French Exegesis (§ 5).
Exegesis in Holland (§ 6).
English Exegesis (§ 7).
Exegesis in the United States (§ 8).
art of rightly apprehending and setting forth the etymology and value of any given word. The term is derived from hermeneuein, " to interpret," " to make intelligible that which is obscure," hence often simply " to translate from a foreign tongue " (John i. 38, 41‑42), and then it passed to the meaning " to explicate." In the last sense it was used by the Fathers, and their commentaries were named flermeneiai. The term was used when a man explained either that which originated with another (as a deity) or the cogitations of his own spirit. Similarly " exegesis " is from ex& geisthai, " to lead forth, interpret." So that as the theory of explanation exegesis or hermeneutics has to make intelligible whatever has survived because of its essential value. Its concern is not merely with rhetoric, as Schleiermacher would have it, making of it merely an art. It is both a science and an art; a science in that it formulates definite rules of procedure, an art in that it infuses new life into material by making it a new and present possession.
To bring a thing to the understanding is to make it serviceable in sense and significance. Appreciation of the significance leads to a decision as to worth, and is therefore akin to criticism; to estab‑

Eaegeeie or 8eraienention	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	288
fish the sense is to explicate with the proper means as the case is conceived in the mind. Exegesis is to be differentiated from criticism, nearly related though they are. The former is inductive and analytical; the latter is synthetic. z. Relations Exegesis asks what a thing means; to Criticism criticism asks about its correctness and and truth. Exegesis seeks to know,
	Philology.	to interpret, to explicate; criticism
		to value and correct. But the con
ditions of serviceable and artistic comprehension
lie partly in the general laws of human thought
and expression, partly in the special quality of
the material under examination. " He who would
the poet know, must to the poet's country go "
is a universal maxim. Sympathy gives the closest
insight. So that for appreciation of a religious
thought more than esthetic apprehension is re
quired. In this criticism and exegesis are hand
maidens, both are peerless schoolmistresses to
lead to Christ, but only under the condition
stated. Exegetical art is called out by material
which, originating in the past, has by its inherent
worth come down to the present instinct with vital
force. In early times, it dealt with Homer and
the myths because they had meaning for religious
and spiritual life. The type was philological, and
had in view complete explanation from the stand
point of history, archeology, philosophy, and es
thetics. Indeed, exegesis gains its individuality
and completeness through the material with which
it deals so far as this is a coherent whole and has
relationship to the life of the present. Thus mod
ern exegesis has attained definite form in two
branches, jurisprudence and theology, working
upon the Corpus juris and the Bible. In these two
spheres the character of the material produces
essentially different results. Jurisprudential exe
gesis expounds the rules and methods which Roman
law embraced, hence the interest is largely his
torical.
	Biblical exegesis deals with a work which was
the canon of the Church, the understanding and
the use of which has from the beginning been
vexed by religious postulates and dogmatic
		claims. When, then, historical ex‑
3. Exegesis planation of its facts brought ever and more clearly into view departure from
Dogmatics. dogmatic conclusions or even opposition to them, questions were raised about the Bible, its character and its authority, and about the right of exegesis and its methods, which must remain for each generation to solve, since the Bible is ever the religious source for the Christian Church. And then questions arise as to the functions of exegesis. Is it purely explicative or is it normative? Exegetical and ecclesiastical interests clash. When the latter prevail, producing the Roman Catholic type, exegesis is bound up with the tradition of the Church, and almost becomes supererogatory in the dogma that Scripture is its own interpreter. On the other hand, emphasis upon the historical element alone without reference to the religious character of the material makes of exegesis a mere discipline. Choice may be made between a purely historical and grammat‑
ical type and one which is to have somewhat of a dogmatic character. If the canon is a historical development, the question appears to be decided. The function of exegesis is to know and discern the character of Scripture and why it has that character. Their own limitations require that exegesis and dogmatics work independently.. Methodical and reliable exegesis guarantees that dogmatics is building not upon mysteries and fraud; while the necessity for a dogmatic formulation of the contents of Scripture produces in exegesis the consciousness of the seriousness of its task. Exegesis produces from the sources a Biblical history and theology which have no immediate relation to the task of dogmatics. It works over the Scriptures independently and positively not merely to satisfy itself with certainty, but as a support to churchly theology by furnishing it its certainty. On this account there is required complete severance from all dogmatic postulates as furthering both scientific and ecclesiastical interests.
But if the purely historical character of exegesis is maintained, does it not become an exclusive discipline? The Old Testament contains the
remains of a national religious litera‑
4. Exegesis ture which presents peculiarities of
and Theo‑ speech, special forms of religious logical ideas, and having a purpose which is
Science. entirely different from that of the
New Testament, which has by no means the character of a national literature and bespeaks a movement differing in type from that which produced the Old Testament (see HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, II). These two parts of the Bible offer different problems to exegesis, both being religious sources, and through the origin of Christianity historically bound together. Must there be two kinds of exegesis? Here neither the postulates of a method alien to the essence of the testimonies to faith in Scripture itself nor ecclesiastical decisions regarding the nature of the canon determine the method, which is ruled alone by the contents of Scripture in its reciprocal relations. From a dogmatic truth exegetical verity does not follow, but one does proceed from exegetical truth to dogmatic verity. This makes clear one of the relations of exegesis to theological science. It has grown out of ecclesiastical needs and is security for the pure Christian character of the Christian organization, and so has vindicated its right to a place in theological science. It has in view not simply the history of Israel and the origin of Christianity, but definite testimony to the religious spirit which has bound together the Old and the New Testament. It employs the underlying disciplines of Biblical philology, introduction, archeology, history of the times, and criticism of the text. Trustworthy results are attained only when questions of the trustworthiness of the text are raised and settled, and so with other problems. As a result, the exegete, like the historian, has in his hand the power of palingenesis by educing •md strengthening the sense of the historically and psychologically possible.
II. The Method: The ultimate purpose of the exegete is reached when on the one side he under‑

239	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Exegesis or 8ermeaentsom
stands the object of the exposition to be the same as that of the original writing, and on the other side has the same point of view of the origin, purpose, and means of attaining the purpose as the author had. He stands for his hearers as did the author
for his. This is the ideal, which in the
z. Three nature of the case can be only par‑
Kinds of tially realized, since the gulf between
Exegesis. the circumstances under which the
text arose and those in which it exists for the exegete can not be entirely closed. Then too the matter of the individuality of the author complicates the problem, since psychological analogies are not sufficient ground for certainty inreconstruction. The realities of the original speech, the historical conditions, and the inner life of the text have to be brought home to the understanding. Of these the first two help to realize the sense, the third helps to the meaning; the first two tell what was actually said and done, the third gives the purpose of saying or doing. Exegesis falls then into three parts: philological, revealing the structure and vocabulary of the language; historical, setting forth the text as the result of certain actual conditions of origin, contents, and purpose; and stylistic, building on the other two and leading to the valuation of the text. Other names employed to designate these stages or varieties are grammatical, psychological, and rhetorical exegesis.
Philological exegesis has a double problem, lexical and grammatical. It takes into account not only grammatical structure and etymology, but also transformations wrought in forms and meanings of words by the ordinary historical development of language and by new needs and relations. This involves the mastery of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as the original tongues, and may require also that of the languages of the versions. The Greek of the Septuagint comes into
consideration as a lingua franca of
z. Philo‑ old times and as the language of the logical Bible of early Christianity. So the
Exegesis. varieties of Greek in the New
Testament, from the almost classic forms of the Lucan literature to the Hebraistic character of the Johannean writings demand notice (see HELLENISTIC GREEK). The definition of the character of Biblical language in general and of New Testament Greek in particular under the influence of the dogmatic view‑point has become the object of dissidence since the rearing of an independent philological science which reproduces rather the views of the early Fathers than the dogmatic learning of post‑Reformation times. Origen notes the providential readiness of the Greek to receive the content of revelation in New Testament times, while Augustine speaks of the spiritual impress the language received, particularly under Paul. In general, a new eloquence was discerned in this tongue fitting it to act as the mediator of a new divine wisdom. This was a point which humanism missed, and strife was waged between the Hebraists and the purists until Winer protested against the boundless arbitrariness with which the New Testament Greek was handled. One of the questions remaining open
is how far insight into the words of Jesus can be promoted by translation into the Syro‑Chaldaic spoken dialect of his times. There is needed in this department of study not only knowledge of language but the linguistic sense, something difficult to attain in the case of a dead tongue. To attain it necessitates not only knowledge of word meanings and of homonyms and synonyms and etymology, but insight into the national life. With this, extraordinary forms and hapax legomena and new forma give insight into historical conditions. And as a last aid in this matter comes philological conjecture on the basis of parallels and analogies.
	Historical	exegesis arises from the fact that
complete understanding of a document necessi
tates knowledge of the conditions under which it
was written, taking into account the circumstances
of both author and reader. The document must
be put into its historical environment. But this
involves not merely the problem of history but that
of the psychology of the writer, as furnishing the
		index of his purpose and method.
3. Historical Fundamental in Biblical exegesis is
Exegesis.	the consideration of the epoch‑making
character of the writings. The more necessary then becomes knowledge of their origin, content, purpose, and influence in their total relations with the whole life of the age when they arose. All‑important here is the view of the world and of all its relationships set forth in the documents. And necessary too are estimates of the originality of the conceptions contained and their relationship to or departure from those current at the time. For the Old Testament the current conditions of the Semitic world were important; for the New, the Old Testament religion, Judaism and Hellenism. Historical exegesis takes all such considerations into account, and attempts to understand the author through his work and his work through the author.
An important means to a historical understanding is the correct employment of analogy. The relation of representations in the Bible to extraBiblical representations, their independent or derivative character, are matters of importance. Two coats of like cut may bespeak the same tailor, but do not imply similar disposition or accomplishments in the wearers. Paul's characterization of ethnic cults as demon‑worship does not imply that he shared all the Jewish hatred
4. Employ‑ and misconception which this judg‑
ment of ment carried with it in the Jewish
Analogy mind. So analogy does not imply and wholesale transference of identity.
Hypothesis. An assistant in this same direction is the use of hypothesis, especially in the case of a broken connection. It assumes a connection in the circumstances or in the train of thought which does not appear on the surface. A broken torso guides to a reconstruction only when there are certain traces of the original form. But in history the help of psychology is often available to fill in outlines only partly discernible. The " historical " explanation of the inner development of Jesus and the psychological deductions concerning the conversion of Paul are cases in

Exegesis or Hermeaentioe	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	240
point. But conceptions that are foreign or dogmatic merely are misleading in the use of hypothesis. The mistake must not be made of confusing historical learning with historical insight or the historic sense. A century ago all religion was regarded as the production of priestcraft, and Jesus was regarded simply as a wise teacher. In the present, under the influence of the doctrine of evolution, religion is regarded as the product of a process of unfolding, and the ethical and intellectual elements of the religious life suffer the consequences. The antidotes for the eieegesis and dislocations which in the interest of dogmatics have invaded this province are reality and piety, especially piety. The interpreter of Scripture handles books which are religious sources for the communities of believers. It is not his task to infer hypothetically the religion of Israel and the Gospel and to discover the real behind that which is alleged, but to bring to the understanding the actual fact as it exists. Like the historian, he seeks the objective sense, not the subjective.
Stylistic or rhetorical exegesis, according to Luther (Preface to Ecclesiastes), seeks to know the scope of a book, its object and aim. This complements the work of philological and historical exegesis, and places the document in its literary category. When historical exegesis has shown the purpose, rhetorical exegesis reveals the connection
of the means devoted to that purpose.
g. Stylistic This operation arranges its work in Exegesis. rhetorical and in logical departments.
The former concerns the quality and propriety of the expression, the turns and variety of usage, the art or naYvetd of the narration, the art‑forms of literary expression, and the like. The latter looks at the thought construction, estimates it as closely woven or flowing or disconnected, as orderly or of mere aggregated parts. It sets forth the inner life and the totality of character of the whole document. It serves to give the psychological side of historical exposition, reveals the relation of the author to the writing, and in this way discovers the individuality of the author.
The writings unified in the Bible have either little or no connection with the Greek productions with which they are often compared. This is especially true of the Old Testament, and almost equally of the New Testament, particularly of the Gospels and Epistles. These sprang out of the new needs of missionary enterprise and the founding of Christian communities. Consequently they have their own modes of expression and means of explanation, to interpret which requires entry into their world of thought. Religious pragmatism, prophetic oracle, the disclosure of apocalyptic, the liturgical lyric and gnomic wisdom continue to exist in the New Testament, but the center in this case is the work of Jesus. The difference between the sayings and parables of Jesus and the dialectic of Plato is very great. It is therefore of importance exactly to catch the imagery and the peculiar usage of these writings. Whoever sees merely pictur2 and metaphor where the picture is the very impress, the integrating essence, of truth makes a beast of burden of a Pegasus. If one takes the symbolism
of a religious outlook (like Luke xvi. 19‑20) or a promise (like Mark xiv. 25) as literal, he falsifies the idea by a process of mythologizing. To treat the paradoxes of Jesus literally as statement of a law, as one might the command about baptizing, leads into absurdity. Emphasis upon the word " is " in the institution of the Lord's Supper makes one a captive to dogmatic authority. " One may translate literally, but that is not the way to exposition or understanding." Stylistic exegesis leads from the whole to the parts, and so brings the exegetical process to its fit conclusion.
III. Historical Review of Exegetical Principles and Methods: The development of exegetical theory was parallel with the history of doctrine, or, rather, there was a reciprocity of interaction, since exegesis apprehends the sources in sense and meaning as a help to the building of dogma. So the history of the science of exegesis is not to be confused with the history of exegesis, the one having to do with the theory, the other with the practise. The early
Church assumed the inspiration of r. Transi‑ Scripture and sought a serviceable
tion from theological and ecclesiastical expo‑
Dogmatic sition. The growth of the historical to Historical sense and the rise of an independent
Principles. philosophy raised the question of the
authority of Scripture, and the dogma of inspiration and of infallibility could not halt the movement thus begun. In this respect the Tractatus theologico‑Politzcrc of Spinoza (1670 in Eng. transl., new ed., London, 1877) was epochmaking. The seventeenth century saw the gradual rise of a science of antiquities, which brought new material and new points of view. Then came the consideration that the authors of the books of the Bible were to be regarded as human authors. Next questions of method arose, and the schools of classical philology, Pietism, and rationalism expressed their aims. Men debated how far profane writers could be used in the process of elucidation, and unsifted material was collected by Grotius, Wetstein, and many others. The result of all this work was summed up in Wolle'g Reguhe triginta hermeneuticee ad circurrespectam scriptures illustrationem. ex autoribua profanis utiles (Leipsie, 1722). The end of the eighteenth century, by which time greater independence had been gained, brought a deepening of the work, which was largely accomplished through the effort after a historical theology.
Origen was the first to construct a theory of explanation of Scripture. With all patristic exegetes he assumed that Scripture contained divine wisdom and the teachings of salvation, and that the spirit of God was the author. The sense is therefore in all circumstances deep, clear, true, and productive of salvation. But it is evident that many passages are obscure if the sense of the words is taken in such passages as those which refer to the days of creation, to the Garden of Eden, the anthro‑
pomorphisms, and the "high mountain" 2. Origea. in the story of the teuiptation. In
case the obvious sense given is not worthy, there must be an undersense which is concealed and must be brought out. Indeed,

841	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ezesesis or 8ermenentios
corresponding to the trichotomy of man, the sense is threefold. The sense of the words is the flesh of Scripture (for simple men), the soul is the moral sense (I Cor. ix. 9), while still beyond is a pneumatic sense (I Cor. ii. fj‑7). This is what became known as the " theory " in exegesis or the " allegorical method." In this method Origen was the follower of Philo (whom he would enroll among the Church Fathers). Philo's starting‑point was the same and his idea of a hidden sense the same. But his idea was in turn borrowed from the Greeks, since Plato had already conceived the same method in treating Homer, and the Stoics had developed the system. Whether Phffo was influenced by the rules of exegesis of the Palestinian schools is an open question; Origen could hardly have been decided by this influence. Two principles rule the exegesis of Origen. via view of Scripture is correct; and where he follows this alone, his exegesis is keen yet delicate. But he further insists that Scripture must say what the exegete decides is worthy of deity. When the literal sense seems unworthy, he seeks a "mystic, tropical, analogical, or concealed " sense by means of " theory."
In opposition to Origen the Antiochiaa school of exegesis sought to be fair to historical results both through " theory " and explanation. Euatathius of Antioch (c. 325, De Engastrimytho,
3. The Anti‑ ed. T. Zahn, T U, 1888) opposed Ori‑
ochian	gen. Diodorue of Tarsus made theory
	School.	and allegory synonymous. Isidore of
		Pelusium and Photius distinguished
between theoretical and historical exegesis, the
former leading to the moral or mystical sense, the
latter to the precise sense. Theodore of Mopauestia
(d. about 428) regarded theoretical exegesis as
accurate investigation and knowledge over against
arbitrary discovery of a secret sense, in which he
followed Diodorus, and in numerous commen
taries and in polemical writings assailed the con
clusions of the allegorists as those of mythologists.
Job was to him a dramatic poem, the Song an erotic
celebrating Solomon's marriage, while he explained
prophecies by contemporary actions and persons.
Its dogmatic and practical usefulness secured to the " theory " of Origen its influence, and its subjective character favored correction in the interest of ecclesiasticism. This last was continually advancing both in the Eastern and the Western Church. The tendency induced eisegesis, but was now in the direction of illustrations and proofs of
4. Later dogma. So Augustine declares that
Patristic	whatever in the divine word can not
	Methods.	be referred to a noble end or to the
		truth of faith is to be taken as figura
tive, and the norm for this‑is the rule of faith (De
doctrines Christiana, IL, xx. 10). Against Augus
tine, Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alex
andria, Gregory of Nyssa (in his Hexaemeron)
would have nothing to do with allegory, but ex
plained the text in accordance with its evident
meaning. And yet he at times rejoiced in alle
gorical exposition, especially in the Song. Jerome
in his many works binds together literal expo
sition with a " spiritual knowledge," and speaks
of the progress from the littleness of the letter to
IV.‑18
the grace of the spiritual intelligence. Far superior to him in deep insight and clearness is Augustine, who works out his ideal of an exegete (in De doctrines Christimao) and shows that he informs the results of scientific exegesis with a fine rhetorical sense (on Augustine cf. R. Simon, Hint. critique des . . . commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, p. 250, Paris, 1693). The writers on exegesis continued to formulate rules by which to derive a multiple sense from Scripture. Such a one was Eucherius of Lyons (d. about 452), whose Formula spiritualia intetligentice divides " contemplative theology "into historical discussion and the " interpretation of spiritual knowledge," which last is arbitrary allegorizing, turning all figurative language to dogmatic, religious, _ or ethical purposes. Yet in the " historical discussion " he produces valuable comments upon Scripture passages. Thus there is produced a compromise between the school of Antioch and Origen. Junilius (d. about 552) speaks for the exegetical tradition of the school of Nisibis (in his Inat"a regularict divince legis, ed. H. Kihn, Freiburg, 1880). He would have Scripture so explained that the explanation shall accord with the writer's individuality and with the environment of time, place, order, and intention. Thus patristic exegesis involved on one side historical explanation, on the other dogmatic, allegorizing attempts to determine an inner sense.
The exegesis of the Middle Ages rested upon the principles already in existence, except that the tendency was toward an increase of eisegeais in the interest of building up an ecclesiastical tradition
of interpretation. Its cause is well g. The stated by Vincent of Lerins (d. about Middle 450), when he says: "Every one inAges. terprets Scripture differently; Nova‑
tian has one interpretation, Sabellius another, Donates another, still others are by Aries, Eunomius, Macedonius, etc.,, Faith founded itself upon the authority of the divine law and upon the tradition of the Church Catholic. Thomas Aquinas speaks not only for the exegesis of the Middle Ages but for Catholicism when he says: " The author of Sacred Scripture is God, in whose power it is to fit not only words to meanings (which man can do), but even things themselves." And then he proceeds to develop a fourfold exegesis, literal, figurative, moral, and anagogical, in which the figurative and anagogical are arbitrarily distinguished. Thus
i, Jerusalem signifies the city, the Church, a settled and moral order, and the everlasting life.
The Reformation drew a stroke through all these refinements and returned to the sources,
i	discovering anew the word of God beneath the mounds of ecclesiastical tradition. It pronounced the dictum: The Church is not to determine what
Scripture teaches, but Scripture deb. The Ref‑ termines what ought to be taught in
ormation, the Church. Humanism led the way
with Erasmus as its spokesman. Luther declared it his task to translate the Scripture in its simple sense. But the orientation of exegesis was still religious, Scripture proving itself to be a book of testimonies for the reality of the

Hzegeeie or Her menentios	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
revelation of God. Melanchthon drew the portrait of an Evangelical theologian: "A good theologian and faithful interpreter of the heavenly teaching should be expert first in language, next in logic, and then a witness." Criticism was free and Luther spoke without reserve regarding the value of the canonical books. Reliable interpretation was demanded, which contributed clearness and certainty to faith. In the stress of the first need the interpreters dealt little with theory and contented themselves with propounding fundamentals. Scripture was defined as the collection of standard sources of the Christian religion. Alongside the formula: " Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture " was another: " Let all knowledge and exposition be according to the analogy of faith."
For the orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, Scripture is the document containing the teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible could therefore not be self‑inconsistent, and exegesis was prevailingly apologetic. The teztus receptua was canonized, and in the Old Testament the inspiration of the pointing was maintained. Rules
y. Post‑ for interpretation were formulated
Reforms‑ anew, and the Philologia sacra of tion S. Glass (ed. I. A. Dathe, Leipsic,
	Theories.	1776) was the exegetical text‑book of
		the Lutheran confession. From this
point of view an important book is that of A. Rivet,
Isagoge ad scripturam sacri Yeteris et Novi Testa
menti (Leyden, 1627). For the Roman Catholic
Church the norm continued to be expressed by the
maxim: " Tradition (or the Church) is the inter
preter of sacred Scripture," and more attention
was paid to patristic work upon Scripture than to
philological investigation. Richard Simon laid the
foundations of a historical‑critical science of Scrip
ture, but not without a polemical purpose against
the Protestant principles regarding the Bible.
Simon's work was put on the Index because of its
critical openness; its meaning was first grasped by i
Protestants when historical criticism came to its
rights. The next step in the way was taken
by the opponents of Protestant confessionalism.
Socinian exegesis remained without influence be
cause of its subjective dogmatism. But such
work as that done by Grotius was important, and
the danger to confesaionalism was discerned by
A. Calovius and attacked in his Biblia Veteria
Teatnmen.ti illustrate (4 vole., Frankfort, 1672‑76).
Meyer advanced the cause of unprejudiced reason
in a remarkable critique upon the fundamental
dogma " Scripture its own interpreter," reason
being, according to him, a gift of God displayed
both in Scripture and in the formulation of dogma.
A. H. Francke bewailed the fact that men con
cerned themselves with criticism, which affected
only the outer shell of Scripture, and left untouched
the elucidation of the deeper sense of Scripture.
He therefore turned aside from the dogmatic valua
tion of the Bible and applied himself to a devo
tional exposition founded on scientific principles
and applying the psychological principle of the
individuality of the author. Against the Pietistic
school of exegesis the Reformed theologian J. A.
Turretin busied himself in the interest of a gram‑
248
matical‑historical exegesis (Tractatus bipartitua, Geneva, 1728, ed. Teller, 1776). His principle in that theology is the teaching transmitted in Scripture, and to the study of Scripture the mind should come as a tabula roses, ready to receive the true sense. Here also first appeared the postulate of a presumptionleas exegesis as opposed to a dogmatic. The eighteenth century saw the first scientific work written in German on exegesis, that by S. J. Baumgarten, Ausfiihrlicher Vortrag der bibliachen Hernaeneutik (ed. Bertram, Halls, 1767). The theology of this writer is Pietistic, founded upon the philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolff. He was preceded by J. A. Bengel (also of the Pietistic school), whose principal labors were upon text criticism. In the Dutch school J. Cocceiua was the antipodes of Grotius, so that the saying took form: " Grotius could find Christ nowhere in sacred literature, Cocceius found him everywhere."
With Herder, Karat, and the founders of the new school of history (Niebuhr) and of research into the sources of classical philology (F. A. Wolf) began new times with new results, based upon historical investigation into the religion of the Old Testament and examination of the sources of early Christianity. The Protestant doctrine of inspiration became untenable under the leadership of J. S.
Semler, J. J. Wetetein, and J. A. 8. Exegesis Erneati, all under the sway of the
as Affected historical spirit but still not entirely by History. freed from dogmatic influence. Thus
Semler held Scripture to contain the word of God and therefore not to contain inconsistencies. Difficulties were dismissed on the theory of Accommodation (q.v.). L. J. Riickert (Commentar uber den Brief . . , an die Rinner, Leipsie,1831) remarked that " the exegete, as an exegete, is neither orthodox nor heterodox, neither a supernaturalist nor a rationalist nor a pantheist, neither pious nor godless, neither emotional nor without feeling." D. F. Strauss could not deride sufficiently the doctrine of inspiration held by the early Protestants. Exegetical theory was therefore influenced greatly by the effort to solve the historical‑critical problems while allowing the revelational character of Scripture. The effort was making to recognize the human and the divine side of the Bible. To this problem philosophy .made no contributions of importance. Karat's contribution was not philosophical but practical. H. Olshausen's attempt to reinstate the allegorical method met no success, while the work of his predecessors was esmmed up in lmmer's HermeneutikdesNeueraTestamerets(Wittenberg,1873; Eng. transl., Hermeneutics o f the New Testament, Andover, 1877). F. Liicke attempted to give to exegesis a stronger theological tendency, and F. H. German sought a religious guaranty for the results of the hermeneutical processes under s method which should include the historical‑philological method and should take account of the harmony of Scripture. J. T. Beck endeavored to advance the cause by a " pneumatic interpretation " on the basis that the Bible is an organism, the spirit of each part of which is the author, which spirit the interpreter must incarnate in his own holy life before he can explain Scripture.

248	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Exegesis or Hermeaeutioe
J. L. S. Lutz would have the philological‑historical interpretation united with the religious, ecclesiastical and dogmatic, in which he was not far removed from the standpoint of the Reformation. Hofmann came to nearly the same conclusion by another road. He took the Bible to be the history of salvation, a history independent of ordinary development and of a different kind. It is the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ, The theologian, in order to interpret Scripture in truth, must come as a member of the Church and as a witness of the salvation of which he is possessed. Hofmann's service was then contributed in favor of ecclesiastical exegesis, recognizing, however, the historical character of the Bible. The general result of work upon the theory of interpretation is that for a positive exegesis, free from both positive and negative dogmatic interpolations, the guaranty is in aconjointoperation of all varieties, which gives and receives, controls and criticizes, all in order to grasp and to expound the life which is inculcated in the Holy Scriptures.
IV. The Forms of Interpretation of Scripture: The results of the exegetical process may be made available in many different forms; the exegete may indicate how the text is to be understood, in which case he becomes a glossator, scholiast, or commentator; or he may identify himself, so to speak, with the text, may take the place of the author and produce a translation or a paraphrase. All these forms have been highly developed in the centuries during which exegesis has been at work.
The simplest form of elucidation is the gloss, which explains an obscure or uncommon expression by a clear or usual one or substitutes
r. Glosses for a foreign term the corresponding
and Scholia. translation. This method has been applied to Homer, Plato, the Corpus juris, etc., as well as to the Bible, and the value of its results is varied. The gloasator is first of all an interpreter, not an expounder, hence the collections of glosses among the Byzantinea were the basis of the lexicons, of which those of Hesychius, Suidas, and Phavorinus contain many Biblical glosses. In the Western Church gloss came to have a special meaning, and the excerpts from the collections became the brief but authoritative commentaries of scholasticism, written either after the text, beside it, or in interlinear fashion. Two of the most noted are that of Walafrid Strabo and that of Anaehn of Laon (see GLOSSES, BIBLICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL). The gloss extended itself beyond the explanation of a word and became a scholium. This was originally a marginal note, and scholia often were for use in the schools. No methodical investigation of Biblical acholia has yet been made.
Commentaries differ from glosses and acholia in that they attempt to explain the whole of a writing and not isolated expressions, and they a. Cowmen‑ have literary unity. The purpose
taries and is to give a full and pure impression
Their Type. of the writing so that the reader of the commentary may be in as good a position to receive the sense as was the original reader. Its relation to the original is that of a
bust of Socrates or Augustus to their subjects, though for Biblical writings that ideal is unattainable. A commentary of the Bible must keep in view not merely the Bible, but also the history of its interpretation if it is to present adequately the present status. It can accomplish its end only by division of labor, parting the work into the linguistic, historical, and rhetorical or stylistic. The danger throughout is that attention to minute points will obscure a comprehensive view, while regard for the total impression may cause oversight and error in minutia. The double purpose, to make clear the document as a whole and to clear up individual difficulties, has produced two types of results, the glossatorial and the reproductive, of which Bengel's Gnomon and Ewald's or Hofmann's commentaries are respectively examples. For a rounded understanding of Scripture both methods are necessary. It would be desirable to give a history of commentaries, since the one‑sidedness of certain periods tends to be reproduced in other periods, but apace forbids anything but the most brief attempt. For the patristic type Origen'a commentaries gave the pattern, concerned as they were with particulars, and turning aside for allegorical meanings and applications. The Antiochian school was concise and echoliastic (see Arrrioca, SCHOOL OF). During the period of formulation of dogma, exegesis tended toward catenae, excerpts of acholia and glosses (see CAmEN.E), and to achematization of traditional renderings. Humanism awakened the grammatical sense, but produced few commentaries. The Reformation emphasized the religious content. The age of the confessions tended again to heap matter together, and philological comment reproduced acholiastic form. Pietism roamed freely in ascetic edification. The nineteenth century endeavored to employ the linguistic‑historical method and at the same time to preserve the religious interests, to bind together analysis, reproduction, and gloasematic clearing up of minutia, all this with regard to the history of the science.
Translation of a document is the fruit and test of complete understanding, and gives an equivalent for the original, so far as that is possible.
3. Transla‑ It is limited by the fact that much tion and in the original can not be carried over
Paraphrase. into another speech. Artistic translation must therefore move freely in order to reproduce the original. The translation is a new dress which enables the stranger to gage the worth of the original. Thus Luther did not merely translate the Gospel, he made it German. Translation is limited also by its aim to reproduce the sense of the original in appropriate verbiage. Here literalness is often no gain, as when a Greek translator reproduced the Hebrew sign of the accusative, though as such it had no equivalent or meaning in the Greek. The desire to combine the merits of a translation and of a commentary resulted in the paraphrase, which reproduces the sense together with what is implied though not expressly said. Patristic exegesis did much of this work, and Erasmus, a supreme artist in this respect, went to school to Origen, Chrysoatom, and•Jerome.

Zzageds or Hsrmeaeatios	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	844
The best pasaphraat clings to the sense while he develops pregnant meanings and elucidates the obscure.
V. History of Exegesis: The Old Testament wan at first the subject of the exegetical art. 1n the synagogue two methods developed, the halacha or exposition of law, and the haggadah, which nought the deeper sense and applied it to
z. Pre‑ practise. In this direction was deveipatrietic oped cabalistic interpretation, which
	Exegesis.	saw the secrets of revelation enclosed
		in numerical values (see CABALA).
The Christian Church appropriated the Old Testa
ment, and indeed largely in the Septuagint version
which often serves excellently as an interpretation.
The methods of Jewish exegetical work on the Old
Testament influenced the writers of the New Tes
tament. The Apocalypse is cabalistic, Paul and
Hebrews reproduce the Alexandrine methods.
Generally, however, the use of the Old Testament
in the New is original, while it is employed from a
new religious standpoint. It starts from faith in
Christ as the God‑sent savior who came provi
dentially in the fulness of time (Gal. iv. 4). On
this basis it seeks in the Old Testament in word and
in type evidence of fulfilment of promise; conse
quently the use of the Old Testament in the New
can not be regarded as exact exegesis, it is rather
instruction in regard to the inner relation of the
words of Scripture to the facts which establish
the Christian faith (cf. Luke xxiv. 25‑27; I Cor.
x. 11).
The exegesis of the New Testament alongside 3f the Old began with its acceptance as canonical, and was practised first among the z. Patristic Gnostics. The type used by them and and by their opponents was allegorical,
Medieval	the latter attempting to avoid the
	Exegesis.	wilfulness of the former. Origen was
		the first great exegete and developed
what had been begun by the Alexandrian school
(Clement), becoming the " lawgiver and oracle "
for subsequent times, drawn upon by Hippoiytus,
Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Cnesarea,
Rufinus, and Jerome. A turn toward the con
struction of an ecclesiastical exegetical tradition
was taken in the works of Didymua (d. 329), Cyril
of Alexandria (d. 444), Ambrosias (d. 395), and
Augustine. The works of the Antiochian school
were preserved only in part, and that in excerpts
in the catense. Of the works of Theodore of
Mopauesiia only his commentary on the .Minor
Prophets survives. Other great names are Chrys
ostom, Basil, the two Gregorys, Theodoret, Ephraem,
Isidor of Pelusium, and Ambroaisster. For t.:le
collections which soon began to be made the
sources in the Eastern Church were Origen and
Chrysostom, and in the Western Augustine and
Jerome. For the allegoristic method Gregory I.
(d. 604) is the principal model and source. In
both East and West the makers of catenm were
many; in the East were Procopiua of Gaza and
Olympiodorus and Photius, and in the West Isidore
of Seville, Bede, Alcuin, Peter Lombard, Thomas
Aquinas, Abelard, and the mystics. In Spain
Jewish exegesis was fruitful; besides there was
the work of Nicholas of Lyra. Humanism, using closely the text, produced the criticism of the Vulgate by Laurentius Valla, the text and commentaries of Erasmus, and the commentaries of Cajetan and Faber Stapulenaia.
Of the Reformers, Luther did little strictly exegetical work apart from his preaching. Melanchthon's work is scholiastic. Other exegetes were Cruciger, J. Jonas, Brenz, M. Flacius, J. Camerarius, Zwingli (in sympathy with humanism), G;colampadius, Butzer, and Capito. Calvin commented upon the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, and also upon the Pentateuch, Psalms, and the Prophets. Besides these Mus‑
3. Exegesis colas, Bullinger, and Beza (of special Since the importance) are to be mentioned.
Reforms‑ The exegesis of the Counterrefor‑
	tion.	oration made no use of humanistic
		help, but took a polemic tone against
the Evangelical theologians, as in the case of
Vatablus and Clariue. Since the middle of the
sixteenth century the Jesuits have occupied the
field, their representatives being Maldonatua (d.
1583), Salmero (d. 159?), J. Mariana (d. 1624),
Lucas of Bruges (d. 1629), Cornelius a Lapide (d.
1637), and the Italian Menochius (d. 1685). The
results are summed up in J. de la Haye, Bx'6lia
magna (5 vole., Paris, 1&43), and Biblin maxima
(19 vole., Paris, 1660). The exegesis of the seven
teenth and eighteenth centuries was bent to the
affirmation or denial of " church doctrine," the
Evangelienharmonie of Chemnitz striking the key
note. For the Lutherans such men as D. Chytra;us
and Erasmus Schmidt, for the Reformed Church
J. Piacator and J. A. Lamps, for the Socinians J.
Exell, and for the Pietiats Spener and Bengel were
the leading exponents. To all parties, excepting
to the leaders Luther and Calvin, the Apocalypse
seemed a work of great importance and was the
object of much attention. With the earnest dog
matic zeal of the Arminians new interest was awa
kened, and the works of Grotius appeared, and those
of his follower Clericus. The new standpoint was
partly philological, partly practical. Gleanings
were made in the rabbinical field (Lightfoot),
in the historical field (Spanheim), in archeology
(Cunaeus), and in chronology (J. Scaliger). Fruits
of these activities were the Critici sacri, (9 vole.,
London, 1660), M. Poole's Synopsis criticorum
(5 vole., London, 1669‑7fi), and J. C. Wolf's Cura;
Philologicee et crilicm in Novum Testamentum '(5
vole., Hamburg, 1741). In the philological
theological school of Erneati the ecclesiastical
character of exegesis was no longer seen. The
fundamental question at the beginning of the nine
teenth century tree the rationalism or the super
naturalism of Scripture. In the second third of
that century the recovery of a confessional theology
and a deep impression from Hegelian philosophy
characterized the work done. Whether any school
has made its impress upon the exegesis of the last
third of the century, one standing in the midst of
the conflict may not ,1 ride.
The German exegesis of the nineteenth century is characterized by division into schools which created each its own journal and organ. Thus

246	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ezesesis or 8ermeneatioe
there was the confessional school of Schleiermacher, and the reconatructioniat school of F. C. Baur,
the " new Tubingen school," the advo‑
4 German cafes of the " restoration‑theology " Exegesis under Hengstenberg, and Lutheran con‑
	m ~e feasionaliam under J. C. K. Hofmann.
ftineteenth
Century. Leaders of a philological exegesis were
Geaenius, Ewald, J. Olshaueen, and Winer. Baumgarten‑Crueiua emphasized the religious element and De Wette the critical. C. J. A. Fritzache, Reiche, and Wickert, using the philological method, strove to free interpretation from dogmatic shackles, and were ably assisted by H. A. W. Meyer. The leadership of Ewald was followed by Hupfeld, Hitzig, Bertheau, Knobel, Dilhnann, and Graf. The ecclesiastical " reatoration‑theology " drew as its helpers in this field Havernick, Delitzach, Keil, Tholuck, and Lange. The Tiibingen school directed its efforts to the reconstruction of the history of primitive Christianity. Independent of this school but somewhat in the same direction were the works of A. Hilgenfeld, H. Lipaius, H. Holtzmann, and C. Weizsacker. The separation of the new school, which seeks to unite the results of exegesis with those of criticism, is well exemplified in the interpretation of Acts by De Wette as worked over by Overbeck, as well as in the Ifurzgefcasates exegetischea Handbuch, in the Handkommentar, and in the Ifurzer Handkommentar.
	This review has sought to present a singular
and peculiar religious and philosophical develop
ment. The Bible, a book consisting of two col
lections of writings different in history and in make
up, has proved itself through eighteen hundred
years the inexhaustible source of nourishment for
faith and support for the soul of Christianity.
From its interpretation and application to dogmatic
and practical questions arose the theology of
patriatios. The ecclesiastical and religious needs,
changing with the times, resulted in the develop
ment of exegetical theories and ever new attempts
at an improved and deepened exposition of Scrip
ture. And for the future, given the two facts of
God in history and of history as wider than man's
folly and man's wisdom, a continually deepening
appreciation of the Bible will result in the deepen
ing of life. 	(G. HEINRICL)
In French‑speaking countries up to a recent date, the critical movement had made small headway. Protestantism in France was a feeble force. It had slight part in the deepest movements of
the nation's life. Its colleges were
g. Modern hardly better than country academies.
French Its vitality exhausted itself in keeping Exegesis. alive. For a long time the fact that
	France was a near neighbor to Ger
many counted for little. The life of E. Reuse
(1804‑91) tells the story of the critical movement
in France. He was born :n Strasburg. He ac
quired the critical ideal and methods in Germany.
His work was published, part of it in German, part
of it in French. Die Geschichte der heiligen S'chriften
des Neuen Testaments appeared in Halls (1842, 6th
ed.,1887, Eng. transl., The History o f the Scored Scrip
tures of the New Testament, London,1884). An im‑
mense and productive activity followed, crowned by the monumental work, La Bible (translation, introduction, and commentary, 1? vole., Paris, 1874‑81), in the preface of which his lifelong feeling regarding critical scholarship in France is expressed. Renan's great work, Origines du christidnisme (7 vole. and Index, Paris, 1863‑83; Eng. trawl., The History of the Origin of Christianity, 7 vola., London, n. d.), is in pants extremely weak. An imagination of extraordinary brilliance builds with dangerous facility on the original work of the Germans. But as a whole it is an immense achievement, bringing the New Testament literature into fertilizing contact with the social life and needs of antiquity, and even when resting on hasty exegesis giving impetus and stimulus to deeper work by other men. French Switzerland has given one interpreter of high rank, F. Godet (1812‑1900). Spiritual discernment, clear judgment, and an admirable expository method characterize his commentaries on the Fourth Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. But the critic in him was imperfectly developed. His weakness on this aide betrays itself by the constant intrusion of exegesis into questions of text‑criticism, and by tenacious conservatism in the field of introduction.
Holland presents conditions materially different from those prevailing in France. Protestantism in this land was a national faith. As a religious principle it levied tribute on the deepest forces in
the nation's history. Moreover, it
	6. Exegesis possessed great universities, strong
	in Holland. both in prestige and in equipment.
		Here, therefore, the critical mind that
took its start from Germany found a field ready
for the plow. J. H. Scholten (1811‑85), pro
fessor at Utrecht, opened the critical movement.
He began his theological career by a masterly
treatise on the humanity of Christ (1840). His
	emphasis on this pout led him into eager appro
	priation of the historical view of the New Testa
ment. In his Hiatorisch‑kritische Inleiding tot de
schri ften des Nieuwen. Testaments (Leyden, 1855)
he defended the traditional view. But the critical
attack overcame his resistance, and he published
his surrender in Het Evangelic near Johannes (1864).
From this time on, he became in Holland an in
creasing force on the side of criticism. His great
pupil Abraham Kuenen (1828‑‑91) won his fame
in the Old Testament field. But his Old Testament
work became, in a way, representative of the re
cent criticism of the New Testament. Kuenen's
scholars carried into the New Testament field the
methods which had achieved in the Old Testament
field such brilliant success. The history of recent
interpretation in Holland shows, more clearly than
in any other country, the prodigious influence which
the Old Testament scholar is bringing to bear upon
New Testament studies. Through his work the
modern author has been able to realize that the
literary conditions underlying the genesis and
growth of the Scriptures are fundamentally dif
ferent from those surrounding the modern author;
that the corporate author rather than the indi
vidual author prevails in the Biblical field as a
whole, and that corporate interests and hopes

Exegesis or Hermeneutics	TAE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
sometimes play upon and mold the text of sacred books for a long period before they take their final form. Pierson, Loman, Van Manen, and Naber with others constitute what is called the " Holland School." Bruno Bauer had anticipated some of their conclusions. But Bauer's work started from philosophical premises. The " Holland School," on the contrary, starts from sound historical premises. Old Testament methods and achievements have inspired the attempt to explain the Paul of the Pauline Letters as even more a literary than a real personality (like the Moses of the Pentateuch). The prestige of Old Testament study gives the attempt its justification. Parallel study in the field of Homeric criticism and other ancient literatures increases that prestige. The " Holland School " therefore is an important phenomenon for the interpreter of the New Testament. He must not yield to the temptation to sit in the seat of the scornful, but must show by deeper study of the Apostolic Age that the methods which are at home in the Old Testament are to be used with extreme caution in the New Testament field.
The intellectual leadership of England in the first part of the eighteenth century, the work of high promise in the field of text‑criticism, gave reason to expect that the same sequence of thought which brought the higher criticism
	y. English	close on the heels of text‑criticism in
	Exegesis.	Germany would operate here. But
		there was no constructive philosophical
movement in England to endow the religious
reason with confidence. Instead, a great revival
of religion (see METHODISTS) grappled the Bible,
as the traditional theory of inspiration pre
sented it, to the heart of England. Criticism, in
breaking through the crust of tradition, had an
extremely hard task. A typical exegete, the prod
uct of this religious revival, was Thomas Scott
(1747‑1821). His Holy Bible (4 vole., London,
1788‑92; See BIBLEa, ANNOTATED, IL, § 8), run
ning through many editions, was the representa
tive English commentary down to Alford's Greek
Testament. Sir James Stephen called it " the
greatest theological performance of our age and
country." This opinion is a good standard by
which to estimate the state of interpretation in
England. Scott's Bible had great value as a devo
tional and dogmatic commentary along the lines
of Evangelical feeling, but no historical insight.
It is sometimes mistakenly said that the critical
movement in England broke ground through
Edward Evanson (1731‑1805), who published
The Dissonance of the Four generally Received
Evangelists (Ipswich, 1792). But Evanson was
not a critic. He was an antidogmatic dogmatist.
More solid ground was taken by Herbert Marsh
(1757‑1839), bishop of Peterborough. He issued
a translation of Michaelis' Einleitung in die .
Schriften des Neuen Bundes as Introduction to the New Testament (4 vole., Cambridge, 1793‑1801). In his own work, along the lines of Michaelis, he deserves high credit for the first inquiry in English into the origin of the canonical books. While, however, he provoked wholesale attack, his work had no appreciable results. When the strain of the Napoleonic
wars was over and the revival of historical studies began, the Oxford movement turned the entire energy of the Church of England into the channels of ecclesiastical restoration and debate. Charles Lloyd (1788‑1829), dreading the effect upon England of the kind of Bible‑study that was carrying the day in Germany, urged on his pupil E. B. Pusey (1800‑82) the advisability of a course of study in German universities. Pusey was in Germany in 1825 and again in 1826‑27. His acquaintance with German scholarship, his labors as a Hebraist, and the subordination of all his scholarship to his vast influence as a churchman made him the moat representative man in the English Church. F. D. Maurice (1805‑72) brought to the study of the Scriptures an ennobling mysticism and a liberating mind. But as an interpreter he wholly lacked the historical spirit and method. The best preliminary work in Great Britain was done by Samuel Davidson (1806‑99), professor at Belfast and Manchester. Frankly acknowledging his debt to Germany, devoting all his energy to Bible‑work, he manifested both the initiative and the conservatism proper to a scholar doing a pioneer's work in a difficult field. It is characteristic of the situation that the critical movement should have cleared its main line of approach through the demand for a revised translation. Gathering volume from the middle of the century, and reaching its goal in 1881, it led to the monumental text‑work of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, and threw open the entire field of Bible‑study. Essays and Reviews (q.v., London, 1860) raised a storm of controversy regarding the established views on inspiration. J. W. Colenso (1814‑83), bishop of Natal, through his Pentateuch and the Book o f Joshua critically Examined (7 parts, London, 186‑79), forced the Pentateuchal question to the front. The notable book by Sir John Robert Seeley, Ecce Homo (London, 1865), fixed attention on the humanity of Christ and thus, like the similar work of Scholten in Holland, helped to make the critical study of the Gospels inevitable. Henry Alford (1810‑71) published a Greek Testament (4 vola., London, 1849‑61) which rendered high service to a generation of English and American students, and signalized the immense advance of English interpretation since Scott's Bible. J. B. Lightfoot (18281889), bishop of Durham, published commentaries on the Pauline Epistles which combined in an extraordinary degree historical knowledge, exegetical insight, and literary charm. B. F. Westcott (1825‑1901), bishop of Durham, in his commentaries on the Fourth Gospel, I John, and Hebrews, combined deep patristic learning with the historical method and spiritual charm. But while, through these and other scholars, Great Britain had created a body of work possessing high interpretational value, it presented an almost unbroken conservative front to the fundamental critical questions. Not until the last quarter of the century did the critical movement invade Great Britain with power. Here, as on the Continent, the Old Testament field was in many ways the proving‑ground. The names of W. Robertson Smith (1846‑94) and of T. K. Cheyne are distinguished. The publishing of the

247	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Exegesis or Bermenentios
two dictionaries, the Dictionary of the Bible (1$991904) and the Etbcyyclopcedia Biblica. (1899‑1903), constitutes an epoch. The International Critical Commentary demonstrates that critical methods have at last won their full rights in the field of English interpretation.
It is easy to understand why the critical movement should have been late in getting under way in America. The country had no inherited culture, no stores of learning, no uni‑
8. Exegesis versitiea. Population was thinly spread in the over vast areas. Practical needs exUnited erted an irresistible pressure. The States. country being intensely Protestant and having few ecclesiastical traditions, the Bible alone and by itself counted for more in the building of the nation than anywhere else in the world. As a result of all these conditions, the established Protestant interpretation of Holy Scripture acquired an immense hold. The revival of religion and missionary interest in the first quarter of the nineteenth century resulted in the founding of a large number of theological schools, beginning with Andover, 1807, which, however, offered no leverage for free and critical thinking. The dominant opinion in the various churches had complete control within the seminaries. Nowhere was critical detachment so hard to achieve. The Unitarian movement, while it exalted reason, made no direst contribution to interpretation. The philosophical movement of New England, coming from Germany and England, endowed the orthodox churches with liberating thought. Horace Bushnell (1802‑76) is a typical figure. But the exegesis this movement inspired, like the exegesis of Coleridge and Maurice, lacked the historical sense and method. The prominent theological reviews (e.g., BlUiotkeca Sacra, The Princeton Review) down beyond the middle of the century ass almost wholly occupied with dogmatic, devotional, and institutional questions. But the influence of Germany, through translations of German books and through an increasing body of men who had studied in Germany, was steadily growing. The life of Philip Schaff (1819‑93) is representative. The Schaff‑Large Commentary, both translation and original work, indicated a rising tide. The part taken by American scholars in the work of Bible revision was another significant sign. The logical sequence of critical Bible‑studies has held strikingly true in America. The rapid rise of Old Testament criticism in the last quarter of the century is the notable phenomenon. With the exception of Ezra Abbott (1819‑84), distinguished as a text‑critic, and Joseph Henry Thayer (18281901),noted as a lexicographer, the American names of the first rank have been made in the old Testament field (Charles Augustus Brig, Crawford Howell Toy, George Moors, Francis Brown). American scholarship has worked with English scholarship to produce the two Bible dictionaries noticed above and the InternatforEUL critical Commentary above mentioned.
The history of the critical interpretation clearly proves that the great need of the time is patient and thorough exegesis, The constructive imag't‑
nation, beginning with Baur, has done its work. The New Testament student has before him all the hypotheses that can give facile and imposing synthesis. The task that lies ahead is the deep study of individual documents. This is all the more necessary because the wide gaps in our knowledge of the Apostolic Age make constructive synthesis as tempting as it is dangerous. The other great need is that the student shall be on guard against the personal equation. The critical individual of modern .Christianity is not wholly competent to understand the men of the Bible, for whom religion was a superb passion and the corporate life instinctive. He needs also to remember that the distinction between metaphysics and religion, which has become a necessary element of thought, was wholly foreign to the men of the New Testament. The " critical " exegete may be, in some ways, quite as naive as the patristic exegete. Hramy s. NAag.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the history of ease: C. A. Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, New York, 1899 (the beet single book for the English reader); J. J. Conybeare, Hiet. and Limits of Spiritual Interpretation, Oxford, 1824; Z. Frankel. EinJduea der pal6atiniacheaa Exepeae auf die aZexandriniar)M Hermeruutik, Leipeie, 1851; L. Dieatel, Oeechiehte des Alter Testaments in der christlirhen Kirche. Jens, 1809; 6. Bergen De gloaaariia at compsndiia sxepeticis medii aroi, Paris, 1879; L. Wogue, Hilt. . . de Z'exApdae biblique, Paris, 1881: F. W. Farrar, Hiat. of Interpretation, London. 1888 (covers all periods except the very modern); W. R.osenau, Jewish Biblical Commentators, Baltimore, 1908 (from the Talmud to the 20th century); G. H. Gilbert, Interpretation of as Bible; a short History, New York, 1908.
	On the theory, but often including the history, of in
terpretation: F. 8chleiermscher, Hermeruutik and Kritik,
ed. F. LOcke, Berlin, 1838; H. N. Clausen, Hesmeneutik
des Neuen Testaments, Leipsic, 1841; S. Davidson, Sacred
HermansuEice, Edinburgh, 1843; C. G. Wilke, Din Her
maruutik des Neuen Testaments, 2 vole., Leipeie, 1843
1844; $. Lutz, B%bliache Henneneutik, ed. A. Lutz, Pfors
heim, 1849; J. E. CelleSrier, Manuel d'hermiEnsutique,
Geneva, 1862, Eng. tranal., Bibliead Hermeneutics, by C.
Elliott and W. J. Her", New York, 1881 (covers five
varieties of exegesis); A. Kuenen, Criticae et hernunsuticm,
Leyden. 1858; P. Fairbairn, HermeneWi Manual,
Edinburgh, 1858; J. J. Doadea, Manual of Herntetteutiea
for . . . Me Neap Testament, ib. 1887; 8. R. Bosanquet,
Interpretation, London, 1874; C. H. Spurgeon, Commsnt
inp and Commentaries, London, 1876; A. 3mmer, Het
meneut%k des N. T., Wittenbrg, 1873, Eng. traneL,
Hermeneutics of she New Testament, Andover, 1877;
d. C. K. van Hofmann, Bibdiaehe Hermeneutik, ed.
W. Volak, Erlangen, 1880; M. 6. Terry, Biblical Her
meneutics, New York, 1883 1883; E. Reuss, Geschichte der
Heii%pen 3chriften des A. T., §§ 501‑600, Brunswick, 1887,
Erg. travel., Edinburgh, 1884; C. F. G. Heinriai, II. Ho
rlntna•brief. PP. 552‑553. Berlin. 1887; D. R. Dungan,
Heameneutica, Cincinnati, 1888; T. Zahn, t?eaducAte des
neuteatrtmantZirhen Kaawna vole. i.‑ii., Leipeie, 1889‑92;
F. Blam Hermeneurx and xritikk, Munich, 1898; G. Dah
man, Work Jean, vol. i., Leipeic, 1898; G. A. Deieema>zn, Die aprarAliehe Er/orachunp der priechiac>eera Oib,4 Giee, een, 1898; P. Gennrich Der Kampf um din Schrift, Berlin, 1$98• B. Jowett. The Interpretation of Saspture, London, 1906:
On epeaal phases of exegesis' C. Maitland, Apoatlsa' School of Prophetic Interpretation, London, 1849 C. D. Ginsburg, The Kate London, 1885; D. MaC. 1urpie,
The O. T, in the New London, 1868; idem, The N. T. View of the 07d, ib. 1872; C. Siegfried. Pki1o . . . ale Aualsper des A. T., Jena, 1875: H. Kihn, Theodor roan Mopaueatia urul romaius Ajriamua ale Zfxepeten, Frei. burg, 1880; F. 11. Chase, Chrysostom: A Study in Biblical Interpretation, London, 1887• A. Glemen, Dar Vbrauah lea A. T. in den neutsetame.‑,alichen S,I,riften, Gtitereloh, 1m; E. Mo`viat, Notion nupuxkniennne dB E'yeutiqre.

Ezell	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	248
Ezeroitis 8piritnalia
	Paris, 1908•, E. Riggenbaeh, Die dlteaten Kommentare zum
	He(m8erbrief, Leipaic, 1907; P. Heiniaeh, Der Einftuaa Philoa
	auf die attests christliche Exepese, Monster, 1908; consult
	also the literature under CATZNA:; KL, iv. 1080‑1121,
	v. 1844‑7b, and the articles in this work on the scholars
	named in the teat.
	E%ELL, JOSEPH SAMUEL: Church of Eng
land; b. at Melksham (11 m. e.s.e. of Bath), Wilt
shire, May 29, 1849. He studied at Taunton and
Sheffield Colleges, was ordered deacon in 1881, and
ordained priest in 1882. From 1881‑84 he was
curate of Weston‑super‑Mare, Somersetshire, and
in 1884‑90 vicar of Townstall with St. Saviour,
Somersetshire. Since 1890 he has been rector of
Stoke‑Fleeting, Dartmouth, Devonshire. He col
laborated with Canon H. D. M. Spence in editing
The Pulpit Commentary (London, 1880 eqq.) and
The Homiletical Library (1882 sqq.); and with H. D.
M. Spence and C. Neil in editing Thirty Thousand
Thoughts, Being Extracts Covering a Comprehensive
Circle of Religious and Allied Topics (6 vole., 1884
1888); he has been editor of The Lay Preacher (Lon
don, 1875 eqq.) in collaboration with J. E. Har
greaves; and sole editor of The Study and the Pulpit
(1876‑77); The Homiletic Quarterly (1880 sqq.);
Heart Chords (1883 aqq.); and The Monthly Inter
preter (Edinburgh, 1885 eqq.). To the Homiletical
Library he has contributed Homiletical Commentary
on the Book of Exodus (London, 1879) and Homi
letical Commentary on the Book of Genesis (1885;
in collaboration with T. H. Leale); and has also
written Practical Readings in the Book o f Jonah
(Peterborough, 1874) and The Biblical Illustrator
(London, 1887 eqq. ).
	=][MON: In canon law, the liberation of
one or more persons or ecclesiastical institutions
from the jurisdiction of the ordinary superior,
another, frequently higher, being substituted, espe
cially the pope. These exemptions are allowed to
be made only on sufficient grounds, for the good of
the Church. Apart from regular papal grant,
they may be claimed on the ground of a forty
years' unopposed prescription. The oldest and
moat frequent instances are those of orders or
monasteries. Originally all the monasteries of a
diocese were subject to the bishop. In the West the
strictness of some bishops led certain monasteries
to obtain letters of protection either from the
bishops or from kings and popes. Papal privi
leges freeing them absolutely from episcopal juris
diction, the first of which date from the sixth and
seventh centuries, were rare until the time of Greg
ory V. (996‑999); but in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries they became frequent, and were extended
to entire orders, as well as to cathedral and col
legiate foundations. The weakening of the epis
copal authority and frequent conflicts between
bishops and persons enjoying exemption led to
complaints, in consequence of which, at the Council
of Constants (1418), Martin V. revoked all exemp
tions from the jurisdiction of the ordinary granted
since the death of Gregory XI. (1378); and Leo
X. at the Fifth Lateran Council (1512‑17), among
a number of reforming decrees, issued one which
considerably limited the system. The evils com
plained of continued, however, to such an extent
that the Council of Trent took up the question, in spite of the protests of the generals of orders who were present. It required regulars to obtain the license of the bishop in order to administer the sacrament of penance or to preach outside their own conventual churches, to publish in these churches censures imposed by the bishop, to observe these as well as the fast‑days proclaimed by him, and to take part in public processions. They were to be subject to episcopal jurisdiction and visitation in regard to the cure of souls outside of their own members. The bishops were authorized to take cognizance of any public scandal by regulars, and to punish them in case their own superiors failed to do it. Other duties imposed on them as ex officio delegates of the apostolic see were the chastisement of regulars living outside their convents in case of misbehavior; the disciplining of regulars who were incompetent to preach, who preached heresy or scandalous error, or who did not observe the decrees of the Council regarding the mass; the enforcement of strict enclosure on nuns; the annual visitation of the churches of exempt clergy and care for the proper performance of pastoral duties; the introduction into monasteries of systematic instruction in Holy Scripture; and the execution of the Council's decrees on monastic reform.
Canon law distinguishes between passive exemption, which gives the holders of the privilege jurisdiction only over the members of their own community, the churches attached to it, and the laity living within their bounds, and active exemption, which gives the holders a wider and quasiepiscopal jurisdiction. Of these latter are the prcelati nulliua (se. diaceaeos), who have power over a definite terretorium aeparatum, free from diocesan connection and subject directly to the pope; if these are not bishops, they moat, of course, resort to the neighboring bishop for strictly episcopal functions. An analogous case is the exemption of certain diocesan bishops from metropolitan jurisdiction (see ARCHBISHOP), and their subjection directly to Rome. In modern times, also, the military and naval forces of certain countries have been under a military vicar or chaplain‑general named by the pope, who usually had episcopal orders (see BISHOP, TITULAR); this has been the case, e.g., in Austria since 1720, and in Prussia since 1868, with a break from 1873 to 1888. There are also exemptions from parochial jurisdiction, either for orders and monasteries, or for specially privileged persons or classes. Somewhat similar exemptions from the authority of the superintendent or consistory still occur in the Lutheran Church of Germany; and there are a number of cases, known as " peculiars," in the Church of England, the moat notable being the chapelsroyal in London and Windsor, which are under the immediate jurisdiction of the sovereign, and Westminster Abbey, of which the dean is the ordinary.

BIHLrOaaAPHY: K. F. Weiss, Die kirchliche Exemtioreen der Kldeter, Basel, 1893; L. Ferraris, Prampta tibliotheca
canonica, under " Regulates," Rome, 1844‑b5; P. Hin‑
echius. Kirchanrecht, ii. 144 eqy., 229 eqq., 335 eqq., 343
eqq., Berlin, 1889; 8ehAfler, Der Biachol and Repularen,
Augsburg, 1871; R. von Scherer, KirchenrachE, i. 422

249
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
aq9•. Graz, 1891: J. B. $sgmtiller, RirchenrechE, PP. 219 aqq., Freiburg, 1904: KL , iv. 1121‑26: DCA, i. 643: exti‑
cle " Dean" is the theological dictionaries.'
	E%EQUATUR. See PracEm.
	E%ERCITIA SPIRITUALIA (" Spiritual Ex
ercises "): A work by St. Ignatius Loyola,
founder of the Jesuits. Originally written in
Spanish, it was translated into Latin and first
published at Rome in 1548 with the approval of
Paul III. The military asceticism and obedience
which characterize the Jesuits a°e essentially the
result of this book, which has promoted the
steady growth of the order through the cen
turies and extended its influence both to the
regular and to the secular clergy. In its content
the " Spiritual Exercises " is no new creation of its
author, but is based on older rules for inward prayer
and spiritual meditation, finding close analogues
in the works of contemplative mystics of the close
	of the Middle Ages, such as Jan van Ruyebroeck.
Among the more immediate sources
	Sources.	were probably the Abecedario es
		piritual de las circonstancias de la
passion de Cristo nuestro Se7reor y otros mysterioa
(1521) of the Minorite Francesco de Oauna and the
Exercitatorium spirituals (1500) of the Benedictine
abbot Garcia de Cisneros. From the former book
may have been derived much pertaining to the
meditations on the Passion in the " third week "
of Loyola's course, while the latter furnished the
basis for the threefold way of purification, illu
mination, and union. Manresa, where Loyola
wrote the " Spiritual Exercises," is situated near
Montserrat, where the Exercitatorium was composed,
so that Ignatius doubtless came underthe same in
fluences which had inspired De Cisneros. This is
shown conclusively by the Benedictine Antonio
de Ypez (d. 1621), while the older Jesuits main
tained that the Exercitia had been miraculously
revealed to Loyola at Manresa by the Virgin.
Modern Jesuits, however, recognize more or less
fully the dependence of Loyola's book on the
Exercitat.')rium, although they emphasize the
superiority of their founder's work over that of
his predecessor both on account of its more prac
tical form and because of the special rules for
examination of conscience and care of souls which
are lacking in the composition of De Cisneros.
The Exercitia apiritualia, which contains besides its main topic additions, annotations, and instructions, is based upon a series of meditations divided into four weeks. These meditations treat of purification through contemplation of the sinful corruption of mankind, illumination through contemplation of the incarnate and crucified Redeemer, and mystic union with the risen and glorified Savior. The first week, or via purgativa, leads to consciousness of sin and repentance for it by five daily,
meditations on the purpose of man tee‑ and complete resignation to the divine
mgt.	will, the fall of man and angels, the
guilt incurred thereby, and the eternal Punishment of hell. In the course of each day one who practises these exercises is requfred to examine his conscience, and to watch and combat his besetting sins, while in the evening he moat review
Ezell
Eaercitia 9Piritnalia
his general conduct during the past day. The via illuminativa occupies two weeks. The first half is devoted to meditations on the mysteries of the sending of the Redeemer from the time of his resolve to become incarnate to his Passion, closing with the requirement to choose between Christ and the world. The second half of the via illuminativa is devoted to meditations on the Passion, deepening and strengthening the resolve to follow Christ. The fourth week is filled with meditations on the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, wherein he who has died with Christ rises again as a new man united with God. The exercises close with a prayer of absolute resignation to God in Christ in memory, intelligence, and will. Certain ascetic practises are recommended for the promotion of meditation, but these are spiritual, such as the reading of ascetic writings, or frequent confession and communion, rather than fasting, scourging, and the like. To the Exercitia are appended certain " rules for harmony with the Church," intended to reconcile one who has gained union with God through the three ways wholly with the cardinal doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, thus guarding him against a heretical mysticism, and at the same time ignoring all teachings outside the Roman Catholic body.
Through their skilful adaptation to the requirements of Roman Catholic devotions, as well as through their elasticity, which rendered them suitable for use both within and without the Order of Jesus, the Exercitia spiritualia proved victorious over the attacks made upon it immediately after its appearance, even by Roman Catholic theologians. The Dominican Melchior Cano aroused opposition against the work in the University of
Alnala, and aided the archbishop of History and Toledo to forbid its use and disaemi‑
Influence. nation in 1551. Yet within a few
decades Loyola's book met with the universal approval of the entire Roman Catholic
world, including the Dominicans themselves. St. Charles Borromeo had it recommended by a provincial synod of Milan in 1576, while Francis of Salsa, Juan and Thereaia de Avila', Vincent de Paul,
and others lauded it highly. A series of papal bulls sanctioned it, especially after 1593, when the
Directorium of Aquaviva, the General of the Order, required its use among the Jesuits. In an abbreviated form the Exercitia apiritualia was recom‑
mended even to non
‑Jesuits, both clergy and laity. Paul V. granted a plenary indulgence to all who should practise the Exercises for ten days (May 23, 1606); Alexander VII. granted similar privileges to the laity for a period of eight days (Oct.12,1657);
while Benedict XIV. reduced this minimum to five

days (July 15, 1749), and later even included those
who "should pass but a single day under the
direction of the Jesuits as a Preparation for a good

death " (Mar. 29,1753), In this double form of a foul, weeks, course for
members of the Order of Jesus, to be performed at least twice, once during the novitiate and again after the completion of the education, and of an abbreviated course for non‑Jesuits, the Ezercitid epiritualia is in use at the present day and is an

Emile of the Israelites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	250
Rxtreme Unotioa
important factor in modern Roman Catholic
religious thought and life.	(O. Zbcst.ERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The " Exercises " were published in Eng.
	transl. from the Latin in London, 1847, 1880, 1870, and
	from the Spanish, ib. 1900. Consult: P. StSger, Die
	asketisahe Litemtur fiber die geisuirhen Uebungen, R,egens
	burg, 1850; A. Steinmetz, Hiat. of the Jesuits, London,
	1880; E. Gothein, Ignaz van Loyola, pp. 2B‑38, Halls,
	1885; F. H. Reueoh, Index der roabotensn Becher, ii. 294
	295, Bonn, 1885; d. Brucker, Die peiaUichsrt Uebunpen du
	heilipen Ipnas, Freiburg, 1890; O. ZSckler, Askew and
	Mbnehtum, pp. b94‑599, Frankfort, 1898; Heimbuaher,
	Orden and Konprcpationcn, ii. b9‑83.
	EXILE OF THE ISRAELITES.	See ISRAEL, HIS
TORY OF, L, § J.
	EXODUS, BOOB OF. Bee HEBATEUCH.
	EXODUS OF THE ISRAELITES. See WILDER
NESS.
HISTORY ON, L, $ 4; WANDERING IN T7314 •• ILDH;RNE88.

EXORCISM: The expulsion of evil spirits by conjuration or magical or religious exercises; see DEMONIAC, §§ 4‑s; a180 BENEDICTION; DIVINATION; SACRAMENTAI$. This article is confined to exorcism in connection with the rite of baptism.
It is easy to understand how the primitive Church came to use the rite of exorcism on its catechumens; it is also obvious that in so doing it departed from the Scriptural standpoint. Resting its practise on the healing of demonises by Christ, it undertook to heal by exorcism a large number of morbid conditions, which it considered of diabolical origin. It had a class of officials set apart for this function, though not originally by any form of ordination; according to the Apostolic Constitutions (viii. 26) they possessed a " gift of healing," and their work was thus the exercise of a gift rather than of an office. Their method of treatment included prayer and laying on of hands. In the third century this sort of exorcism was applied to catechumens coming from paganism, on the theory that the pagan world was the realm of evil spirits, and that those who came into the Church from it must thus be delivered from the power of evil. In thus deserting the orig',nal ground of exorcism, as an influence brought to bear in order to cure a morbid condition of the psychico‑physical organism, for an attack upon the ethical power of the kingdom of darkness over souls, the practise entered upon a career which led toward fantastic magic. Satan was commanded to come forth from the catechumens; and the thought that the winning of each new convert from paganism to Christianity was a manifestation of the victory of Christ over the prince of this world finds dramatic expression in these exorcisms.
The first certain evidence of the employment of exorcism in the case of catechumens is offered by Cyprian in 256; it is found here in use both in i the Catholic Church and among heretics, so that it is evidently no new thing. Another mention of it, possibly somewhat older, is found in the Catwnes Hippolyt% It is doubtful whether Tertullian knew of the practise, or whether the Clementine Homilies (iii. 73) intend to refer to it in the description of the daily laying on of hands during the preparation for baptism. At the Carthaginian council of 256 in which it is first clearly mentioned, certain bishops requested that it, together with
baptism, should be employed at the reception of heretics into the Church; the reason given, that " heretics are worse than pagans," shows how definitely exorcism was still connected with the thought of paganism. In the same context it is interesting that an early Greek form for the reception of a convert from Judaism contains a renunciation, but no exorcism (Aseemani, Codex liturgicus, I. 105 eqq.). When exorcism was thus once brought into connection with baptism, it was applied to the baptism of infants in the same unreflecting way as were the other ceremonies originally belonging to adult baptism. As in the service for infant baptism the various liturgical acts of the catechumen's preparation were combined into a continuous function, the various exorcisms which found a place in that were here also included. At the outset came the xcsufflatio, a thrice‑repeated breathing in the face of the child, with the words " Depart from him, thou unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete"; after the giving of salt, there wasalong exorcism, three times repeated, each time with a different command to the devil to depart from the child. This remained substantially the same until the end of the Middle Ages. The Rituals Romanum of 1614 condensed it considerably, retaining only the exsufJatio at the beginning with the last of the three exorcisms and its introduction
Luther saw no objection to the exorcism in the baptismal office, which he retained in his own of 1523, abbreviating it, indeed, but not on any theological ground. In that of 1526 it was further abbreviated, and the exsufJtatio omitted but relics of the Roman function passed from this into the majority of the Lutheran service‑books, to excite bitter controversy later within the Lutheran ranks, and to be the subject of reproach on the part of the Calvinists. When not forced by such attacks to defend the practise, the Lutheran theologians freely admitted that it was a non‑essential, and at the Cassel Conference of 1661 expressed their willingness to change it to a prayer for deliverance from the power of Satan. In the rationalistic period at the end of the eighteenth century, it finally disappeared from one service‑book after another, and now, since its general abandonment by the Lutherans, the ceremony has no place in the rites of any Protestant Church.
(G. KAwER.nu.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Oripines. III. iv., X. ii 8; C. Gerber, Historic der Kirchen‑Carernonien in Saehsen, Leipeio, 1732; J. M. Krafft, Historic room ExorcKanw, Hamburg, 1750; G. T. Strobel, in Miscetlanegn, iv. 173 eqq., Puremberg, 1781; F. H&9ing, Doe Sakramenl der Taute, i. 378 eqq.. Erlangen, 1848: J. Mayer, Gcerhichtc den KatecAumenWa, Kempten, 1888; F. Probst, Bakramente and 3akrornen<aZien in den drsi eraten c)wfstlichan Jahrhunderten, pp. 18 eqq., 128 eqq., Ttibingen, 1872; G. von Zeseehwitz, Katechetik. i. 288 eqq., 340 eqq., Leipsio, 1872; w. E. Addis and T. Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, p. 382, London, 1903; L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, its Origin and Evolution, pp. 298, 299, 303, 317, 322, ib. 1904; C. H. H. Wright and C. Neil, A Protestant Dictionary, p. 215, i b. 1904.
EXPECTANCY (Exspedarttia, exsPedativd, gratis exspedatiroa): In canon law, the right of succession to an ecc(esiaeical office not yet vacant, by virtue of which the person on whom it is con‑