221	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Johnson
lific author, for his rigid self‑criticism made him
too timid, but when, in 1857, the pietistic preacher
G. A. Lammers, of Skien, left the established Church
and undertook to found a " free apostolic and Chris
tian congregation," abolishing, among other things,
infant baptism, Johnson published his Nogle Ord
om Barnedaaben. He also collaborated with C. P.
Caspari in translating the Old Testament until
1890, and with F. W. Bugge in making a version of
the New Testament. With Caspari, furthermore,
he edited Tidsskrift for den evangelisklutherske kirke
i Norge. In 1863 he founded the Luthersk Kirke
tidende, which he edited till 1875, and to which he
contributed many articles. In 1878‑79 he pub
lished his Grundrids of den systematiske Theologie,
while his Forelosninger over den christelige Ethik and
Forellcesninger over Dogmehistorien appeared pos
thumously in 1896.	J. BELsHmmt.

JOHNSON, HERRICK: Presbyterian; b. at Kaughnewaga, N. Y., Sept. 22, 1832. He was graduated at Hamilton College in 1857 and at Auburn Theological Seminary in 1860. After being associate pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Troy, N. Y., in 1860‑62, he was pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church, Pittsburg, Pa., in 1862‑$7 and the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, in 1868‑73. He was then professor of homiletics and pastoral theology in Auburn Theological Seminary from 1874 to 1880, after which he was pastor of the Fourth Presbyterian Church, Chicago, until 1883. He taught sacred rhetoric and pastoral theology in McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1880‑1906. He was president of the Presbyterian Board of Ministerial Education in 1869‑73 and of the Presbyterian Board of Aid for Colleges and Academies in 1883‑1903, moderator of the General Assembly at Springfield, Ill., in 1882, and a member of the Presbyterian Board of Publication in 1868‑73, and of two committees of the Presbyterian Church for the revision of the Confession of Faith in 1890 and 1900. In theology he is a liberal conservative, describing himself as " a thorough believer in both the doctrines and polity of the Presbyterian Church, as warranted by the Word of God and represented in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and form of government." He has written: Christianity's Challenge (Chicago, 1880) ; Plain Talks about the Theatre (1882); Revivals, their Place and Power (1883); Presbyterian Bulwarks (New York, 1887); Presbyterian Book of Forms (Philadelphia, 1889); From Love to Praise (1903); and Ideal Ministry (1908).
JOHNSON, JOSEPH HORSFALL: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles; b. at Scheneotady, N. Y., June 7, 1847. He was educated at Williams College (A.B., 1870) and General Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1873. He was ordered deacon in the same year and advanced to the priesthood in 1874. He was minister, curate, and rector of Holy Trinity, Highland, N. Y., in 1873‑79, and rector of Trinity, Bristol, R. I., in 1879,81, St. Peter's, Westchester, N. Y., in 1881‑86, and Christ Church, Detroit, Mich., in 1886‑96. In the latter year he was consecrated bishop of Los Angeles.
JOHNSON, SAMUEL: 1. First president of King's College, now Columbia University; b. at Guilford, Conn., Oct. 14, 1696; d. at Stratford, Conn., Jan. 6, 1772. He studied at Yale College (M.A., 1714), and became a tutor there in 1716, on the removal of the college from Saybrook to New Haven. He was ordained pastor of a Congregational church at West Haven in 1720, but became a convert to episcopacy in 1722, and was reordained in England in 1723. On his return to Connecticut he was assigned to the mission at Stratford, where he remained till 1754. Thereupon he was president of King's College, New York, till 1763, when he resigned this position and returned to Stratford. In 1764 he was reappointed to his old charge, which he retained till his death. He formed a close friendship with Bishop George Berkeley (q.v.) during the latter's visit to America, and accepted his teaching. For many years his pen was particularly active in the defense of episcopacy, an unpopular cause in the colonies, and his adoption of it created a profound sensation. He engaged in long controversies with Jonathan Dickinson, Thomas Foxcroft, and John Graham. His principal works are: A Letter from a Minister of the Church of England to his Dissenting Parishioners (New York, 1733); A Second Letter (Boston, 1734); A Third Letter (1737); A System of Morality (1746; 3d ed., London, 1754), which was published by Benjamin Franklin under the title Elementa Philosophica (Philadelphia, 1752); and An English and Hebrew Grammar (London, 1767).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. B. Chandler, The Life of S. Johnson . .
First President of King's College, New York, 1805; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, v. 52‑61, ib. 1859; I. W. Riley, American Philosophy; the Early Schools, pp. 63‑126, New York, 1907.
2. Independent clergyman and reformer; b. at Salem, Mass., Oct. 10, 1822; d. at North Andover, Mass., Feb. 19, 1882. He was graduated from Harvard in 1842 and from the Harvard Divinity School in 1846. He entered the ministry without ordination and never associated himself with any denomination, though in his views he was closely related to the Unitarians. His first charge was the Unitarian Church at Dorchester, where he remained one year. From 1851 till 1870 he was pastor of the Free Church at Lynn. He took a prominent part in the antislavery agitation. His principal publications are: A Book of Hymns (Boston, 1846), in collaboration with Samuel Longfellow; The Worship of Jesus (1868); and Oriental Religions, and their Relation to Universal Religion: India (1872), China (1877), Persia (1885). Samuel Longfellow collected his Lectures, Essays, and Sermons (1883), to which he prefixed a Memoir.

JOHNSON, THOMAS CARY: Presbyterian; b. at Fishbok Hill, Va., July 19, 1859. He was educated at Hampden‑Sidney College (B.A., 1881), the University of Virginia (1883‑84), Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va. (graduated in 1887), and the Yale Divinity School (1887‑88). After being professor of Old‑ and New‑Testament exegesis in Austin Theological School, Austin, Tex., in 1888‑90, and pastor elect of the Third Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Ky., in 1890‑91, he was

Johnson
Jonas of Orleans
appointed professor of the English Bible and pastoral theology m Union Theological Seminary, Richmond. In the following year (1892) he was appointed to his present position of professor of ecclesiastical history and polity in the same institution. Besides editing the collected writings of Rev. Prof. T. E. Peck (Richmond, Va.,1885‑87), he has written: The Life anti Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney (Richmond, 1893); History of the Southern Presbyterian Church '(New York, 1894); John Calvin and the Genevan Reformation (Richmond, 1900); Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer (1906); and Virginia Presbyterianism and Religious Liberty in Colonial and Revolutionary Times (1907).

JOHNSON, WILLIAM ALLEN: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Hyde Park, N. Y., Aug. 4, 1833. He was educated at Columbia (A.B., 1853) and at the General Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1857. He was ordered deacon in 1857 and ordained priest in 1858. He was minister and rector of St. Peter's, Bainbridge, N. Y., and of Christ Church, Guilford, N. Y., from 1857 to 1862, after which he was a missionary in upper Michigan for two years (1862‑64). From 1864 to 1870 he was rector of St. Mary's, Burlington, N. J., and from 1871 to 1883 of St. John's, Salisbury, Conn. From the latter year until his retirement as professor emeritus in 1900 he was connected with the Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn., where he was successively professor of homiletics and Christian evidences from 1883 to 1886 and of ecclesiastical history from 1887 to 1900.

JOHNSTON, HOWARD AGNEW: Presbyterian; b. near Xenia, 0., June 29, 1860. He was educated at the University of Cincinnati (B.A., 1882) and Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, from which he was graduated in 1885. He was pastor successively of the Seventh Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, in 1884‑90, Central Church, Des Moines, Is., in 1890‑93; Forty‑First Street Presbyterian Church, Chicago, in 1893‑99; and Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York City, in 1899‑1905. In the latter year he resigned to be for a couple of years special representative of his denomination to its Asiatic missions, and in 1908 became pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Colorado Springs, Col. He has written Moses and the Pentateuch (Cincinnati, 1893); Studies in God's Methods of Training Workers (New York, 1900); Bible Criticism and the Average Man (Chicago, 1902); Studies for Personal Workers (New York, 1903); Scientific Faith (Chicago, 1904); The Beatitudes of Christ (1905); Brief Studies through the Bible (New York, 1905); and Famine and the Bread (1908).

JOHNSTON, JAMES STEPTOE: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Western Texas; b. at Church Hill, Miss., June 9, 1843. He was educated at Oakland College, Miss., and the University of Virginia, but left in 1861, before graduation, to enter the Confederate Army. He served throughout the Civil War, first as a private in the Eleventh Mississippi Regiment, and later as a second lieutenant in Stuart's cavalry. After the end of the war, he studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1868.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
He soon turned, however, from the law to the Church, and, after pursuing his theological studies privately, was ordered deacon in 1869 and priested two years later. He was successively minister and curate at St. James', Port Gibson, Miss., in 18701876, and rector of the Church of the Ascension, Mount Sterling, Ky., in 1866‑50, and of Trinity, Mobile, Ala., in 1880‑88. In the latter year he was consecrated missionary bishop of Western Texas. Within his diocese he has enlarged St. Mary's Hall, a girls' college, and has founded the West Texas Military Academy, both at San Antonio.
JOKTAN, jek'tan: According to Gen. x. 25 sqq. a son of Eber, the grandson of Shem, brother of Peleg, and father of thirteen sons (twelve according to the LXX). According to this chapter the Semitic stock divided into two branches, a northern and a southern, long before the migrations of the Abrahamic family; and the names of the thirteen sons of Joktan point to southern Arabia, while Genesis is right in distinguishing between the Joktan peoples and the later Ishmaelites. The Ara, bic ethnographers make the same distinction between the sons of Kahtan (pure Arabs) and Ishmaelites. The location of the Joktan peoples as given in Gen. x. 30 is disputed. Mesha is placed by Delitzsch on the northwestern corner of the Persian Gulf, and by Knobel about fifty miles southeast of Mecca. In the first case Sephar is placed in the Himyaritic Zaphar in Yemen and the " mountain of the east " is the range in the east of Hadramaut. In the other case, Joktan's possessions were a triangle in southwest Arabia. But neither situation furnishes good locations for Ophir (q.v.) and Havilah (verse 29). See TABLE OF THE NATIONS.
(E. KAUTz8Cm)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The oommentaries on Genesis and the
literature under TABLE oh NATioNe; E. C. A. Riehm,
Handmorterbuch ties bibliechen Altertums, PP. 763‑764,
Leipsic, 1893; DB, ii. 743‑744; EB, 12564; JE, vii. 225.
JONAH: Fifth of the Minor Prophets in the arrangement of the English version. He is called the son of Amittai, and, according to II Kings xiv. 25, uttered a prophecy concerning Jeroboam II. The book is distinguished from other prophetical books by the fact that it is not the prophecy, but the personal experiences of the man, in which the interest seems to center. To escape the divine summons to preach repentance to Nineveh, Jonah embarked from Joppa for Tarehish, but during a storm was, at his own advice and by the issue of a lot, thrown overboard, and swallowed by ,a great fish (i. 17). Three days afterward he was thrown up upon the land, and, after a second summons, began preaching to the Ninevites. When both king and people began to repent, Jonah became indignant at the divine compassion, but was convinced by God of his foolishness through a gourd (iv.). Many have regarded the book as an allegory or a poetic myth, while others hold that it was a national prophetic tradition designed to serve a didactic aim, and contained some elements of historic truth. Those who regard the book as history appeal to the geographical and historical notices in the prophecy; for example, the accuracy of the description of Nineveh and the fitness of Jonah's mission at that

928	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Johnson
		Jonas of Orleans
	particular period, when Israel was coming into con
tact with Assyria.	Those who deny the credibility
make much of the abundance of the miraculous,
	especially of the story of the great fish; but this in
cident is consistent with our Lord's use of it (Matt.
	xii. 39 Hqq.) to illustrate his own resurrection by
	the use of material gathered from folk‑lore. The
	central purpose of the book is to teach that the
	heathen world is called to the knowledge of Yahweh
to take its place in his kingdom (iv. 10‑11).
	That the Jonah of II Kings xiv. 25 has set'down
in this book his experiences is nowhere indicated.
	The narrative at beginning and end is so abrupt
	that it has probably come out of a cycle of narra
	tives like those which center about Elisha; indeed,
an old Haggadah calls Jonah a prophet of Elisha's
	school. There is much difference about the date.
	Because of the use of the perfect tense in iii. 3b,
	the book must postdate the fall of Nineveh (606
	B.c.); and linguistic indications agree with this,
	though it should not be brought below the fifth
pre‑Christian century.	Attempts to find Jahvistic
	and Elohistic sources in the book are not a success.
	(W. VOLCSt.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Commentaries are: Ephraem Syrus, The
	Repentance of Nineveh, Eng. trand., London, 1853; S.
	Mitchell, Philadelphia, 1875; M. Kaliech, in Bible Studies,
	part ii., London, 1878 (gives conspectus of earlier litera
	ture); A. E. O'Connor, Geneva, 1883; C. H. H. Wright,
	Biblical Studies, Edinburgh, 1886; H. Martin, Edinburgh,
	1891; C. von Orelli, Munich, 1896, Eng. transl., New York,
	1893; J. Kennedy, London, 1895; W. Nowack, GSttingen,
	1897; G. A. Smith, Book of as Twelve, vol. ii., London,
	1898 (best); F. Hitzig, ed. H. Steiner, Leipsic, 1904;
	E. B. Pussy, Minor Prophets, new issue, London, 1907.
	Special treatises are: J. Friedricheen, Uebersicht fiber die
	. Ansichten ilber Jona, Leipsie, 1841; W. Drake, Notes
	on Jonah and Hosea, London, 1853; T. K. Cheyne, Theo
	logical Review, 1877, pp. 211‑219; K. Vollers, in ZATW,
	iii (1883), 219 sqq., iv (1884), 1 eqq.; W. BShme, in
	ZATW, vii (1887), 224 sqq. (on the literary composition);
	A. Merx. Chrestomathia Targumica, pp 132‑139, Berlin,
	1897 (gives the Targum on Jonah); H. Schmidt, Jona,
	Eine Untersuchung zur vergleichenden Religionsgeschide,
	GBttingen, 1907; DB, ii. 744‑753; EB, ii. 2565‑2571; JE,
vii. 225‑230.
	JONAS OF BOBBIO: Hagiographer of the seventh
century; d. after 659.	He was a native of Susa
	(the Roman Segusiu), at the foot of Mt. Cenis
	(about 28 m. w. of Turin). In 618, still quite
	young, he entered the monastery at Bobbio, and
was educated there.	He accompanied Bertulf, the
	third abbot, to Rome in 627. Since he had a per
	sonal acquaintance with Eustasius, abbot of Lux
	euil, who died in the spring of 629, he may have
	gone to Gaul (where he remained permanently) as
	early as 628. While temporarily visiting Bobbio
	at a later time he promised to write the life of Co
	lumban and his successors and disciples, and com
pleted the work between 640 and 643.	About this
	time he was engaged with St. Amandus in trying
	to convert the heathen Franks on the Scheldt and
Scarpe.	While staying in Arras he was induced
	to write the life of St. Vedastes. the first Frank
	ish bishop of Arras, and in Nov., 659, having
	meanwhile obtained the dignity of abbot, he‑com
posed the life of St. John of Reomans.	Of the last
	events of Jonas' life and of his death nothing is
	known. The Vita Columbant, Jonas' principal work,
	including also, in its second part, Eustasius, Attain,
Bertulf, and Burgundofara (in MPL, lxxxvii.
1009‑46; cf. Kruseh in Mittheilungen des hnafituta
fur 6sterreichiache Geschichtaforaehung, xiv. 385 sqq.,
Innsbruck, 1893; Eng. transl. by D. C. Munro in
Translations and Reprints published by the depart
ment of history of the University of Pennsylvania,
ii. 7, Philadelphia, 1895) has established his literary
fame. In spite of its silence on important matters
‑like the Easter controversy and the first applica
tion of the rule of St. Benedict in Gaul‑notwith
standing the preference for marvelous stories in
accordance with the spirit of the times, it rises by
a certain historical sense above many like works.
The language, too, is peculiar and novel (cf. Krusch,
435), and proves identity of authorship for the Vita
Columbani and the Vitae of Vedastes and St. John
of Reomans. 	O. SEEBABB.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Histoirs littsrairs de la France, iii. 604 eqq.; Hertel, in ZHT, xxxix. 397 eqq.; Stbber, in Sitsungs• berichte der wiener Akademie, 1885, pp. 319 eqq.`, Krueeh, in Mittheilungen des Institute fair oaterreichieche Ge8chichtafor8chung, xiv. 385 sqq., and in MGM, Script. rer. Merov., iv (1902), 30 aqq.; wattenbaoh, DGQ, i (1893), 116, 118119, 1503.
JONAS OF ORLEANS: Bishop of Orldans from 821 till his death in 844. He was a native of Aquitania and succeeded Theodulf (d. Sept. 18, 821) as bishop of Orltans. He attended a synod called at Paris by Louis the Pious in Nov., 825, to consider the question of image‑worship, and was sent to Rome to lay the resolutions adopted before Pope Eugenius II. He was also prominent in the synod at Paris in 829, called by the emperor to find remedies for abuses of the time. In 825 Jonas had written on the subject in his De institutions laicali, which gives in three books valuable descriptions of the prevalent moral corruption and urges renovation of the churchly spirit. Another topic of the synod's discussion, the duties of secular rulers, had also been anticipated by Jonas in 828 in a little work De imtitutione regia, which now was embodied in the resolutions of the synod. Jonas' remarks on the relation between the spiritual and secular authorities are interesting. The latter are dependent upon the former. The power of the keys has been entrusted to the spiritual office by the Lord so that even kings have to submit to it. Man can not.judge God; and therefore he can not judge the representatives of God (ecclesiastics). Louis again addressed himself to Jonas when the energetic measures of Claudius of Turin (q.v.) against image‑worship became known in the Frankish realm; and sent him an excerpt from the doctrinal works of Claudius with the request to refute them. The death of Claudius induced Jonas to withhold his refutation at the time. But about 842 he laid his work before Charles the Bald, the son of Louis. Jonas still labored under the superstition of his time. He distinguishes a double adoration‑one that is due to God alone, and one that is addressed to the holy images; he advocates the worship of martyrs and relics, believes in an effective intercession of the saints and the mother of God, and demands worship of the cross.
(ALBERT FREYBTEDTt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His works are in MPL, cA.; also partly in L. d'Achery, Spicilegium. i. 268‑823, 324‑336, Part, left.

Jon"	THE NEW SCEL46FF‑HERZOG	224
Jones
	Consult HWoirs liWmirs do 14 France, iv. 594‑HO6, v. 20
	81; A. Ebert, Allpemeina Geachi&te der Literatur des
	Msttaiadtara, ii. 224‑230, Leipma, 1880; Potthaet, Wep
	taeiaer, p. 882.
	JONAS, JUSTUS: German Reformer, close friend
and associate of Luther; b. at Nordhausen (38 m.
w.n.w. of Erfurt), Saxony, June 5,1493; d. in Eis
feld (40 m. a. of Erfurt), Saxe‑Meiningen, Oct. 9,
1555. His real name was Jodocus Koch, but he
adopted his father's Christian name as a surname
during his university career. In 1506 he matricu
lated at Erfurt, where he entered into dose friend
ship with Eobanus Hess, whom he emulated in his
devotion to humanistic studies and the practise
of verse‑writing. Having chosen jurisprudence as
his special field, he followed the celebrated teacher
Henning GSde to W ittenberg in 1511, but returned
about three years later to Erfurt, received ordina
tion, and became prebend in the Church of St.
Severus" and professor in law at the university. A
member of the circle of enthusiastic humanists who
acknowledged Eobanus as their " king " and wor
shiped Erasmus as their idol, Jonas took advan
tage of a pilgrimage made by Eobanus in 1518 to
enter into communication with the great scholar.
In the following year he made his personal acquaint
ance, and Erasmus conceived a liking for his young
admirer, and subsequently exerted himself to pre
vent his conversion to the party of Luther. Jonas
in return spoke of Erasmus as his "° father in
Christ," his instructor and guide in the way of
right living.
	In 1519, while absent in the Netherlands, Jonas
was chosen rector of the university, and at the
same time comprehensive reforms were enacted
whereby the study of Hebrew and Greek together
with the " true " philosophy and theology was
made a part of the curriculum. On his return
Jonas began a series of Bible‑readings, in the spirit
still of Erasmus and not of Luther. His adhesion
to the cause of the great Reformer dates from about
the time of the Leipsic Disputation, shortly before
which event Luther, through Johann Lang, offered
his friendship to Jonas; the latter's first letter
bears the date of June, 1520. Upon the death
of Henning Glide at Wittenberg in Jan., 1521,
Spalatin recommended Jonas as his successor. The
elector offered the vacant professorship to Mutianus,
who declined, and likewise recommended Jonas.
The latter received the appointment at Worms,
whither he had accompanied Luther. In June of
the same year he removed to Wittenberg, and,
embracing with enthusiasm the doctrines of the the
ologians there, devoted himself to an active cham
pionship of the Protestant cause. With some dif
ficulty he succeeded in obtaining his transfer to
the theological faculty, in order more freely to de
vote himself to the religious propaganda.
	In the controversies concerning the reform of
worship at the court church during Luther's so
journ at the Wartburg, Jonas was one of the most
earnest advocates of Protestant innovations. From
1523 to 1533 he was dean of the theological faculty
and delivered lectures on the Old and New Testa
ments, but gradually his professional duties were
abandoned for literary labors in the great cause
For Luther he carried on a polemic against Jqhannes Faber over the celibacy of the clergy (1523) and later came into conflict with his fellow student at Erfurt, Georg Witzel. His gifts revealed themselves, especially, however, in his translations from the works of Luther and Melanchthon, from German into Latin and vice versa, gifts of which the two men gladly availed themselves, allowing him full liberty in the handling of their writings; among such translations were the German versions of Luther's De servo arbitrio and Melanchthon's Loci. At the same time Jonas played an active part in the great events of the Reformation, such as the Marburg Conference and the Diet of Augsburg. In 1532 he became adviser to the three Anhalt principalities and in 1538 drew up a set of church ordinances for the city of Zerbst. Preeminent, however, were his services as visitator during the introduction of the Protestant faith into the duchy of Saxony, and as author of the new church ordinances there enacted. In the establishment of the Reformation in Halle he also played a leading part. In 1541, while passing through that city, he was invited by some of the councilors to remain with them for some time and to instruct them in the Gospel. Jonas began his work under the protection of the elector of Saxony who made use of his long neglected power as burgrave of Halls to further the establishment of the Reformed faith in that town. In 1541‑42 the new ritual was introduced into the various churches, and in the summer of the latter year Jonas was made superintendent. In 1543 he drew up the church ordinances for the town. With the aid of the Wittenberg jurist Kilian Goldstein, who had been summoned to Halle as syndic, Jonas carried on the organization of the Protestant Church with a resolute energy that left him little time for literary labors. In 1546 he accompanied Luther on his last journey to Eisleben, stood beside his death‑bed, and delivered his funeral oration. Their friendship ,had never known any interruption and the " Table Talk " and correspondence of the Reformer testify to the intimate relations that prevailed between the two.
Upon the outbreak of the Schmalkald War, Jonas vigorously assailed the emperor and Maurice of Saxony, and on the capture of Halle by the latter in November, 1546, he was compelled to flee. He returned in January, 1547, and made use of the situation to drive the monks and nuns from the city and to wipe out all traces of Roman practise in the church system. But Halle fell a second time into the hands of Maurice, and Jonas was once more a fugitive. His exile seems to have aged him rapidly and to have weakened his powers, but he longed nevertheless for active employment. Through petitions and the intercession of others he sought to appease the anger of Maurice, but it was not until 1548 and after a humiliating submission that he was permitted to return to Halle. There, however, disappointment awaited him; the town council, reluctant to place at the head of affairs a weak old man who numbered among his opponents the powerful elector and the new archbishop of Magdeburg, declined to restore him to his pulpit and restricted him to a lectureship in Latin. In

225	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Jonas
Jones
1550 he became court preacher at Coburg. His
friendship with Melanchthon had cooled and on
the subject of the Interim Jonas appears as his op
ponent. Melanchthon, in return, spoke of him as
an old man unfit for the performance of active pas
toral duties. After a short activity in Regensburg,
in 1553 Jonas became superintendent at Eisfeld,
where he remained till his death, occupied partially
with his old labors as a translator. The picture of
a zealous champion of the Reformation, devoting
his great gifts and capacity for effort to the cause
of the faith, is somewhat tarnished by the unspar
ing wrath of his polemic and an avarice that was
notorious. 	(G. KAwERAU.)
BIRwOORAPHT: His letters were published by G. Kawerau, 2 vole., Halle, 1884‑85; additions have been made, e.g., by C. A. H. Burkhardt, in Zeiteehrift fur kirchliche Wiesenwhaft and Leben, 1889, pp. 430 sqq. His life has been written by L. Reinhard, Altenburg, 1731; G. C. Knapp , Halle, 1817; H. G. Hasse, Leipsic, 1862; T. Pressel, Elberfeld, 1862; while the Peetachrift of his four hundredth anniversary was edited by K. Meyer, Nordhausen, 1893. Different phases of his life are treated in: W. Beste, Kanzelredner derv lutherischen Kirche lee Ref~r»w&neZeitaltera, i. 149 sqq., Leipsie, 1856; K. Krause, H. E. Heeeus, vol. i., Gotha, 1879; F. Kropatschek, J. Ds1ech aua Peldkirek Greifawald, 1898; G. Bauch, Die Einfiihrung der melanchvaonischen Deklamationen, Breslau, 1900. Consult also the literature on Luther and on the Reformation.
JONCCOURT, jan"cfW, PIERRE DE: French Protestant; b. at Clermont‑en‑Besuvoisis (16 m. s.s.e. of Beauvais) c. 1650 ; d. at The Hague 1715. In 1678 he went from France to Holland and became pastor at Middelburg. In 1686 he was elected secretary of the Walloon Synod of Rotterdam. He was pastor at The Hague from 1699 till his death. His most important work is Entretiens our In diff&entes mkthodes d'expliquer l1criture (Amsterdam, 1707), in which be violently attacked the allegorical interpretation, which Cocceius had carried to its extreme limits. In the heat of the ensuing controversy Joncourt said certain things about Cooceius which the Synod of Nimeguen compelled him to retract in 1708.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Hang, Hiet. lee dopmes, Paris, 1862;
	Lichtenberger, EBR, vii. 427 128.

JONES, JENKINS LLOYD: Independent; b. at Llandyssil (44 m. n.w. of Swansea), Cardiganshire, Wales, Nov. 14, 1843. He emigrated to the United States in childhood and was a farm hand until the age of nineteen. He served in the Union Army for three years, and soon after the close of the Civil War entered Meadville Theological School, from which he was graduated in 1870. He then entered the Unitarian ministry and was pastor of All Souls' Unitarian Church, Jaynesville, Wis., until 1879, being at the same time secretary of the Western Unitarian Conference. He also organized the Western Unitarian Sunday School Society, of which he was secretary for fourteen years. After leaving Jaynesville for Chicago he organized All Souls' Church, of which he has been pastor since 1882. In 1894 this society formally withdrew from all denominational affiliations to emphasize its independency. In 1894 he was one of the founders of the World's Parliament of Religions held in connection with the Chicago Exposition, and wag secretary of the meetings of that congress, while as VI.‑15
early as 1878 he had been one of the founders of Unity, which he has edited since 1879 and which is now the organ of the Congress of Religion movement. He likewise established the Abraham Lincoln Center, of which he is now superintendent, as well as the Chicago Browning Society, and has been first president of the Illinois State Conference of Charities, lecturer in English in the university extension course of the University of Chicago, and president of the Tower Hill Summer School of Literature and Religion. He was one of the organizers of the Municipal Voters' League of Chicago, and takes an active interest in all movements for the advancement of civil service, independency in politics, and similar aims. In theology he was a member of the radical wing of the Unitarians and sympathized and cooperated with the Free Religious Association and kindred organizations. He has now, however, renounced all vestiges of denominationalism. He has written: The Faith thud makes Faithful (Chicago, 1886; in collaboration with W. C. Gannett); Practical Piety (1890); Word of the Spirit (1897); Bits of Wayside Gospel (2 vols., New York, 1899‑1901); and Nuggets from a Welsh Mine (Chicago, 1902).

JONES, JEREMIAH: Welsh Biblical critic and
Independent minister; b. in Wales 1693; d. there 1724. He was a grandson of Samuel Jones (16281697, see JONES, SAMUEL, 1) and was educated by his uncle, Samuel Jones (1680‑1719; see JONES, SAMUEL, 2), at Gloucester and Tewkesbury. Among his colleagues in his uncle's academy were Joseph Butler and Thomas Seeker, afterward archbishop of Canterbury. After serving Independent congregations at Market Harborough, Leicestershire, and Cold Ashby, Northamptonshire, he became pastor of the Independent church at Nailaworth, in the parish of Avening, Gloucestershire, in 1719, and in the same year took charge of his deceased uncle's pupils. Jones is remembered for his admirable New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament (3 vols., London, 17261727; reprinted, 3 vols., Oxford, 1798, again 1827). He also published A Vindication of the Former Part of St. Matthew's Gospel from Mr. Whieton's Charge of Dislocations (London, 1719; reprinted, Salop, 1721, Oxford, 1803).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. J(oulminl, in Gentleman's Magazine, June, 1803; DNB, xxs. 121‑122.

JONES, RUFUS MATTHEW: Friend; b. tit South China, Me., Jan. 25, 1863. He was educated at Haverford College, Haverford, Pa. (A.B., 1885), Heidelberg University (1887), and the University of Pennsylvania (1893‑95), and was principal of Oak Grove Seminary, Vassalboro, Me., from 18891893. Since the latter year he has been professor of philosophy in Haverford College, and has also been editor of The American Friend since the same year. He has been a trustee of Bryn Mawr College since 1896 and is a member of the American Philosophical Society. In addition to editing George Fox: An Autobiography (Philadelphia, 1903) and Social Law in the Spiritual World (1904), he has written Life of Eli and Sybil Jones (Philadelphia, 1889); Practical Christianity (1899); A Dynamic Faith

Jones	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	228
Jordanis
(London, 1900); and A Boy's Religion from
Memory (Philadelphia, 1902).
	JONES, SAMUEL: 1. One of the founders of
Welsh nonconformity; b. near Chirk Castle, Den
bighshire, Wales, 1628; d. at Llangynwyd (15 m.
w.n.w. of Cardiff), Glamorganshire, Sept. 7, 1697.
He studied at Oxford (B.A., 1652; M.A., 1654),
first at Merton College, from which he was expelled
in 1648 for refusing to submit to the parliamentary
board of visitors, and afterward at Jesus College,
where he was elected fellow in 1652 and bursar in
1655. In 1657 he was given Presbyterian ordina
tion and inducted to the living of Llangynwyd.
On the passing of the Act of Uniformity in 1662
he was ejected from his living and subsequently
imprisoned, but in 1672 he was licensed to preach
in four private houses besides his own. About this
time he established in his farmhouse the first non
conforming theological academy in Wales. In 1689
Jones' school was selected as one of the places for
the education of the exhibitioners of the Presbyte
rian board. To this institution the present Car
marthen Presbyterian College traces its origin.
Jones is described by Calamy as " a great philoso
pher,, a considerable master of the Latin and Greek
tongues, and a pretty good Orientalist." He was
also a poet of some reputation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Samuel Palmer, Nonconformists' Memorial,
	ii. 624, London, 1778; T. Rees, Hist. of Protestant Noncon
	formity in Wales, pp. 163, 177, 230‑242, ib., 1883; DNB,
	xxx. 160‑161.
	2. Non‑conformist tutor in England; b., probably
in Pennsylvania, c. 1680; d. in England 1719. He
was the son of one Malachi Jones, a Welsh preacher
who had emigrated to America. He studied under
private tutors in England and in 1706 entered the
University of Leyden, where he became the pupil
of Herman Witsius and Jacob Perizonius. A few
years later he opened an academy at Gloucester,
which in 1712 he removed to Tewkesbury. By
this time his school had attained considerable re
pute and numbered among its pupils Joseph But
ler, Samuel Chandler, and Thomas Seeker. It was
from here that Butler carried on his anonymous
correspondence with Samuel Clarke (1675‑1729).
In 1714 the Presbyterian board began to send pupils
to Jones. With the exception of two Latin dispu
tations (Leyden, 1708) Jones published nothing.
A manuscript copy of his Latin lectures on Jewish
antiquities has been preserved. Samuel Clarke
gave various transcripts of Jones' lectures to Philip
Doddridge, for use in his academy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Walter Wilson in Monthly Repository, 1809,
	pp. &51‑652; DNB, xxx. 161 (where other notices are
	indicated).
	JONES, SAMUEL PORTER: Methodist Epis
copal Church, South; b. in Chambers County, Ala.,
Oct. 16, 1847; d. near Memphis, Tenn., Oct. 15,
1900. He was educated by private tutors and in
boarding‑schools, and, after serving in the Con
federate Army in the Civil War, was admitted to
the Georgia bar in 1869. He became addicted to
liquor, however, and his career as a lawyer was se
riously affected. He was converted in 1872 and
was admitted to the ministry of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, in the same year. He
held various pastorates from 1872 to 1880, after which he was agent of the North Georgia Orphanage (1880‑92). From that time until his death he was extremely active as a revivalist and advocate of total abstinence, and became one of the bestknown Evangelists in the United States, attracting popular attention by his unconventional addresses, which abounded with witty and pregnant sayings. He wrote: Sermons and Sayings (Nashville, Tenn., 1883); Music Hall Series (Cincinnati, 0., 1886); Quit your Meanness (1886); Sam Jones'Own Book (1887); St. 'Louis Series (1890); and Thunderbolts (1895).
JONES, WILLIAM, OF NAYLAND: English theologian; b. at Lowick (19 m. n.e. of Northampton), Northamptonshire, July 30, 1726; d. at Nayland (14 m. s.s.w. of Ipswich), Suffolk, Jan. 6, 1800. He studied at the Charterhouse and at University College, Oxford (B.A., 1749). Here, largely through the influence of his friend, George Home, he adopted the views of John Hutchinson (q.v.). After his graduation he was curate for a number of years, first at Finedon, afterward at Wadenhoe, Northamptonshire. In 1764 he was presented to the vicarage of Bethersden, and in 1765 to the rectory of Pluckley, both in Kent. On June 22, 1775, be was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1777 he obtained the perpetual curacy of Nayland, Suffolk, and exchanged Pluckley for Paston, Northamptonshire. Thenceforth he resided at Nayland and came to be known as Jones of Nayland. In 1788 he became chaplain to George Horne (bishop of Norwich). He was the originator, though not the editor, of the British Critic, a theological quarterly, of which the first number appeared in London in May, 1793. In 1798 he was presented by Archbishop Moore to the sinecure rectory of Hollingbourne, Kent. Jones was a man of vast learning and sound piety, and one of the most prominent churchmen of his time. The school represented by him is regarded as forming a link between the non‑jurors and the Oxford school. His works, some forty in number, are written from the Hutchinsonian point of view. The best‑known are: The. Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity (Oxford, 1756; ed. .1. L. F. Russell, London, 1866; published by S.P.C.K., 1899); An Essay on the First Principles of Natural Philosophy (Oxford, 1762); Physiological Disquisitions (London, 1781); Lectures on the Figurative Language of the Holy Scripture (1786; new ed., 1863); An Essay on the Church (1787; new ed., 1863); and Memoirs of . . . George Home (1795). William Stevens collected and edited his Works (12 vols., 1801; reprinted in 6 vols., 1810). Some of his tracts were reprinted under the title, Tracts on the Church (Oxford and London, 1850).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Stevens, A Short Account of the Life and Writings of William Jones, London, 1801; John Hunt, Hiat. of Religious Thought in England, iii. 306‑319, ib. 1873; L. Stephen, Hint. of English Thought in the 18th Century, viii. 18‑20, xii. 89, 2 vols., New York, 1881; J. H. Overton, The Church in England ii. 258, 290‑91, London, 1897; J. H. Overton and F. Relton, The English Church (171/,‑1800), pp. 206‑207 et passim, ib. 1906; DNB, xxx. 177‑178.
JONES, WILLIAM BASIL: Bishop of St. Davids; b. at Cheltenham Jan. 2 1822; d. at Abergwili (2 m. n.e. of Carmarthen), Wales, Jan. 14, 1897. From

227	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Jones
the Shrewsbury School, where he spent seven years, he passed to the University of Oxford (B.A., 1844; M.A., 1847). He was a scholar of Trinity College, 1840‑45, fellow of Queen's College, 1848‑51, fellow of University College 1851‑57, tutor 1854‑58, lecturer on modern history 1858‑65, and select preacher 1860‑62, 1866‑67, 1876‑78, as also select preacher at Cambridge in 1881. He took a prominent part in the formation of the Cambrian Archeological Association in 1846‑47, was one of its general secretaries, 1848‑51, and joint editor for the association in 1851. At Oxford he formed an intimate friendship with William Thompson, afterward archbishop of York, through whom he received many preferments. He was examining chaplain to Thompson 1861‑74, prebendary of York Minster 1863‑74, perpetual curate of Haxby 1863‑65, vicar of Bishopthorpe 1865‑74, archdeacon of York 1867‑74, rural dean of Bishopthorpe 1869‑74, chancellor of York 1871‑74 and canon residentiary of York 1873‑74. He was elevated to the see of St. David's in 1874. He was remarkably successful in advancing the work of education and missions in his diocese.
His more important works are: Vestiges of the Gael in Gwynedd (London, 1851); The History and Antiquities of .St. David's (4 parts, 1852‑57), in collaboration with E. A. Freeman; The New Testament Illustrated with a Plain Explanatory Commentary for Private Reading (2 vols., 1865), in collaboration with Archdeacon Churton; The Peace of God: Sermons on the Reconeiliatim, of God and Man (1869); and Ordination Addresses (Oxford, 1900), with a preface by Gregory Smith.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. G. Smith, HolyDays, p. 67, London, 1900; DNB, supplement, iii. 47 19, where reference to scattered
notices is given.
JORAM (JEHORAM; the two forms are used interchangeably in the sources):
1. Fifth king of Judah, son and successor of Jehoshaphat. His dates according to the old chronology are 892‑885 B.C.; according to Kamphausen, 851‑844 B.C.; according to Duncker, 848‑844 B.C.; according to Curtis (DB, i. 401), 851‑843 B.C. The Chronicler (II Chron. xxi. 2‑4) reports that on Joram's accession he put his brothers to death. No notice of this occurs in Kings, but the fact is not improbable since he had married Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel of Israel, where assassination was not uncommon. Moreover, Athaliah's usurpation of the kingdom through assassination (see JOASH), together with her known influence over her husband, increases the Rrobability. The notable event of Joranl's reign was the revolt of Edom and his narrow escape from capture when he was trying to reduce the Edomites to subjection. The revolt of Edom is but the reflex of the prior revolt of the Moabites from the northern kingdom (see 2, below). The indications of a general revolt are increased by the Chronicler's narrative concerning a body of Arabs and Philistines who sacked Joram's palace and carried off all his sons but one. The Chronicler attributes his death to a loathsome disease (probably the same as that described in Acts xii. 23), and asserts that his burial was dishonorable (but of. II Kings viii. 24).
2. Ninth king of Israel, second son of Ahab and successor to his brother Ahaziah. His dates, according to the old chronology are 896‑884 B.C.; according to Kamphausen, 854‑843 B.C.; according to Duncker, 851‑‑843 B.C.; according to Curtis, 852‑842 B.C. One of the events of his reign was an unsuccessful attempt, in company with Jehoshaphat of Judah, to reduce to subjection the Moabites who, according to the Moabite stone (q.v.), had revolted from his brother. The army arrived before the fortress of Kir‑hareseth and besieged it; and in the straits of the siege the " king of Moab " sacrificed his son on the wall in sight of the besiegers. This act dismayed the allies and they withdrew. It is not iddpossible that the " great wrath " of II Kings iii. 24 (R. V., margin) indicates a pestilence which attacked Israel and was attributed to the offended deity. A second event was the attempt to recover Ramoth‑gilead from the Arameans, in which Joram was assisted by Ahaziah of Judah. He was wounded and obliged to retire to Jezreel, near which he fell at the hands of Jehu. It is an open question whether the events of II Kings iv.‑viii. 15 belong to Joram's reign, as the king of Israel of that narrative is not named. It is clear from II Kings ix. 22 and x. 18‑27 that the Baal cult had flourished in Joram's reign, while II Kings iii. 13‑14 is emphatic as to the continuing influence of Jezebel.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources for 1 are: I Kings xxii. 50; II Kings viii. 16‑24, 29; II Chron. x.xi.; and for 2 are: II Kings i. 17, iii., viii. 2&‑ix. 26. The literature is given under ARAB. Consult also: C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of . . Kings, Oxford, 1903; DB, ii. 559560; EB, ii. 2350‑2352.
JORDAN. See PALESTINE.
JORDAN, HERMANN SIEGFRIED ARNOLD:
German Lutheran; b. at Sandau‑an‑der‑Elbe (35 m. n.w. of Brandenburg) July 30, 1878. He was educated at the universities of Erlangen (1896‑97) and Greifswald (1897‑99; lie. theol., 1902), and after being a private tutor in Deyelsdorf, Pomerania, from 1899 to 1903, was connected with the cathedral‑chapter of Berlin in 1903‑04. Since the latter year he has been privat‑docent for New‑Testament exegesis and church history in the University of Greifswald. He has written: Die Theologie der neuentdeckten Predigten Novalians (Leipsie, 1902); Rhythmisehe Prosa in der altchristlichen lateinischen Literatur (1905); and Rhythmische Prosatexte aus der altesten Christenheit (1905).

JORDANIS (originally perhaps Jornandes) : The first and only Gothic historian whose works are extant; d. c. 560. He descended from a noble family related to the royal family of the Amali. His grandfather had been notary of the Alanic King Candac in Moesia. Jordanis was also notary until his conversion, which probably implies that he assumed an ecclesiastical position. He was probably bishop of Croton, in any case not an Arian, but a Catholic. Vigilius, to whom he dedicated one of his works, seems to have been the pope of that name (538‑555), and they were both in Constantinople about 551. Jordanis left two works, a history of the Goths or rather of Moesia, which seems to have had the title De origine et actibusque Get‑

Jor19
Joseph
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
arum, and a compendium of universal history, often called De regnorum ac temporum succeasione, also De breviatione chronicorum, by Mommsen De summa temporum vel origine actibusque genus Romanorum. The former he dedicated to his otherwise unknown friend Castalius or Castulus, the latter to Vigilius. The history of the Goths, which extends to 551, was written probably in that year in Constantinople or in Chalcedon. The chronicle of the world had been begun between Apr., 550, and Apr., 551, before the other work, but is continued until 552. The history of the Goths shows little originality as it follows closely the lost work of Cassiodorus which seems to have had the same title. Toward the end Jordanis usedAlso the annals of Marcellinus Comes. The style is obscure, artificial, and sententious, but this is undoubtedly due to the source used by Jordanis. The fundamental view of the identity of the Getae and Goths is probably also borrowed from Cassiodorus. The universal history is practically a history of Rome; for the rest Jordanis furnishes merely genealogies and names of kings. The work contains nothing but extracts from other historians.
(WILHELM ALTMANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His History of the Goths has been printed often, bested., by A. Holder, Freiburg, 1882. Both his works are edited by T. Mommsen in MGR, Auct. Ant., v. 1 (1882), 1‑138, with prefatorial notes, pp. v.‑17OCIY. A very useful list of editions and literature is given by Potthaet, Wepvxiaer, pp. 882‑884. A useful article on his life and works is in DCB, iii. 431‑438. Consult: L. von Ranke, Weitgeachichte, iv. 2 pp. 313‑327, Leipsic, 1884; A. Ebert, Allgemeina Geschichte der Literatur des Mitteialters, i. 558‑582, Leipsic, 1889; W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, pp. 1258‑1259, 1283, ib. 1890.

JORIS (or JORISZOON, " the son of George "), JAN DAVID: Dutch Anabaptist; b., probably at Ghent or Bruges, 1501 or 1502; d. at Basel Aug. 25, 1556. He was originally a glass‑painter, but was of an adventurous disposition, and after long wanderings abroad settled in Delft and married. An ultra‑enthusiast, he eagerly embraced the Reformation, circulated hymns and tracts, and violently assailed the priesthood and the mass. In 1528 lie publicly intuited a religious procession, for which he was imprisoned, pilloried, flogged, and had his tongue burned through, in addition to being banished for three years. He then joined the Anabaptists, among whom he speedily became prominent, although he disapproved the Anabaptist insurrection at Munster (q.v.) and openly opposed Battenburg, the leader of the extreme radicals. After the fall of Miinster, Joris sought to reunite the Anabaptist factions, but his success was only temporary, and he was attacked by sectaries of all shades. On the other hand, enthusiasts called him " the hallowed of the Lord," and proclaimed him a prophet and bringer of judgment, so that in 1536 he himself became convinced of his divine mission. At the same time he began to have visions, and gradually gathered about him a circle of followers (the " Davidists ") who trusted him implicitly, even forming a distinct Anabaptist sect with a chiliastic basis. The chief centers of its activity were Oldenburg, eastern Friesland, and the Netherlands, but after 1538 the authorities sharply opposed
it, and many of its adherents were executed. Joris himself, however, repeatedly escaped in such remarkable ways as to give rise to the belief that he could make himself invisible. Meanwhile he was untiring in his activity. He had already had much success among the followers of Battenburg, and for a time among the Anabaptists of Milnster, but the adherents of Melchior Hoffmann in Strasburg, like Johannes a Lasso and Menno Simons, rejected his overtures. The Landgrave Philip of Hesse, of the other hand, granted him protection on condition of his accepting the Augsburg Confession. His unceasing personal propaganda was aided by his numerous writings, of which the most important was his t'Wonderboeck, uaerirt dat van. der wereldt can, veraloten gheopenbaerE is (Deventer [7], 1542), a jumbled mass of fantasy, mystery, and allegory.
With the amassing of wealth from his adherents and the despair of gaining a great following, a new period began in the career of Joris. In Aug., 1544, he appeared at Basel under the name of John of Bruges, a rich and distinguished fugitive from Holland for the sake of the Gospel. He was accepted as a citizen, led an irreproachable religious life, was conspicuous for his charities, and acquired considerable property, including a small castle at Binningen. His propaganda was now restricted to writing mystic treatises and epistles to his followers, whom he urged to conform externally to the existing Church. On the other hand, he was in touch with opponents of the dominant Church, pleading for Servetua in an anonymous petition of 1553, writing to Schwenekfeld (though he opposed his deification of the humanity of Christ), and being acquainted with Castellio. The identity of " John of Bruges " with the Dutch Anabaptist Jan David Joris was not discovered until three years after his death and burial. In Apr., 1559, the University of Basel condemned Joris as a heretic and on May 13 his body was exhumed and burned, together with his books and portrait. His Basel adherents were obliged to do penance in the cathedral on June 6, but in Holstein and Holland the sect lingered, heresy‑trials of the Davidists occurring as late as the end of the sixteenth century.
(A. HEOLERt.) K. BOLL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A favorably partisan accouqt is given by G. Arnold, Kirehen‑ and Katzer‑Historic, 4 vole., Frankfort, 1700‑15, corrected by the critical discussion of Nippold, in ZHT, 1883, 1884, 1888. Jorie' biography was written by A, van der Linde, The Hague, 1887, cf. Bibliophile Belpe, 1886, pp. 137, 158, 1888, pp. 129 eqq. On his teaching consult A. Jundt, Histoira du panth6iema, pp. 184 eqq., Strasburg, 1875.
JORTIN, JOHN: Archdeacon of London; b. in London Oct. 23, 1898; d. there Sept. 5, 1770. He was the son of a Huguenot exile from Brittany, who in 1691 became a gentleman of the privy chamber. He received his education at the Charterhouse School, and at Jesus College, Cambridge (B.A., 1719; M.A., 1721), where he held a fellowship 1721‑28. He was ordained in 1724, and presented to the college living of Swavesey, Cambridgeshire, in Jan., 1727, which he resigned in Feb., 1731, to become preacher at a chapel in New Street, London. In 1731 he started a magazine entitled, Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors,

229	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Joseph
		Joseph
Ancient and Modern, which continued for two years.
In 1737 he was presented to the vicarage of East
well, Kent, which he soon resigned. In 1747 he
	resigned his position in New Street to accept an
	appointment to a chapel in Oxenden Street, where
he preached till 1760. He was assistant to War
burton at Lincoln's Inn, 1747‑50, and Boyle lec
turer in 1749. In 1751 he was presented to the
	rectory of St. Dunstan's‑in‑the‑East by Thomas
	Herring, archbishop of Canterbury, who gave him
the Lambeth degree of D.D. in 1755. In 1762 he
	became chaplain to Thomas Osbaldeston, bishop
	of London, who gave him a prebend in St. Paul's
	and presented him to the vicarage of Kensington,
	which he held with St. Dunstan's. He was made
	archdeacon of London in 1764. Jortin was a scholar
	of liberal views, and wrote with an engaging light
ness of style. His more important works are: Dis
	courses on the Truth of the Christian Religion (Lon
	don, 1746); Remarks upon Ecclesiastical History
	(5 vols., 1751‑73); Six Dissertations (1755); The
	Life of Erasmus (2 vols., 1758‑60); Sermons (7
	vols., 1771‑72); and Tracts, Philological, Critical,
and Miscellaneous (2 vols., 1790).
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Disney, Memoirs of as Life and Writings
	of John Jortin, London, 1792; A Memoir by R. Heathoote
	to the 3d ed. of Jortin's Sermons, ed. R. Jortin, ib. 1787;
	another to the edition of the Tracts, ut sup.; while a Life
	is prefixed by W. Trollope to an edition of the Remarks,
2 vols., ib. 1846. Consult DNB, xxx. 201‑203.
	JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA: A wealthy and pious
	member of the Sanhedrin who begged the body of
	Jesus and laid it in his own tomb, which had not
	hitherto been used‑a fact in which the Evangel
	ists evidently see symbolic significance. 'the story
	is told in all four Gospels (Matt. xxvii. 57‑0; Mark
	xv. 42‑46; Luke xxiii. 50‑54; John xix. 38‑42),
	and the manner of telling betrays a warm interest
	in Joseph's personality, his courage, and his piety.
	Arimathea is probably to be identified with Ramah
	or Ramathaim (Josh. xviii. 25; I Sam. i. 1; I Mace.
	xi. 34), five miles north of Jerusalem. Won by the
	preaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God,
	Joseph openly joined himself to the disciples of
	Jesus, and he did not consent to the judgment of
	the Sanhedrin. The differences of the reports in
	the Gospels are probably to be solved as follows;
	Mark and Luke have in mind simply the fact that
	Joseph had prepared a worthy grave; how he had
	come to do it was not a question with which they
	concerned themselves. Matthew took this into
	account and explained that it had been prepared
	for Joseph himself. John, who appears to have
	had the other accounts before him, seems to have
	raised the question why Jesus was not laid in a
	grave of his own instead of in a stranger's, and
	answers it by reference to the nearness of the Sab
	bath, the consequent lack of time for preparations,
and the handiness of the grave already prepared.
	(K. SCHMIDT.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is discussed in the sections
	devoted to the burial of Jesus in the principal lives cited
	under JRsos CHRIST, and in the Bible Dictionaries. Per
	tinent matter will be found in the discussions of the 133ospel
	of Peter and the Acts of Pilate mentioned under APoo
RYPHA, B, 7.
JOSEPH AND ASENATH, STORY OF.	See
PBEUDEPIGRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, 11., 36.
	JOSEPH BRYENNIOS: Byzantine theologian of
the fifteenth century; b., probably in Laoedaemon,
about 1350; d. apparently in Crete about 1436.
	Bryennios, whose original name was Bladynteros,
entered a Cretan monastery about 1375, but some
	twenty years later was obliged to leave the island
on account of a conflict with the clergy. He then
went to Constantinople, joined the Studites, and
soon became the court chaplain of the Emperor
	Manuel Palmologus, thus gaining an important in
	fluence in ecclesiastical polity. In 1416 and 1418
	he was imperial ambassador to the West, and at
first enjoyed the favor of John Palaeologus, but
	when the emperor, for reasons of state, favored
	union with the Latin Church, Joseph, a rigid an
	tagonist of this measure, retired from public life,
	and apparently spent the last years of his life in
	Crete. He was primarily a theologian, although
	his writings (first edited by Eugenius Bulgaria, 3
	vols., Leipsic, 1768‑84) contain a mass of material
	on all branches of Byzantine learning, especially
	rhetoric, dialectics, geometry, astronomy, physics,
	and philosophy. He was the author of twenty‑one
	addresses and three dialogues on the Trinity, while
	other sermons are devoted to the Virgin, redemp
	tion, eschatology, faith, the plan of salvation,
	Easter, the Transfiguration, and the Tabor‑light.
	His attitude toward union is given in his " Speech
	of Counsel " and " On the Union of the Cretans,"
	while his twenty‑six letters contain many theo
	logical allusions. Bryennios was rigidly orthodox
	and had no sympathy with humanism or with
	western thought. The prime source of authority,
	in his opinion, was the Bible, which was supple
	mented by the Church Fathers, who had estab
	lished the truth of the dogmas contained in the
	Scriptures, so that these principles required no
	further proof and were superior to human reason.
	God can be defined only negatively, and man was
	created as the end of creation. Seeking to gain his
	apotheosis by his own powers, however, he lost the
	fellowship of God, though he retained the freedom
	of the will. The mission of Christ was to enable
	man to attain the end for which he was created,
	the special agency being the manifestation of the
person of the Lord. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fabrieius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca, xi. 659660, Hamburg, 1808; Krumbaeher, Gaschichte, p. 114; P. Meyer, in TSK, lxix (1898), 282‑319; idem, in Byrantini8eha Zeitschrift, 1896, Pp. 74‑111; J. DrAeeeke, in NKZ, 1896, PP. 208‑228.
JOSEPH THE CARPENTER, HISTORY OF. See APOCRYPHA, B, I., 4.
	JOSEPH,	THE HUSBAND OF MARY: In the
primitive Church there are no historic records of a
special cult in honor of Joseph, and the earliest
monuments of Christian art represent him only in
groups with Mary and the Christ‑child. In this
period he appears as a young man, and it is not
until the fifth or sixth century that he is repre
		sented as aged, a concept borrowed
	The Ven‑	from the apocryphal Gospels of the
	eration of	Infancy. According to the legend in
	Joseph.	corporated in these documents, Joseph,
		when he married Mary, was an aged
widower, having as sons by his first marriage James,
Joses, Judas, and Simon (cf. Matt. xiii. 55; Mark

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Joseph
vi. 1 aqq.). This tradition persisted throughout the Middle Ages, but is now disregarded by occidental Roman Catholicism, which regards Joseph, if not as a young man, at least in the prime of manhood. It is very possible that he died early, as mention of him disappears from the Gospels; and since the days of Ambrose and Jerome it has been a Roman dogma that his marriage with Mary was merely nominal, although this view receives no certain confirmation from the New Testament. Legend, followed by later medieval art, holds that Joseph died in 18 or 27 A.D., with Mary and Jesus by his side, and, according to some accounts, John the Evangelist. This tradition, combined with the fact that older legends occasionally speak of his grave, but never mention his remains, forms the kernel of the medieval legends and regulations for the Joseph cult. Jean Gerson, Bernardino of Siena, and Francis of Sales declared that he had been translated bodily to heaven. The cult of Joseph flourished in the West after the seventeenth century, and relics began to appear, although these were never corporal, but such objects as his ring of betrothal, or pieces of his garments.
In the early Church Joseph possessed no special day, and until the medieval period the traditions on this subject were divergent. The Copts celebrated July 20, while among the Greeks his day was the Fourth Sunday in Advent, which was also dedicated to Mary, David, and James the Just. Another day, however, Mar. 19, said to have been brought to the West by a Syrian Carmelite of the fourteenth century, gradually found acceptation, and was finally confirmed by Gregory XV. in 1621. Pius IX., in 1870, made this feast one of the first class, and declared St. Joseph the patron saint of the entire Roman Catholic Church, and Leo XIII., in 1889, ordered a series of rosary prayers to St. Joseph for the whole of October.
All orders founded in honor of St. Joseph and called by his name are modern in origin. The following orders of men, established under his protection as the Biblical ideal of obedience, may be mentioned: (1) The Secular Priests of St. Joseph were founded at Rome in 1620 by Paolo Motta,
and their rule, partly based on that
	Joseph	of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, was
	Orders.	confirmed by Innocent XI. in 1684.
		(2) The Cr6tenista, or Missionaries of
St. Joseph (Josephites), were established about the
middle of the seventeenth century by Jacques Cr&
tenet, a surgeon of Lyons. They were chiefly mis
sion‑preachers and spread through many dioceses
of France, but were overwhelmed by the Revolu
tion, although they were later revived as heads of
educational institutes in various places. (3) The
Brethren of St. Joseph were founded at St. Suscien,
near Amiens, by Bishop J. P. de Chabons in 1823,
imitating an elder body of the eighteenth century,
to conduct primary schools, assist the clergy in
catechizing, promote singing, and similar purposes.
(4) The Josephitea, or Sons of St. Joseph, were es
tablished at Grammont, Belgium, by Canon Van
Combrugghe in 1817 for the education of young
men of the better classes. Besides the mother
house at Grammont, they have daughter houses at
sso
Melle, Jouvain, Tillemont, and Brunelle, in Belgium, and St. George's College, at Weybridge, England; they are assisted by the Josephite nuns of Bruges. (5) The Josephite Brothers of the Holy Cross were founded in 1821 in the diocese of Le Mans by the priest Dujarrie. Until recently they possessed some forty houses in France, the French colonies, and North America, and devote themselves primarily to the training of artisans, although some conduct secondary schools. (6) The Brothers of St. Joseph, founded at Quillins (department of Rhone) by Abby Rey in 1835 for the education of destitute children, had their chief center at Citeaux from 1848 to 1888, but are now suppressed.
The majority of female orders of St. Joseph are French. The oldest and most widely extended is (1) the Congregation of St. Joseph at Bordeaux, founded in 1638 by Marie Delpech de 1'Estang; it extended rapidly to other cities of northern and western France, forming at La Rochelle in 1672 a new branch called Religieuses de la Congregation de Saint Joseph, dite de la Trinitk (or, de Jesus, Marie, et Joseph). (2) The Hospital Sisters of St. Joseph of La Fl6che (in Anjou) were established in 1642, while about 1650 the Jesuit Medaille founded (3) the Daughters of St. Joseph at Le Puy. These three orders in twenty years had over 9,000 members and 1,200 houses throughout all France. The order last named established at Clermont in 1666, through the advice of Canon Laborieux, (4) the Nuns of St. Joseph of the Good Shepherd to conduct refuges for fallen women. It survived the Revolution and still has its mother house at Clermont, with some sixty daughter houses. About 1800 Mother Javouhey founded (5) the Sisters of St. Joseph at Cluny, whence they spread to Senegambia, French Guiana, and other colonies of France, excepting Algiers and Cochin‑China. (6) The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Visitation were founded at Marseilles about 1840 by Emilie Vialard, who, in 1834, had established a, similar sisterhood at Alby for the instruction of the young and the care of the sick. Daughter houses of these two sisterhoods have spread to Algiers and Tunis (from Alby), as well as to Jerusalem (from Marseilles). (7) A North American order of Sisters of St. Joseph was founded at Emmitsburg, Md., in 1809 by Eliza Ann Seton, which in 1850 was united with the American Sisters of Mercy and as early as 1868 had ninety‑one houses with some 1,100 sisters.
(o. zaCgl.>;Rt.>
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the cult: ASB, 19 Mar., vol. iii.; Benedict XIV., De aervorum Dei beatiftcatione, iv. 2, chap. 20, 7‑58, Bonona, 1738; Primautk de S. Joseph d'aprM l'episcopal cafholique et la theologie, Paris, 1897; J. Seitz, Die Yerehrung des heilioen Joseph in ihren geschichtlichen Entwicklunp, Freiburg, 1908; KL, vi. 1878‑1879. On the orders: Helyot, Ordres manaatiqaea, iv. 405, 411 aqq., viii. 25 eqq., 188 eqq.; Heimbueher, Orden and Kongregationen, vol. iii. passim; KL, vi. 1874‑1878.
JOSEPH OF METHONE: Greek theologian of the fifteenth century. Of his life little is known, except that he lived in Crete and was a zealous advocate of the union between the Greek and Latin Churches, the majority of his writings, which are collected in MPG, clix., being devoted to this object. His most noteworthy work was his defense

231	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Joseph
of the five chief theses of the Council of Florence, discussing at length the procession of the Holy Ghost, unleavened bread, purgatory, eternal life, and the supremacy of the pope. This treatise was at first erroneously ascribed to Gennadius Scholarius. Joseph also discussed the same council in the long dialogue first edited by Leo Allatius in his Graecia orthodoxa, i. 583‑654 (Rome, 1652).
(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fabrioius‑Hades, Bibliodeta Graeca, Iu. 458,
Hamburg, 1808; Krumbacher, aead"te, pp. 118‑119.
JOSEPH THE PATRIARCH: Oldest son of Jacob and Rachel. The name " Joseph " (Hebr. Yoseph) was probably originally Joseph‑el, " may God add " (Gen. xxx. 24; see JACOB). The relation of the sources of the story of the patriarch as given in the Book of Genesis (xxx. 22‑24, xxxvii., xxxix. 1) is similar to that in the history of Jacob (q.v.). E and J pre‑
dominate, P being used more extenThe sively only toward the end (Gen. xlvi.
Sources. 1). The attempt to distinguish be‑
tween E and J is without convincing success. It is asserted that J calls the traveling Arabian merchants Ishmaelites, while E calls them Midianites; that E (Gen. xxxvii. 28) makes them take Joseph out of the pit without the complicity of his brothers and so "steal" him (Gen. xl. 15) while, according to J, he was sold by his brothers (also according to Gen. xlv. 4); that for J Joseph's Egyptian master was a wealthy private citizen, for E, the captain of the guard and keeper of the prison. In all essential points, however, the story must have been told in the same way by both E and J. Joseph's character justifies Jacob's especial love. Its fundamental quality was his earnest fear of God (Gen. xxxvii. 2, xxxix. 9, xli. 16, xhi. 18, xlv. 8, 1. 19‑20), who showed him grace both in his own sight and before men, making him appear the purest and the noblest of the sons of Jacob.
In considering the historical value of the tradition of Joseph, the references to Egypt, its customs, manners, etc., are of especial importance.
Modern investigation of the monuHistoricity ments has explained and justified the of the recital. While formerly many schol‑
Narrative. ors thought to find in Joseph's story
erroneous statements of Egyptian conditions, Hengstenberg and the Egyptologists Ebers and Brugsch have shown that the story is almost entirely concordant with the monuments of Egypt. Caravan trade was carried on by the Arabs from the most remote times between Syria, Palestine, and the country of the Nile; precisely the three spices mentioned in Gen. xxxvii. 25 (cf. xliii. 11) were always staple articles of commerce between Gilead and Egypt; the caravan route, after crossing the Jordan at Beth‑shan, passed by Dothan; there was a good market for young slaves in Egypt; Potiphar bears a genuine Egyptian name (" devoted to Ra "); such stewardships as that with which Joseph was entrusted by Potiphar appear frequently in the Egyptian inscriptions and on the monuments; the scene between Joseph and Potiphar's wife is practically duplicated in a story preserved in the D'Orbiney Papyrus (" The Tale of Two Brothers "), written down for Seti ii.
when he was crown prince (cf. H. Brugsch, Aus dent Orient, Berlin, 1864, pp. 7 aqq.; Eng. transl. in W. M. F. Petrie, Egyptian Tales, London, 1894‑95; cf. A. H. Sayce, Higher Criticism and the Monuments, London, 1894); dreams were matters of intense interest in Egypt; the two court officials of Gen. xl. 1 appear as representatives of the court butlers and the court bakers, even the title " chief of the bakers " has been found; an illustration of the dream of the court baker is given in a representation of the court bakery of Rameses III. (J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, ii. 385, London, 1837), wherein a load of freshly baked bread on a board or mat (elsewhere a basket, Wilkinson, ii. 393) is borne away on the head; according to the Rosetta stone and the Decree of Canopus, Egyptian kings on their birthdays were accustomed to issue amnesties; the double dream of the Pharaoh (Gen. xli.) is thoroughly Egyptian; the very words ye'or, "stream" (=Nile) and ahu, " reed‑grass," are Egyptian; the number seven was significant in the land; the kine, that is, the good and the lean years, quite properly come up out of the stream which was the object of divine honors as the fructifier of the entire country; the cow is symbolical of Isis‑Hathor, the female principle of fertility, and therefore especially appropriate for the representation of the productivity of the land; the " magicians " of chap. xli. 8 correspond to the sacred scribes who, besides devoting themselves to the arts of writing, mensuration, and astronomy, were also entrusted with the task of explaining portents; the shaving of the hair and the changing of clothing on the occasion of an appearance before the Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 14) was required by ancient Egyptian custom, while among the Israelites baldness was regarded as an infirmity; the ceremonies accompanying the conferral of his new dignities upon Joseph (Gen. xli. 42) are all faithfully represented on the monuments; the cry abrech (Gen. xli. 43, E. V. margin) which was shouted by a runner appears, indeed, to have been an Assyrio‑Babylonian title, but the names given in xli. 45 are clearly Egyptian. As master of the granaries, Joseph really held the place in the kingdom next after that of the Pharaoh; hence he properly calls himself (xlv. 8) Pharaoh's father, lord over his whole house, ruler of all the land of Egypt; in chap. xlii. 6 he is called " governor " over the land; the designation adhon, " lord," has even found its way into Egyptian and the title ab‑en‑pira'o in the sense of " counselor of the Pharaoh " occurs often in the papyri. The economic regulations promulgated by Joseph must be judged according to the standard of Egyptian conditions. The tax imposed (xli. 34) was, in the rich land of Egypt, neither hard to bear nor unusual, and the fact that the State assumed possession of all landed property, with the exception of that belonging to the priests, was a result of the centralizing tendency, more necessary and therefore more justifiable in that land than elsewhere. Two cases of this kind are given in H. Brugsch, Geschichte Aegyptens, Leipsic, 1877, pp. 130, 244 sqq., Eng. transl., London, 1879. The fact that Canaan suffered from a drought at the same time is also in accord with

Joseph	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	Sag
natural conditions, and the Amarna Tablets record that Canaan imported corn from Egypt (cf. H. Brugaeh, Die biblisehen aieben Jahre der Hungersnot, Leipsic, 1891; Sayce, ut sup., pp. 217‑218). Since Egypt was the great producer of wheat, the Semitic tribes in times of scarcity naturally migrated thither, where they were not seldom received with justifiable suspicion (xlii. 9). The settlement of the Hebrews in the land of Goshen (q.v.) is in accord with the conditions, since this territory had for a long time been the resort of invading Semites and was adapted to the nomadic manner of life. Finally, the embalming of Joseph and the seventy days mourning for him (1. 1 sqq.) are thoroughly Egyptian. Taking all these facts together, it is impossible to escape the conviction which Ebers expresses: " The whole of Joseph's history, even in its smallest details, must be regarded as in socord with the actual conditions in Egypt." To be sure, this general agreement with Egyptian conditions and manners does not of itself positively establish the historic character of the recital; but the assertion that the author or compiler was not familiar with Egyptian conditions is equally pure assumption. It is true that several things, especially the mention of the " Land of Rameses " (Gem. xlvii. 11), a name which could scarcely have been used before the nineteenth dynasty, make it unlikely that Joseph's story is from a nearly contemporaneous source. It seems probable that the account was written about the time of the Exodus (A. H. Sayce, ut sup., pp. 212‑213).
The determination of the period of Egyptian history to which the Hebrew immigration belongs depends upon the relations of the He‑
	The	brews with the Hyksos. Josephus'
Date of supposition (Apion, i. 14) that this
	Joseph.	nomadic people of Semitic race was
		identical with the Hebrews does not
agree with the modest position the Hebrews occu
pied in the land according to the Biblical narrative.
But Joseph's activity must have fallen in the Hyk
sos period. The 430 (or 400) years of the Egyp
tian bondage (Ex. xii. 40; Gen. xv. 13), even if the
Exodus took place under Merneptah and certainly
if it took place earlier, point to that period. Geor
giua Syncellus gives Aphophis as the name of the
Pharaoh of the Exodus, that is, the Apepi of the
monuments, who, according to Brugsch, reigned
shortly before the beginning of the eighteenth dy
nasty. To this time belongs also, in the opinion of
Brugsch, the famine of many years mentioned in
his Geschichte Aegyptena, pp. 243 sqq. The Hyksos
kings may have been as anxious to attract Semitic
settlers as the first rulers of the New Empire (eight
eenth dynasty) were to hold them aloof or to op
press them. The darkness, however, which en
shrouds the period of the Hyksos, especially the
ruthless destruction of their monuments by a later
dynasty, may have obliterated all definite informa
tion of Joseph and his family. In general, in the
memory of the Egyptians, this tribe was confused
with the other Semitic inhabitants of the Delta,
and consequently separate features of the history
of Joseph and Moses appear confusedly interwoven
with other events in Egyptian tradition. Among
Jews and Mohammedans the tale of Joseph's fate was especially fancied, and it has been embellished with much legendary matter, especially by the Mohammedans (of. Koran, surah xii.).
C. VON ORELLI.
$rewOGaAPHT: The sources are: Gen. xxx. 22‑24, xxxvii., xxxix. 1. The beet eondensed treatment of the subject is either the article by Driver in DB, ii. 787‑775, or the article in EB, ii. 2683‑2594. There is a monograph by H. G. Tomkins, Life and Times of Joseph in the Light of Egyptian Lore, London, 1891. Consult further, besides the literature mentioned in the text: E. W. Hengetenberg, Die BQcher Moses and die Aepyptes, Berlin, 1841; C. von Lengerke, Ranaan, pp. 331 eqq., Konigsberg, 1844; G. Ebers, Die Aepypter and die Bach" Moses, vol. i., Leipsic, 1888; A. H. Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, pp. 200 eqq., London, 1895; W. Staerk, Studien sur Religions‑ and Sprachyeschichte, ii. 21 sqq., Berlin, 1899. For the bearing of research in Egypt on the Joseph story see the literature cited under Egypt. Some parallels to the story and to that of the " Two Brothers " are given in A. Lang, Myth, Ritual and Religion, ii. 303‑308, London, 1887. On the general relations of archeology cf. the article by Driver in D. G. Hogarth, Authority and Archaeology, London, 1899.
JOSEPH 11.
The Enlightenment. Political Reforms (¢ 1). Governmental Control of the Church ($ 2). Position of the Clergy in the State (§ 3). Reforms Affecting the Cure of Souls (¢ 4). Religious Toleration Established (§ 5). Successes and Failures of the Reforms (; 8).
	Joseph II., Holy Roman Emperor 1785‑90, son
of Francis I. (grand duke of Tuscany, emperor,
1745‑65) and Maria Theresa (queen of Bohemia
and Hungary, archduchess of Austria, 1740‑48),
was born at Vienna Mar. 13, 1741, and died there
Feb. 20, 1790. Austria stands in the front rank
of strictly Roman Catholic countries which in the
second half of the eighteenth century found them
selves compelled to break with their antiquated
		system to find the way for a new ex
:. The En‑ istence. The defeats of Austria, espe
lightenment. cially in the Seven Years' War (1756
	Political 1763), had shown Maria Theresa the
	Reforms. lack of centralization, of financial,
		intellectual, and moral power in her
country and the necessity of reforms. Although a
good Catholic and personally antagonistic to the
Enlightenment, she permitted the leaders of this
intellectual movement to expand the new views of
Territorialism (q.v.) and Febronianism (see HON'1
HEIM, JOHANN NIKOLAuB VON). Archduke Joseph
became one of the most prominent and fervent
advocates of the new ideas, and when he became
coregent after the death of Emperor Francis (Aug.
18, 1765), ecclesiastical reforms were carried out in a
more thorough and independent manner, especially
as popes like Clement XIV. (1769‑74) and Pius VI.
(1775‑1799) tried to save the hierarchy by the most
far‑reaching concessions. On the death of the em
press in 1780 Joseph became sole ruler, and now
began an entirely new system, which was carried
out within a few years. The old feudal order was
to make room for the monarchical state of the En
lightenment, in which no privileged classes and
estates existed. In the political sphere Joseph con
tinued the centralization of the old Hapsburg coun
tries; in the social sphere he attempted to raise the
state of the peasants and of industry. Serfdom
was abolished, taxes on landed property were equal‑

g$$	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Joseph
ized, and the industrial life was freed from its paralyzing fetters.
Joseph was a pronounced territorialist. All external relations of the Church (i.e., everything outside of the dogmas in the proper sense), the administration of the sacraments, and
s. Govern‑ inner discipline over the clergy, were mental to be placed under the regulating and Control supervising power of the State. He of the thought of the relation of the churches
	Church.	of his countries to Rome entirely in
		the Febronian sense. The peculiarity
of his system of church polity has been styled
Josephinism, a term which implies the union of
Febronianism, Episcopalianism, and territorialism,
with the political viewpoint dominating. He was
in no way hostile to the Church; Roman Catholi
cism appeared to him the historically developed and
therefore the natural form of churchdom in his
countries; but he did not subject his government to
merely ecclesiastical points of view. The Church
appeared to him only as the organization of one of
the spheres in which the life of the people develops,
and which is therefore subordinated to the whole,
the State. The ultimate aim of all his reforms was
the supremacy of the State. The means was the
introduction of the enlightenment to raise up new
ethical and intellectual power. Accordfigly, the
churches of the Hapsburg countries were to be de
tached, as far as possible, from their legal connection
with the papacy and consolidated into a uniform
organization under the church government of the
sovereign. Consequently the Placet (q.v.) for all
kinds of papal bulls and briefs was renewed and
strictly carried out. The bull Unigenitua was never
to be mentioned, and the bull In coma Domini torn
out of the books of liturgy. In 1781 all relations
were broken off between the religious orders and
their superiors and brethren in foreign countries.
At the same time, the orders were subordinated to
the disciplinary power of the bishops and arch
bishops. Similar ordinances were applied to the
whole clergy. Communication with Rome was to
be through Austrian ambassadors. Nobody was
allowed to ask for papal titles in Rome, or to send
money there. The bishops received the right to
absolve and dispense, especially in matrimonial mat
ters, and to institute new festivals, devotions, etc.
Every appeal to Rome was forbidden. As at many
points along the boundaries, Austrian dominions
were under the authority of foreign bishops, a
new circumscription of the dioceses was necessary.
Moreover, the connection of the bishops with the
secular ruler was made closer, closer even than that
with the pope. There was demanded of them a
new oath of subjection to the temporal ruler which
preceded that to the pope. Nevertheless, there
remained for the pope a certain privilege over the
internal and external relations of the Austrian
Church; and, when possible, the emperor tried to
gain his consent to the ecclesiastical reforms.
The special jurisdiction of the clergy was abolished, the clergy was subjected to the legislative and judicial powers, bishops were to wait for the placet for their consecration and the State assumed matrimonial legislation (1783). As it was the aim
of Joseph to bring the clergy into closer connection with the Austrian State and make its representa‑
tives more efficient in their profession 3. Position than had been possible under the old
of the system, he placed their education in the Clergy in hands of the central authority of civil
the State. instruction, the imperial commission of
schools. The theological students were forbidden to visit the Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum in Rome (Nov. 18, 1781), which institution was replaced by a Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum in Pavia. In 1783 the theological schools in the monasteries were closed, and " general seminaries " were opened as State institutions under the superintendence of the imperial commission. As the monasteries were regarded as the chief seats of all sentiments inimical to the State, and as they deprived the State of a great number of efficient men that were urgently needed for the multitude of new parishes, a law of Jan. 12, 1782, ordered the dissolution of all religious orders not engaged in preaching, teaching, or nursing the sick. In this way the number of monasteries in Austria and Hungary was reduced from 2,163 to 1,425.
No less comprehensive, and evincing the same character, were the reforms relating to the internal
life of the Church. The emperor made 4. Re‑ the greatest efforts to elevate the cure forms of souls and to adapt its organization Affecting to the needs of the changed conditions. the Cure Many of the monastic churches were of Souls. transformed into parish churches. The emoluments of a religious State fund were used for the foundation of churches, pastor‑, ates, and chaplaincies; former monks were employed in pastoral work. At the same time Joseph deeply influenced the order of the church service. His aim was to do away with the merely external and mechanical practise of religion and further the ideal of the Enlightenment, the worship of God in spirit and in truth, and the practical love of fellow men. He paid special attention to preaching, to the instruction of youth, and to congregational singing. On Apr. 21, 1783, there was issued a new church order for Vienna, which served as a pattern for the whole country. All orders of service which went beyond the Roman ritual were done away. The Latin language was abolished, and the German introduced into the services. Rules were given with respect to the luxurious ornamentation of the churches, the magnificent proemiong, the brilliant illuminations, exhibition of relics, pilgrimages, etc. A rational and systematic care of the poor and sick was substituted for begging and the arbitrary giving of alms.
	An edict of Oct. 13, 1781, established religious
toleration for the whole Hapsburg monarchy, for
the German and Bohemian countries, Hungary and
		her dependencies, Italy, and the Neth
	g. Relic‑ erlands. The adherents of the Augs
ions Tolera‑burg and Helvetic confessions, as well
	tion Es‑ as members of the Greek Church, ob
	tablished. tained a limited freedom of worship.
	Each group of a hundred families was
permitted to build a meeting‑house, but without
bells, steeples, or street entrances, and a school

Joseph
Jo•ePhU6
and employ their own teachers and subordinate pastors, who were to be confirmed by the emperor. Civil disqualifications arising from denominational differences were abolished. In German countries, Bohemia, and Moravia the number of non‑Catholics in 1782 was 73,722. By 1788 this number had increased to 156,865. The number of tolerated congregations in Hungary and Transylvania in 1783 was 272; in 1784 it was 758. By collections in Austria and Hungary, in the empire, in the Evangelical Netherlands, in Switzerland, Denmark, and Russia, considerable sums were raised for the organization of Evangelical congregations. The government itself made efforts to establish order and develop the inner conditions of the Protestant churches. A special consistory was formed for the Protestants in Germany, Bohemia, and Moravia.
It is self‑evident that such an enormous revolution in all spheres met with the strongest opposition, especially from the Curia. On Mar. 22, 1782, Pius
VI. paid a visit to Vienna to expostu6. Successes late with the emperor; but he was and Fail‑ received with cold politeness and reures of the turned without having accomplished Reforms. his purpose. In the old countries of the Hapsburg crown the sentiment was very different. Among the bishops Joseph had friends and foes. The Febronian views of the Enlightenment (q.v.) were represented by the archbishop of Salzburg, as well as by the bishops of Koniggratz, Wiener Neustadt, Laibach, Seckau, etc., while the old ecclesiastical views were adhered to by the archbishop of Vienna and the Hungarian episcopate under the leadership of its primate. In the German and Bohemian countries the ecclesiastical reforms as a whole went through peacefully, though the changes in the cultus and in ecclesiastical ethics caused some bitterness. The political‑social reforms pleased peasants and citizens, but aroused the opposition of the privileged classes. In Hungary the ecclesiastical reforms‑were carried out without. opposition, but the political and social revolutions necessitated by the centralizing tendency of the emperor, as, for instance, the attempts to break the old constitution of Hungary and Transylvania, to govern the country in a despotic manner by State officers, to introduce German as the official language, and to abolish serfdom with the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, enraged the Magyar nobility in such a way that on Jan. 30, 1790, all political and social reforms had to be repealed. In the Netherlands the edict of toleration was promulgated November, 1781, and was carried out without difficulty, in spite of the opposition of the estates and the clergy. The other ecclesiastical provisions were opposed only by the clergy and the monastic orders. But here, too, the attempt to break the old feudal constitution, the self‑government of the estates and the privileged position of the clergy and nobility in city and country, met in 1787 with the most violent opposition in all prominent circles. On Jan. 7, 1790, the provinces declared themselves independent, and the general political condition deprived the emperor of all hope of victory. Disappointed and defeated he died the following month. There is no doubt that the impatience and haste of his reforms
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
234
greatly injured his work, and yet his reign became the starting‑point for a new and higher development of Austria. The system of ecclesiastical legislation continued after his death, except that in the Netherlands his brother and successor Leopold was compelled to sacrifice all ecclesiastical innovations, even the edict of toleration, in order to regain his provinces. In Hungary and Transylvania the main bulk of the ecclesiastical reforms, and especially the edict of toleration, remained in force. In Austria most of the estates required the restitution of the old feudal conditions and the old domination of the Roman Catholic Church; but Leopold refused both. Of the ecclesiastical legislation only the " general seminaries " were discontinued. The bishops were allowed to erect their own institutions and to dispose of the order of church service. The great mass of reforms within the Church remained until 1848. At the time of Napoleon I. Josephinism extended over all the South German states, Bavaria, Warttemberg, Baden, and Hesse. It was only in 1848 that it was entirely broken in Austria, as well as in the South German states. Only the edict of toleration remained in force in Austria, and was embodied in the constitution.
(KARL MOLLER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: A. von Arneth, Maria Thereeia and Joseph 11., ihre Korrespondenz, 3 vols., Vienna, 1867; J. Kropatschek, Handbuch . . . Verordnungen und Gesetze, 19 vols., Vienna, 1785‑91; Codex juris ecclesiasti6 Josephini, 2 vols., Presburg, 1788; Sammlung der Verordnungen and Gesetze Kaisers Joseph 11., 10 vols., Vienna, 1788. Consult: K. Ritter, Kaiser Joseph und seine kirchlichen Reformen, 2 vols., Regensburg, 1867; S. Brunner. Die theolopische Dienerachaft am Hofe Josephs 11., Vienna, 1868; idem, Die Mysterien der Aufkldrung in Oesterreich 1770‑1800, ib. 1869; T. von Kern, Die Reformen der Kaiserin Maria Theresia, Leipsie, 1869; A. Wolf, Die Aufhebung der Kl6ater in innermerreich, Vienna, 1871; idem, Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia, Joseph 11., and Lwpold ll., Berlin, 1883; E. Friedberg, Die Grenzen zwischen Staat and Kirche, Tfibingen, 1872; A. von Arneth, Geschiehte Maria Theresia, is. 1‑260, Vienna, 1879; C. von Hock, Der tisterreichische Staatsrath 1780‑184,8, ib., 1879; E. Hubert, La Condition des protesta`nts en Belgique depuis Charles V. jusquh Joseph 11., Brussels, 1882; G. Frank, Das Toleranzpatent Kaisers Joseph 11., Vienna, 1882; L. Leger, Hist. of Austro‑Hungary, London, 1889; H. Schlitter, Die Regierung Josef# 11., vol. i., Vienna, 1900; F. Frishc, Kaiser Joseph 11., ib. 1903; J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, New York, 1904; F. Geier, Die Durchfuhrung der kirchlichen Reformen Josephs 11., Stuttgart, 1905; E. Gothein, Der Breisgau unter Maria There&ia and Joseph Il., Heidelberg, 1907; H. Franz, Studien zur kirchlfchen Reform Josephs 11., 1908.
JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS.
7. Life.
7I. Works. " Jewish War " and " Antiquities " (~ 1). Remaining Works (1 2). Editions (§ 3).
I. Life: Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, was born in the first year of the reign of Caligula, 37‑38 A.D.; d. at Rome after 100 A.D. His father Matthias belonged to a respected family of priests in Jerusalem. Josephus reports proudly that at the age of sixteen he went through the three " philosophical schools " of the Jews, those of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, and that for the next three years he lived with a hermit named Banus. At the age of nineteen he publicly joined the Pharisees (Vita, i.‑ii.). In 64 A.D. he undertook a journey

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Joseph
Josephns
to Rome to obtain the release of certain imprisoned
priests. He had hardly returned to Palestine when
the great insurrection against the Romans broke
out (66 A.D.). In the beginning Josephus was
without doubt opposed to the rebellion, but after
the first victories of the Jews, he, too, joined it,
more by force than by free will; he even became
commander in Galilee. As such he organized in
the winter of 66‑67 the military forces of Galilee
and made preparations for the campaign which
began in the spring of 67. Activities centered
around the fortress of Jotapata, which was for six
weeks bravely and cleverly defended by Josephus
against the army of Vespasian. After the capture
of Jotapata he became a prisoner of the Romans;
after the second year of his imprisonment he was
released by Vespasian, who in 69 had become em
peror. He then adopted the name of Flavius
Josephus and devoted the remainder of his life to
the interest of the Flavian emperors. He accom
panied Vespasian to Alexandria, returned thence
in the suite of Titus to Palestine and was in the
army of the latter during the whole siege of Jeru
salem in the year 70. After the capture of Jerusa
lem Titus took him to Rome, where he seems to
have settled down to literary work. Vespasian
gave him a dwelling‑place in his own former resi
dence, made him a Roman citizen, and presented
him with an annual salary and a considerable tract
of land in Judea. With the following emperors,
Titus (79‑81 A.D.) and Domitian (81‑96 A.D.), Jo
sephus enjoyed the same favor. It is not known
how long he lived and in what relation he stood
to the later emperors. He must have been living
in the time of Trajan, since in his Vita he mentions
King Agrippa 11. as having already died (100 A.D.).
	17. Works: The works of Josephus were all com
posed in the Greek language, with the exception of
his first draft of the " Jewish War," which was in
		Aramaic. His principal purpose was
	i. " Jewish to communicate to the Greco‑Roman
	War " and world the knowledge of the history of
	" Antiq‑ his people, whom he defends and glori
	uities." fies in every possible way. The " His
		tory of the Jewish War," in seven
books, is his earliest and most carefully written
work. The first and second books gave a survey
of Jewish history from the time of the Maccabees
to the outbreak of the insurrection against the
Romans. The rest of the work is a detailed ac
count of the war from the beginning in 66 to the
complete suppression in 73. It was written late in
the reign of Vespasian (69 to 79 A.D.; cf. War, pref
ace, chap. i.; Ant., preface, chap. i.). It was pre
sented to Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa II., and
the author received commendation for the accu
racy of his account. The " Antiquities " (" Jew
ish Archeology ") is a comprehensive history of the
Jewish people from the beginnings of Biblical his
tory to the outbreak of the war in 66 A.D., in twenty
books, after the model of the Romaike archaiologia
of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. It was completed
in the thirteenth year of Domitian, 93‑94 A.D. For
the Biblical period (books I. XI.) Josephus draws
almost exclusively from the Bible in the Septuagint
version, but he modifies the Biblical story and sup‑
plements it by legends, following current traditions. Here and there he seems to have employed also Hellenistic compilations of Biblical history, especially those of Demetrius and Artapanus. Finally, he inserted notices from Greek writers of profane history when he dealt, for instance, with the flood, with primitive man, with Phenician history, and the like. The post‑Biblical period of Jewish history is treated by Josephus without any due sense of proportion according to the condition of his sources. He has little to say on the period from Alexander the Great to the time of the Maccabees, filling the gap with an extensive extract from Pseudo‑Aristeas (see ARISTEAS) on the origin of the Greek translation of the Bible. For the history of the Maccabees (175‑135 R.c.) he had an excellent source in I Maccabees (see APOCRYPRA, A, IV., 9), which he supplemented from the works of Polybius. The later history of the Hasmoneans seems to depend upon the more general works of Strabo and Nicolas of Damascus. The main source for the history of Herod (books XV.‑XVII.) was Nicolaus Damascenus, who, as an intimate councilor of Herod, was acquainted with the internal history of the court and described in great detail the history of his land. The history from the death of Herod to the outbreak of the war (books XVIII.‑XX.) is treated quite meagerly. For the last decades Josephus was able to draw from oral information or from his own experience. He inserted a number of documents‑decrees of the Roman senate, letters of Roman magistrates, decrees of cities of Asia Minor under Roman influence, and the like‑the majority of these dating from the time of Caesar and Augustus and having high value. The genuineness of the passage on Jesus Christ (XVIII., iii. 3) is generally given up.
The title affixed to the autobiography (Vita) of Josephus is misleading, since it recounts and justifies his activity in Galilee in the winter of 66‑67
A.D. In this work Josephus attacks
z. Re‑ especially Justus of Tiberias, who, bemaining ing a man of conservative tendencies,
Works. had, like Josephus, joined the insur‑
rection more by force than by free will and had subsequently tried to exonerate himself for participation in the rebellion and to place the responsibility upon Josephus. The latter retaliated in his Vita by representing Justus as the chief agitator and himself as the real friend of the Romans. The work was written after the death of Agrippa II., therefore after 100 A.D. The Contra Apionem presents a well‑written systematic apology for Judaism in reply to various attacks, especially in the literary world. The usual title Contra A2r ionem is misleading, since only a part of the work is occupied with the polemic against Apion. Porphyry (De abstinentia, iv. 11) quotes it under the title Pros tans Hellenas, the oldest Church Fathers under the title Peri tf tbn Joudait drchaiotetm. Jerome was the first to use the title Contra Apionem. Since Josephus quotes in this work the " Antiquities " it must have been written later than 93 A.D. That IV Maccabees was wrongly ascribed by the Fathers to Josephus is now universally recognized. Similarly the work discussed in Photius,

Jol9phnB
Joshua	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	298
Bibliotheca, cod. 48, under the title Peri tau pantos or Peri tas tou pantos aitia8 or Peri tes tou pantos ousias, is of Christian origin and is quoted by the author of the Philosophumena as his own. The author of both is most probably Hippolytus, among whose works there is mentioned one entitled Peri tou pantos. A work projected by Josephus on theology seems never to have been written.
The first edition of the Greek text of the works of Josephus was published by Frobenius and Episcopius (Basel, 1544). It was followed by the Geneva editions of 1611 and 1634, and by the edition of Ittig (Leipsic, 1691). A text of the complete works, revised after manuscripts, was furnished by Hudson (2 vols., Oxford, 1720). Then came
the editions of Haveroamp (2 vols., 3. Edi‑ Amsterdam, Leyden, Utrecht, 1726),
tions.	of Oberthtir (3 vols., Leipic, 1782‑
1785), and of Richter (6 vols., Leipsie, 1826‑27). On the basis of Havercamp's material the text was revised by Dindorf k.', vols.. Paris, 1845‑47). This was followed by the pocket edition of Bekker (6 vols., Leipsic, 185r56). A comprehensive collation of all good manuscripts was made only in recent times by Niese; his efforts resulted in a critical edition which by the richness of the apparatus far excels all former editions (Flnvii Josephi opera edidit et apparatu critico instruait Benedictus Niese, 6 vols., Berlin, 1887‑94; vol. vii. is a carefully compiled index, 1895). On the basis of Niese's apparatus appeared an edition by Naber (6 vols., heipsic, 1888‑96). There exists an early Latin translation of the complete works of Jos ephus, with the exception of the Vita. Cassiodorus seems to be the author of the Latin translation of the "Antiquities "and of the Contra Apioncm. The first printed edition of the Latin Josephus was published by Johann Schiissler in Augsburg, 1470. Since then until the appearance of the first Greek edition it has been printed frequently, and the later editions were frequently corrected after the Greek. A critical edition of the Latin version, resting upon a comprehensive use of the sources, was begun by Boysen as Vol. xxxvii. of the Vienna CSEL (Vienna, 1898). With the Latin translation of the Beldum Judaicum is not to be confounded a Latin condensation which is known under the name of Egesippus or Hegesippus. The name Egesippus is only a corruption from Josippus, a Latin form of " Josephus." The work has some original additions, dates from the second half of the fourth century A.D., and has been doubtfully ascribed to Ambrose. The first edition appeared in Paris, 1510; a critically revised text appeared under the title Hegesippus qui dicitur sive Egesippus de bello Judaico ope codicis Casellani recognitus, ed. Weber, opus morte Weberi iuterruptum absolvit Caesar (Marburg, 1864). Under the name Josippon or Joseph, son of Gorion, there exists a history of the Jewish people to the destruction of Jerusalem, in the form of a compendium written in Hebrew, which is in the main excerpted from Josephus but in many respects differs widely from him. There appeared an edition of it with a Latin translation, by J F. Breithaupt (Goths, 1707, 1710). Since the sixteenth century the works of Josephus have been translated into almost
all modern European languages. Among the Eng
lish translations Traill's, giving the Vita and the
War, are especially esteemed (London, 1962). [The
standard English translation has long been that of
W. Whiston (London, 1737, often reproduced, la
test ed. by D. S. Margoliouth, 1906). Others were
by T. Lodge (1602, and often); Sir R. L. 1'Estrange
(1702 and often); J. Court (1733, and often); E.
Thompson and W. C. Price (2 vols., 1777‑78); and
T. Bradshaw (1792)]. 	(E. SCHifRER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best discussion is in Scharer, Geschichte, i. 74‑106 607‑613, iii. 370, Eng transl. L, i. 77‑82, ii. 214‑223, II. iii. 221‑222; $chfirer furnishes very abundant material in the original article in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, ix. 377 sqq. A very full discussion is to be found in DCB, iii. 441‑460. The older material is suggested in Fabricius$arles Bibliotheca Graeca, v. 49‑56. Consult further: V. E. P. Chasles, De Z'autoritM historique de Flavius Joal phg, Paris, 1841; Creuzer, in TSK, xxvi (1853), 45‑86, 906928; Reuss, in Revue de Wolopie, 1859, pp. 253‑319; W. A. Terwogt, Het Leven van . . . Flavius Josephus, Utrecht, 1863‑ R. Nieolai Griechische Literaturpeschichte, ii. 2, pp` 553‑559, Magdeburg, 1877; A. von Gutechmid, Kleine Schriften, iv. 336384, Leipsic, 1893; C. Wachsmuth, Finleitung in das Studium der alien Geschichte, pp. 438449, ib. 1895; Niese, in Historiache Zeitschrift, lxxvi (1896), 193‑237; Unger, in SMA philosophisch‑philologische Klasse 1895, pp. 551‑604, 1896, pp. 357‑397, 1897, pp.189244; H. Peter, Die geachichtliche Literatur fiber die romische Kaiaerzeit, i. 394‑401, Leipsic, 1897; P. Kriiger, Philo and Josephus ale Apolopeten des Judentume, ib. 1906; Ceillier, Auteurs sacies, i. 314‑327.
JOSHUA, jesh'yu‑a: An Ephraimite, son of Nun, servant and helper of Moses (Ex. xxiv. 13), and his successor in the leadership of Israel (Num. xxvii. 18‑23). On assuming the leadership, Joshua sent spies who were entertained by Rahab in Jericho, and on their return reported the situation in Canaan (Josh. i. 10‑ii. 24). He then ordered preparations to be made for the invasion, which took place on the tenth day of the first month of the forty‑first year after the exodus from Egypt. It has been said that Joshua used the fords of the Jordan; but the place and the season of the year are unfavorable to this supposition, since at that time the Jordan overflows its banks (Josh. iii. 15; I Chron. xii. 15). According to the narrative the upper waters of the river stayed as if dammed up, while the lower waters flowed off into the Dead Sea. The suggestion of Klostermann that the phenomenon may have been caused by a severe earthquake which raised the bed of the river or produced a landslide across the river bed, which was afterward carried away by the flood, offers a natural explanation of the way in which the river was crossed dry‑footed. To preserve the memory of this crossing, the leader had twelve atones carried from the bed of the river and set up at Gilgal, midway between the river and Jericho (Josh. iv. 1‑8, 20‑24). The people were then circumcised and the feast of the Passover was celebrated. The promise made to Joshua that Yahweh, the leader of the host of the people which had become Yahweh's, would be his helper was fulfilled in the taking of Jericho, the walls of which were thrown down in an earthquake (Josh. v. 13‑xxx. vi.), while of the inhabitants only Rahab and her family were saved alive. The punishment of Achan and the treaty secured by the Gibeonites' device followed. According to Deut. xxvii., after the capture of Ai

,$$7	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Joseyhns
Joshua
Joshua led the people in a northerly direction to Ebal and Gerizim, and overcame a combination of Canaanites gathered to punish Gibson for its treaty with Israel, on which occasion occurred what has been read as a miracle in the staying of the sun and the moon in their courses, to be interpreted probably as a subjective effect of the quickness and completeness of the victory (Josh. x. 1‑14). This was followed by the conquest of the southern part of the land as far as Kadesh‑barnea and westward to Gaza (Josh. x. 29 aqq.), succeeded by a third campaign in which the kings of the northern cities were subdued near Merom. While by these wars the country was won, with the exception of the Philistine and Phenician coast, not all was actually in the possession of the Hebrews; and several years after the ending of the campaigns Joshua's seat of government was still at Gilgal (Josh. xiv. 6).
It was at this place that Joshua's second task was begun‑the division of the land among the tribes. Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh first received their allotments, and the ark was carried from Gilgal to Shiloh in Benjamin (Josh. xv.xviii. 1). This was followed by the allotment of the portions to the other tribes, and the permission to the East‑Jordan tribes to return to their own district, having fulfilled their duty to the tribes west of the river (Josh. xviii.‑xxii.). In anticipation of his death Joshua gathered first the elders and then the people at Shechem to receive his last instructions, which he commemorated by a pillar or stone under the terebinth at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 26‑27). He died at the age of one hundred
and ten. 	(W. Vor.cgt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Stahelin, in TSK, x3tiv (1849). 394 eqq.; J. $oekel, Die Eroberunp des heitigen Landes durch
Joaua, Gleiwitz, 1870; J. B. Meyer, Joshua and the Land of
Pramiae,London. 1893; and the literature under JOSHUA,
Boos OF.
JOSHUA, BOOK OF: The sixth of the books
of the Old Testament in the arrangement of the
English Bible. According to the Hebrew canon,
it is the first book of the second part, containing
the prophetical‑historical books. It was originally
		the conclusion of the Pentateuch. The
	Contents conception of the Talmud (Baba bathro,
	sad 14b) that Joshua was the author of
	Sources. the book is no longer tenable; nor is
		that of Keil, who regarded it as a uni
fied book drawn up by an eye‑witness of the events
(cf. Josh. v. 1, R.V., margin). For contents see
HEXATEUCH, 2. The part which deals with the
conquest bears the impress of those sections of the
Pentateuch derived from JE (hardly to be distin
guished in this book); the second part resembles
more the style of the priestly writer, but with in
sertions of JE (x viii. 3‑10). But throughout, these
elements are more or less interwoven, with Deuter
onomicportionsalso thrown in (especially in viii.;
cf. viii. 30 sqq., with Deut. iv. 41‑43, and note the
Deuteronomic expressions in Josh. xxiii. 5, 11, 14).
There are also expressions which linguistically
belong neither to JE nor P, indicating that the
redactor has employed other material: such are the
combinations "the Lord, the God of Israel" (four
teen times, only elsewhere in the Hexateuch in Ex.
v. 1, xxxii. 27), and the term "mighty men of valor" (Josh. i. 14, etc.). Thus the work of several hands is distinguishable in the composition of the book. It appears from analysis that the parts belonging to P are later than those which are assigned to JE; and that JE and P lay before the Deuteronomist who composed the book found in the times of Josiah. It was he who closed the Pentateuch and made Joshua the beginning of the historical narrative, reediting it and working it over, but bestowing upon it no such care as he exercised upon the Pentateuch. There are indications that its text has had an independent history.
In the book data are found which tend to fix the date of the sources out of which it was compiled or from which it was derived. Thus chap. viii. 28 must have been written long prior to Iea. x. 28; xvi. 10 moat be earlier than the beginning of Solomon's reign (I Kings ix. 16); xv. 63 moat precede the incident told in II Sam. v. 6; x. 13 can not be earlier than the time of David, since the book of Jasper contained David's elegy on Saul and Jonathan; vi. 25 and xiv. 14 do not imply that the source was contemporary with Rahab and Joshua, since the reference is to the descendants of Rahab and Caleb. That the part dealing with the division of the land rests on documents is in itself probable (cf. xviii. 9); and the absence of reports of strife over tribal boundaries implies that the boundaries were balled on an old decision. The list of kings, xii. 9 aqq., is regarded by Ewald as an old document. But variations in, e.g., the count of cities shows that the text has not remained unaltered (xv. 32, xix. 15, 38). This book with the first four books of the Pentateuch and parts of Deuteronomy was known to the prophets Hoses, Amos, and Micah. Thus the general scheme of history regarded by Micah se known to his contemporaries under Hezekiah agrees with that presented in Numbers and Joshua (Micah vi. 1 eqq., which recalls the narrative of JE). So in Amos there are reminiscences of the narrative of P (as in ii. 10, v. 25, vii. 4; cf. particularly ii. 7 with Lev. xx. 3, xxii. 2, 32). So Hos. xii. 4 may be compared with Gen. xxxv. 9 sqq., in which minutie of agreement suggest that Hosea had the report of P before him.
The credibility of the narrative of the book has been assailed on the ground that it contains not history but legend. The chief occasion for this is comparison with Judges i. It is said that while Joshua implies the conquest of Canaan by the tribes in unison, Judges i. records the piecemeal occupation by individual
	toricity.	tribes or aggregations. But Judges
		i. 1 professes to deal with what oc
curred after the death of Joshua, not with the
events of his life. Moreover, while the general im
pression which the book of Joshua gives is that of
a complete conquest, its individual expressions
limit this (xxiii. 7, 12). Thus at Joshua's death no
tribe had fully completed the conquest of the por
tion allotted to it, and especially the fortresses and
plains remained in Canaanitic possession. Thus
Judges i. appears as the story of the continuation
of the subjugation of the land, and there is no

Joshua
Jovianue
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
contradiction between that chapter and the ac
count in Joshua. The credibility is also attacked
on the ground that the narrative concerning the
East‑Jordan tribes is unnatural. Similarly the
narrative of the division is assailed, needlessly,
since the prospective nature of the division is im
plied in the allotment of the Philistine and Pheni
cian coastland, which was not conquered. The
objection urged because of the miracles stands
upon the same ground as objections to the super
natural in other books of Scripture. As Israel's
origin is to be distinguished frAm that of other
peoples, so is the shaping of its subsequent history.
	The relation of the book of Joshua to Judges is
such that the latter appears in several cases to have
borrowed from the former. The Septuagint has
at the close of Joshua an addition, partly apocry
phal and partly derived from the book of Judges,
to the effect that the Israelites of that time changed
the location of the ark, that Phinehas succeeded
his father Eleazar in the priesthood and was buried
in his father's grave, and that Israel worshiped the
gods of the people who surrounded them and were
under the dominion of Eglon, king of Moab,
eighteen years. 	(W. Vorcstl'.)
For the Samaritan book of Joshua See SAMARIA, SAMARITANS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Commentaries are: C. Steuernagel, Gottingen, 1900; F. J. B. Mauler, Stuttgart, 1831; C. F. Keil, Erlangen, 1847, 1874, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1857; A. Knobel, Leipsie, 1881; T. E. Eapin, in Bible Commentary, London, 1872; H. Crosby, New York, 1875; G. A. McLeod, Cambridge, 1878; J. J. Lisa, in Pulpit Commentary, London, 1881; C. F. A. Dillmann, Leipeic, 1886; J. Lloyd, London, 1888; J. S. Black, Cambridge, 1891; S. Oettli, Munich, 1893; W. H. Bennett, in SBOT, Baltimore, 1895; F. W. Spurting, London, 1901. Questions of criticism are discussed in: J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford‑Batteraby, The Pentateuch, London, 1900; L. Konig, Altketamentliche Studien, vol. i., Meura, 18.?6 (decides the book a unit and Joshua its author); J. W. Coleneo, The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua critically Examined, London, 1882‑71; Himpel, in TQS, 1884‑65; J. Hollenberg, in TSK, alvii (1874), 482‑508; idem, Die atexandriniache Ueberaetzung dea Bathes Joatta, Meura, 1878; K. Budde, in ZATW, vii (1887), pp. 93 aqq.; E. Albers, Die Quellenberichte is Josua i.‑xii., Bonn, 1890; DB, ii. 779788; EB, ii. 2800‑2809; JE, vii. 284‑288; and the various works cited under BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION, and the pertinent sections in works on the history of Israel given under AHAB.

JOSIAH, jo‑said: Fifteenth king of Judah, son and successor of Amon. His dates, according to the old chronology, $re 641‑610 B.C., according to Kautzsch, 64009 B.C., and he became king at the age of eight years. The detailed accounts of his reign (II Kings xxii‑viii; II Chron. xxxiv.Iw.) begin with his eighteenth year; the Chronicler's remark in IL, xxxiv. 3 probably depends upon II Kings xxiii. 4 aqq. According to II Kings xxii. 3 sqq., Josiah ordered the temple to be repaired, which had probably not been done since the reign of Joash (II Kings xii. 11 sqq.) and Hilkiah the priest then reported that he had found in the temple the book of the law. Its contents so overwhelmed the king with apprehensions of evil that he rent his clothes, and an oracle was sought from Huldah the prophetess, who reported that the threatenings were to be realized, since the book was true. The king then summoned to Jerusalem
the elders of the people, the priests, and the prophets (" priests and Levites," II Chron. xxxiv. 30), and to them the book was read. There followed a thorough cleansing of the temple and city of the accessories to idolatrous worship, and to this was added abolition of the worship on the high places, while the priests of that service were brought to the capital, where, though excluded from service at the sanctuary, they received the emoluments of their order. Josiah then turned his attention to high places in what had been the northern kingdom, especially to that at Bethel, and they were defiled with the bones of the dead. The work was concluded by a notable observance of the Passover rendered memorable apparently by the numbers and unity of those celebrating.
The historic value of the reports about the reform of the cultua is bound up with the question as to what the law book was which was discovered, and can be solved only in connection with criticism of the Pentateuch (see HEXATEUCH). In case this book was not one which had been lost to sight, but was an unknown and new codification having for its purpose the abolition of worship at the high places and concentration of worship at Jerusalem, the conclusion is forced that it was practically identical with Deuteronomy; but it does not follow that the transaction was due to Hilkiah and the prophets of that time, while priestly interests were not served by the publication of the book. The noteworthy fact is the forcible impression it made upon Josiah and his contemporaries and its bearing upon the Josianic reformation. The results were important for the history of Israel, since the unity of cult had symbolic relation to the monotheistic conception of deity. Josiah's reform created a new basis for the activity of the prophets, it affected worship in the second temple, and set forth the unity of God as the center of thought in the religion of Israel. The questions arise,'with what right did Josiah extend his efforts in behalf of a pure cultus into the northern kingdom, and why did he throw himself across the path of Pharaoh Necho when the latter was on his way to the Euphrates. While the northern region was nominally under the rule of Assyria, that power was about to fall. The time would seem ripe for what had been foretold by the prophets, the unification of Israel and Judah, and religious unification was the first step toward political reunion. Such a plan he might hope to carry through as a loyal vassal of Babylonia, especially in withstanding the attempts of Egypt to gain new position as a world power. But the issue did not correspond to his hopes, and Josiah was defeated and killed, and brought back for burial to Jerusalem. Some debate has arisen over the place of the battle, since Herodotus (ii. 159) names instead of the Biblical Megiddo Magdolus, which corresponds to the modern al‑Majdal, two miles west of Carmel or (Winekler, in Benzinger, Die Biiclaer der Konige, p. 207, Tubingen, 1899) Strato's Tower. Possibly Megiddo appears in the Biblical narrative because it was the place to which the wounded king was carried and where he died. Yet it hardly seems as though the Jews could have completely lost the correct

239	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	IT=.
oviaans
tradition. Another and somewhat variant report appears in II Chron. xxxv. 22 sqq., according to which the remonstrance of Necho takes the form of an oracle from God, makes Josiah put on a disguise, and when wounded has him carried to Jerusalem with the implication that he died there (on holy ground?); the Chronicler tells also of a lament of Jeremiah for Josiah and a collection of dirges in his memory, with which Jer. xxii. 10 and Zech. xii. 11 may be brought into connection, perhaps as indicating a yearly memorial celebration.
(E. KAUTZSCH.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The pertinent sections in the literature mentioned under ARAB; the articles in the Bible dictionaries; the literature under HEXATEOCH, since the discussions of Deuteronomy and of the Pentateuch involve discussions of Josiah's reform and its legal basis.

JOST, yest, ISAAK MARCUS: German Jewish historian; b. at Bernburg (23 m. s. of Magdoburg) Feb. 22, 1793; d. at Frankfort Nov. 22, 1860. He studied at the Samson school at Wolfenbiittel, at the gymnasium at Brunswick, and at the universities of Gottingen and Berlin (Ph.D., 1816), became principal of the Bock school in Berlin in 1826, and in 1835 was called to the Jewish Realschule (Philanthropin) at Frankfort. His principal works are, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maecabder bis auf unsere Tage (10 vols., Berlin, 1820‑47); AUgemeine Geschichte des israelitischen Volkes (2 vols., 1831‑32); a German translation of the Mishnah, with Hebrew commentary (6 vols., 1832`34); and Geschichte des Judenthums and seiner Sekten (3 vole., Leipsie, 1857‑59). He also prepared school text‑books, wrote political tracts in the interest of Judaism, made many contributions to the Jewish press, and to almanacs and year‑books, edited the Israelitische Annalen, 18391841, and, in collaboration with Michael Creizenach, edited Zion, 1841‑42. He holds high rank as historian, though he has been criticized for his rationalistic attitude toward the narratives in the Talmudic sources.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: JE, vii, 296‑297, where further literature is given.

JOTHAM, j8'tham: 1. The youngest son of Gideon (Jerubbaal), who alone escaped the massacre of the Gideon family by his half‑brother Abimelech, uttered his famous parable of the trees which sought a king, and then fled to Beer (Judges ix. 5‑21).
2. Tenth king of Judah, son and successor of Uzziah. His dates, according to the old chronology, are 756‑740 B.C., according to Peake (DB, ii. 789) 751‑735 B.C. Confusion in the chronology of Israel is marked about this period, since II Kings xv. 30 assigns to Jotham at least twenty years, while data from the Assyrian annals allow only twelve years for his reign and that of Ahaz. It is supposed that the regnal years accredited to Jotham include those of his regency during his father's disability. Of his reign little is reported in the Book of Kings except that he " built the higher gate of the house of the Lord." The Chronicler adds that he built much of the wall of Ophel, also cities and fortresses; and that he sub‑
dued the Ammonites and imposed a heavy tribute
upon them. The Book of Kings notes also that in
his days the coalition between Syria and Israel
against Judah began to be effective, the object be
ing apparently to force Judah into the combina
tion against the Assyrians, who were beginning to
press heavily upon the Mediterranean region. The
time seemed ripe for such plans, since Tiglath‑Pi
leser was at the time engaged in the East. The
great prophet of the times was Isaiah, and the pic
ture in Isa. ii. 5 indicates that, in spite of apparent
prosperity in the land, the internal conditions were
not favorable. 	(E. KAUTZSCH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. The commentaries on Judges, particularly those by Moore and Budde.
2. Sources are: rr Kings xv. 5, 32‑38; IT Chron. xxvii. Consult the pertinent sections in the literature given under AHAB, and the articles in the Bible dictionaries.
JOVIANUS, jo"vi‑d'nus, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS:
Roman emperor; b. at Singidunum (the modern
Belgrade, Servia) about 331; d. at Dadastana,
Bithynia (125 m. e.s.e. of Constantinople) in the
night between Feb. 16 and 17, 364. Taking part
in the campaign against the Persians, as ranking
officer of the palace troops, in the crisis following
the death of Julian he was hastily elected emperor
by the army in sight of the enemy, June 27, 363.
The fact that Jovian was a Christian and had with
stood attempts during the reign of Julian to render
him apostate seems to have played no part in his
election. The newly elected emperor, in view of
the military and political situation of the time, was
induced to conclude an inglorious peace with the
Persians, giving up to them the eastern outskirts
of the empire, including the important city of Nisi
bis. On his return from the East at Antioch Jo
vian publicly stated his attitude in regard to the
controversies in the Church. He took the side of
the Nicene party and their leader Athanasius, urg
ing the latter in a written appeal to resume his
episcopal see at Alexandria and asking to be re
membered in his prayers. He commanded Atha
nasius, who visited him at Antioch, to issue a new
statement of the orthodox creed, and thus his au
thority certainly influenced the controversies re
garding the nature of Christ, although he tried t0
hold aloof from them officially. His aim was to
restore matters as they were before the reign of
Julian, and so he replaced on the army standards
and on the coins the monogram of Christ, recalled
the bishops from exile, renewed the privileges of
the Church and of the clergy, widows, and virgins,
and restored the donations of corn. He imposed
the death penalty on whosoever married a virgin
or a widow who bad taken the vows, even with the
woman's consent, and forbade the inheritance of
their parents' property by the children of such an
union. Yet he also showed much tolerance toward
pagans. 	VICTOR SCHULTZE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: V. Schultze, Geschichte des Unterpanpee des griechiech‑romischen Heidentams, i. 176 Hqq., Jena. 1887; H. Richter, Dae westrtimieche Reich, pp, 168 eqq., Berlin,
1865; H. Schiller, Geschichte der remischen Kaieerzeit, ii. 344 sqq., 1887; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ii. 506, 517 sqq ; Neander. Christian Church, ii. 87‑89 et passim; Schaff, Christian Church iii. 60; the literature under JOVINIANDe, and De la Bleterie, Hit. de Z'empereur imien, 2 vole.. Amsterdam, 1740.

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
J0VINIAN: A "heretic" who became conspicuous in Rome after 385 as a polemical writer against undue valuation of the celibate and ascetic life. Prior to this time he had lived in celibacy as a strict ascetic, but coincidently with his appearance in public he modified his ascetic living, allowing himself indulgence in flesh food, wearing better clothing, visiting the baths, and by no means shunning association with youths and women. Nevertheless he stayed single, deeming this estate the one divinely enjoined for him. He lived quite after the manner of the pre‑monastic, Western ascetics, and may be considered an advocate of the ancient ascetic r6gime, which waged a desperate battle in Rome against the new and intensified forma of Oriental monasticism. In this process he came to certain fundamental conclusions that stood opposed to theories which had long been shared by the Church. As a consequence of his agitation against monasticism, many men and women gave up the celibate life. That frivolous natures also attached themselves to Jovinian, considering him an advocate of relaxed Christian morality, may easily be believed on the testimony of Jerome. The Roman Bishop Siricius, in deference to denunciation by the monastic circle at Rome, excommunicated Jovinian and his followers in 390, and forwarded the decision to foreign bishops, in particular to Ambrose of Milan. Jbvinian having betaken himself with his most loyal adherents to Milan, Ambrose made haste to excommunicate him in 391; and Jerome, about 392,,by instigation of his Roman friends, wrote two books against him. Since these, however, were considered somewhat too polemical, Jerome sought to soften their tone without really yielding (Epiat., xlviii.‑Ii). The strife revived again at Milan, and Ambrose wrote a warning against Jovinian's heretical doctrines (Epiat., lxxxiii.). Augustine wrote the tract De bono conjugali against the Jovinian heresy, but without expressly naming Jovinian. He was dead in 406 (Jerome, Adv. Vigtlnntium, i.).
Jovinfan's doctrinal views are known only through the writings of his opponents, who have transmitted some of his theses verbatim, but as regards the inner connection of thought, we are limited to hypothetical constructions. He wrote a work which Jerome calls commentarioli, seeking to adduce Scriptural evidences for his theses, but by no means excluding support from profane literature. His doctrines all converge upon opposition to monasticism. In the letters of Siricius two erroneous teachings of Jovinian are named. According to the first, virgins, widows, and married people, baptized in Christ, have equal merit, save in so far as otherwise they differ in respect to their works; and, seoondly, fasting is nowise better, more meritorious and pleasing to God than the enjoyment of food, observed with thanksgiving. In the synodal decision of Ambrose at Milan, two other erroneous teachings are attributed to Jovinian; viz., that he denied the inviolate virginity of Mary, and a difference in the celestial reward of the righteous. In combating the growing dogma of the unimpaired virginity of Mary, wherein the monks were especially interested for the glorification of celibacy,
240
Jovinian desired to deal a stinging blow on the followers of monasticism. He adhered to the virgin birth of Jeans, but affirmed that by bringing to birth, Mary ceased to be virgin. As a deduction from the parity of marriage and virginity, Jovinian appears to have advanced another proposition transmitted by Jerome; viz., that all the regenerate who have preserved their baptismal grace receive the same recompense in the kingdom of heaven, irrespectively of their having lived in the married estate or as virgins. In the light of these thqughts, the last and most difficult proposition of Jovinian becomes intelligible. He affirmed the essential sinleasnese of the regenerate. How he expanded this proposition in detail is not known. On the strength of this tenet, Jerome related him theologically to Pelagius; Julian of Eclanum classed him with Augustine; and Augustine, in turn, associated him with Pelagianism. G. GRtITZMACHEH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Jerome, Adroernu Jovinianum, and Epiat., xlviii.‑1., Eng. travel. in NPNF, 2d eer., vi. 88‑82, 334‑346: Augustine, Haer., chap. laaaii.: 8iriciue. Epiat. ii. ad divsraoe epiaeopoe, in Manai, Concilia, iii. 883 eq4.: Ambrose, Epiat., viii., lantiii., in Msnei. Concilia, i. 889 eqq., v. 654 eq4. Consult: G. B. Lindner, De Joviniano et Vipilantio, Leipeio, 1839; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects and Hue, pp. 242‑x. Philadelphia, 1874; W. Haller, Jorointanw, Leipeic, 1897; G. Grutamacher. Hieronymus, ii. 146‑172, Berlin, 1908: DCB, iii. 486‑488.
JOWETT, jau'et, BENJAMIN: English educar for and author; b. in the parish of Camberwell, London, Apr. 15, 1817; d. at Headley Park, Liphook (22 m. e. of Winchester), Hampshire, Oct. 1, 1893. He studied at St. Paul's School, London, and at Balliol College, Oxford (B.A., 1839; M.A., 1842), where he was elected fellow in 1838. In 1837 he won the Hertford university scholarship for Latin, and in 1841 the chancellor's prize for the Latin essay. He was ordained deacon in 1842, priest in 1845. In 1842 he was appointed to a tutorship at Balliol, which he held till he became master of the college in 1870. He was public examiner in classics 1849‑51, and 1853. At Oxford he had fallen into the very midst of the Tractarian movement, and his Evangelical views were shaken by daily intercourse with his friend William George Ward (q.v.). In after years he said, " But for the providence of God, I might have became a Roman Catholic,." A more lasting influence, however, was that of A. P. Stanley, the leader of the Broad Church school, with whom Jowett traveled and studied in Germany in the summers of 1845 and 1846. On being defeated for the mastership of Balliol in 1854, Jowett, in his disappointment, took up with renewed energy e work that he and Stanley had projected on St. Paul, and published The Epistles of St. Paul to the Theasaloniana, Galatiana, arid Romans: with Critical Notes and DisaerEations (2 vole., London, 1855). This work brought forth a storm of protest from conservative quarters; and when, in the same year, Jowett was appointed regius professor of Greek at Oxford, those who condemned his views at once began to oppose him. He was denounced to the vice‑chancellor, who required him to sign the Articles anew in his presence, Jowett's opponents kept up the agitation against him for ten years, preventing him from receiving the full emoluments

241	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	dab
of his chair till 1865. Meanwhile he had reiterated his objectionable views in a second edition of the Epistles (2 vole., 1859) and confirmed the suspicions of his heresy by his essay On the Interpretation of Scripture, published in 1860 in the famous Essays and Reviews. A prosecution begun against him in the vice‑chancellor's court at Oxford, Feb. 20, 1863, was soon dropped (see EssAYS AND REviEws). Henceforth Jowett refrained from publishing anything of a theological nature. Though he preached frequently in the college chapel and in the university pulpit, and preached annually in Westminster Abbey from 1866 till the year of his death, he would not allow any of his sermons to be printed; nor would he permit a third edition of the Epistles to be issued during his lifetime (published after his death, condensed by Lewis Campbell, 2 vols., 1894). He was waiting to attain to greater clearness and certainty, hoping that these would come with time; but the exhausting labors which he took upon himself as master of Balliol after 1870, and as vice‑chancellor of the university 1882‑86, left him no leisure for elaborating his views.
Jowett was an indefatigable worker. For years he made it a rule to see every undergraduate in the college once a week. He spared himself no efforts in tuition. Even as master of Balliol he continued the custom, begun in 1848, of taking a few pupils with him on the summer vacation. After 1866 his authority at Oxford was predominant in matters of university organization. He effected many needed reforms at Oxford, and exerted a large influence over the life and thought of his time. If he formed no school of philosophy or theology, by launching T. H. Green upon the study of Hegel he affected indirectly the whole development of recent speculation in England and America. As early as 1839 he had joined Stanley and Tait in the movement for university reform which led to the Commission of 1850 and the Act of 1854. He also took part in the educational reform which threw open the Indian civil service to competition and was a member of Lord Macaulay's committee, which reported in 1854. He was largely responsible for the University Tests Act of 1871, abolishing.the theological test, which had been required for the various degrees, and for college and university offices.
	The	literary achievement that made Jowet
famous was his translation of Plato's Dialogues (I
vols., London, 1871; 2d ed., 5 vols., 1875), which
has become an English classic, and, with the intro
ductory essay to the several dialogues, secures
Jowett a permanent place in the history of English
literature. He also translated Thucydides (2 vols.,
1881), and Aristotle's Politics (2 vols., 1885), and
spent many years on an edition of the Greek text
of the " Republic " (completed by L. Campbell, 3
vole.: Oxford, 1894). Though his work in theology
was important, it was rather of a transitional na
ture. Three volumes of his sermons have been
edited by W. H. Fremantle, viz., College Sermons
(London, 1895) Sermons, Biographical anal Mis
cellaneous (1899), and Sermons on Faith and Doc
trine (1901). Evelyn Abbott and Lewis Campbell
have edited his Letters (1899), and the latter a vol
		VL‑16
ume of Theological Essays (1906). The famous essay of Essays and Reviews, with the Dissertations from The Epistles of St. Paul and a sketch of Jowett's life by Sir Leslie Stephen from the National Review, 1897, is reprinted in The Interpretation of Scripture and Other Essays (1906) and also in Scripture and Truth, Dissertations, ed. Lewis Campbell (1907). Note also Select Passages from the Theological Writings of B. Jowett, ed. L. Campbell (1909).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Abbott and L. Campbell, Benjamin Jowett: Life and Letters of the Master of Balliol College Oxford, 3 vols., London, 1897‑99; L. A. Tollemache, Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol College, ib. 1895; DNB, Supplement, iii. 49‑56.
JOWETT, JOHN HENRY: English Congregationalist; b. at Halifax, Yorkshire, Aug. 25, 1864. He was educated in Hipperholme grammar‑school and in the universities of Edinburgh (1883‑87) and Oxford (1888‑89). His first ministerial charge was as minister of St. James' Congregational Church in Newcastle‑on‑Tyne, where he was settled from 1889 till 1895, when he was called to succeed Robert William Dale (q.v.) as minister of Carr's Lane Congregational Church in Birmingham, and has ever since ministered to that people. In the summer of 1909 he visited the United States and was a prominent speaker in the Northfield Conference. His publications embrace: From Strength to Strength (London, 1898) ; Meditations for Quiet Moments (1899); Brooks by the Traveller's Way: 26 Week‑night Addresses (1902); Thirsting for Souls: 26 Week‑night Meditations (1902); Yet Another Day: a Prayer for Every Day in the Year (1904); The Passion. for Souls (1905); The Epistles of Peter (1905); The Silver Lining (1907); The High Calling: Meditations on St. Paul's Letter to the Philippians (1909).
JUAN DE TORQUEMADA See TORQUEMADA, JUAN DE.
JUBILEE, YEAR OF: An institution of the Roman Catholic Church the origin of which is very closely connected with the tendency increasingly prevalent throughout the Middle Ages to make pilgrimages to the tombs of the apostles in Rome. Toward the end of the thirteenth century this tendency was stronger than ever, and the throng of pilgrims was increased by the rumor that on the first day of the new century a plenary indulgence might be obtained, and throughout the remainder of that year one valid for a hundred years. It was found impossible to trace the rumor to any authoritative source; but an aged peasant professed to remember that his father had gone to Rome a hundred years before to win a great indulgence, and
had admonished him to look, if he T2rA Alive, for
the recurrence of the opportunity a century later. Finally, Feb. 22, 1300, by the bull Antiquorum Wet fidem, Boniface VIII. officially proclaimed a plenary indulgence that might be gained from Christmas throughout the next year, on condition of visits paid during thirty days by Romans, fifteen by strangers, to the basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul. Such indulgences bad never previously been granted for more than seven years, and this liberal extension caused immense crowds to throng to Rome. If there had been no other cause for

Jubilee, Year of
Judas of Galilee
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
the maintenance of the institution, the large revenues which flowed from it into not only the papal coffers but the pockets of the townspeople would have been a reason to await eagerly the time of its recurrence. In 1342 the Romans sent a deputation to Clement VI. at Avignon to ask him to shorten the interval to fifty years. The request was supported by St. Bridget of Sweden and by Petrarch, and in response to it the pope proclaimed a similar indulgence for 1350. In spite of the Black Death and the obstacles offered by the Hundred Years' War, a greater multitude visited Rome than on the first occasion. The pilgrimage was rendered more desirable by the suspension for the year of all the ordinary indulgences, and easier by the permission given to all conditions of men to make it without obtaining the leave of their immediate superiors; while those who were lawfully hindered from taking the journey might gain the indulgence by proxy. An innovation to be later of great importance was the granting of the indulgence to certain royalties without pilgrimage; the same privilege was conceded to the Augustiniana assembled in chapter at Basel, and to the archbishop of Brindisi for thirty persons, these latter paying a sum equivalent to the coat of the visit to Rome. Urban VI. in the bull Salvator nester (Apr. 8, 1389) altered the period to thirty‑three years, in honor of the earthly life of Christ. The third jubilee was thus held in 1390, and the fourth in 1423 under Martin V., this time with diminished numbers and not without protests such as had been heard at the councils of Pisa and Constance against the impoverishment of the nations by the avarice of the Curia. Nicholas V., returning to the older period, proclaimed the fifth jubilee for 1450.
Through the bull Inefabilis (Apr. 19, 1470), having regard to the shortness of human life, Paul II. established the interval at twenty‑five years. The sixth jubilee under Sixtus IV. in 1475 was comparatively poorly attended. The seventh, under Alexander VI. (1500), was more important, and in connection with it the ritual since in the main observed for the opening and closing of the " golden door " in the vestibule of St. Peter's was settled. The eighth, under Clement VII. (1525), was only notable for the sharp criticisms of Luther on the " bull of indiction." The ninth, proclaimed by Paul III. in 1549, shortly before his death, could not be inaugurated until the coronation of his successor Julius III., Feb. 22, 1550. The tenth, under Gregory XIII. (1575), was rendered notable by the lavish hospitality offered to the pilgrims by the Roman sodalities, and by the fact that the influence of the Reformation is seen in there being no mention of money payments. The succeeding jubilees, at regular intervals of twenty‑five years from 1600 to 1775, present no special features. The troublous situation did not allow one to be held, in 1800, and the nineteenth, proclaimed by Leo XII. in 1825, found few participants from outside, of Italy. After a break of seventy‑five years, the twentieth was held with all the traditional ceremonies under Leo XIII. in 1900. For the Year of Jubilee among the Hebrews, see SABBATICAL YEAR AND YEAR OF
JUBILEE.	(T. KOLDE.)
242
BrsLroosArar: H. C. Lea. History' o1 Auricular Confession
and Indulgences, vol. iii.. Philadelphia, 1898: F. Beringer, Die Abuses, ihr Weaen and Gsbraue><, Paderborn, 1895; Creighton, Papacy, i 30 103, 113, 188‑187, ii. lib, iv. 79, r. g‑9, vi. 88‑7b; V. Prinsivalli, Gli anna sanCl. Rome, 1899; A. de Waal, Dos heilipe Jahr in Rom, Frankfort, 1899; J. C. Hedley, The Holy Year, London, 1900; H. Thurston, The Holy Year of Jubilee, ib. 1900.
JUBILEES, B00$ OF: See PsEUDErIaRerae, OLD TESTAMENT, IV., 33.
JUD, LEO: The moat prominent associate of ZwingH and after him of Bullinger; b. at Gemar (30 m. s.w. of Strasburg), Alsace, 1482; d. at Zurich June 19, 1542. He received excellent humanistic instruction at Schlettatadt, and in 1499 entered the University of Basel where he first studied medicine. Influenced by the lectures of Thomas Wyttenbach on the Epistle to the Romans, he devoted himself to theology, together with Zwingli, whose intimate friend he became. In the second decade of the sixteenth century he was preacher at St. Pilt in Alsace. In 1518 he succeeded Zwingli in Einaiedeln, where he worked for the Reformation in the spirit of Zwingli. In 1523 he became pastor of St. Peter's in Zurich. On the occasion of Zwingli's first disputation with the papists, Jud openly expressed his determination to preach the pure Gospel, and in the autumn of 1523 he married a nun. He assisted Zwingli much as Melanchthon did Luther, supporting him in his struggle against the Anabaptists, in the controversy on the Lord's Supper, and in his literary labors by editing his expositions of Scripture and translating his published works into German or Latin. On the death of Zwingli after the battle of Cappel he stood temporarily at the head of the Zurich Church, but the opposition party turned against him as one of the chief instigators of the war. Heinrich Bullinger, the successor of Zwingli, was assisted by him in the same unselfish and successful manner as was Zwingli.
Leo demanded the mutual independence of Church and State. The Church, he maintained, should not be hindered in the execution of its peculiar tasks, especially of discipline, to which, like Calvin, he attached great value. At the same time all compulsion in matters of faith should be abolished. In the efforts for union of the Lutherans and Reformed he defended Zwingli and Oecolampadiua against Luther and warned the Strasburg theologians of the " new pope." He took a prominent part in the discussions on the formulation of the first Helvetic Confession, in Aarau and Basel, and his German translation of the Latin original was declared the authentic text. He laid the foundation of the Zurich liturgy by his compilation of a formula of baptism (1523) and other parts of the church service. He, possessed extraordinary gifts as a translator and was the leading spirit in the translation of the Zurich Bible, which, beginning in 1538, he compared word by word with the original text, being assisted by Michael Adam, a converted Jew (see BIBLE VERSIONa, B, VIL, § 5). Besides this German translation of the Bible Leo rendered great services by his famous and careful Latin translation of the Old Testament which may be considered the principal work of his life. He published also a larger (1534) and a smaller cate‑

243	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Jubilee, Year of
Judas of GsWee
chism (1534) in German and a Latin catechism
(1538). He translated the " Imitation of Christ,"
Augustine's De spiritu et littera, and works of con
temporaneous authors. 	(EMIL EGLIt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Vita was written by his son Johannes, printed in Misceuanea Tigwina, Zurich, 1724; the later life is by C. Pestalozzi, Elberfeld, 1880. Conedt also: KL, vi. 1911‑14; J. J. Messer, Geschichte der deutaden Uebersefungen, pp. 67 eqq., Basel, 1876; 8. M. Jackson, Huldreach Zwingli, New York. 1903.
JUDAH (Hebr. Yehudhah; LXX, loudas, "praise," originally combined with the name of a deity, later a very common name among the Jews)
Fourth son of Jacob and Leah, coming, however, to occupy the place of the first‑born; also the leading tribe of the Hebrews, tracing descent from him. His character, in the combined narratives of J and E, while not without its faults, is on the whole noble, energetic and trustworthy, in spite of Gen. xxxviii., which is regarded as Ephraimitic in origin and consequently written with a bias. Later writers incline to the view that the name is not that of an individual but of a clan, and explain the Hirsh. of xxxviii. 1 as also that of a clan, extending the same notion to the names Er, Onan; Shelah, Pharez, and Zarah. But the narratives suggest rather the traits of an individual from whom the tribe inherited its energy and faithful adherence to law. Jacob's blessing (Gen. xlix. 8‑12) transfers the birthright of Reuben to Judah, passing over Simeon and Levi, and describes the lionhearted tribe of the future in its land of wine and milk. In Egypt the tribe became the largest in numbers, including three principal clans and two lesser clans (Num. xxvi. 20‑21; cf. I Chrop. iv. 1), while in Caleb (q.v.) there is seen a hon‑Israelitic tribe which coalesced with Judah. The genealogy in I Chron. ii. 3 sqq., is given with especial reference to the descent of David through Nahshon (verse 10, cf. Num. i. 7). The two censuses in the wandering give respectively 74,600 and 76,500 men (Num. i. 27, xxvi. 22), and the arrangement of the camp gives the primacy to Judah (Num. ii. 3), which the energetic Caleb led (Num. xiii. 6). After Joshua's death, the tribe took the leadership in the conflict with the Canaanites (Judges i., cf. xx. 18), though confining its operations to its own territory and that of Simeon, in the south.
The tribal possessions, described in Josh. xv. 112, were divided into four parts: the mountains of Judah, the eastern declivity down to the Dead Sea, the southern slope toward Edom, and the plain toward the Mediterranean, which last, however, remained in the hand of the Philistines (see JUDEA). During the period of the Judges, the tribe took little part in the conflicts of its northern neighbors (Judges iii. 9, xii. 8, cf‑ x. 9, xv. 9 aqq.). It had no share in the campaign against Sisera or in Gideon's struggle with Midian; in the former case because it was politically isolated from the Joseph tribes, though not to the extent asserted by Stade. Even in Saul's time it was not prominent in the army (I Sam. xi. 8, xv. 4), but with the accession of David its eminence began (II Sam. ii. 4). The capture of Jerusalem gave it increased prestige through its possession of a center of strength. Its fidelity was constant, and even in the return the
greater number of the returning exiles belonged to this tribe. Its greatest honor, however, consisted in its giving to the world the Messiah who, as the "lion of the tribe of Juda" (Rev. v. 5), overcame the world and established an eternal kingdom.
	For the history of the kingdom of Judah, see
ISRAEL, HISTORY OF. 	(C. VON ORELLI.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: In addition to. the literature given under AHAB; ISRAEL, HISTORY OP; and JUDEA, consult: L. B. Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, New York, 1901; G. A. Barton, Semitic Origins, pp. 271‑286, ib. 1902; DB, ii. 792‑794; EB, ii. 2617‑2623; JE, vii. 326‑330.
JUDAS, ju'das: One of the twelve Apostles. The name occurs in the New Testament only in the lists of the Apostles, yet, including the matter of the reading of the text, it raises several knotty problems. This Judas is to be distinguished from Judas Iscariot on the basis of John xiv. 22; and from Jude (Judas, Juda), the brother of our Lord (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3), on the basis of Luke vi. 16 and Acts i. 13 (" the brother [better, the son] of James "). The chief difficulty is raised by the fact that in two of the lists of Apostles the name of this Judas is omitted and apparently in its place is found either " Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus " (Matt. x. 3 A. V., a . conflate reading, cf. R. V., which, following the leading textual critics, omits " Lebbeus, whose surname was "), or " Thaddeus " (Mark iii. 18). Accordingly most scholars accept the identification of this Judu With Lebbeus and Thaddeus, though some have supposed that James had died and that his place was taken by Lebbeus‑Thaddeus. Of the career of Judas nothing is known except that he asked the question recorded in John xiv. 22. Yet a considerable mass of legend grew up (cf. Ada Thaddaei; see APOCRYPHA, B, II., 12) in connection with his mission (as Thaddeus) to Abgar (q.v.), in which confusion is apparent as to his relation to Jesus or perhaps as to his identity. Eusebius (Hilt. eccl., I., xii., NPNF, 1 ser., i. 99) makes him one of the Seventy (not of the Twelve), while Jerome (on Matt. x. 4, MPL, xxvi. 61) calls him an apostle. The later accounts professing to tell the story of his life and work have no historical value.
GEO. W. GILMORE.

JUDAS: A chronographer mentioned by Eusebius (Hi8t. eccl., vi. 7, NPNF, 2 ser., i. 254). In this passage Eusebius speaks of a certain Judas, otherwise unknown, who, in a tract on the " Seventy Weeks of Daniel," put forth some chronological reckonings on the basis of Daniel's prophecies, coming down to the tenth year of Septimius Severus (202), and predicting the speedy return of the Lord. Closer identification of the author is impossible.

G. KRt)GER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. $chlatter in TU, xii. 1 (1894); K. Erbes,
in TLZ, 1895, pp. 415‑418.
JUDAS OF GALILEE: The leader of a Jewish insurrection against the Romans, mentioned in Acts v. 37. According to Josephus (Ata., XVIII.,
i 6; War, II., viii. 1; cf. Ant. XX, v. 2; War, II., xvii. 8), when the taxing of the Jewish people in the governorship of Quirinius (q.v.) under Augustus aroused strong opposition, a certain Judas, born in Gamala but generally called " the Galilean,"

Judas Iscariot
Jude, Epistle of
with the	a Pharisee named Zadok, Qrgan
ized an insurrection which was based on religious
motives. The taxation emphasized the loss of
Jewish independence under Roman rule and of
their theocracy. The two sources (Gamaliel in
Acts, and Josephus) agree in viewing the insurrec
tion from a religious standpoint, though differences
of another sort appear. Gamaliel reports the de
struction of Judas and of his following, of which
Josephus says nothing. The latter connects the
outbreak with the fermenting zealotism manifested
later, in the outbreak under Gessius Florna, and
he is corroborated in this by the prominent part
taken by the sons of Judas in that outbreak. Of
this nothing is manifest in the speech of Gamaliel.
The chronological datum is the relation of the in
surrection to the taxing, put by Zahn in 4‑3 B.C.
(Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, iv. 1893, 633‑654, and
Einleitung in das Nette Testament, ii., Leipsie, 1900,
395 sqq.). The differences in the two accounts
prove that the author of Acts was here independent
of Josephus and drew from other sources.
(K. SCHMIDT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DB, ii. 795‑796; EB, ii. 2628‑30; JE, vii. 370‑371; Schiirer, Geachichte, i. 420‑421, et passim,
Eng. tranal., I., ii. 4, et passim.
JUDAS ISCARIOT, is‑car'i‑et: One of the twelve disciples, and the betrayer of Jesus. The references to Judas in the New Testament are: (1) Mention in the list of the disciples, Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 19; Luke vi. 16. (2) Occasional allusions, John vi. 70, 71, xii. 4, xvii. 12. (3) History of the betrayal, Matt. xxvi. 14‑16, 21‑25, 46‑50; Mark xiv. 10, 11, 18‑21, 42‑46; Luke xxii. 3‑6, 21‑23, 47‑48; John xiii. 2‑11, 18, 21‑30, xviii. 2‑9. (4) Account of his death, Matt. xxvii. 3‑10; Acts i. 16‑25. Only John writes the full name, " Judas Iscariot the son of Simon." The ordinary surname is Iscariot (Hebr. Ishkeriyyoth), " Man of [the village] Keriyyoth " (Kerioth, Josh. xv. 25), a place in northern Judea, the modern al‑Karyatain, south of Hebron.
The synoptic tradition is limited to a few chief details. It gives nothing from the earlier life of Judas, but begins about the time when the authorities in Jerusalem had determined to kill Jesus, and Judas engaged to betray him into their hands. Matthew and Luke do not imply that the betrayal was induced by anything more than the money offered or that opposition to Jesus was Judas' motive; indeed Judas appears as the instrument of higher powers‑notice the words of Luke, " Satan entered into Judas." The event was not unexpected to Jesus, since at the Last Supper he announced his coming betrayal by one of the twelve. While to the twelve this event seemed at the time most improbable, to Jesus it was not so and indeed was in keeping, in his view, with the divine purpose as expressed in the Scriptures and was a necessary means for the accomplishment of the divine plan. Consequently results followed not without the assistance of Jesus himself. While the leaders out of fear of a popular uprising would have let the feast go by, immediately after the Last Supper, at which Jesus had predicted the betrayal, Judas appeared at the head of a force furnished by the authorities. As Judas' question at the supper
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
244
had been answered with a categorical " yes," it appeared that Judas was fearful that his purpose was fully known to Jesus and, might be thwarted; the action of Judas was therefore hastened, while Jesus went to the place where he would be expected to go (Luke: " as his custom was") . It was then by the cooperation of Jesus that he was delivered to his enemies. The mildness with which Jesus received the betraying kiss suggests that the method of betrayal proceeded not from shameless effrontery, but from fear of an outbreak from Judas' codisciples. Even here Judas appears not as a consummate villain but as one who in consequence of an unhappy frailty was constrained to accomplish a revolting deed.
Compared with the synoptic narrative, the Johannine report seems to have been intended to supplement and add coloring; thus John does not report how Judas came to put himself at the disposal of the enemies of Jesus, but in the account of the anointing of Jesus (x. 1 sqq.) remarks that Judas was a thief. John (xiii. 27) and Luke (xxii. 3) both testify to the entrance of Satan into Judas, but John (xiii. 2) teaches that the way had been prepared though the height of evil conception had not been reached till the supper, that Judas was already predisposed to evil before the actual reception of the Satanic influence. John notes also that when, at the betrayal, Jesus met the force sent against him, Judas stood with that force and was affected as they were at the words of Jesus. John brings out into strong relief the thought that Jesus foreknew the treachery of Judas, that indeed in the choice of Judas as a disciple the fulfilment of Scripture by this means had been in mind, that the loss of this one from those whom the Father had given Jesus was also a matter of fulfilment of prophecy (xvii. 12), and that all this was but the carrying out of the will of God. Similarly John emphasizes the self‑surrender of Jesus in his cooperation with the plans of Judas.
The Gospel of Matthew in its interest in Messianic prediction carries the history of Judas further, but fully in accord with the supposition that Judas was not animated with hostility to Jesus, so that he attempted to return the price of the betrayal, and when it was not received, threw it on the ground and went away and hanged himself. This relation is to be brought into connection with the narrative in II Sam, xvii. and with another Old‑Testament passage regarded as Messianic. A variant account of the end of Judas is given in Acts i. 18‑19, which furnishes one of the problems of New‑Testament criticism to be solved by recalling that the central point in the speech of Peter was that a vacancy had occurred in the apostolic college which was to be filled. The essential difference in the two accounts is that in one case the purchase of the field is attributed to Judas, in the other case to the authorities. The narration by P$pias of the story of the end of Judas (of. Zahn in TSK, 1866, pp. 680‑689) had as its purpose the reconciliation of the two accounts.
(K. SCHMIDT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Excellent' critical discussions are found in
DB, ii. 796 sqq.; EB, ii. 2623‑2628.The older literature

245	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Judas Iscariot
Jude, Epistle of
is given in G. B. Wines. Bibliachm Realwbrterbuch, i. 635, Leipsic, 1847‑48. Consult further: Abraham a Sancta Clara, Judas der Erzacheim, in his Werke, Passau, 18351837; Zandt, Commentatio de Juda proditore, Leipsie,1769; E. Daub, Judas Ischardot, Heidelberg, 1816‑18; JE, vii. 371; and the literature on the life and passion of Jesus and commentaries on the Gospels and Acts.
JUDAS MACCABEUS. See HABMONEANB.
JUDE, EPISTLE OF: One of the seven General Epistles. The title ascribes it to Jude the brother of James, and nowhere does the epistle claim to be by an apostle; on the contrary, verse 17 gives the impression that the author was not of the Twelve. The James who is mentioned can hardly be any other than James the brother of the Lord, one of the three pillars of the Jewish‑Christian Church, while the Jude must be the Judas Juda) of Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3, a son of Mary and therefore not an apostle. It is noticeable that neither Jude nor his brother James in their epistles claims other than a spiritual relationship to Christ ("servant of Jesus Christ "‑and in a subordinate sense solely the mark of a becoming modesty). Between the epistles of James and of Jude there are many points of contact. The titles are so similar that the first verse of Jude seems a reminiscence of Jas. i. 1; both lack personal greetings and neither is directed to a local community, but rather each is meant for a wide circle of the Church and has the character of an encyclical, though of the two the epistle of Jude seems to have the larger scope, not being directed to " the twelve tribes " (Jas. . 1). With this large circle of readers (" them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ ") everything in the epistle agrees. The matters discussed are those in which the whole Church has interest; while the occasion might he local, the theme is general‑salvation (verse 3). The epistle, like that of James, is directed against a form of worldliness which might arise either from Jewish or heathen surroundings, and may have in mind a developed form of antinomianism. Jude has also in mind actual moral depravity against which he gives warning. The persons addressed live in carnal impurity, perhaps in unnatural sin, are sensual, behave unseemly at the love feasts, and are guided by their own lusts (verses 8, 10, 12, 16). While these are practical irregularities of life, false teaching is in view, and the hearers are exhorted to hold the faith (verses 3‑4), against those who turn grace into lasciviousness and deny God and Jesus Christ. The evils are also of a speculative nature (" dreamers," verse 8), out of which ethical evils arise. The teaching here guarded against is neither the Gnosticism of the second century nor Carpocratianism, though a sort of dualism is evidently put forward (verse 19), but evidently of the same sort as that in Paul's mind in the distinction between spiritual and carnal expressed in I Cor. ii. 14‑15. It is to be noted that the errors against which the writer speaks appear in the communities; they do not constitute a separate movement. They may be regarded as the incipient stages of what became types of Gnosticiam. The reports of Hegesippua of error which arose in the Christian Communities of Palestine,
the heresy of the Epistle to the Colossians, of the pastoral letters, and the teaching of Cerinthus, having a tinge of libertinism with its spiritualisticdualistic Jewish Christianity, all suggest a relationship with the errant teaching against which Jude speaks. While, then, error of a Jewish origin is suggested, there is also a reminder of a characteristically heathen form of sin as shown in the Corinthian libertinism denounced by Paul. And, once more, the error of the Nicolaitans (q.v.) is recalled by the deeds of the people against whom Jude gives warning. Such manifestations were a danger to the whole Church, and the epistle directs itself to this peril.
After the greeting (1‑2) and the preface (3‑4), follows the argument, which condemns teachers of error (5‑19); three examples of gross sin are cited from history and the punishment recalled (5‑7), the similarity of these historic cases with the present error is asserted (8), an example of moderation is given (9), and with it a description of the errant course (10‑13); punishment was predicted as long ago as Enoch's period and later by the Apostles (14‑19). An exhortation follows and then a magnificent doxology (20‑25). For the date of the epistle the employment of the Assumption of Moses (44 A.D.) and acquaintance with the Epistle to the Romans (cf. 24‑25 with Rom. xvi. 2;r27) set the higher limit. The terminus ad quem is not so easily fixed, but the time just prior to Domitian is the latest date to which it can be postponed, since according to Hegesippus Jude was not alive during Domitian's reign (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xx.). This assumes the genuineness of the letter, which is not strongly attested. The Muratorian Canon names the epistle, but not as written by Jude; Origen knows that it has been questioned; the early Peschito did not receive it and Eusebius reckons it among the Antilegomena; Jerome notes that it was rejected by most on account of its citation of apocryphal books. Yet it is difficult to account for an ungenuine letter being put forth in the name of a man whose repute was so small as that of Jude, the brother of our Lord, and it is noteworthy that the writer makes no pretension of being an apostle.
(F. SIEFFERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Possibly the best commentaries are by J, B. Mayor (with II Peter), London, 1907; and H. von Soden, Gtittingen, 1899. Others are by: W. Jenkyn (1612‑85), ed. J. Sherman, London, 1839; R. Stier, Berlin, 1850; M. F. Rampf, Sulzbach, 1854; F. Gardiner, Boston, 1856; J. T. Demarest (on the Catholic Epistles), New York, 1879; E. H. Plumptre (on Peter and Jude), in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1879; K. F. Keil (Peter and Jude). Leipsic, 1883; F. Spitta (on Peter and Jude),
Haile, 1$$5; A. F. Manoury (pp the Catholig Epistle,),
Bar‑le‑Due, 18$$; A. Plummer, in Expositor's Bible, London, 1891; C. Bigg (on Peter and Jude), Edinburgh, 19o1.
Questions of introduction are treated in the works on Biblical Introduction (q,v.) and on N. T. theology (e.g.,
W. Beyechlag, Edinburgh, 1896). Consult further: F. Maier, Des Judasbrief, seine Echtheit, Abfassunpazeit and Lam, Freiburg, 1906; E. Arnaud, Recherches critiques our 1 ept&e de Jude Strasburg, 1851; P, J. Gloag, introduction to the Catholic Epistles, Edinburgh, 1887; A. C. McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity' in as Apostolic Age, pp,
585‑588, New York 1897 Harnack, Litteratur, ii. 1, pp. 465.469; DR, ii. 799‑806 (minute and searching); EB, ii. 2630‑32.

Judea
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
T. The Name and the Territory.
History (¢ 1).
Boundaries of Judea Proper (¢ 2).
II. Detailed Description.
1. The Territory of Judah.
Limits, Population and Divisions (§ 1).
The Shephelah (§ 2).
JUDEA, ju‑df'a
The Hill Country (§ 3). Hebron (¢ 4). Mamre (¢ b). Other Cities of Josh. acv. (§ 8). Places Named in Later Records 0 7).
2. The Territory of Benjamin. General Description; Jericho (¢ 1). The First Group of Benjamite Cities (¢2).
I. The Name and the Territory: Judea is the terns applied from about 300 B.C. by Greeks and Romans to the land inhabited by the Jews. The limits of the country are to be gathered from passages in Nehemiah (iii, and vii.) and in I and II Maccabees. These reports, while not entirely accordant, yet supplement each other, and start from the point of view either of governmental rule, of tribal possession, or of relationship to the religious community. The boundaries are
	r. History.	fairly well indicated in Neh. iii.; on
		the south Bethzur marked the border,
in the north Bethhoron, and on the west Emmaus,
and these are approximately the limits implied in
the Books of Maccabees (of. the list of fortresses
" in Judea" in I Mace. ix. 50 eqq.). Under the Per
sians, as under the Greeks, this region shared the
fate of southern Syria. After the death of Alexander
the Great it fell into the hand of the Ptolemies (q.v.),
who held control of it almost continuously till 198
B.C. It was a part of the province of " Celesyria "
(I Mace. x. 69) or of " Celeayria and Phenice "
(II Mace. iii. 5). The inhabitants, on account of
their religion, were granted many privileges until
the time of Antiochus Epiphanea, but the payment
of tribute was enforced, if necessary, by the pres
ence of garrisons, a situation which the Maccabean
revolution brought to an end (I Mace. x. 25‑45).
The Greek name for this territory, lotvdaid, as well ~
as the adjective loudaios, is not to be derived from
the Hebrew Yehtidhi, but from the Aramaic Ye
hudhay (Ezra iv. 12; Dan. iii. 8). The earliest sure
traces of the use of this name are found at the end
of the fourth century B.C., contemporaneously with
the beginning of Greek control of the Orient. In
I Maccabees the usage is divided between the nor
mal Greek form and a Hebraizing form loads,
with a preference for the latter. As a result of the
Hasmonean uprising (see HesasoNEANS) the territory
was enlarged and the name had both a narrow and a
wider content. The extension of territory was be
gun by Jonathan, when in 147 B.C. Alexander
Bales gave to him the city of Ekron with its sur
rounding territory. In 145 B.C. Demetrius II.
added three districts in the north and west which
bad belonged to Samaria (I Mace. xi. 28, 34, 57),
named " Apherema, Lydda, and Ramathem " after
the names of their chief cities. Apherema is prob
ably the Ephraeim or Efraea of the Onomasticon
(ccliv. 118, cclvii. 121), about twenty Roman miles
north of Jerusalem; Lydda corresponds to the Lod
of the Old Testament (Ezra ii. 33); and Ramathem
was about nine miles northeast of Lydda and six
west of Thamna. The probable reason for this
grant was that the population was largely Jewish.
Soon after, Bethzur was taken away from the Sel
eucidee (I Mace. xi. 66), and in 142 B.C. Joppa was
The Second Group (§ 3). Other Places of Note (¢ 4).
3. The Judean Territory of Dan.
4. The Judean Territory of Ephraim.
b. Cities on the Western Plain.
ti. The Eleven Toparchies of Judea According to Joaephus.
taken and then Judaized (I Mace. xii. 33), and the same happened to Gezer (I Mace. xiii. 43 sqq.). John Hyrcanua took Medaba and Samega across the Jordan, also Samaria and Scythopolis, and in the south the territory of the Idumeans. Aristobulus conquered from the Itureana a part of their territory. Alexander Jannaeua annexed considerable territory across the Jordan and Raphia, Anthedon, and Gaza on the Mediterranean. In 63 B.C. Pompey restricted Judea to strictly Jewish territory. Herod came into possession of Samaria, Batanea, Auranitis, Trachonitis, and the region of the Jordan sources. During the first century of the Christian era the changes in apportionment of the territory were numerous. In the second century Judea came to be called Syria Palestma, and after the fourth century simply Palestine.. Joeephus distinguishes Judea from Samaria, makes Judea stand for the region under Hyrcanua or Herod, or for the district ruled by procurators after 6 A.D., or for the region granted to Vesp$aian. When he extends the use of the word, he uses the phrase " all Judea," equivalent to the " Canaan " of the Old Testament.
Judea as treated in this article is the smaller region as distinguished from Samaria, Galilee, and Perea, defined partly in Josephus and in the Talmud. Josephus (Ant. XIV., iii. 4) makes Koreas, the modern Karawa, the moat northern city, and includes the regions of Thamna, Gophna,
z. Boun‑ and Akrabattine (that is, the Akrab‑
daries of bein. of the Onomas;icon ecxiv.), while Judea Josephus draws the line of the northern
	Proper.	boundary through Anuath Borkaios,
		possibly the `Othnay of the Talmud.
The Talmud also locates Antipatria as a boundary
city, possibly the modern Kalat Ras al‑Ain north
west of Jaffa and north of Lydda. Whether Judea
at the beginning of the Christian era included a
part of the coast is doubtful. Joppa had been in
the possession of the Jews and Jamnia had a large
Jewish population, but the way in which Josephus
mentions these places (War, III., iii. 5) implies that
they were not regarded as strictly Judean. The
fact that the seat of Roman government was at
Caesarea does not involve that any portion of the
seacoast was properly within the territory of Ju
dea. The western boundary was not stable, vary
ing in different periods. Only at times was any
part of the Philistine territory under the Jews, as
when Gaza or Ekron or Ashdod was under Jona
than or Herod. On the south, Judea was bounded
by the toparchiea of Idumea and Engedi, but the
exact limits fluctuated. The eastern boundary
was the Dead Sea and the Jordan.
E. Detailed Description.‑1. The Territory of Judah: According to the Old Testament this re‑

247	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Judea
gion was inhabited by the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Dan, and a part of Ephraim. In spite of the exact details given in Josh. xv. 1‑12, the limits assigned to the tribe of Judah can not be determined for lack of identification of many places named in the passage. It is probable also that the boundary there given was not one which re‑
f. Limits, mained constant as separating the Population, tribes, and the limits assigned to the
Divigione. tribe and those of the kingdom of Judah may not be taken as equivalents. Still further, it must be remembered that in Joshua the limits are rather ideal than actual, as when the Mediterranean is given as the western boundary, a condition which was realized only in small part and not till the time of Alexander Janrreus and of Herod the Great, though the Philistines were at times tributary. The northeast corner, according to the passage, was where the Jordan enters the Dead Sea, and the boundary passed by Beth‑hoglah (Kasr Hajla) to Adummim (Talat alDamm), then by En‑rogel through the Hinnom valley on the west down to Kirjath‑jearim, and thence westward to the seacoast. In this OldTestament territory of Judah dwelt others than the members of the tribe, the chief city of which was Bethlehem. The three great families of the tribe, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah (Gen. xlvi. 12) are in part connected with the Canaanitic Shua and partly with Tamar (Gen. xxxviii.), which is perhaps identical with the city (or region) of Tamar on the border of the Negeb, inhabited by Kenizzite or Jerahmeehte affiliations‑the stock which furnished new life to the waning tribe of Judah. A part of the Danitea which remained in the south became incorporated into the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 33, xix. 41). Farther south dwelt the numerous families of the Calebites and Kenizzites in the region of Hebron, and still to the south the Kenitea and Jerahmeelites. While the Calebites appear in early times to have been a dominant family, this dominance was lost under David and the whole territory received its name from the principal element of the population at that time, though still later the Calebites came to the front again, until in the Exile the inroads of the Edomites pressed them northward and compelled them to seek homes in the neighborhood of the depopulated Jerusalem, where they became fully identified with the Judaic element. From the Edomitic intruders into the southern region that part received the new name of Idumea, and in Maccabean times Bethzur was on the boundary between the two regions.
The Passage in Joshua divides the whole region into four parts: the Negeb (q‑v.), the Shephelah, the hill country, and the desert (see PALESTINE). According to the original text of Josh. xv., the Shephelah had three groups of cities, according to the extended text, four groups, and a distinction is made between towns (protected by a wall), forty‑
2. The four in number, and villages. The $he~helah. fi‑Aroup (Josh. xv. 33‑36) includes fifteen, towns, of which the following are known: Eshtaol, identified by Gu6rin with Ashu`a on the basis of its earlier name Ashtu`al;
Zorah, possibly the Zarha of the Amarna Tablets; Zanoah, the modern Zanu'a; Adullam, identified by Clermont‑Ganneau with Khirbat `Id al‑Miya; Socoh is Shuwaika, on the south bank of the Wadi al‑Sant. The second group, of sixteen towns, is located to the west and southwest of the first, toward Gaza (verses 37‑41). Mizpeh is placed at the foot of the hills near the Wadi al‑Sant, westward from Shuwaika. Lachish is identified with Tell el‑Hesy, recently excavated, mentioned in the Amarna Tablets as an important Canaanitic center, and appearing in the Assyrian records and in the Books of Kings. Eglon is the modern Ajlan, and Labmas or Lahmam is the modern Lahm. The third group (verses 42‑44) of nine (Septuagint, ten) cities includes Libnah (known to Eusebius as Lobna in the neighborhood of Eleutheropolis); Keilah, located by the Onomadicon seven Roman miles east of Eleutheropolis on the Wadi al‑Sur (but this is in the highland, not in the Shephelah); Acbzib, placed by the same authority near Eleutheropolis and possibly the modern Ain el=Kazba; and Maresha, located two Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, possibly at Merash. On the fourth group, including Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza, see PHILISTINES.
The towns of the hill country of Judah are in the Hebrew text (verses 48‑80) divided into five groups, to which the Septuagint adds a sixth. The first group of eleven cities lay south from Hebron, southeast of Jibrin. Shamir is placed by Gu6rin at
Somara southwest of Hebron. The 8. The Oyticon locates Jattir twenty Ro‑
Hiu man miles from Eleutheropolis, the Qonatry. modern Attir; Socoh is Shuwaika north of Attir; Debir (Kirjath‑sannah or Kirjathsepher) was a royal Canaanitie city of some importance, possibly the modern al‑Dahariya; Anab is the present Anab, about three miles southwest of Debir; Eshtemoah may be al‑Samua east of Shuwaika; Anim is put by the Onomasticon nine Roman miles south of Hebron. The second group of nine cities lay north of the first group and includes Hebron (verses 52‑54). Arab appears in the Septuagint as Airem, but its location is doubtful; Dumah is represented by the modern al‑Doma north of al‑Dahariya, and is placed by Eusebius and Jerome Seventeen Roman miles from Eleutheropolis; Beth‑tappuah is the elevated village Taffuh, six miles west of Hebron in a wine‑growing country. It was in early times a fortress and was fortified in the Maccabean war (I Mace. ix. 50). The Onomaaticon makes it a boundary city between Palestine and Egypt.
Hebron was regarded as of considerable antiquity, built seven years earlier than Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt (Num. xiii. 22), and with this corresponds the notable part Hebron takes in the narratives

4. Hebron. concerning the patriarchs. It appears
as a city of the Anakites, who were of the race of the giants (Num. xiii. 33), and its old name was Kirjath‑arba, " fourfold city," explained in Jewish legend as the place of settlement of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam or Caleb. P in several passages locates the Hittites there. The Idumean inhabitants of the time of Josephus said that the city was older than Memphis in Egypt. The

Judea
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
concurrence of tradition makes it possible that Hebron was the oldest of the southern cities of Judah. Its situation in a defensible location and in a comparatively fruitful region makes the tray dition of its age still more probable, and to this is added that its site was on the principal roads which traverse the region, making it a center of commerce also. Hommel would connect the name Hebron with the ,Habiri of the Amarna Tablets (q.v.) as originally ,Habiran, i.e., town of the Habiri. According to Josh. x. 36 it was conquered by Joshua when at the head of all the people after the campaign against the five kings, but Judges i. 10 ascribes its conquest to the tribe of Judah alone. It was the home of the Calebites, and the narrative in Josh. xv. 13‑19 attributes to Joshua the gift of the region to them. The later history of Hebron is little known. It became the home of David and his company, where he was sought by the Judahites, and was his capital until the capture of Jerusalem, after which it lost its importance. The rebellion of Absalom began there, Rehoboam fortified it, in the time of the exile the Edomites reduced it and held possession of it till Judas Maccar beus took it in 164 B.c. The priest code made it one of the cities of refuge and the Chronicler regards it as Jewish at the time of Zerubbabel. The place on the site now identified as that of Hebron is called al‑Halil or Halil al‑Rahman, " Friend of the Merciful," in memory of Abraham, whose tomb is still pointed out in the neighborhood. According to Gen. xxiii. 9 sqq., the tomb was in a cave in Machpelah " before Mamre," and Mature is identified with Hebron in Gen. xxiii. 19; consequently the cave was to the east of the city. But this does not correspond with the present situation, since the greater part of the city is to the east of the tomb. But there are clear evidences that a hill to the west of the present city was in early times thickly populated, and that would correspond with the old Mature. The tomb is said to have received the bodies of Sarah; Abraham, Isaac, Rebecca, Leah and Jacob. Josephus speaks of a monument of the Abrahamic family in Hebron, of marble and beautifully worked, while the tomb was hewn out of the rock‑a description which agrees well with the Genesis account of the cave. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux (c. 333 A.D.) mentions a monument there, Antoninus Martyr (570 A.D.) notes a basilica with a court in the middle, which in the seventh century passed into the possession of the Mohammedans, the haram of the present city, the lower walls of which are old and built of large stones. The entrance is on the east, and between the inner and outer walls are two octagonal chapels in which stand the cenotaphs of Abraham and Sarah. The mosque itself measures some ninety feet by sixtyeight, and is divided into three aisles with nine vaults, the middle one containing the monument of Isaac and Rebecca. The cave in which were the graves of the patriarchs is asserted to be under the mosque, and it is regarded as double in form and has two entrances. The northern part of the haram area contains a number of modern grave monuments, and one of them contains the cenotaph of Jacob and Leah. What is called the tomb
248
of Joseph is in an addition built against the encircling wall at some time later than the crusades. The description of the interior is gathered from the observations of notables to whom the privilege of entrance has in recent years been granted through the special favor of the sultan, since admission to " unbelievers " is refused by the fanatical Moslems of Hebron. This favor was granted to the Prince of Wales (1862), the Marquis of Bute (1866), the Crown Prince of Prussia (1869), and Prince Albert Victor and Prince George of Wales (1882). The report based on examination next preceding that of these later observations was made by monks of the Latin Church in 1119 A.D., and stated that there were chambers under the mosque. The oldest part of the entire structure is the splendid encircling wall, and De VogU remarks upon the resemblance of the stones which compose it to those of the south wall of the haram in Jerusalem, rightly attributed to Herod the Great; the Pilgrim of Bordeaux knew such a wall, though Josephus says nothing about it. Some of the capitals of the columns have a Byzantine character and the inclusion of old parts in what is evidently more modern agrees with the statement of Samuel bar Simson (c. 1210 A.D.) to the effect that the sanctuary at Hebron was built 600 years before his time. The present Hebron, divided into seven quarters, has a population of some 19,000, of whom 1,500 are Jews having three synagogues, and the rest Moslems who display a specially fanatical spirit against all foreigners. The immediate region is fruitful, and some industries and considerable commerce are conducted there.
In connection with the Mature of Abraham are mentioned oaks or terebinths where the patriarch built an altar (Gen. xiii. 18); if Mamre is a location opposite the tombs of the patriarchs (Gen. xxiii. 19, xxxv. 27), there is a connection with a holy place. Gen. xiv. 13 speaks of Mature as a man, an Amorite
5. Mature. and brother of Eshcol and Aner. Eshcol is mentioned as a place (Num. xiii. 23 and elsewhere), possibly the modern Iskahal six miles northwest of Hebron. This representation in Gen. xiv. is now regarded as that of a later and special source, and is taken as less reliable than those which make these names apply to places and not individuals, especially as Aner is identified with the hill Na'ir in West Hebron and Mamre with Nimm in the northern part of the city. Yet it must be said that these identifications are uncertain and do not fit the data of the Old Testament. The Septuagint of Gen. xiii. 18 uses the singular in speaking of the oak, and this agrees with Josephus, Ant. I., x. 4, though the latter suggests the weaving of a myth about the place, and in Josephus, War, IV., ix. 7, mention is made of a large terebinth as old as the world situated six stadia from Hebron. Echoes of this sacred tree with its sanctuary come from the times of Hadrian and of Constantine; possibly the tree was destroyed under the latter emperor, as Jerome says that it was in existence while he was still a youth. A place which corresponds well is mentioned to itineraries, and this agrees with the present Ramat al‑Halil (" Ramah of Abraham") two miles north of Hebron east of the road to Jerusalem, where ruins suggest

249
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
an old sanctuary. Farther to the east are the remains of a large church, possibly those of the basilica built by Constantine. Traces of recollection of the tree in this locality were found as late as 1856. Since the thirteenth century there have been traces of a tradition of an Abraham's oak to the south, on a site possessed by the Russians. The differences in the traditions and locations assigned may be due to the fact that a grove or groves existed in the earlier times, which dwindled to a single tree perhaps as early as the time of the Septuagint.
The third group of cities of the hill country includes ten cities (Septuagint, nine), located east of the second and north of the first group. Maon, the modern Ma'in, appears as the home of the Calebite
Nabal (I Sam. xxv. 2), and on the site
8. Other are remains of walls, caves, and cis‑
Cities sh. v terns. The " wilderness of Maon"
(I Sam. xxiii. 24) was probably the region to the southeast. Carmel, a possession of Nabal, is the modern al‑Karmal, about seven miles south of Hebron. Ziph (I Chron. ii. 42; I Sam. xxiii. 19) corresponds with the present Tell Zif southeast of Hebron, while Josh. xv. 24 refers to another place in the Negeb. Juttah (Josh. xxi. 16) retains its name and lies south of Hebron, a large village whose inhabitants possess great herds of sheep. Jezreel is treated in a special article. Of the Gibea of this region no traces remain, though the Onmnasticon names it. The fourth group (Josh. xv. 58‑59) includes six cities situated north of Hebron. Halhul retains its old name, an important village five and a half miles distant from Hebron. Beth‑zur is regarded (I Chron. ii. 45) as Calebite, and in Neh. iii. 16 as a double district. It was an important fortress in the Maccabean wars, lying a little west of the road to Jerusalem, near a good spring where ruins attest the situation. Gedor, the modern Jedur, north of Beth‑zur, is mentioned in I Chron. xii. 7 and after the exile was inhabited by Calebites. Beth‑anoth (probably meaning " sanctuary of the goddess Anath ") is possibly the modern Bat Ainun, southeast of Halhul, where ruins still exist. The other places are unidentified. The fifth group is known only through the text of the Septuagint, and includes eleven places of which eight can be placed. Tekoa appears in Amos i. 1; II Sam. xiv. 2 sqq., xxiii. 26, and was often mentioned in the regal and post‑exilic periods. The present Tekua, nearly ten miles south of Jerusalem, contains ruins of a Christian church and cisterns and tombs. Ephrathah is in the Greek text equated with Bethlehem (cf. Gen. xxxv. 19), though there is doubt whether Ephrathah was not the name of a district. Peor, in the neighborhood of Bethlehem, corresponds with the present Faghur. Etam appears in I Chron. iv. 3 and II Chron. xi. 6, and corresponds with the modern 'Ain Atan. Kulon may be the present Kaluniyeh, northwest of jerusalem, on the road to Jaffa. Sores may be the present Saris, west of Jerusalem, south of the same .rod. Karem is possibly 'Ain Karim, four and a half miles west of Jerusalem. Bether is regarded as the true name for the Gibeon of Neh. vii. 25, the modern Bittir, six miles southwest of Jerusalem. The sixth
Judea
group (Josh. xv. 60) includes only two cities, Kirjath‑bawl (Kirjath‑jearim) and Rabbah, clearly west of Jerusalem. The name of the first varies in diferent passages. It was one of the cities of the Gibeonites, the ark remained there a long time, it was the home of the prophet Uriah, and after the exile was reckoned among the possessions of the Jewish community. While its direction from various places is in different passages given with apparent exactness upon the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, and according to the Onomasticon some nine or ten Roman miles from Jerusalem along the old road to Diospolis (Lydda), the exact location is still disputed. The last portion of the Judaic territory (Josh. xv. 61‑62) takes in " the wilderness," i.e., the eastern slope of the hills toward the Dead Sea. The Hebrew text mentions six cities, the Septuagint seven with very different names. Two of these are identified. The City of Salt lay probably in the Valley of Salt (II Sam. viii. 13), therefore to the south corresponding to Tell al‑Milh, about fifteen miles east of Beersheba. En‑gedi lay on the Dead Sea (Ezek. xlvii. 10), and, according to the Onomasticon, was a large village. The name corresponds with that of the present Ain Jidi on a terrace above the sea, near which are the remains of an old wall. It is identified with Hazazon‑tamar in II Chron. xx. 2, and was one of the places of refuge of David (I Sam. xxiv. 1).
This list of places belonging to Judah includes ninety‑four " cities," apart from those in the Negeb, but can not be supposed to be exhaustive. Thus the Adoraim of II Chron. xi. 9 does not appear, though it receives frequent mention in the later records. It is the modern Dura,
7. Places about six miles southwest of Hebron.
Named in Another is the Cozeba of I Chron. iv. Later
Records. 22. Later in the hi4OrY Othof cltie$
appear, like the Herodia of Herod the Great, sixty stadia south of Jerusalem, with its splendid buildings and its Herodium or tower. Immediately above the coast of the Dead sea and not quite ten miles south of En‑gedi was the fortress Masada, of great importance in Herodian times and in the first century, the site of which is placed at al‑Sabba, the ruins of which indicate partly Herodian origins and partly Roman. The ndrthern part of the wilderness of Judea was from the fourth till the seventh century inhabited by thousands of recluses and monks, but to‑day has only the single
monastery of Mar Saba (founded by Sabas c. 478 A.D.), where are some fifty Greek monks. The. names of fifty or sixty establishments for recluses or ascetics have been preserved which were located
between the De4( f, and thwater&d LS the
	e west. On the west slope of the hill country the city
of Eleutheropolis, very often mentioned in the on,
masticon, becomes known under its earlier name of
Bethgubrin, known still as Bet‑Jibrin. This city
became somewhat celebrated under Christian rule,

and the names of many of its bishops are on reoord. Its position was at the crossing of several roads between Gaza and Jerusalem, west of Hebron, near the ancient marasha. After the Arabian conquest it lost its significance, though it is mentioned several times afterward.

Judea
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
	2. The Territory of Benjamin : The part of
Judea which belonged to the tribe of Benjamin is
described in Josh. xviii. 11 sqq. Its southern
boundary coincided with the northern boundary of
Judah from the Jordan in the east to Kirjath
jearim in the west, its western boundary ran from
		Kirjath‑jearim to Beth‑horon, its
1. General northern boundary from Beth‑horon
Descrip‑
tion	to the Jordan by Bethel and Jericho,
	:	while the Jordan limited it on the east,
Jericho.
thus including a territory not quite twelve miles by thirty‑one. The region about Jericho was very fruitful, the eastern slope unproductive, the upland poor in water and infertile except the strip between Bethel and Beth‑horon. From the west and the north the country is not easily reached, and naturally its population was regarded as warlike and inclined to brigandage (Gen. xlix. 27). The account in Josh. xviii. employs earlier sources, but, when considered historically, raises many difficulties, especially in connection with political relations. The boundary between the two kingdoms fluctuated with the fortunes of the kingdoms themselves; probably the picture in Joshua registers the conditions after the time when the northern kingdom fell. Jerusalem seems to have been connected Nvith the territory of Benjamin, not that of Judah. The cities as described in the Joshua passage fall into two groups, one to the east of twelve cities (verses 2124) and one to the west of fourteen (verses 25r28). The chief city of the first group is Jericho, called also in some passages " the city of palm‑trees " (Dent. xxxiv. 3). The book of Joshua tells of the miraculous capture of the city and of its complete destruction by Joshua, as well as of his imprecation upon the man that should rebuild it. This last item does not agree with statements in Judges iii. 13; II Sam. x. 5; but I Kings xvi. 34 tells of its rebuilding and the realization of the curse by Hiel. A company of prophets made it their home in the time of Elijah and Elisha. It was inhabited after the return (Neh. iii. 2), Bacchides fortified it against Jonathan (I Mace. ix. 50), and in a fortress near by Simon the Maccabee was treacherously murdered. Herod secured possession of the city and beautified it, placing there one of his palaces, though his buildings seem to have been south of the ancient city site. In the time of Josephus the region was a very garden for fertility, watered as it was by the streams of the wady which debouched upon its plain. It was Herod's city at which Jesus rested on his last journey to Jerusalem (Matt. xx. 29), and the Onomasticon implies that it was destroyed at the fall of Jerusalem. A new city arose near by, where Justinian built a church, and this was destoyed either by the Persians or the Arabs. The Crusaders erected a city which soon fell into disrepair. In recent times a new era has come to it. The Jordan valley from the Sea of Tiberias to the Dead Sea belongs to the sultan personally, and one of his representatives resides at Jericho. The Russians have a church and a hospice there.
A second city in this group was Beth‑hoglah, on the boundary line, three Roman miles from Jericho and two from the Jordan, according to the Onomas‑
ticon. Betharaba lay on the plain of the Jordan,
but its site is not recovered. Zemaraim is prob
ably to be sought on the highland south of Bethel
(II Chron. xiii. 4). Bethel is the well‑known
		Betin, and the outlook corresponds
	2. The entirely with the requirements of Gen.
	First xii. 8, xiii. 3‑10, xxviii. 18, 22, though
	Group of the city of the name was necessarily
Beaisete apart from the sanctuary situated there
	Cities.	from which the city took its name.
It appears as on the boundary between Joseph and
Judah, and near it was the oak of weeping by
the grave of Deborah (Gen. xxxv. 8). This may
have been one of the oldest Yahweh sanctuaries in
the highland, and it was selected by Jeroboam as
one of the two great sacred places of his realm.
There or near by a company of the prophets had
its settlement (II Kings ii. 3 sqq.), and the priests
sent by the Assyrians to teach the people religion
dwelt there (II Kings xvii. 24 sqq.); Josiah des
troyed the sanctuary (II Kings xxiii. 15), and Bac
chides fortified the place in the Maccabean wars.
North of it is a singular group of stones which is
recognized by some scholars as a cromlech (Hebr.
Gilgal). Avvim is sometimes identified with Ai,
but without certainty. Para is identified with Fara,
a little over nine miles west of Jericho in Wadi Fara.
Ophra, probably the same as the place mentioned
I Sam. xiii. 17, the Ephron of II Chron. xiii. 19,
and the Ephraim of II Sam. xiii. 23, is mentioned in
John xi. 54 and Josephus, War, IV., ix. 9. Geba is
the Gibeah of I Sam. xiii. 16, the present Jeba, to
be distinguished from the Gibeath of Josh. xviii. 28.
	The second group of Benjamite cities includes,
according to the Hebrew, fourteen places, accord
ing to the Septuagint, thirteen (not all the same
as the Hebrew). Gibeon comes very often into
notice in the history of the people. It formed one
of a league of cities at the time of the conquest,
		and its inhabitants are called Hivites
	8. The	(Josh. ix. 7). It had a notable sanc
	seoond	tuary (I Kings iii, 4 sqq.), became one
	Group.	of the priestly cities, and by indications
from the Onomasticon is placed at al‑Jib about five
and a half miles north of Jerusalem, occupying the
northern peak of a twin hill. Ramah lay north of
Jerusalem and Gibeath, on the road that leads
northward, a border town between Israel and
Judah in the time of Ass. The tomb of Rachel
seems to have been in the vicinity (Jer. xxxi. 15).
The Onoma8ticon places it six Roman miles north
of Jerusalem, opposite Bethel, the modern al‑Ram,
the site of old ruins. Beeroth (" wells ") was one
of the places which joined in the league with Gibeon
(Josh. ix. 17), but was evacuated before the Ben
jamites (II Sam. iv. 3). The Onomasticon locates
it seven Roman miles from Jerusalem on the road
to Nicopolis which leads from Jerusalem by Gibeon
and Beth‑horon to the western plain. This suits bet
ter than the location of al‑Bira, eleven Roman miles
north of Jerusalem near Bethel. Mizpeh was forti
fied by Asa against the northern kingdom, and was
the residence of Gedaliah after 586 s.c. (I Kings
xv. 22; II Kings xxv. 23). It is frequently men
tioned in both the earlier and the later annals of
the people, and lay on the road from Jerusalem to

251	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Judes
Shechem, and, according to the Ononwsticon, near Kirjath‑jearim. Robinson places it at the lofty Nabi Samwil, two miles south of Gibeon, where is a village and a mosque said to contain the tomb of Samuel. In Byzantine times this was the site assigned to Rama or Ramathaim, and the Crusaders built here a church of St. Samuel, changed into a mosque by the Mohammedans. Chephirah is the modern Kafira, north of Kirjath‑jearim. Mozah is placed by the Talmud at the modern Kaloniye, near which is a Bet Mizza, which, however, does not fit the situation. Zelah is given (II Sam. xxi. 14) as the place of Saul's burial, but is unidentified. The Gibeath of Josh. xviii. 28 is not to be confused with the Geba of verse 24, but is to be placed near Ramah (ut sup.). The Kirjath of Josh. xviii. 28 is probably shortened from Kirjathjearim.
This list does not include all the cities which belonged to Benjamin. In the plain of the Jordan lay the sanctuary of Gilgal, often mentioned in both early and late annals. The Hebrew generally uses the article with the word, hence it is not a proper name, but signifies merely a " circle " (of stones). It was a locus of significant historical events at the conquest (Josh. iv.‑v.), and, according to the Onomasticon, lay two Roman miles from Jericho, between it and the Jordan.
4. Other The name lingers in the vicinity as
Places of Jaljul or ,Tiljuliye. Dok (Docus), a Note. fortress of Maccabean times (I Mace. xvi. 15) seems to be Ain Duk at the northeast foot of Jebel Karantal, preserved also in the accounts of the early Christian monasteries and as a Templar's fortress. I Sam. xiii‑xiv. brings into prominence a Michmash which reappears in post‑exilic times (Ezra ii. 27; I Mace. ix. 73); the name is preserved in the present Mahmas. North of this is the modern Makrun, which recalls the Migron of Isa. x. 28. Near the large village of Der Diwan is the site of Ai (Josh. vii.‑viii.), which reappears in history as Aiath or Ai (Isa. x. 28; Ezra ii. 28); the exact location is disputed. Northeast of Der Diwan is a rocky height called Rammon, which recalls the old Rimmon (Judges xx. 45). South of Jeba (ut sup.) is a village, Hizma, the name of which reminds of Azmaveth (Ezra ii. 24; Neh. xii. 29, cf. vii. 28, Beth‑azmaveth). Anata, an hour northeast of Jerusalem, suggests Anathoth (Jer. i. 1). Other place‑names are Laishah (Isa. x. 30), Almon (Josh. xxi. 18), and Bahurim (II Sam. xvi. 5). Two places on the Mount of Olives are often mentioned in the history of Jesus. Bethany was two and a half miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Jericho, on the eastern slope of the mountain, the modern al‑Azariya (" Place of Lazarus "), where the grave of Lazarus and the house of Martha and Mary are still shown. Not far from Bethany lay Bethphage (Matt. xxi. 1), the site of which was shown in the time of the Crusades between Bethany and the summit of the mountain. To the west or northwest must have lain Emmaus, the scene of the events told in Luke xxiv. 13 sqq., which the textus receptus places sixty furlongs from Jerusalem but Codex Sinaiticus 160 furlongs. Josephus (War, VIL, vi. 6) mentions a place of the name thirty furlongs from the city, while the Crusaders in 1099
knew of a Castle of Emmaus which is identified with the modern al‑Kubaba, about sixty‑three furlongs from Jerusalem. Hitzig and Sepp located Emmaus at Kaluniyeh, called in the Talmud Mosa, thirty‑four furlongs from the capital. Somewhere within the territory of Benjamin should be placed the grave of Rachel. Gen. xxxv. 16, 21 reports that Rachel died between Bethel and the tower of Eder (Jerusalem) on the road to Bethel, north of Jerusalem, with which agrees Jer. xxxi. 15. On the other hand, Gen. xxxv. 19, x1viii. 7 connect the grave with Ephrath or Bethlehem,‑where the tomb is still shown. But Schick has shown that the Mohammedan sanctuary Kubbat Abd al‑Aziz, northwest of Jersualem, is also called Kubbat Rahil and corresponds better with the earlier data.
8. The Jude= Territory of Dan (Josh. xix. 4046) : Though the boundaries are not given, it is known that the eastern boundary coincided with the western boundary of Benjamin, its southern border with the western part of the north boundary of Judah, and its northern limits extended to the southern boundary of Ephraim from Beth‑horon by Gezer to the sea, reckoning Joppa as part of the territory of Dan. Judges v. 17 places Dan on the coast, i. 34 states that the Amorites forced them back, and chap. xviii. tells of a migration of 600 men to near the sources of the Jordan, while elsewhere places are assigned to Dan which some other parts of Scripture give to Judah or Ephraim. This is the case with the first two towns on the list, Zorah and Eshtaol. Ir‑ahemesh is the same as Beth‑ahemesh, a place which is often named in the history, is put by the Onamasticon east )f the tenth milestone on the road to Eleutheropolis, and agrees with the modern uninhabited Ain Shams, where ruins are still to be found, on the south side of the Wadi al‑Surar. Shaalabin (Shaalbim, judges i. 35) has been located, probably wrongly, at Selbit, southwest of Beth‑horon. Aijalon appears in the history often as a fortress, also as a city of refuge and Levitical city, and as belonging either to Ephraim or Benjamin. The Onomasticon locates it two Roman miles east of Emmaus‑Nicopolis, the modern Jalu two miles east of Amwas. The plain of Aijalon lies to the north of the village. Timnah is probably the same as the Timnah of Josh. xv. 10, west of Beth‑ahemesh, and in the history is connected with the Philistines and with the campaign of Sennacherib in 701 B.C. Ekron is the wellknown city of the Philistines, which in Josh. xv. 45 is reckoned to Judah. Eltekeh, a Levitical city (Josh. xxi: 23), corresponds to the Altaku, where Sennacherib overthrew a hostile army, but its site is not known. Gibbethon, also a Levitical city, is not identified. Jehud is located at al‑Yehudiya, north of Lydda and east of Jaffa , while Bene‑berak
is Ibn Ibrak near Jaffa. Westward of Jalu is the little village Amwas, the name of which corresponds to Emmaus, a place often in question in the Maocabean wars, situated on the western edge of the highland, known as Nicopolis about 250, often mentioned in the Onomasticon. Gezer (q.v.) is named Josh. x. 33; Judges i. 29; I Kings ix. 15‑17, and often elsewhere, is called one of the border cities of Joseph, and appears as belonging to Ephraim,

Jude
Judge
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
252
as a Levitical city, of importance during the Davidic and Maccabean wars, and is located by Clermont‑Ganneau four miles west of Amwas at Tell al‑Jezar.
4. The Judean Territory of Ephraim: The most northern part of Judea as already defined took in a part of the territory of Ephraim, the rest of which was reckoned to Samaria. There is no list of the places in this region, but of many cities there is incidental mention. Josephus mentions Phasaelis, a town in the Jordan valley built by Herod in honor of his brother Phasael, the name of which survives in that of the village Fazail, south of the hill Kam Sartaba. The fortress Alexandrium crowned the summit of this hill and was of importance in the war of Pompey. Akrabatta is mentioned,by Josephus (War, III., iii. 5) and in the Onomasticon: it is the modern Akraba. Janoah of Josh. xvi. 6 corresponds to the present Janun, north of Akraba. Borkaios, mentioned by Josephus (War, III., iii. 5) as on the boundary between Judea and Galilee, is possibly the heap of ruins at Barkit, in Wadi Ishar. To the southwest of this is al‑Lubban, corresponding to the Lebonah of Judges xxi. 19. Farther southeast is Sailun, which points to the old sanctuary of Shiloh, apparently destroyed in the Philistine war, since the descendants of Eli (II Sam. xxi.) went to Nob; yet the priestly document regards Shiloh as the place of the Tabernacle. The Onomaaticon locates Shiloh ten Roman miles from Neapolis: it was north of Bethel and east of the road to Shechem. To the west of the road and southwest from al‑Lubban lies Jiljilya, recalling another othe places called in the history Gilgal. Farther to the south lies Ain Sinya, the Jeshanah of II Chron. xiii. 19, and near by is Jifna, which suggests the Gophna of Josephus, War I., xi. 2. To the northwest is the heap of ruins called Tibna, perhaps the Thamnatha of I Mace. ix. 50, known also from the Onomasticon, which locates there the tomb of Joshua (the Timnath‑heres of Judges ii. 9). Not far to the north of this is Rima, possibly the Ramah of I Sam. xvi. 13, the Ramathaim of I Sam. i. 1, the Ramathem of I Mace. xi. 34, and the Arimathea of Mark xv. 43. But the Onomasticon locates it toward the modern Rentis (6 m. w. of Tibnah). The two Beth‑horons of the Old Testament (Josh. xvi. 3, 5) are located farther to the south at Bait Ur al‑Puka and Bait Ur al‑Tahta. The upper Beth‑horon, by reason of its commanding the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea and the cast, was of high importance in all periods and is mentioned prominently in the accounts of the wars from the time of Joshua to the Roman period. At al‑Midya, on the plain northwest of Beth‑horon, is ordinarily located the home of the Maccabees, the Modin of I Mace. ii. 1, xiii. 25, with its seven pyramids to the memory of the members of that family.
6. Cities on the Western Plain: There were other places in the plain west of the highland which in later times were reckoned to Judah, but do not appear in the lists of places given in Joshua. Indeed, the assignment of the places named in the Joshua lists is not entirely concordant with that of other passages. Doubtless the possession of these places
on the plain was often contested with the Philistines. So was it with Gimzo (II Chron. xxviii. 18), the modern Jimzu north of Gezer. The Hadid of Ezra ii. 33 may be the Aditha of the Onomasticon, east of Diospolis, the present al‑Hadithe, and perhaps the Adida of I Mace. xii. 38. Lod, mentioned with Hadid in the Ezra passage, is the Greek Lydda, is often assigned in the Old Testament to the Benjamites, was ceded with its outlying region to Jonathan the Maccabee by Demetrius (I Mace. xi. 34), and was an object of strife between the Jews and the Romans. It is mentioned in Acts ix. 32 sqq., and after the destruction of Jerusalem became the residence of Jewish scholars, for example, of Rabbi Eliezer. In the third century it took the name of Diospolis and became thereafter the seat of a bishopric. The legend of St. George was localized here. The present Ludd is a town inhabited by Mohammedans and Greeks, not far from the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa. Ono, also mentioned in the Ezra passage, may be the modern Kafr Ana, five and a half miles northwest of Ludd. On the northern boundary of the later Judea lay Antipatris, a city built and named by Herod in honor of his father: it is mentioned Acts xxiii. 31. The pilgrim of Bordeaux locates it ten Roman miles north of Lydda, the Onomasticon six miles south of Galgulis, the modern Jiljuliya in the plain northeast of Jaffa. A passage in Josephus would suggest Kalat Ras al‑Ain as the site. Ten miles north of this is Kafr Saba, recalling the Chaberzaba of Josephus (Ant. XIII., xv. 1).
8. The Eleven Toparchies of Judea According to Josephue: In War, III., iii. 5 Josephus names as the first district of Judea Jerusalem with its vicinity. The others are (2) Gophna, (3) Akrabatta, (4) Thamna, (5) Lydda, (6) Emmaus, (7) Pella, (8) Idumea, (9) Engedi, (10) Herodium, and (11) Jericho. Pliny (Hist. naturalis, V., xiv. 70) names ten, including 2‑6 and 10‑11 above, and gives in addition to these Jopica (Jaffa), Betholethephene, and Orine. The last includes the district of the capital. Josephus mentions a Betholethepha (War, IV., viii. 1), which is probably the present Bait Nattif west of Bethlehem on the edge of the highland and the Netophah of Ezra ii. 22 and other OldTestament passages. Therefore Pella above seems to be replaced by Betholethepha. Pliny was in error in assigning the region of Joppa to Judea, since it was independent. For the coast region which abutted on Judean territory see PHILISTINES; and PHENICIA, PHENICIANB. (H. GUTHE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY Literature on the history is given under AHAB; ISRAEL, HISTORY OF; to which add: H. Kosters, Het Herstel van Israel, Leyden, 1893; H. Willrieh, Juden and Griechen vor der makkabddschen Erhebung, GSttingen, 1895; E. Meyer. Die Entstehung des Judentums, Halle, 1896. For the geography much of the literature given under Jerusalem is available. Of peculiar value are the works of RShricht, Tobler, G. A. Smith, E. Robinson, W. M, Thomson, and Reland, as well as the publications of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, described in vol. i., p. 13 of this work, and the publications of the Soeidtd de 1'orient Latin, ed. T. Tobler and A. Molinier, Geneva, 1877‑80. The following publications of the PEF are of importance: The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs, vols. ii, iii., 1882‑83; Thirty Years' Work, 1895; C. Clermont‑Gannesu, Archreological Researches, 1896‑99; G. Armstrong. Names and Places in the Old and Neu, Testa‑

258	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Tudes
ments and Apocrypha; the Quarterly Statements; and, of their maps, the Great Map of Western Palestine, the PhotoRelief Map of Palestine, and the Raised Map of Palestine. Indispensable are: Onomastics sacra, ed. P. de Lagarde, GBttingen, 1887; A. Neubauer, La GEographie du Talmud, Paris, 1868; V. Gudrin, Description de la Palestine, i.‑ii., Paris, 1868‑75. A very convenient check‑list of placenames is given in P. Thomsen, Loca sancta. Verzeichnis der im 1.‑B. Jahrhundert eru~dhnten Ortschaften Pal&tinas, vol. i., Halle, 1907; cf. idem, Systematische Bibliographic der Palastina‑Literatur, Leipsic, 1908. A considerable Literature of travel may be found in J. F. Hurst, Literature of Theology, pp. 119‑130, New York, 1896. Consult further: C. Ritter, Comparative Geography of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula, iii.,174‑350, Edinburgh, 1866; G. Ebers and H. Guthe, Paltistina in Bild and Wort, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1881‑83; F. Buhl, Geographic des alien Paltistina, Tiibingen, 1896; F. J. Bliss, Development of Palestine Exploration, New York, 1906; DB, ii. 791‑792; EB, ii. 26162623; K. Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, Leipsic. 1906.
On Hebron consult: M. de Vogii6, Macp6la ou tombeau des patriarches d Hebron, Lausanne, 1869; E. Pierotti, Macpela ou tombeau des patriarches k Hebron, ib. 1869; E. Rosen, in Berliner Zeitschrift fiir allgemeine Erdku‑‑de, xiv (1863), 369‑429, xv (1864), 160‑162; idem, in ZDMG, xii (1858), 477‑513; H. Guthe, in ZDPV, xvii (1894), 238 sqq. On Gilgal: H. Zsehokke, Beitrdpe zur Topopraphie der westlfchen Jordanaau, Jerusalem, 1866. On Bethphage: C. Clermont‑Ganneau, in Revue archeologique, December, 1877. On Emmaus: H. Zschokke, Das neuteatameneliche Emmaus, Schaffhausen, 1865; M. J. Schiffers, Amwas, dos Emmaus des heilipen Lucas, Freiburg, 1890; H. Guthe, in ZDPV, xvi (1893), 298 sqq. On Mizpeh: P. A. Raboisson, Les Maspeh. nude de giographie exe0tique touchant lea difjerentes localiMa de ce nom, Paris, 1897. Also see GEZER.

JUDGES.
I. The Office. 	1. Conservative View.
General Concept (§ 1).	Divisions; the Narrative
Character of the Period 	(§ 1).
(§ 2). 	Critical View Rejected (§ 2).
History of the Period (§ 3). 2. Critical View.
Chronology of the Judges Analysis (§ 1).
	(¢ 4).	Idealizing (§ 2).
II. The Book. 	The History (§ 3).
	I. The Office: Judges (Hebr. t:hopheim) was
the name applied to the rulers of Israel at the time
described in the book of Judges (see II. below).
They find their analogues in the "judges " of the
Tyrjans (Josephus, Apion, j. 21) and in the Cartha
		ginian sufetes (Livy, xxviii. 37, xxx.
	i. General	7); they must not be regarded, how‑
	Concept.	ever, as heads of regularly organized
		states, but rather as dictators who,
having first evidenced their capabilities by their
prowess, naturally became the leaders of a tribe
or group of tribes. In time of peace their function
was primarily the decision of cases which could not
be settled by the "elders "; and some of them,
such as Deborah (Judges iv. 4) and Samuel (I Sam.
vii. 6), were judges by virtue of their prophetic gifts
even before they became the liberators of their
countrymen; while others, as Samson, seem never
to have delivered judgment. The name, however,
was borne by the rulers of the Israelites from the
conquest of Canaan by Joshua to the establish
ment of the kingdom, with the exception of Abime
lech,the son of Gideon, who seems to have had the
title of king (Judges ix.).
The character of the period of the Judges is outlined in the introduction to the book of Judges, especially ii. 10 sqg. After the subjection of the chief Canaanjtjc Peoples, the Israelites had relaxed their energies, and had entered into friendly rela‑
tions in many cases with their former foes. The result was an oppressive subjugation of the Israel‑
ites, until they remembered God, who
s. Charac‑ raised up judges to deliver them.
ter of the Nevertheless, as soon as a judge passed
Period. away, his influence vanished, and the
people returned to their coquetry with the surrounding nations, again falling into political and spiritual bondage. The period was also characterized by a centrifugal tendency both in national and religious life. It was the time when the tribes enjoyed the greatest freedom, and only when mutual perils united them did they recollect their common origin and invoke their common God. The tendencies of the time thus powerfully favored the confusion of the worship of Yahweh and Baal, as well as of other gods whose symbols, oracles, and cult were openly adopted; but, on the other hand, the horrors resulting from gentile immorality were washed out in blood (Judges xix.‑xx.), and faith prompted the vows of mighty sacrifices (Judges xi. 31; I Sam. i. 11). In like manner, low though the culture of the Israelites sank during this period of storm and stress, the power of the nation was still strong and unbroken. It was an age of heroes, not only physical but moral, finding exemplification in the Song of Deborah, the fable of Jotham, and the humor of Samson. Nor was the disunion of the Israelites at this period, as some maintain, a preliminary to their development as a nation, for the Song of Deborah itself clearly shows a strong consciousness of the religious and national homogeneity of the tribes.
The period of the Judges was opened by an eight years' subjugation of Israel by Chushan‑rishathaim of Aram‑naharaim (Judges iii. 8), apparently a king of the Mitanni (A. H. Sayee, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 297, 304, London, 1894) who repeatedly sought to establish themselves in
Canaan against Egypt. The Israel‑
i. History ites were delivered from this yoke by of the Othniel, the son of Kenaz, who dwelt
Period. in the south (Judges i. 12‑13), after
which there followed forty years of peace (Judges iii. 9‑11). During this period of repose, two events happened which, although related at the end of the book of Judges, can not have taken place long after Joshua's death: the migration of a portion of the tribe of Dan, prevented by the hostile Amoritea from occupying their territory along the sea (Judges i. 34), to the north, where they founded the city of Laiah, or Dan (the modern Tell akKa,di, west of Banias), and introduced an idolatrous cult (Judges xviii.); and the w8r of revenge on Benjamin for the outrage committed in Gibeah (Judges xix.‑xx.~. Others, however, place both these events before the Mesopotamian invasion (cf. Joaephus, Ant. V., ii. 8 sqq., iii. I); but there is no ground for the view that these episodes are later interpolations. After the death of Othniel at the expiration of the forty years' peace, the Israelites were again subjugated for eighteen'

years by the combined Moabitea, Ammonites, and Amalekites, until the Benjamite Ehud killed the

Moabite King Eglon (Judges iii. 12 sqq.). Eighty years of peace followed, after which the Israelites

Judges	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	2$4
were subject for .twenty years to the Canaanitic Jabin and Sisera, to which period belongs the heroic deed of Shamgar, which freed a portion of the land from the oppression of the Philistines (Judges iii.. 31; cf. v. 6). Relief from their bondage, which by some is held to be Hittite, was brought to Israel, especially in the north, by the prophetess and judge Deborah, who roused Barak to war against Jabin and Sisera (Judges iv. 2 sqq.); though the tribes east of the Jordan, as well as Dan and some on the sea, took no part in the struggle for freedom (Judges v. 15 sqq.); while Judah seems to have been prevented from cooperating by its own war with the Philistines. Another forty years of peace ensued; but then the Midianites and other nomadic tribes invaded the plain of Jezreel, oppressing the Israelites for seven years, until they were driven out by Gideon (Judges vi.‑vii.). Gideon piously declined the proffered kingship (Judges viii. 22 sqq.; but after his death his unworthy son Abim6lech brought misfortune on his house (Judges ix.). Abimelech was followed by Tola, of the tribe of Issachar, who ruled twenty‑three years (Judges x. 1 sqq.), and by Jair, a Gileadite, who was judge twenty‑two years (x. 3‑5). With the death of Jair, Israel was oppressed on the east by the Ammonites and on the west by the Philistines. The former, after oppressing Israel eighteen years, were conquered by Jephthah (Judges x.‑xi.), who was also later involved in a civil war with the tribe of Ephraim (Judges xii. 1 aqq.). He ruled in peace only seven years, and was succeeded by Izban of Bethlehem (seven years), Elon, a Zebulonite (ten years), and Abdon, an Ephmimite (eight years; Judges xii. 8 sqq.). After their rule, the Philistines oppressed Israel forty years (Judges xiii. 1), their deliverer being the hero Samson (Judges xiii.xvi.). The power of the Philistines revived, however, in. the latter part of the judgeship of Eli, who ruled forty years (I Sam. iv. 18), and they were crushed only by Samuel and the kings anointed by him. The thread of the book of Judges breaks off with the death of Samson, and, although Eli is said to have " judged " Israel, and the same is stated concerning Samuel (I Sam. vii. 6, viii. 1 sqq., xii. 1 sqq.), they form the transition from the judges to the kings.
The chronology of this period is difficult. The period given by the book of Judges from the subjugation by Chushan‑rishathaim (Judges iii. 8) to the death of Samson (xvi. 31) is 410 4. Chronol‑ years; but this is far too long when ogy of the compared with I Kings vi. 1, which
	judges.	gives only 480 years for the time from
		the Exodus to the commencement of
the Temple in the fourth year of the reign of Solo
mon, including the forty years in the wilderness,
the equal length of David's reign, and the unknown
duration of the rule of Samuel, Saul, etc. The best
explanation of these conflicting data seems to be the
synchronization of Judges x. 8 sqq. with xiii. 1 sqq.,
thus placing the oppression by the Philistines at the
same time as that by the Ammonites, and regarding
Samson as the contemporary of Jephthah, Ibzan,
Elon, and Abdon; with a resultant reduction of
the 140 years to about 360 (cf. Judges x. 6 sqq.;
the figures in Judges xi. 26 would then be round numbers). It is also tempting to assume a further synchronism between the forty years' oppression by the Philistines (Judges xiii. 1) and the rule of Eli and the early part of Samuel's judgeship, thus reducing the period to about 340 years. See TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OF.
II. The Book: 1. Conservative View: In its present form this book is relatively late, although its oldest sources date from the events they describe. It falls into three parts: an introduction (i.‑iii. 6); the main portion, a unified narrative (iii.
	1. Divi‑	7‑xvi.); and two additions (xvii.‑xxi.).
sions; the The introduction treats of the general
Narrative. condition of Israel after the death of
		Joshua and gives the underlying re
lation of the stormy events of the period, together
with the occupation of the land by the tribes (i.)
and their impious toleration of the former inhabi
tants (ii. 1‑5). In ii. 6 the thread of the narrative
is taken up, with a preliminary prophetic descrip
tion of the period (ii. 6‑23). A list of the peoples
still unsubdued is given in iii. 1‑6, this passage be
ing by another hand. Nevertheless, it is clear that
the redactor deliberately planned the introduction
in its present form, and that he interwove fragments
of other historical writings wherever he thought
best, doubtless drawing from some source common
to Judges and Joshua (cf. Judges i. 10‑15 with
Josh. xv. 14‑19; Judges i. 20 with Josh. xv. 13;
Judges i. 21 with Josh. xv. 63; Judges i. 27‑28 with
Josh. xvii. 11 aqq.; Judges i. 29 with Josh. xvi.
10). The main portion narrates six great events,
the heroes of which are Othniel, the conqueror of
the Arameans (iii. 7 aqq.); Ehud, the liberator
from the Moabites (iii. 12 sqq.); the victory of
Deborah and Barak over Jabin and Sisera (iv.‑v.);
Gideon and his sons (vi.‑ix.); Jephthah's victory
over the Ammonites (x. 6 sqq., xi.‑xii.); and Sam
son, the hero against the Philistines (xiii‑xvi.).
Six other judges are also briefly mentioned. The
two additions on the sanctuary at Dan (xvii.
xviii.) and the war against Benjamin (xix.‑xxi.)
seem to have been written by one who lived in the
flourishing period of the kings (cf. xviii. 1, xix. 1,
xxi. 25).
	It is assumed by the majority of modern scholars
that the redactor of the book of Judges had two
systems of chronology before him: one of genera,
tions of forty years each; and the other of smaller,
		but more accurate, figures. These
2. Critical two systems were then interwoven,
View the smaller being assumed to refer to Neiected. the periods of subjugation, and the larger to the rules of the judges. But the problem is still unsolved, although it would seem that the apparently over‑long period arose from the addition of contemporaneous periods, and that the number forty is only approximate. The critical school has assailed not only the chronology, but also the historicity of the book of Judges. Thus Othniel, Ehud, Tola, Jair, and Elon are resolved into " eponymous heroes "; but in no case is the evidence favorable to the theories of this school. On the contrary, the book gives an impression of relative unity and independence; nor

255	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Judges
is it to be regarded as an extract from some larger
work, extending ,from Joshua's death (or from the
Creation) to the Exile. Equally untenable is a
derivation of the book from J and E, and their
combination into JE. Since, on the other hand,
the Deuteronemic redactor was not the first to
combine the accounts given in the book, the ques
tion of its date admits of no single answer. The
redactor doubtless lived in the period of the later
kings; but there is no evidence to show that the
book belongs to the exilic or post‑exilic period.
Textually the book of Judges is one of the best
preserved of all the historical writings. Never
theless, a comparison with the versions, especially
the Septuagint, shows noteworthy variants, espe
cially in proper names. So ancient a fragment as
the Song of Deborah naturally gives more scope
to textual criticism, although here also great cau
tion is necessary. 	C. VON ORELLl.
2. Critical View: A cursory reading of the book of Judges shows that it consists of two main elements, one of these containing stories and histor‑
	1. Analy.	ical notices without comment, and the
		other comprising detailed narratives
		with an explicit or implicit commen
tary on the events described. The latter, com
prising most of the book, extends from iii. 7 to
xvi. 31, and has a prefatory note containing the
moral of the history (ii. 6‑iii. 6). It is this main
portion which not only gives character to the book
as a whole but also explains its aim and motive.
It is written to show, in the Deuteronomic spirit,
the course of Israel's history before the movement
began which ended in the founding of the king
dom‑how fidelity to Yahweh and his command
ments was invariably attended by prosperity, and
how calamity, especially by the inroads and op
pressions of national enemies, surely followed false
worship and impiety, according to the principles
laid down in Deut. xxviii. All the lives of the
" Judges " are narrated in this principal section.
The introduction (i. 1‑ii. 5) is quite different in
character and style, not only running parallel to
portions of the book of Joshua (see JOSHUA, Boog
or) but actually giving a divergent account of the
conquest of the Canaanites. Quite different also,
and falling as clearly without the sphere of the
Deuteronomistic compiler, are the last five chap
ters (xvii.‑xxi.) which, narrate important events
belonging to the early period of the occupation of
Canaan, and therefore out of the chronological
order followed by the author of the main part of
the book. Both the introduction and the conclu
sion are lacking in the religious and homiletic com
ments which dominate chaps. iii. 7‑xvi. 31.
The most important question for the Bible student is the amount and degree of the idealizing of history which are employed in the book in its present form. The introduction (i. 1‑ii.
2. Ideal‑ 5) contains a plain narrative of facts
	tea.	of the highest value; only the fact
		must be noted that the words in i. 1
" after the death of Joshua " are a late gloss due
to a misunderstanding of the historical situation,
for, as ii. 6‑9 shows, the events described here took
place during the life of Joshua. Chaps. xvii.‑xviii.
are also of great importance for the early political and religious condition of Israel and contain merely a statement of facts, which set forth the causes and incidents connected with the migration northward of the tribe of Dan and the founding of the city of that name at the point which became the northerly limit of Israel and the seat of a famous sanctuary. Chaps. xix.‑xxi. are a highly embellished account of some incidents which occurred in the early days of the settlement, an outrage perpetrated by some members of the tribe of Benjamin (chap. xix.) and avenged by the othor tri6s (xx., xxi.). Chap. xix. would appear to rest on a considerable basis of fact, but the last two chapters are full of numerical exaggerations; they represent Israel as forming a political and religious unit at a very early date, and they give other evidences of a priestly authorship. Thus it must be assumed that certain old traditions were worked over in them at a late date in conformity with the spirit of the priest code.
The stories which make the main part of the book so readable are at the same time the source of nearly all direct knowledge of the period between the settlement and the founding of
8. The the kingdom. They belong in their History. original form to some of the earliest collections of prose compositions in the literature of Israel. Beginning with the deliverances effected by Othniel (iii. 7‑11) and Ehud (iii. 12‑30), the motive of the collection comes out more clearly in the story of the final suppression of the Canaanites under Deborah and Barak. This is given in its original form in the oldest long poem of the Bible (chap. v.), the prose version which was of course later being found in chap. iv. The poem is our best authority for the condition and activity of the tribes of Israel about 1130 B.c. Of equal importance is the great story of Gideon and his deliverance of his tribesmen from the oppression of the Midianites (chaps. vi.‑viii.). The sequel of their expulsion is specially instructive since it shows how the tribes felt themselves helpless in their disunion and were conscious of their need of hereditary " judges " or kings. The fact that here as elsewhere in the book Mere t]]u one verfi011 Af
the original tradition was drawn upon is illustrated by the variations of vii. 24‑viii. 3 and viii. 4‑21, the latter being the briefer or earlier account. The
history of Samson (xiii. xvi.) dealing as it does with the period of Philistine domination over west‑
ern Judah brings the account one step nearer to the epoch of the monarchy; but the subject lent itself so much to romance and legend that it is more difficult to learn the real facts behind this story than elsewhere in the book. In any case. the Sam‑
son episodes form, from the historical point of view, merely a preparation to the history of Eli and Samuel, who carried on the contest with the Philistines till the crowning of King Saul. Thus the closing of the original book of Judges was really the beginning of a history which began with Sam‑
son (cf. xiii. 5) and ended with I Sam. xii. It was then a Deuteronomistic editor who compiled the
first edition of the book, beginning with ii. 6 and unifying the whole by his " pragmatic " treatment

Judge
Judson
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
of the stories and his assumption of the solidarity of " Israel " under the r6gime of the successive judges, each of whom actually " judged " only a portion of the country occupied by the disunited tribes. The post‑exilic priestly redactor prefixed chaps. i. 1‑ii. 5, added chaps. xvii.‑xxi., and the allusions to the minor judges, six in number (iii. 31, x. 1‑5, xii. 8‑15). These with the six judges of the original work (Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Samson, Jephthah) make up the ideal number twelve. The story of Abimelech (chap. ix.), which is an episode in the history of the old Canaanitic city of Shechem, lies without the general scheme of the book and is probably a later addition. It is valuable as showing how readily the idea of kingship was embraced by the common people, and still more valuable for the parable of Jothann (verses 8‑15) which shows that despotic rule was estimated at its real worth even in those early times.
As to the chronology of the book it is hopeless to attempt to reduce the given numbers. of years to any reasonable scheme (see TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OF). The best that can be done is to take the probable date of the eastern invasion (about 1170 B.C.) and the accession of David (about 1000 B.C.) as two working extremes, within which approximation to the facts may be reached by placing Deborah and Barak about 1130, Gideon about 1100, Jephthah about 1080, Samuel about 1050, Saul about 1030 B.C. J. F. MCCURDY.
BIBwoaBAPHY: On the history of the Judges consult the literature under AHAB: the commentaries named below; C. Piepenbring, Hist. du peuple d'Ierael, Paris, 1898. The three indispensable commentaries are: G. F. Moore, New York, 1895 (high‑water mark in critical exegesis); K. Budde, Tilbingen, 1897 (thorough); and W. Nowack, G5ttingen,1900 (also excellent). Other commentaries are: G. L. Studer. Bern, 1842; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Edinburgh, 1885; J. Bachmann, Berlin, 1868‑89; Hervey, in Bible Commentary, London, 1872; P. Cassel, in Lange, New York, 1875; E. Reuse, Paris, 1877; J. J. Lias, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1882; E. Berthesu, Leipsic, 1883; A. R. Fausset, London, 1885; S. Oettli, Munich, 1893; G. H. S. Walpole, London, 1901; M. J. Lagrange, Paris, 1903.
On questions of introduction consult the works men‑
tioned in and under BIBLICAL INTRODBCrION; T. N51deke,
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A. T., pp. 173‑198, Kiel,
1869; E. Meyer, in ZATW, i (1881), 117‑146; J. C. A.
Kessler, Chronolopia judicum et primorum regum, Leipsic,
1885; S. R. Driver, in JQR, i (1889), pp. 258‑270; G. A.
Cooks, Hist. and Song of Deborah, London, 1892; R. Kit
tel, in TSK, lxv (1892), 44‑71; P. de Lagarde, Septua
pintaatudien, pp. 1‑72, ‑GSttingen, 1892; W. Franken
berg, Die Composition des . . Riehterbucha, Marburg,
1895; F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des A. T., Mu
nich, 1895; C. Bruston, Le Cantique de Deborah, Paris,
1901; DB, ii. 807‑820; EB, ii. 2633‑42; JE, vii. 375‑381.
	JUDGMENT, DIVINE: The final expression
of God's will respecting man's future destiny. The
idea of judgment in the Old Testament presupposes
a transcendent God and a divine interest in the
moral order of the world, and was drawn from the
analogy of human justice. The divine judgment
		which precedes the Messianic kingdom
	Scriptural is concerned with guilty angels, with
	Idea. Gentiles to be destroyed or to become
		subject to Israel, with Israel and Judah
as nations for which their enemies were to be em
ployed as instruments of retribution, and with in
dividuals of whom a remnant would be saved.
256
The scene is the earthly life. To this judgment evils of various kinds were referred (cf. Job; also Luke xiii. 1 sqq.). Later the judgment was conceived of as following the Messianic kingdom (cf. Psalms of Solomon, i.‑xviii., Eng. tranal. in Presbyterian Review, iv. 1883, 775 eqq.): In Alexandrian Judaism no distant final judgment is taught ‑teach soul goes at death to its true place. ~ In the New Testament the final judgment is connected with the parousia of Christ, yet the judgment is there both present and future. The judge is represented as either God or Christ, and judgment is according to works as expressive of character. In the teachings of Jesus this note is repeatedly struck especially in the parables, and apostolic preaching resounds with it. All men appear to be the subjects of it, and not those only who have known Christ (II Cor v. 10; Matt. xxv. 31 aqq.). One aspect of the judgment is that it creates nothing but only discloses what already exists, i.e., the relation of the person and his deeds to the divine moral order. There are particular judgments which, however overwhelming in themselves‑the flood, the downfall of Sodom and of Jerusalemare not final but only prefigurations of the last judgment. The New Testament knows of no gradation through imperceptible stages of judgment from highest to lowest; all men are either within or without the kingdom of God. One is warned against self‑deception and against hasty judgment respecting others (Matt. vii.; Rom. xiv. 7‑12). A person may be unconscious of his real actions or character, but these will come to light and receive retribution. The full realization may be long delayed, but no stage of the process is indifferent and the end will surely come. There is no evidence of a private judgment at death.
The central idea embodied in the various pictures of judgment is that of human responsibility and of infallible retribution. This rests upon the conviction of an indestructible moral order, of laws as expressive of a personal divine will, and of Christ in such essential relation to mankind that God will
have no one reach his final destiny The apart from Christ. Yet according to
Nature of the Scriptures the judgment is not
judgment. final in the sense that ethical develop‑
ment has reached its limit, but only so far as this is conceived as related to the consummation of the kingdom of God. This is a teleological view of man's life in which he is lifted above the necessitated causal order, offered a divine goal, albeit a flying one, as the aim of ethical endeavor, and bidden to rely only upon an all‑seeing, righteous God for recompense. The process is essentially teleological, so that, as Schiller declared, the history of the world is the judgment of the world.
Two general theories of judgment have been proposed: (d) The common view, which is set forth in the following positions. (a) It takes place
at a definite moment‑immediately Theories of after the general resurrection (see RE8‑
judgment. URRECTION OF THE DEAD). (b) It will
be universal; the whole human race is to appear, each one in the completeness of personal life, " body, soul, and spirit." (c) It will

257	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Jndses
Jndstua
be public‑the grounds of it open and evident to all; whether sins of the saints will be disclosed may be left in question. (d) The decision will be based on the deeds done in the body; probation has ended at death. (e) The law of judgment will be the will of God as it has been severally revealed to all men: to those under the written law, by that law; to those without that law, by the law in their hearts; to those under the Christian revelation, by what they have known of it. (f) It will be final and thus fix the changeless state of all‑the good in felicity, the wicked in wo. (g) The hour when this is to occur is unknown, but is purposely retained within the secret counsel of God. A modification of this view, while conceiving of the par ousia of Christ as a spiritual process and the resurrection as the rising of each man to life after death, holds that there is no other judgment than that which occurs at death. (2) The other idea of judgment presents it as a process which endures as long as law and moral being endure. It involves experience of good and evil results of choice, and the revelation of the nature of these within the moral consciousness. The conscience is the seat of this solemn process. By means of it all that opposes the will of God is gradually disclosed, condemned, and separated from the good, so that the good progressively triumphs. The results of this proms of judging abide in the blessed or baleful conditions and character of personal and social life. C. A. BECxwITH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the idea in the Bible the reader will
consult works on Biblical theology, such as those by
Schultz and Beyschlag (see BIBLICAL THEOLOGY); for
the theological content, the appropriate sections of trea
tises on systematic theology such as the works by Hodge,
Shedd, and others (see DOGMA, DOGMATICS); also the
literature under EBCHATGLGGY. Special treatment is
given by: J. B. Mosley, University Sermons, pp. 72‑96,
London, 1883; T. T. Munger, The Freedom of Faith, pp.
337‑356, Edinburgh, 1884; J. M. Whiton, Beyond the
Shadow, pp. 141‑192, ib. 1885; W. N. Clarke, Outline of
Christian Theology, pp. 459‑466, New York, 1898; C. A. Beckwith, Realities of Christian Theology, pp. 361‑366, Boston, 1906. Consult also A. Jukes, The Second Death and Restitution of All Things, London, 1878.
JUDITH. See APOCRYPHA, A, IV., 8.

JUDSON, ADONIRAM: The Apostle of Burma and one of the first and most devoted of the foreign missionaries of the American churches; b. at Malden, Mass., Aug. 9, 1788; d. on board of a vessel off the coast of Burma Apr. 12, 1850. He graduated first in his class at Brown University in 1807. After teaching school for a year at Plymouth, he entered Andover Seminary in the autumn of 1808, although " not a professor of religion, or a candidate for the ministry, but as a person deeply in earnest on the subject, and desirous
Early	of arriving at the truth " (Wayland).
	Life and The following May he made a profes
Work.	Sion of his faith in the Third Congrega
	tional Church at Plymouth, of which
	his father was then pastor. His attention was first
	drawn to the subject of missionary effort in heathen
	lands by the perusal, in 1809 of Buchanan, s Star
	in the East; and in Feb., 1810, he devoted himself
	to that work. About this time he entered into in
	timate relations with that illustrious band of young
VI‑17
men‑Mills, Nott, Newell, and Richards, and joined the first three in submitting a statement to the General Association of Ministers at Bradford, Maw., which led to the organization of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. In Jan., 1811, he was sent to England, by the American Board, to promote measures of affiliation and Cooperation between it and the London Missionary Society. He returned unsuccessful in the immediate design of his journey, but was appointed, with Nott, Newell, Hall, and Rice, a missionary to India. He was ordained, with these four men, on Feb. 6, 1812, at Salem, Mass. Judson sailed on the 19th, from New York, with Mrs. Judson and Mr. and Mrs. Newell, for Calcutta, where he arrived June 17. On the voyage his views on the mode of baptism underwent a change; and, after his arrival in India, he and Mrs. Judson were baptized by immersion in the Baptist Church of Calcutta. In consequence of this change of views, he passed under the care of the American Baptist Missionary Union at its formation in 1814. The East India Company forbade his prosecution of missionary labors in India; and, after various vicissitudes, he landed in July, 1813, at Rangoon, Burma, taking up his residence at the Mission House of Felix Carey. Judson devoted himself to the acquisition of the language, in which he afterward became a proficient scholar. After six years of labor, the fist convert, Moung Nau, was baptized at Rangoon, June 27, 1819. He was the first Burman accession to the Church of Christ. From 1824 to 1826, during the war of England with Burma, Judson suffered almost incredible hardships. He was imprisoned for seventeen months in the jails of Ava and Oung‑pen‑la, being bound during nine months of this period, with three, and during two months with no less than five, pairs of fetters. His sufferings from fever, exeruoiating heat, hunger, repeated disappointments, and the cruelty of his keepers, form one of the most thrilling narratives in the annals of modern missionary trial.
Mrs. Ann Hasseltine Judson suffered no less than her husband, though she was not subjected to imprisonment. Her heroic efforts to relieve the sufferings of the English prisoners reMrs. ceived the tributes of warmest grati‑
	Judson.	tude and praise at the time. She was
		born in Bradford, Mass., Dec. 22, 1789,
and had been married on Feb. 5, 1812. She en
tered with great enthusiasm into missionary effort,
and established a school at Rangoon for girls. In
1821 she paid a visit to America. Her health was
never robust; but she combined with strong intel
lectual powers a remarkable heroism and fortitude.
Dig the imprisonment 6; her luland she was
unremitting in her self‑sacrifice, and walked fearless and respected from palace to prison among the excited Burman population. She died Oct. 24, 1826. Hers is one of the immortal names in missionary biography.
In 1826 Judson transferred the headquarters of his mission to Amherst, in Tenasserim, Lower Burma; and in 1830 he began preaching to the
Karens. In 1835 he completed the revision of the Old Testament in the Burmese language, and in 1837 that of the New Testament, In the latter

Judson
Julian	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	258
year there were 1,144 baptized converts in Burma. After an absence of more than thirty years, he returned, in 1845, for a visit to his native land.
	On the voyage his second wife (Sarah.
Later	Hall Boardman) died (Sept. 1) at St.
Work.	Helena. She was the widow of the mis
Visit to 	sionary, Dr. Boardman, and was mar‑
	America.	ried to Judson in 1834. Judson's arrival
		in the United States was the signal
for an enthusiastic outburst of admiration for the
missionary, and interest in the cause he represented.
Everywhere crowded assemblies gathered to see
and hear him. He, however, shunned the public
gaze, and was diffident as a speaker. In 1823
Brown University had honored him with the degree
of D.D. On July 11, 1846, he again set sail for
Burma, having married, a few days before, Miss
Emily Chubbuck of Eaton, N. Y., who was already
well known under the name of " Fanny Forester."
He arrived safely at Rangoon, and spent much of
the remaining period of his life in revising his Eng
lish‑Burmese dictionary (ed. E. A. Stevens, Maul
main, 1852). His health, however, was shattered;
and he died while on a voyage to the Isle of Bour
bon. His body was buried in the ocean.
	Judson was a man of medium height and slender
person. He was endowed with strong intellectual
powers, and sought in his Christian life, by the
perusal of the works of Mme. Guyon and others, a
fervent type of piety. His confidence in the suc
cess of missionary effort never wavered. Being
asked, on his visit to America, whether the pros
pects were bright for the conversion of the world,
he immediately replied, " AS bright, Sir, as the
promises of God." Adoniram Judson's name will
always have a place in the very first rank of Amer
ican missionaries to heathen lands. He belongs
to the first band of those missionaries, and his hero
ism, wise judgment, and diligent labor have not
been excelled if equaled by any who have followed
him. 	D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographies of Adoniram Judson have been
witten by F. Wayland, 2 vols., Boston, 1853; H. Bonar,
London, 1871; and E. Judson (his son), New York, 1883.
The lives of his three wives were written by W. Wyeth, 3
vols., New York, 1892; A. W. Stuart, Auburn, 1851; A. W.
Wilson, New York, 1853; and by C. B. Hartley, ib. n. d.
JUDSON, EDWARD: Baptist; b. at Maulmain (95 m. s.e. of Rangoon), Burma, Dec. 27, 1844. He was brought to the United States while still an infant, and was educated at Madison (now Colgate) University and Brown University (A.B., 1865), after which he was principal of the academy at Townshend, Vt., for two years (1865‑67). He was then professor of Latin in Madison University from 1867‑74, and, after a year of travel and study in Europe in 1874‑75, accepted a call to the pastorate of the Baptist church at Orange, N. J., where he remained until 1881. In the latter year he became pastor of the Berean Baptist Church, New York City, where he engaged actively in educational and philanthropic work among the poorer classes. The church becoming too small for the congregation which he gathered, he raised funds for the erection of the Judson Memorial Church, New York City, which is one of the leading " institutional " churches of the city. He has since
been pastor of this church, which is named in honor of his father, Adoniram Judson (q.v.). He was president of the American Baptist Missionary Union in 1885‑87 and has been a trustee of Brown University, Vassar College, and Colgate University. He has written: Life of Adoniram Judson (New York, 1883); and The Institutional Church: Primer in Pastoral Theology (1899).
JUELICHER, yiI'lia‑er, GUSTAV ADOLF. German Protestant; b. at Falkenberg (a suburb of Berlin) .Jan. 26, 1857. He was educated at the University of Berlin (Ph.D., 1880), and was chaplain of the orphan asylum at Rummelsberg, a suburb of Berlin, from 1882 to 1888. In 1887 he became privat‑docent at the university of the same city for New‑Testament history and church history, and in the following year was appointed associate professor of the same subjects at Marburg, where he has been full professor since 1889. He is a member of the committee on Church Fathers of the Royal Prussian Academy of Berlin and in this capacity is engaged in the preparation of a Prosopographia imperii Romani from the reign of Diocletian to Justinian. In theology his position is that of a rigid limitation to strict historical investigation. He has written: Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (2 vols., Freiburg, 1888‑99), Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1894; Eng. transl., Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1904) ; and Paulus and Jesus (Tiibingen, 1907).

JULIAN: The Emperor Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus), frequently known as " the Apostate," was born at Constantinople in 331, some time after June 26, the son of Julius Constantius, a younger stepbrother of Constantine the Great, by Basilina, his second wife; d. in Persia June 26,
363. Among the authorities for his
Authorities life and policy, his own works take the for his first place, although their history is Life. obscure and their text defective.
They include eight orations; a long treatise addressed to Themistius and another to the Athenians; the " Symposium "; the " Beardhater " (Gk. Misopogon); more than eighty letters, some decrees, and some fragments contained almost wholly in Cyril's ten books against Julian. In the " Symposium " (also called Kaisares) he criticizes his predecessors in the empire, assembled at a feast on Olympus, chastises their vices, and ends with a panegyric of Marcus Aurelius. The " Beard‑hater " is a satirical treatise written at Antioch in the beginning of 363, containing a witty characterization of himself and of the Christian population of Antioch. The letters, of which a few are spurious or doubtful, were almost all written during his reign, and are the best source for his philosophic and political standpoint. Unfortunately the work " Against the Christians," with the composition of which he was busy in the last months of his life, is only partially extant.
Next in importance come the pagan historians, especially Ammianus Marcellinus, Eutropius and Zosimus. The first‑named is the main authority for the external events of Julian's reign; he was a writer of great impartiality, and, like Eutropius, a

269	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	dudson
aU1tan
contemporary if not an eyewitness. Zosimus writes with unconcealed sympathy for the restorer of Hellenism. Aurelius Victor tells little. Among the orators and men of letters, Libanius is the most important; seven of his orations refer directly to Julian and offer valuable material. The statements of Eunapius in his lives of the sophists and of the panegyrist Mamertinus are to be received with caution.
As to the Christian writers, their hatred of the emperor led them sometimes into distortions of fact or malicious lies, or at least made them willing to lend an ear to calumny, except during the short period when Julian's recall of the orthodox bishops won a favorable judgment from some, such as Hilary. The two orations in which Gregory Nazianzen denounced the emperor, his contemporary and acquaintance, form a strong contrast to Eusebius' life of Constantine. Among the historians, even Socrates here lays aside his usual impartiality. Rufinus, as a contemporary, deserves most attention; then follow Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, with some fragments of Philostorgius. Isolated notices occur in most of the Fathers, and there are four poems against Julian by Ephraem Syrus written in 363 and containing legendary material mingled with valuable notes. In spite of their prejudice, the ecclesiastical writers are not to be undervalued, as they complete the material of the pagan historians in some important particulars, and demonstrably rest in not a few places upon documentary evidence. Modern historians have learned only in the last two centuries to take a broad and abstract view of Julian's career, and to see with increasing clearness that his admirable qualities were his own, while his obvious and by no means insignificant defects were the product of his education and environment.
When the sons of Constantine secured the empire in 337 by the slaughter of their male relations (see CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND 'HIS SONS),
Julian was spared on account of his Sketch of tender age, and remained in Constan‑
His Life. tinople under the charge of his distant
kinsman, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and of the eunuch Mardonius, who was a professing Christian, though his ideals seem to have been Hellenistic. It is possible that he laid the foundation for Julian's later attitude; but he also awakened in him the enthusiasm for what was noble and good that distinguished his manhood. In 342 Eusebius died, and the suspicious Constantius confined Julian and his sickly half‑brother Gallus in the fortress of Macellum in Cappadocia for the next six years, surrounded by Christian clerics. The lad read the Bible, copied religious books, built a chapel to St. Mamas, and is said to have officiated as a lector in public worship, which presupposes (unless there was some departure from the ordinary practise) that he had been baptized, as indeed Cyril positively asserts, though neither Julian nor any of his contemporaries speak of his baptism. At any rate, there is no reason to suppose that Julian's religious views were at this time hostile to the Christian Church. About 350 the brothers were allowed to leave Macellum, and Julian, re‑
turning to Constantinople, devoted himself to study. The emperor objected, however, to his presence in the capital, and he went to Nicomedia, promising not to attend the lectures which Libanius was then delivering there. But he read them; and here at this time, later in Pergamum, and finally in Ephesus he was introduced by the foremost Hellenistic teachers of the day to the Neoplatonic philosophy and mysticism. In 351 he formally, though unobtrusively, became a convert to paganism. The dreams of poets and the speculations of philosophers were to him the living truth; in Neoplatonism he found the revelation of all the wealth of the highest ideals of antiquity and of Greek civilization. His feelings, principles, and aims were, however, not those of the ancient masters whom he thought to follow, but modern, and such as might nearly all have been justified from the teachings of Christian leaders of his day. The fortunes of his life, his imagination and his education inclined him to Greek mythology and learning, as similar elements had brought thousands of others to Christianity. The great task of reforming Hellenism and abolishing the system of his predecessor seems to have been put before him by his philosophic friends in Nicomedia and Ephesus. Whether he was already longing for the throne is not definitely known, but it is likely that he was; and the teachers, who never lost their hold over him, seem to have exacted promises as to his conduct in the event of his accession. In 354 Constantius put Gallus to death, and kept Julian practically in confinement at Milan for six months. Then he was allowed to return to Bithynia, and in the summer of 355 to go to Athens, where he associated with the most prominent Hellenic leaders and was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. In October he was recalled to northern Italy, where the emperor needed an heir‑apparent and a leader against the Germanic inroads in Gaul. He played a valiant part for four years of military activity amid great difficulties, carrying the war into the enemy's own country and winning the respect and confidence of the army. He was in Paris in the winter of 359360. There he received the command to send his best soldiers to the Past to Constantius. They answered by hailing Julian as Augustus, apparently without any suggestion from him, if not against his will. After some hesitation he allowed them to crown him, and notified Conatantius of what had happened, without assuming the imperial title. Constantius answered with the sword; but Julian was ready to meet him. During the winter of 360361 he was making his preparations at Vienne. He celebrated the feast of the Epiphany with Christian rites; then he threw off the mask, and went south by forced marches, opening the closed pagan temples wherever he passed. Constantius came from Syria to meet him but died Nov. 3 in Cilicia; and on Dec. 11, 361, Julian entered Constantinople as undisputed emperor. He remained there the

rest of that winter, occupied with plans for far‑reaching reforms, but at the same time making
Preparations for a campaign against the Persians.
In the summer of 362 he went through Asia Minor,
receiving discouraging reports of the results of his'

Julian	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	280
policy, to Antioch, where the excitable and vivacious populace received him with open scorn of his views and plans, and the Christian portion indulged in ominous demonstrations. On Mar. 4, 363, he started out for his campaign, pressing forward boldly to meet his Persian enemies, sharing all the fatigues and privations of his soldiers, and busily occupied at the same time with his studies and his great reform plans. After several successful skirmishes, he received a spear‑wound in the battle of June 26, and died a few hours afterward. The famous narrative of Theodoret, according to which he cried out just before he died, " Thou hast conquered, 0 Galileanl" is apparently an outgrowth of the account written by Ephraem Syrus in the same year, which relates how " he turned aside, groaning, and thought of the threats which at his departure he had made by letter against the Church." It is significant that the Persians, according to Ammianus (XXV., vi. 6), on the following day mocked the Romans as traitors to their own emperor, since it was a Roman spear that had pierced his side. The rumor soon spread in the empire, and Libanius in his funeral oration put into words the suspicion that a Christian had been responsible for his death. Gregory Nazianzen, Rufinus, and Socrates treat the question as indifferent, and Sozomen shows that the Christians were capable of the deed by claiming ft for one of them and lauding it. But Libanius did not offer the slightest evidence in support of his accusation, and several considerations may be urged against it. Similar rumors have often arisen in the case of a sudden death; Julian was a bold and reckless soldier, who had often exposed himself to great danger; he himself gave utterance to no suspicion‑according to Ammianus he thanked the gods that he had fallen by " no clandestine ambush"; Eutropius says espressly'that he was wounded by one of the enemy, and Ephraem knows nothing different; and Ammianus says that no offers of reward produced the Persian who had given the wound‑he may have been dead‑which gave rise to their reproach of the Romans, and thus to the growth of the legend. Julian was buried at Tarsus, leaving no heir; and his wife, Helena, the sister of Constantius, had died at Vienne in the winter of 360‑361.
The restoration of Hellenism was the great aim of Julian's reign. On his arrival in Constantinople he made a clean sweep of the old court, and the Neoplatonic philosophers, with Maximus at their head, hastened to appear there in support of one
who was an emperor after their own His heart. The worship of the ancient
Policy and gods in its traditional form was de‑
Character. clared the privileged religion; the
temples were ordered to be opened or rebuilt, and their property restored. Julian was especially anxious to restore the complete sacrificial system; and the way in which he went to work shows that the ideas underlying the old public worship were not his, but that he designed to bring about the restoration of the old paganism under the forms of certain mystic cults, and to unite all the older religions into a sort of pagan imperial church. It is from the mysteries that all
the determining lines of his policy are taken. If the whole of public life was to be ordered according to the piety prescribed in the mysteries, the plan would not have been a reaction but a reform in the highest sense. The return to the ancient gods is the only reactionary feature of it; the ascetic‑pietistic and mystic‑hierarchical ordering of the worship, with its organized associations and priesthood, would have been an unheard‑of innovation. To change paganism into a State religion, and thus to modify the whole relation between religion and the State as it had been understood in antiquity, was a thing which could be done only by force. The remnant of the pagan population showed itself indifferent or actually hostile to the plans which Julian promulgated in a series of edicts which combined, so to speak, imperial and papal characteristics. The reforming tendencies of his plans were displayed especially in his provisions for the ceremonial reception of converts to paganism, who were to be admitted to draw near to the gods only after spiritual and bodily purification, and for the creation of a definitely graduated and strictly organized hierarchy, with the emperor as pontifex nwximus, and high priests (answering to metropolitans) for the provinces. In yet other particulars the imitation of the Church's discipline is obvious. It is most direct in regard to the care of the poor, as to which Julian made no secret of his admiration for the Christian model; other resemblances are indirect, coming through the influence which the mysteries had already exercised upon the Christian system.
In discussing the question of Julian's actual relations to the Christian Church, it is necessary to distinguish between what was in his mind and what he actually did, and even between the different parts of his short reign‑since, though his policy did not essentially change, there are traces of increasing irritation in his mind, which influenced his edicts. In principle, however, he rejected the use of force as an aid to conversion. Christianity, which he regarded as a pitiable superstition of weak‑minded people, a distorted form of worship suited to barbarians with no knowledge of history, an assemblage of discordant elements held together only by an ambitious clergy, was to bg allowed to fall to decay of itself. In the army the cross was to be replaced by pagan emblems, and the pretorian guard was to be purged of Christians. Christian officials were to be removed from the government. All privileges were withdrawn from the clergy and the Church, including support from State funds and such rights of jurisdiction as had been conceded. The restoration of pagan temples at the cost of those who had destroyed them imposed this burden upon the Christians. All Christian factions were to be treated alike, including the Donatists, and this involved the recall of the banished orthodox bishops. The old idea that he did this with the purpose of fostering discord among his antagonists, while in view of the short‑sightedness of his policy it is possible, is not probable; and the result was actually beneficial to the Church. His school law of June 17, 362, which required candidates for teachers' positions, to obtain the

license of the local authorities or of the emperor, while apparently not affecting religious questions, really excluded the Christians from such positions. The assertion that he forbade them to attend the schools is apparently based on a misunderstanding. Another weapon in his religious campaign was his treatise " Against the Christians," which he circulated not long before his death. The whole first book is extant, some fragments of the second, and scarcely any of the third. For knowledge and acuteness it is not to be compared with the works of Celsus and Porphyry. It tells much of the religious and historical attitude of Julian and his partizans, but little of his relations with the Church, whose real weak points are seldom touched upon. If it were possible positively to decide as to the truth of the statements that he threatened severe repressive measures against his return from the Persian campaign, it would be easier to arrive at a final judgment of the man; but sober history will at least regard him most truly as a belated son of a great bygone age, deceived in his ideals but noble in nature, and deserving of honor as a man who attempted to do justice to his fellows at a time when this was a rare virtue. (A. HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best edition of the works of Julian in the original Greek is by F. C. Hertlein, 2 vole., Leipsic, 1875‑76; the fragments of his Books against the Christians were edited by K. J. Neumann (ib. 1880), who also translated them into German, Kaiser Juliana Bacher gegen die Christen, ib. 1880. In English translation are Gregory Nazianzen's two invectives against, and Libanius' funeral oration upon Julian; and Julian's essays " Upon the Sovereign Sun," and " Upon the Mother of the Gods " (transl. by C. W. King, Julian the Emperor, London, 1888). In French there is a complete translation of Julian's works and letters, by Eugl•ne Talbot, tEuvres compUtes de l'empereur Julian, Paris, 1863, The most elaborate biography of Julian is by Gietano Negri transl. from the 2d ed. of the original Italian, 2 vole., London and New York, 1905; other lioteworthy biographies are by Neander, Eng. transl., London, 1850; F. J. Holgwarth, Freiburg, 1874; A. Naville, Neuchatel, 1877; G. H. Rendall, Cambridge, 1877; Alice Gardner, London and New York 1895; W. Hoch, Leipsic, 1899; E. Milller, Hanover, 1901; P. Allard, 3 vole., Paris, 1902. Special treatises are: F. Rode, Oeschichte der Reaction Kaiser Julians pegen die chriatliche Kirche, Jena, 1877; E. J. Chinnoek, A Few Notes on Julian and a Translation of his Public Letters, London, 1901. Consult also Tillemont, Mtlmoiree, vi.; Ceillier, Auteum sacr6s, iii. 398‑412; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chaps. xxii.‑xx1v.; Behalf, Christian Church, iii. 41‑59; DCB, iii. 484‑525.
JULIAN CESARINI, CARDINAL. See CESARINI, GIULIANO.
JULIAN OF ECLANUM: The most gifted and consistent champion of Pelagianism; b. in Apulia between 380 and 390; d., according t0 Genlladiua, under Valentinian III. (425‑455). Well educated in classical literature, he learned from Aristotle the art of dialectics which he used so cleverly in later times. While still a youth, he became bishop of Eclanum near Beneventum and seems to have been greatly respected. It is not known how he was won over to Pelagianism, but this doctrine corresponded to his whole disposition, which was not religious, but intellectual. By an edict of the Emperor Honorius and the Epistoda true of the Roman Bishop Zosirnus (see PELAGIUS), Julian with seventeen other bishops was crowded out of his episcopal position in 418 and expelled from his
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Julian
native country. Entrusted with the defense of his associates, he assumed the leadership in the struggle against Augustinianism, and attacked it first in a letter to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica, wherein he laid down his views concerning the divine creation of each individual man, concerning marriage, law, the freedom of the will, and baptism against Augustine and his adherents, whom he regarded as Manicheans. In connection with this letter there was issued a circular letter to the adherents of Pelagius in Italy, which, however, was probably not written by Julian himself. Against Augustine's De nuptiis et concupiacent~a he directed the four books of his work Ad Turbantium (419); its main thought is the natural goodness of man vouchsafed by God's creation. Augustine wrote a secand treatise De nuptiis et concupiacentia and Julian answered by addressing eight books to Florus (Llbri viii ad Florum contra Augustine librum aeeundum de nuptiis). This is Julian's most important writing, full of personal, passionate, and spiteful polemics against Augustine, but also fraught with dialectical acuteness and logical sequence of thoughts; it forms the proper source for the knowledge of Julian's theology. The efforts of himself and his associates at the court of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II. (d. 450) to be restored to their positions were without success, and Marius Mercator especially caused his expulsion from Constantinople. At the Council of Ephesus in 431 he was expressly condemned.
The fundamental presupposition of Julian's doctrines is that sin is a matter of the will and not of nature. Will again presupposes the freedom of choice, and this consists in the possibility of 04rnitting or rejecting sin. In virtue of this liberty of will man bears the image of God within himself and is akin to him just as according to his sensual nature he is related to the animal. In free will man possesses such a perpetual possibility of willing and not willing that Julian denies even the force of motives. From this conception of free will it follows that it is a possession which can not be lost and can not be restrained or limited by sin. The conception of sin as a work of the will implies that it can arise only under an entirely free choice. Therefore Julian found himself in entire opposition to Augustine's doctrine of hereditary sin. It is a contradictio in adjecto since sin and guilt can exist only where there is freedom of decision. Children can not sin because they have no will. It is perfect nonsense to den the 'j4 of ma. A

tine's doctrine is altogether Manichean since only

the devil can be the creator and lord of an evil nature. Augustine is even worse than Mani, since he makes God the author and multiplier of sin. Since God creates the nature of each individual man, it must be good. If man were evil by nature he would not be capable of redemption; disgrace of nature would therefore imply the denial of grace.

The doctrine of original sin contradicts also the justice of God, since according to it he recom‑

penses and punishes that which is not a matter of liberty and not due to one's own fault. justice , however, is a generally acknowledged and fundamental law, and a contradiction to this law suffices

rulian Julius
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
for the refutation of the doctrine of hereditary sin.
Death is not evil; it is natural for a creature to die.
The doctrine of hereditary sin destroys also the
sanctity of marriage. Marriage is pleasing to God
as the sexual impulse is his work. Even Christ
possessed concupiscence, and if there was no rtat
urale peccatum in him, it is also not in our nature.
At the same time Julian does not deny the impor
tance of God's grace. Our bodily and especially
our spiritual endowments are works of divine grace.
He does not deny the loss of the meritum innocen
tiae. In baptism we receive forgiveness of sin and
incitement to good works. Thus the good will of
man is aided by God. The increase of divine bene
factions is useful and necessary although virtue
and sin remain always a matter of free will. Julian
always tried to prove his position from Scripture,
but he did not consider this his last and highest
authority; for him reason was higher than Scrip
ture and tradition. Scripture can never contra
dict what reason teaches. No one ever understood
how to use the art of dialectics more cleverly than
Julian, and he tried to decide all questions by log
ical conclusions. 	(N. BONWETSCH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief sources are: Notices in Augustine
	(who had known Julian's parents and took an interest
	in him), vole. ii. and x, of the Benedictine edition of his
	works and MPL, xxxiii., xliv., xlv.; cf. xlv. 1736 eqq.
	For further notices: Marius Mercator, MPL, xlviii.; Vin
	cent of Lerins; Prosper; and Gennadius. Consult A.
	Bruckner, Julian von Eklanum, aein Leben and seine
	Lehre, in TU, xv. 3, Leipsic, 1897; C. T. G. Sch6nemann,
	Bibliotheca . . . patrum Latinorum, ii., § 18, ib. 1794 (con
	densed account, but valuable); W. Smith, Dictionary of
	Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, ii. 643‑644,
	London, 1890; Harnack, Dogma, v. 171 sqq. 186 eqq.,
	203, 235, 236, vi. 303; Ceillier, Auteura aacr6a, ix. 483
	538, consult Index; Neander, Christian Church, ii. 650
	655 et passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 800, 837
	838, 937; DCB, iii. 469‑473; Von Schubert, in TU, xxiv.
4 (1903).

JULIAN OF HALICARNASSUS: Bishop of Halicarnassus. Little is known of Julian's life and personality. As bishop of Halicarnassus in Carla , he took part with the later patriarch of Antioch: Severus, (q.v.) in the intrigue which led to the downfall of the Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople in 511. After his banishment at the beginning of the reign of Justin I. in 518 (see MONOPHYSITEa), he took up his abode in the cloister of Enaton, before the gates of Alexandria. Here he became involved with Severus, likewise in exile, in a dispute over the question whether Christ's body during his life on earth was incorruptible or corruptible (see below). At Alexandria the dispute led to a division of the Monophysite party which continued till the seventh century. Julian's later destinies are unknown; at all events, he did not return to Halioarnassus. His doctrine circulated as far as Arabia, and also found acceptance in the Armenian Church.
There are extant the following works of Julian: his correspondence with Severus, in the Syriac translation of Bishop Paul of Callinicus; ten anathemas; and a commentary on Job printed among Origen's works, and only lately recognized by Usener as a work of Julian's.
The expressions " incorruptible," " corruptible," or " imperishable," " perishable," do not correctly
reproduce the debated meaning of aphthartos,
phthartos, as understood by Julian and Severus.
The controversy hinges not upon phthora, as indi
cating total dissolution of the body into so many
atoms, but on the phthora existing in the natural
infirmities of the body; such as hunger, thirst,
weariness, sweat, tears, bleeding, etc. So, as
Julian conceived it, the body of Christ was not
subject to this manner of " corruption," which is
a characteristic of human nature in consequence of
Adam's sin. When Christ hungered and thirsted,
he did so because he willed it, not of necessity; and
he willed so, because only in that way could he
free us from corruption. But Julian did not ad
mit that, in order to redeem us, Christ must have
possessed a body subjected to corruption through
out. He could not believe that one and the same
being was both " corruptible " and " incorruptible."
With singular inconsistency, however, he did not
believe himself compelled to deny the doctrine of
the like nature of Christ's body to that of ours;
on the contrary, he expressly rejected the opposite
doctrine, that of Eutyches. The Julian party re
proached their opponents for being " corruption
worshipers "; whereas these retorted with the re
proach of docetism, insomuch that the epithets
" aphthartodocetics" and " phantasiasts," or illu
sionists, ever afterward stayed attached to the
Julianists. In this matter, the orthodox and the
Severians made common cause, although there were
some " aphthartodocetics " among the orthodox
themselves. For the fact that Emperor Justinian
himself was open to this line of argument see Jus
TINIAN; and for the significance of the contro
verted question generally, as a phase of Monophy
Bltlam, Bee MONOPHY9ITE9. 	G. KROGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. w. F. Welch, Historic der Ketzereieia, viii. 550 eq4., 886 aqq., Leipsic, 1778; J. C. L. Gleaeler: Commentatio, qua Monophyaitarum , . , varaae de Christi persona opinionea . illuatrantur, 2 parts, GSttIngen, 1835; J. P. N. Land, Anecdote Syriaca, iii. 263‑271, Leyden, 1870; H. Uaener, in H. Lietzr~ann, Cateneu, pp. 2834, Freiburg, 1897; idem, in Rheiniachea Museum, Iv (1900), 321‑340; E. Ter‑Minasaiantz, in TU, xxvi. 4 (1904), passim; Krumbaeher, Geachichte, pp. 52‑53; Ceillier, Auteura eacrea, viii. 384, xi. 109, 344; DCB, iii. 475‑478.
JULIAN OF TOLEDO. See POMERIUS, JULIANU6.
JULIUS: The name of three popes.
Julius I: Pope 337‑352. According to tradition he was the son of Rusticus, a Roman, and
elected after a long interregnum Feb. 6, 337. Little is known of his pontificate, except in regard to his spiritual care for the rapidly growing Roman community‑he built no less than five new churches‑
and to his position in the Arian controversy, which had scarcely affected Rome before his time. He took part in it only when both parties sought a decision from him. The request came first from the Eusebians, who sent three Eastern clerics in 338 to ask his approval of their deposition of Athanasius and putting Pistus in his place. Soon afterward
an embassy appeared from Athanasius, who so successfully presented their case that the Eusebians themselves, so Athanasius asserts, proposed the reference of the matter to a new council. Prea‑

g6$	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Julian
Julius
ently, however, the Eusebians got the ear of the Emperor Constantius, and by Easter, 339, Athanasius himself was seeking refuge in Rome, to be followed by other banished orthodox prelates. The friendly reception which they received in Rome gave the Eusebians an excuse for rudely refusing Julius' invitation to the proposed council. It met at Rome in 340, and absolved Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra from the charges brought against them. Julius communicated the result to the Orientals in his famous epistle to Flacillus, a masterpiece of diplomacy. He considers the question from the standpoint of ecclesiastical law, asserting that the Council of Nicsea had permitted the revision of the acts of oqe synod by another, though no foundation is known for this statement, and justifies his reopening of the case of Athanasius by the assertion that the custom of the Church requires the bishop of Rome to be notified of charges against bishops (or against the bishop of Alexandria) and to lay down the law. This does not apparently cover the later claim to a supreme judicial function; and it did not even attain the result which Julius hoped. The relations between Rome and the East were more strained than ever, and it was not Julius but Hosius of Cordova that determined Conatans to summon the Council of Sardica in 343. This council recognized the pope as the strongest support of the Nicene party, and passed canons which really allowed him a more limited authority than the Council of Chalcedon gave in similar cases to the exarchs and the patriarchs of Constantinople, although their importance lies in the use which later popes made of them, interpolating them among those of Niceea and deducing from them a final judicial authority over the whole Church. Julius seems to have had no opportunity to act on these provisions, since the change in the emperor's attitude toward the Nicene party left him no longer the central figure in the strife. He welcomed Athanasius in Rome on his homeward journey in 346, and shortly after, at the request of a synod in Milan, he investigated the orthodoxy of Ursacius and Valens, and received them both again into communion. He died Apr. 12, 352, and was early honored in Rome as a saint, while the number of forgeries passi4g under his name shows the impression which his clever policy made on succeeding generations and the extent to which it was held to have strengthened the papal authority.
(H. BSIIMER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Liber pontiftcalia, ed. Ducheene,
i. 205, Paris, 1886, ed. Mommsen in MGH, Geat. Pont.
Rom., i (1898), 75‑76; Catalogue Lriberianua, ed. Momm
sen in MGH Auct. ant., ix (1892), 76; Epaat. in MPL,
viii. Consult: B. Jungmann Dissertationea selectae, ii.
7‑31, Regensburg, 1881; L. Rivington, Primitive Church
and the See of St. Peter, pp. 173 aqq, 467 aqq., London, 1894; W. Bright, Roman See and the Early Church, pp. 81 sqq., ib. 1896; ilman, Latin Christianity, i. 100‑101; Bower, Popes, i. 54‑59; KL, vi. 1997‑98.
Julius II. (Giuliano Rovere‑he was not connected with the highly aristocratic Della Rovere family): Pope 1503‑13. He was born at A]bizzola., near Savona (25 m. s.w. of Genoa), 1443. When his uncle Fdncesco (later Pope Sixtus IV.), became cardinal, he turned to the spiritual career, likewise becoming cardinal by 1471; and in 1480‑
1481, he was legate to the French King Louis XI. He exerted only a moderate influence over his uncle, Sixtus IV. (d. 1484), who stood under the sway of another nephew, Cardinal Riario; but he determined the policy of his successor, Innocent VIII. (q.v.). However, when Borgia (Alexander VI.) ascended the papal throne, Julius was compelled to secure his life by flight to France (1494). It was not until 1498, when the growing power of the pope drew the second successor of Louis XI. to his side, that Julius became ostensibly reconciled with Alexander, and now wrought for the conclusion of a compact between the two rulers which occasioned fresh war over Italy. He did not venture back to Rome till after the death of Alexander VI. (Aug. 18, 1503). On Oct. 31, 1503, after the sudden end of the pontificate of Pius III., lasting less than a month, he was chosen pope. He had gained the Spanish cardinals by the degrading promise not to contest the Romagna against Borgia's son Cesare. Nevertheless, in the first year of his pontificate, he demanded the delivery of the fortresses in that region and made Cesare captive. Then the Venetians interposed, and occupied the Romagna; but, owing to a league of the pope with France and Germany in 1504, they were compelled to surrender all the occupied points except Rimini and Faenza. Julius then at the head of an army wrested these cities from the Venetians and united the entire district with the Papal States. The enmity toward Venice continued, and in 1508 Julius again contrived, in the League of Cambrai, to combine the mightiest sovereigns of the West‑Spain, France, and Germany‑against the republic. The Curia now began a system of deceitful and opportunist seesaw statecraft whereby it maintained its position among the nations. Hardly were the districts that had been occupied by Venice won back by the help of France, when Julius arrayed himself against France on the side of Venice. The French king's resentment went so far that in 1510 he as‑
sembled a national synod Wind the pepe al
Tours, and sought an alliance with Emperor Maximilian, with a view to depose the pope from his dignity. Maximilian actually thought of crowning his own head with the tiara. Meanwhile, Julius in person waged war on the duke of Ferrara, who had remained on the side of France, hoping to unite his city and territory with the States of the Church; and he succeeded, in the winter of 1511; but France retaliated by occupying Bologna, and an antipapal council was convened at Pisa. In Opposition, Julius convened the Fifth Lateran Council in 1512, and, by founding the "Holy League," he secured the retreat of the French across the Alps in the same year. He still managed to add Parma and Piacenza to the States of the
Church; but all the results __ ‑..~ ~~i 11I~U ~~ ~~ W Btatperah continued insecure, since the States
of the Church, being subject to a policy of constant vacillation, lacked the conditions of independent existence. He died Feb. 21, 1513.
BIHLIOORAPHy• For BOUT
sources
K. BENRATj;,
consult his bulls in A. M.
Lherubini Magnum bullarium Romanum, i. 477 aqq„
Yons, 1855, and in Turin ed., v. 399 eqq.; R, Brown,

Julius III
dnlins Echter	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	264
Calendar of State Papers, vols. i.‑ii., London, 1864 Rqq.; Pauli Jovii Hiatoria aui temporia, Basel, 1517; 0. Raynaldus, Annalea ecclesiaatici, Cologne, 1694‑1727. Consult further: A. von Iteumont, Geachichte der Stadt Rom , iii. 10 sqq., Berlin, 1870; G. Balbi, Julius 11., Berlin, 1877; J. Burckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien, i. 112, 231 sqq., Leipsic, 1877; idem, Geschichte der Renaissance in Italian, pp. 11 sqq., ib. 1877; M. Broach, Papat Julius 11. and die Grandunp des Kirchenstaates, Gotha, 1878; F. Gregorovius, Geachichte der Stadt Rom, vol. viii., Stuttgart, 1881; Creighton, Papacy, v. 68‑202; Ranks, Popes, i. 39 sqq., iii. 11‑14; Bower, Popes, iii. 283‑290; KL, vi. 1998‑2002.

Julius III. (Giovanni Maria dal Monte): Pope 1550‑55. He was born of a distinguished Roman family, being nephew of Cardinal Antonio dal Monte, in Rome in 1487. By favor of Julius II. he succeeded his uncle as archbishop of Siponto, and in 1536 became cardinal under Paul III. As papal legate at the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545, he managed to thwart all the plans of the emperor. In spite of the opposition of the cardinals with imperial sympathies, he was elected pope after the death of Paul III.. in 1550. Henceforth he thoroughly reversed his policy toward the emperor, inviting him to reopen the council after its suspension, and turned away from Henry II. of France, whereupon the latter sided with the Farnese nephews and tried to constitute them proprietors of the contested possessions in southern Italy which heretofore they had held from the Church as retainers. The pope was again obliged to suspend the council when Maurice of Saxony, in 1552, turned unexpectedly against the emperor, and almost captured him at Innsbruck. The most momentous event during the pontificate of Julius 111. was the death of Edward VI. of England, and the return of England to the Roman obedience. Julius despatched Cardinal Pole (see POLE, REGINALD) as plenipotentiary legate to Queen Mary Tudor, and he brought it to pass that Parliament again recognized the papal supremacy, though subject to acceptance of the consummated transfer of church property to state or private possession. He then achieved the bloody realization of the Counter‑Reformation in England. The pontificate of Julius III. occurred at a time when in Italy, too, the nullification of the reforming movement was prosecuted with every instrument of force and cunning. He assured free play and advancement to the Inquisition, even though his indolent nature did not so energetically and personally interest him in this matter as proved true of his successors. That his moral life before and after his elevation to the papal throne bears no strict scrutiny, is attested by the utterances of many contemporaries. The avowed favorite Innocent, originally a street urchin of Parma, was not the only unworthy recipient on whom he bestowed church dignities and goods. He likewise endowed his relatives in this way; but the full time of political nepotism was past. Julius died May 23, 1555, shortly after sending Cardinal Morone to Germany, with the purpose of giving such a turn to the religious peace at the impending Diet of Augsburg, that Germany should be led back to the bosom of the Roman Church after the precedent of England. The same aim was to be promoted also by the Collegium Germanicum in
Rome, founded by Ignatius Loyola, and formally
opened in 1552, where the elite of the Jesuit order
were to be educated for the battle against German
Protestantism. 	K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The bulls of Julius are in A. M. Cherubini, Magnum bullarium Romanum, i. 778 sqq., Turin ed., vi. 401 sqq. Consult: Des fans et gestea du papa Jules III, Geneva (P), 1551; 0. Raynaldus, Annales ecclesiae", Cologne, 1694‑1727; Paolo Sarpi, The Historic of the Counceil of Trent, pp. 298‑303, 371, 376, 382‑388, London, 1629; C. Weiss, Papiers de l'Etat du cardinal de Granvelle, vol. iii., Paris, 1841; w. G. soldan, Geachichte des Protestantpsmua in Frankreich, i. 226 sqq., Leipsic, 1855; Petrucelli della Gattina, Hiat. diplomatique des conclaves, ii. 23 sqq., Paris, 1864; A. von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, pp. 503 sqq., Berlin, 1870; L. Maynier, Ektude historiqus sur le concile de Trento, pp. 586 sqq., Paris, 1874; M. Broach, Geechichte des Kirchenataafa, i. 189 sqq., Goths, 1880; De Lava, in Riviata atorica Italiana, 1884, pp. 632 sqq.; Ranks, Popes, i. 206‑210 et passim; Bower, Popes, iii. 317; KL, vi. 2Q02‑05; and literature under TasNT, COUNCIL OF.

JULIUS AFRICANUS, SE%TUS: One of the most learned ecclesiastical writers of the third century; b. probably about 160 in Africa., perhaps in Libya; d. probably soon after 240. In early life he may have been an officer, but after the expedition of Septimius Severus against Osrhoene (195) he settled at Emmaus (Nicopolis) in Palestine. About 215 he spent. some time in Alexandria studying under Heraclas, and later, in the reign of Ehigabalus or Alexander Severus, went to Rome on behalf of his fellow citizens. He published his " Chronography " in the fourth year of E15.gabalus, and his heterogeneous work entitled Kestoi (" Embroiderings ") under Alexander, to whom it was dedicated. His extant letter to Origen, whom he calls " son," was written in his old age. That he was ordained in later life is doubtful. He is one of the few ancient Greek Fathers who were in relation with Rome, and this was an advantage to his " Chronography." Divided into five books, and beginning with an apologetic purpose, it develops a scientific aim and shows a good knowledge of earlier pagan and Jewish sources. The whole work was practically incorporated into the chronographies of later writers, especially Eusebius, and deserves to be considered not only as the basis of Christian chronography, but as relatively better executed than the attempts of Julius' successors. Critical study of the Kestoi has made so little progress that it is scarcely worth while to summarize its conclusions. It appears to have been intended as a sort of encyclopedia of the material sciences with the cognate mathematical and technical branches, but to have contained a large proportion of merely curious, trifling, or miraculous matters, on which account the authorship of Julius has been questioned. Among the parts published are sections on agriculture, liturgiology, tactics, and medicine (including veterinary practise). The two letters, that to Aristides on the genealogies of Christ, of which only fragments are preserved, and that to Origen on the story of Susanna, are admirable bits of critical historical work. (A. HARNACg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Incomplete collections of the fragments are in A. Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum patrum, ii. 337‑376, 14 vols., Venice, 1765‑81, and in M. J. Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, vol. ii., 5 vols., Oxford, 1846‑48. The best ed. of the " Chronography " is in Gelzer, see below; for the

285	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Julius lII
Julius Echter
Keatoi consult Veterum mathematicorum opera, ed. M. Thevenot and J. Boivin, Paris, 1693; and for the Letter to Aristides, F. Spitta, Der Brief dee Julius Africanus an Aristides, Halle, 1877. An Eng. transl. of the fragments is in ANF, vi. 123 sqq.; and a list of literature is given in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 68‑69. Consult: Jerome, De vir. ill., bdii.; H. Geiser, $eztus Julius Africanus and die byzantiniache CAronopraphie, 2 vols., Leipsie, 1880‑98; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 803,805; Kriiger, History, pp. 248‑253; Harnack, Litteratur, L 507‑513, ii. 1, pp. 124 sqq., ii. part ii., passim; DCB, i. ti3‑57.
JULIUS ECHTER: Bishop of Wilrzburg 1573‑
1617; b. at the castle of Mespelbrunn in the Spes
sart (northwestern Bavaria) Mar. 18, 1545; d. at
Wiirzburg Sept. 13, 1617. The circumstances
under which his work was begun were as follows:
Not till after 1540, after the death of Bishop Con
rad II., did the Reformation prosper in the diocese
		of Wiirzburg. Then almost all citi
	Early zens and noblemen separated from the
	Activity. old church and inaugurated Lutheran
		preachers. Roman Catholic institu
tions decayed and the secular clergy was without
means and protection, so that many of its members
adopted the new doctrine. Bishop Friedrich of
Wirsberg (1558‑73) did not possess the necessary
energy to stem the tide of the new movement, al
though he sought a very close political union with
Bavaria and in 1567, against the opposition of the
cathedral chapter, realized the foundation of a
Jesuit college in Wilrzburg. On Dec. 1, 1573, Julius
Echter was elected bishop. He had been educated
in the Roman Catholic spirit from 1560 to 1569 at
Mainz, Louvain, Douai, Paris, Angers, Pavia and
Rome. As a licentiate of law and with a fund of
knowledge often praised in later times he came in
1569 to Wurzburg where he was received as an
active member of the cathedral chapter. In 1570
he became dean of the cathedral and in his twenty
eighth year was elected bishop, to the great satis
faction of Rome. In spite of contrary statements,
it has been proved that he never had Protestant
inclinations. He represented the interests of the
Roman Catholic estates of the realm at the diet of
Regensburg in 1576 and of Augsburg in 1582. Con
tinuing the policy of his predecessor, he kept in the
closest touch with Bavaria. He was thought to be
secretly inclined toward Protestantism because of
his cooperation in the deposition of Balthasar of
Dembach, abbot of Fulda, in 1576 at Hammelburg,
but this action was due to a youthful ambition to
incorporate the abbacy of Fulda and to become the
successor of Balthasar. His act caused general in
dignation among Roman Catholics, and the abbot
was reinstituted in 1602.
	It was only with great hesitancy that Julius un
dertook the work of counteracting the Reformation
in his diocese. Although he had been urged by
Rome in 1575 and 1577, he did not convoke a di‑
		ocesan synod because he dreaded the
	His hatred of the Protestant princes.
Timidity. Moreover, he feared to prod against
	heretical ecclesiastics lest whole re
gions should be deprived of ecclesiastics for whom
there were no substitutes. From the noble fam
ilies he did not dare to demand the oath of adher
ence to the Roman confession of faith because he
suspected that none of them had remained faithful.
In 1582 he still asked for a papal brief that should
censure him on account of the conditions in his
diocese and impose upon him a visitation and ex
amination of all ecclesiastics, and a second similar
brief to be directed to the chapter. The Curia,
granted both of them. His implication in the
affair of Fulda also hampered his attempts against
the Reformation, but, on the other hand, it required
him to give clear proof of his fidelity to Roman
Catholicism. But the weakness of the Protestant
princes became so evident at the diets of 1576 and
1582 and on other occasions that Julius lost his fear.
	Nevertheless, even in the early years of his ad
ministration he had made some important changes.
In 1575 all concubines, even those of the canons,
were forced to leave the city of Wiirzburg; in 1577
fourteen preachers were expelled from the chapter;
in 1581 Julius rejected the interference of the no
bility with religious affairs. In 1578 the seminary
		of priests was newly organized, and in
	His 1582 there was established ~ again the
	Achieve‑ University of Wfrzburg as an inatitu
	ments in tion of the Counter‑Reformation, under
	Counter‑ the dominating influence of the Jes
	Reform. uits. A new church order (1584 in
		Latin, 1589 in a remodeled form in
German) impressively reminded the clergy of their
duties in the spirit of the Council of Trent and en
forced a stricter ecclesiastical organization. All
Lutheran preachers (about 170) were deprived of
their offices; Protestant officers were dismissed.
A visitation of the whole diocese (1595 to 1587)
was directed against all Protestant members of the
population. In 1587 all who did not become Cath
olic were compelled to emigrate; in the course of
three years about 100,000 had been converted.
Only a few hundred remained true to their convic
tions and preferred to emigrate in spite of the fact
that they had to leave one‑third of their posses
sions to the bishop. Julius preserved an attitude
	of calm amid the resentment of the Protestants.
	Pamphlets were published against him, and the
	electors of Saxony, Palatinate and Brandenburg,
	the landgrave of Hesse, the margraves of Branden
	burg and Baden, the prince of Anhalt protested,
	some addressing themselves to the emperor with
	complaints about the violation of the religious peace;
	but Julius no longer overestimated the importance
of these MAW admollifene, 3eeling himself
secure under the protection of Duke Wilhelm of
Bavaria and of the pope and assured of the favor
of the emperor. The reform of ecclesiastical insti
tutions went hand in hand with the suppression of
Protestantism. The new church order contained,
beside regulations for the conduct of the clergyt
instructions concerning the church service, claimed
possession of the churches, and ordered observance
of the decrees of councils. There appeared re
vised editions of books for the church service, of
breviaries, Psalters, and missals. The book‑trade
was so controlled that only unobjectionable books
were circulated. The monasteries too, felt the re
forming influence of the bishop‑the possessions of
those that were hopelessly ruined were used for
other purposes (university, hospital), the others
were restored and subjected to rigorous visitations;

Jumpers	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	268
Jurlen
in the same way the chapter was reformed. A few
of the nobility opposed the new state of affairs, and
remnants of the Reformation were still found at the
beginning of the nineteenth century; but on the
whole Wurzburg had become thoroughly Catholic,
and the generation following that of Julius was de
voted to the church and the Jesuits. See BALTHA
ZAR of DERNBACH AND THE COUNTER‑REFORMATION
IN FULDA.		(W. GOETZ.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. N. Buchinger, Julius Echter von Me8pet
	brunn, WfIrzburg, 1843; H. L. J. Heppe, Restauration des
	Katholiciamus in . . . Warzburp, Marburg, 1$50; F. X.
	Wegele, Geschichte der Universitlft Warzburp, 2 vole.,
	Wtirzburg, 1882; Lossen, in Forschungen der deutechen
	Geschichte, vol. xxiii.; M. Bitter, Deutsche Geschichte im
	Zeitalter der Gegenreformation, i. 624 sqq., Stuttgart, 1887;
	J. Janssen, Hist. of the German People, viii. 335, 366,
	London, 1905; KL, vi. 2009‑16.
	JUMPERS: A name applied in derision to the
Welsh Calvinistic Methodists (see PRESBYTERIANS)
since they not only expressed their emotion in the
outcries frequent in Methodist meetings, but also
"leaped and sprang for joy." These ecstatic mani
festations first appeared about 1760 in circles of
Welsh Methodists, and spread with such contagion
that they were for a time regarded as a character
istic of the sect. Justification for the practise was
sought from I Sam. vi. 16; Luke vi. 23; and Acts
iii. 8. The custom later became obsolete.
		(C. SCHOELLt.)
	JUNCCKER, yunk'er, ALFRED: German Protes
tant; b. at Ids‑ and Marienhiitte, Silesia, July 4,
1865. He was educated at the universities of
Breslau, Berlin, Leipsic, and Halle from 1884 to
1888 (lie. theol., Halle, 1891). From 1892 to 1895
he was pastor at Bunzlau, after which he was ap
pointed inspector of the Sedlnitzkysches Johan
neum, Breslau. In 1896 he became privat‑docent
at the University of Breslau, where he was ap
pointed to his present position of associate profes
sor of New‑Testament exegesis in 1904. He has
written Das Ich and die Motivation des Willens im
Christentum, ein Beitrag zur Losung des euddmo
nistischen Problems (Halle, 1891); Die Ethik des
Apostels Paulus, vol. i. (Halle, 1904); and Das Gebet
bei Paulus (Gross‑Lichterfelde, 1905).
	JUNILIUS: Ecclesiastical writer; b. in Africa;
d. about 550. He was a contemporary of Cas
siodorus and lived at Constantinople under Jus
tinian, where he held some high civil office (accord
ing to Procopius, Historda arcana, xx., that of
Quaestor sacri palatii). According to his own
statement, his work entitled: Instituta regularia
divine legis, which he dedicated to Bishop Prima
sius of Hadrumetum at the time of the Three
Chapter Controversy (q.v.), is based on the com
munications of a Persian Paulus. In the form of
question and answer, this work, in two books, con
tains a methodical introduction into the sacred
Scriptures. The first part (book i. 1‑10) treats of
the various rhetorical styles, of the varied author
ity and authorship of the Scriptures, distinction
between poetry and prose, of the proper sequence
between the two Testaments. The books of Chron
icles, Job, Ezra with Nehemiah and Esther, and
also Canticles, James, II Peter, Jude, II and III
John, and Revelation are not reckoned among the
canonical Scriptures. The second	part (book i.
11‑ii. 27) presents a synopsis of the	doctrinal con
tent of Scripture: of God, his being,	the persons of
the Trinity, God's modes of operation, and his rela
tion to his creatures; of the present world, creation,
divine government, nature, free will; and of the
world to come, the story of salvation, election and
calling; of types and prophecies, and their fulfil
ment both in time and in eternity.	In conclusion,
there are some hermeneutical rules (ii. 28), grounds
for the credibility of Scripture (ii. 29), and an ex
planation of the relation between reason and faith.
	G. KRttGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The work of,Junilius was edited by J. Gast, Basel, 1545, reproduced Paris, 1644, and reprinted in MPL, Ixviii. 15‑42; also by H. Who, Freiburg, 1880, and in pp. 465‑528 of Kiha's Theodor von Mopmestia and Junilius Africanus, ib: 1880. Consult: A. Rahlfs, in Nachrichten der Gesellachaft der Wisaenechaften . . . to GUtingen, 1890, pp. 242‑246; DCB, iii. 534‑535.
JUNIUS, FRANCISCUS (FRANgOIS DU JON):
Reformed theologian; b. at Bourges May 1, 1545; d. at Leyden Oct. 13, 1602. At the age of thirteen he began the study of law, but soon gave it up in order to repair the deficiencies of his earlier education at the school of Lyons, where he succumbed for a time to the temptations of atheism, but soon was converted and then studied theology at Geneva. In 1565 he was called as preacher to the Walloon congregatioq of Antwerp, whence he had to flee in 1567, owing to intrigues of Roman Catholic and Anabaptist opponents. He accompanied Prince William of Orange on his campaign to Champagne, then he became pastor of the Walloon congregation at Schbnau in the Palatinate. In 1573 Elector Frederick III. called him to Heidelberg to assist in a Latin translation of the Old Testament. After the death of the elector, Count Palatine John Casimir called him to the newly established Casimirianum at Neustadt‑on‑the‑Haardt. Soon afterward he became preacher of the Walloon congregation in Otterberg. In 1582 he returned to his professorship at Neustadt and in 1584 removed to the University of Heidelberg. In 1592 he followed a call to Leyden. In his theological convictions he was always a genuine pupil of Calvin. His Ecclesiastici. sive de natura et administratione erelesiae Dei libri tres (Heidelberg, 1581) had great influence upon the development of synods and presbyteries. His Parallela sacra (1588), a treatise on Old‑Testament quotations in the New, was epoch‑making for Biblical exegesis. In his Animadversiones (1602), against Bellarmine, he defended Protestantism against Romanism, and in Defensio catholicae doctrinae (1592) he attacked the Antitrinitarians. Le Plaisible Chrestien ou de la paix de l'6glise catholique, written a few months before the renunciation of Protestantism by Henry IV., is a defense of an independent Gallico‑Catholic Church. He also made several translations, and wrote works of philological and historical interest. His contemporaries esteemed him very highly.
(F. W. Cumot.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early Vita by P. Merula appeared Leyden, 1595, and Esslingen, 1769, also reprinted in the
Opera of Junius, Geneva, 1607, 1613. The best modern

867	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	.5M. P‑8
life is by F. W. Cuno, Amsterdam, 1891; others are by J. Reitama, Groningen, 1864, and A. Davaine, Paris, 1882. Consult also Niceron, Mimoires, Vol. Xvi.; P. Bayle, Dictionary Historical and Critical, iii. 623‑628, London, 1736.

JUNSIN, jun'kin, GEORGE: Presbyterian; b. near Carlisle, Pa., Nov. 1, 1790; d. in Philadelphia May 20, 1868. He was graduated at Jefferson College, Pa., in 1813, studied theology under John M. Mason in New York, and in 1819 became pastor of the Associate Reformed Church at Milton, Penn. In 1822 he went over to the Presbyterian Church. He was principal of the Pennsylvania Manual Labor Academy, Germantown, Pa., 18301832, president of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., 1832‑41 and again 1844‑48, and president of Miami University, Ohio, 1841‑44. In 1848 he became president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), Lexington, Va. On the secession of Virginia in 1861, which he had strongly opposed, he removed to Philadelphia. He was one of the leaders of the Old School Presbyterians, and was moderator of the General Assembly in 1844. The more important of his publications are: The Vindication: A Reply to the Defence of Robert Barnes (Philadelphia, 1836); A Treatise on Justification (1839); Lectures on the Prophecies (1844); Political Fallacies (New York, 1863); A Treatise on Sanctification (Philadelphia, 1864); The Two Missions, the Apostolical and the Evangelical (1864); The Tabernacle (1865); and A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews (1873).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Life was written by his brother, D. X. Junkin, Philadelphia, 1871. Consult: E. H. Gillett, History of the Presbyterian Church, ii. 473‑475 et passim, Philadelphia, 1864; R. E. Thompson, American Church History Series, vi. 109‑111 et passim, New York, 1895; J. H. Patton, Popular Hiat. of the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., pp. 402‑404, 422, ib. 1900.
JURIEU, zha"ri‑o', PIERRE: With the possible exception of Pierre Bayle (q.v.), the most important theologian and strongest controversialist of the French Calvinists at the close of the seventeenth century; b. at Mer (11 m. n.e. of Blois), where his father was pastor, Dec. 24, 1637; d. at Rotterdam Jan. 11, 1713. He studied philosophy at the Academy of Saumur and divinity. at Sedan 1656‑58, then traveled through the Netherlands and England. In 1671 he succeeded to his father's curacy at Mer, was ordained, and remained there till 1674, when the Academy of Sedan elected him lecturer in Hebrew and soon after preacher. He filled both offices with such ability that Bayle, who had obtained through him a lectureship in philosophy in 1675, designated him " one of the first men of this century, the first of our communion." During the ten years spent at Sedan, Jurieu zealously defended the Reformation against the attacks of Bossuet and others. In July, 1681, when the Academy of Sedan was dissolved by Louis XIV., as his stay in France had become dangerous, he went to Rotterdam, where, besides a pastorship, he received a lectureship founded specially for him. There he worked hard to promote the cause of the French Reformed Church by his writings, and
caring for the exiled French pastors. Like Comenius and others he had to pass through sad experiences, having become too sanguine of the immediate restoration of the French Church through his interpretation of the prophecies in the Apocalypse, and later on by expecting too much from the fanatical prophets of Dauphin. Meanwhile advancing age warned him to bring to completion a work on which he had long been busy, his Histoire critique des dogmes et des cultes, published in two parts at Amsterdam, 1704‑‑05 (Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1705). Thenceforth ill health kept him from work.
Jurieu, like Calvin, held that the true Church is known by two signs: the preaching of the pure word of God and the right dispensation of the sacraments. It should be governed by the representatives of the Christian congregation, and has the right to exclude all those who do not accept the confession of faith. However, later on, to refute Bossuet and to satisfy new conceptions of hiz own mind, he came to a broader view'of the Church. In his Histoire du ealvinisme et du papisme (2 vols., Rotterdam, 1683) he makes a distinction between the temporal and the spiritual power. In the name of the latter, he demands full liberty of conscience. But the church service must be approved by the majority of the nation because the sovereign is only the representative of the nation. When, in 1685, the Edict of Nantes was revoked by Louis XIV., many Protestants besides Jurieu began to doubt the divine right of kings and stood for the rights of the people. As in Bayle's writings many of Voltaire's ideas are to be found, so in Jurieu's works is the germ of Rousseau's Contrat social.
Since many of the controversial works of the time were published anonymously, it is not §lWAyq
pible to determine their authorship with cer‑
	ossi
tainty. The principal works undoubtedly by
Jurieu are: on dogma and controversy, against the
Roman Catholics, La Politique du clerge de France.
(Amsterdam, 1680); Ref lexions sur la cruelle per
s6eution que sou, fre l'~glise r6formke en France
(1685); Prejuges legitimes contre le papisme (1685);
Le Vrai Sys0me de l'eglise et la veritable analyse de
la foi (Dort, 1686); Lettres pastorales addressees aux
fideles de France (Rotterdam, 1686; Eng. transl.,
London, 1689); concerning the Lutherans or the
Reformed, Des droits des deux souverains en, matiere
de religion (1687); Unite de feglise et Points fonda
mentaux (1688); on history and politics, Histoire
du calvinisme et du papisme unis en parallels (2 vols.,
1683); edifying and apocalyptic, L'Accomplissement

des prop46t~g 0 ~ Aft I ?IgLe (2 vols.,
1686; Eng. trans]., London, 1687); Traits de
(amour divin (1700). 	G. BONET‑MAURY.
BIBLIOGRAP$Y: The biographies by C, van Oordt Geneva,

1879 (best); and C. E. Megnin, Strasburg, 1854. Con' also: J. C, F, Hoefer Nouvelle biographie generals,
Pxviu 267 sqq" 46 vols..Paris, 1852‑66. F Puaux, Les

Pr~curaeura franpaia de la tolerance Me , 1880; J. B, 1(an,
in Bulletin de la commiaaion de 1'hiatoire dea egusea Way
Zones, Paris 1890; H. M. Baird, Huguenot, and the Rev‑
ocation of the Edict of Nantes 2 vols., New York, 1895;
Lichtenberger, ESR, vi. ti51‑559.

Jurisdiction, Boolesiastioal	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	988
I. The Early and Roman Catholic Churches.
1. Penal and Disciplinary Jurisdiction.
The First Three Centuries (¢ 1).
The Christian Roman Empire (§ 2).
The Merovingian Period (¢ 3).
The Carolingian and Later Periods (§ 4).
Deposition, Degradation, and Suspension (§ 5).
JURISDICTION, ECCLESIASTICAL.
Matters Calling for Penalty (§ 8).
The Organ of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (¢ 7).
Competence of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (¢ 8).
Secular Jurisdiction over the Clergy (¢ 9).
Method of Procedure (¢ lo).
2. Administrative and Civil Juriediotion.
I. The Early and Roman Catholic Churches.1. Penal and Disciplinary Jurisdiction; In the apostolic period, the Church exercised such disciplinary jurisdiction as any organization naturally has over its members, expressed in the case of
grave faults by exclusion from the 1. The First Church, with a possibility of restora‑
Three tion to membership on proof of re‑
Centuries. pentance and amendment (I Cor. v.
11; II Cor. ii. 5 eqq.). In the subapostolic era this exclusion is not only from the local community but from the whole Church; and the bishop, who now, with the other clergy and the whole body of believers, exercises this jurisdiction, appears as a divinely appointed organ of it, acting in the place of Christ. With the second century appears a stricter principle, denying the possibility of more than one restoration to communion, and of even one in the case of such grievous sins as idolatry, unchastity, and murder. Where restoration was allowed, it followed upon public Penance (q.v.); but this was of the nature of a preliminary voluntarily assumed, not of a penal measure. In the third century deposition and deprivation of income are employed against clerics, in addition to excommunication.
With the recognition of Christianity by the State and the increasing conciliar activity, the system developed in more detail. Against laymen different forms of Excommunication (q.v.1 were employed; against clerics, deposition, degradation, or
suspension, sometimes with depriva2. The tion of clerical income or (in the case
Christian of young clerics and those in minor .
Roman orders) corporal punishment. At first,
Empire. of course, there was no definite code for these proceedings, but the community (or later the bishop) had to decide the individual case. By degrees, however, legal principles were developed to regulate the life of the Church. Thus the Fathers distinguish between peccatum and delictum or crimen, and it is expressly recognized that a sin of thought alone is not subject to external or legal penalties. By the fourth century a definite basis is reached for the infliction of ecclesiastical penalties; for the severer, certain forma of apostasy, immorality and homicide; for the lighter, some cases of contact with paganism or neglect of Christian duties (e.g., of attendance at public worship). A distinction is drawn between poem vindimliva and poem medicinalia or mnsura, the latter having the amendment of the offender for its chief purpose and terminating with the removal of the offense. These latter are employed mainly against the clergy; those imposed on laymen, including excommunication, are all practically vindicativoe. The exercise
II. The Protestant Churches.
Modern Trend (§ 1).
Fundamental Law in the United States (¢ 2).
Elementary Principles (§ 3).
Limits of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction

Legal Aspects of Discipline (§ 5).
Relations of Churches and Officers
of jurisdiction over laymen and clergy, below the rank of bishop belonged to the bishop, who was bound to consult his priests and deacons before pronouncing sentence. A court of appeal (and for bishops of first instance) existed in the provincial synod. The Synod of Sardica (343) provides, in case of the condemnation of a bishop, for an appeal from either party to the Bishop of Rome, who may either confirm the sentence or order a new investigation by neighboring bishops, together with priests delegated by him as assessors. On the basis of this decree, which never obtained ecumenical recognition, the popes based the claim to supreme jurisdiction, and to a right of judging in the first instance all metropolitans, primates, and patriarchs; and such a claim was carried into practical effect throughout a large part of the West, under the sanction of the imperial power.
A similar sanction was given to the competence of other ecclesiastical tribunals; and certain offenses against ecclesiastical law, especially the abandonment of the Catholic faith, were made crimes under secular law; secular penalties were also imposed upon some offenses against discipline on the part of the clergy (such as gambling, illegal marriage, wilful abandonment of the clerical state). By Roman law, however, the clergy were not exempted from secular jurisdiction, except that bishops accused of a breach of secular law were to be tried first by a synod of their peers, who were nevertheless obliged to hand over a convicted offender to the State after the imposition of their owe penalty, until Justinian reserved the right to sanction secular proceedings against a bishop to the emperor alone.
During the Merovingian period, the character of excommunication was changed by the acceptance of the doctrine of the indelibility of baptism, which rendered a complete and absolute sep8. The Mar‑ aration from the Church impossible,
ovincfaa	while desertion of the Church's faith
	Period.	was unlawful and punishable. Besides
		the earlier penalties there were now
added flogging for slaves and inferior persona, im
prisonment in a monastery, and in the Visigothic
kingdom banishment, decalvation (scalping), con
fiscation of property, money fines, the lose of secu
lar dignities, and reduction to slavery. In this
period corporal punishment was applied to clerics
in major orders as well as minor. The performance
of works of penance was now enforced as a penalty,
either alone or with others, for life, for a fixed pe
riod, or until amendment or removal by ecclesias
tical superiors. The judicial system remained much
as before, except that the policy of the Visigothic
and Frankish kingdoms left little room for appeals

289	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	dnrlediotion, Eaoledastiaal
secular tribunals. This was employed only in definitely fixed grave crimes, especially heresy. Depri‑
to the pope. In regard to the judgment of clerical
offenders, the Frankish law was that crimes pun‑
ishable by death or exile (treason, homicide, rob‑	vatcon, which does not render the
bery) were referred, in the case of bishops, to a	6. Depo' offender incapable of holding another
provincial or national synod, and when this had siti°n'	benefice, was seldom used before the
pronounced sentence of deposition the offender	tiontwelfth century, but has been frequent
came under royal jurisdiction for death, banish‑	guspen‑ since. A modern variation of it is the
ment, or confiscation. As to the lower clergy, the lion.	removal of a cleric from one benefice to
Church as early as. the sixth century demanded a	another less desirable one. Suspension
change in the old Roman law, requiring the secular	has also been developed in detail, and may be ab
courts to abstain from all action until the bishop	officio, ab ordine, a benejicio, or totalis, from all three.
had proceeded against the accused in the way of	The Council of Trent gave the right to bishops to
ecclesiastical discipline. The edict of Clothair II.	inflict suspension nb officio or ab ordine for a sin
(614) conceded this in regard to priests and den‑	not publicly known without any preliminary hear
cons, and forbade the execution of capital punish‑ ing; the only recourse lies to the pope.
ment upon them until they had first been deposed	A distinction, first occurring in the Visigothic
by ecclesiastical authority.	kingdom at the end of the sixth century, has since
From the ninth to the sixteenth century, the	been made between poenae ferendae sententiae and
system of jurisdiction received its further develop‑	pomae latae sententiae. The latter class take effect
ment, and has remained practically unchanged in	immediately upon the commission of the act with
the Roman Catholic Church since the latter date.	which they are connected, without requiring any
Partly through the Carolingian capit‑	judicial process. Excommunication and suspension
4. The uiaries, and then through a long series	when they are penalties ferendae sententiae, require
oarolia. of papal enactments, a number of	a threefold or at least a single peremptory admoni
sia" and
further secular penalties were imposed	tion before they can be imposed, thus giving the
p~. upon offenders, of the most varied	offender an opportunity to avert the penalty by
kind, including the deposition of kings the performance of due penance. From the twelfth
and prints, the absolution of their subjects from	century on, both the popes and general and local
	allegiance, the piercing of the tongue for blas‑	councils established an inordinate number of pen
	phemy, death for sodomy and abortion, withdrawal	alties latae aententiae; but Pius IX., in the consti
	of all communication with Christians for Jews, etc.,	tution Apostoliace sedis of 1869, abolished all those
	etc. The Roman Catholic Church has not yet	which rested on the common law, the later general
	abandoned the medieval view that it is entitled to	councils, and the papal constitutions, with the ex
	inflict secular penalties, though in consequence of	ception of such as were established by the Council
	the changed relations between Church and State	of Trent, had to do with papal elections and the in
	these have fallen into disuse against laymen, ex‑	ternal management of orders, congregations, col
	cept infamy regarded as a ground of irregularity;	legiate bodies, and church institutions, or were ex
	and the Church is empowered by modern legislation	pressly named in thus decree.
	to inflict them upon the clergy only in the forms of		In regard to the development of the matter cov
	money fines and confinement in a house of correo‑	ered by ecclesiastical penalties, in the Carolingian
	tion. In the line of purely spiritual penalties, there	period the offenses legislated against were in large
	were added the local Interdict (q.v.), the refusal of			measure those of a grave moral nature,
	Christian burial as a separate penalty, suspension		e. Xatters such as sexual immorality, perjury,
	from particular churchly rights, incapacity to hold		aauing for	and robbery. AW the elwgnth w
	ecclesiastical offices, and the indignutiu of the pope		Penalty.
					tury, the papal legislation is deter
	(loss of papal favor and breaking off of communica‑			mined predominantly by the hierarch
	tion). Apart from the limitation of the prohibi‑	ical interests of the Church, and directed against
	tion of intercourse with excommunicated persons	heresy, the invasion of ecclesiastical liberties, the
	(see ExCOMMUNICAT10N), a distinction was made	subjection of clerics to secular tribunals, the sp
	in the eighteenth century between suspension from	propriation by laymen of ecclesiastical property,
	the privileges of church membership (for which in	lay investiture, and the like. It is true, however,
	this period the terms interdidum peraonale, infer‑	that a large number of penalties provided against
	didum "gressm eccleaiae came into use) and the	the neglect of spiritual duties (the keeping of 'gun day, the Easter duty, fasting), and against robbery,
		By the end of the twelfth century, in connection	false coinage, desertion of children, tournaments,
	with the development of the doctrine of the ihdech	false accusation, abuse of power, and so on; and
	bility of holy orders and the struggle of the Church	that the Church, by the erection of the " Trace of
	to maintain the preposgium Eons for its clergy, the	God " (q.v.) into a general institution, did much to

earlier penalty of deposition was distinguished into put down a large class of crjmps	t aping person an
two classes‑what was now teed deposition, and property. But iIl 	f
degradation. The former deprived the offender Of		cl	Undeniable
his office and benefice, of the r		semC"
	ht to			nation, it still remains true that
lg	eEereise hiswhere the criminal lotion of the medieval pope
orders, and of the ca	to be again employed in is determined b	y clear and consis

tent policy, it
the service of the Church; the latter, in addition	is in ceases affecting the potion of the Church as a
took away from him all the privileges of the clerical	hierarchical power.
state, and delivered him over to the jurisdiction of		If the earlier penal legislation of the

Church is of

Jurisdiction, Ecclesiastical	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
270
a purely occasional character, with no attempt to build up a thorough‑going system, the same is true to a large extent of the period from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, including the Tridentine alone among general councils. And again, although the council deals with such ethical crimes as dueling, adultery, seduction and forced marriage, and the papal constitutions with such others as bigamy, sodomy, the slave‑trade, piracy, wrecking, and the bearing of false witness, they still impose the majority of their penalties upon what may be called hierarchical offenses. It is for these that the latest constitution of the kind, the APostolicae sedis, maintains the penalties latae sententiae, which it keeps up for dueling and abortion alone among offenses of a general ethical nature.
The principal organ for the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction on this system is the pope, who since the twelfth century has succeeded in maintaining his claim to be the jvdex ordinaries sing2N lorum. The Council of Trent, however, following
the precedents of the Concordat of 7. The Basel and the Council of Constance, Organ of decreed that controverted questions
Ecclesias‑
tical Juris‑ should come in the first instance before
diction. the bishops. The direct jurisdiction
of the pope finds its greatest practical significance in regard to the ecclesiastical dignitaries whose immediate superior he is, the cardinals and metropolitans, and outside of these to the bishops. The Council of Trent, in subjecting the latter to his jurisdiction, did but confirm the established medieval law from the end of the eleventh century, that in all cases of serious offenses, for which degradation, deposition or deprivation were the penalties, they should be wholly subject to papal decision, while less grave matters might be dealt with by the provincial councils.
The Council of Trent, again following the two earlier reforming councils, attempted to exclude as far as possible the final decision of cases in Rome, and so provided for the nomination by provincial or diocesan synods of certain clerics to be known as judices synodales to whom the pope might delegate the decision of certain cases brought before him. This arrangement never had much practical significance, as the popes preferred to place appeals in the hands of their nuncios or of archbishops and bishops, or in some cases to give the nuncios the appointment of those who should hear them. At the present time many cases are finally disposed of by the Roman congregations, especially the Cork gregatio eoncilii and the Congregatio episcoporum et regularium (see CURIA).
In regard to the competence of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Church has always claimed the right to punish any violation of its ordinances either by clergy or by laity, independently of the question
whether the offense was also against 8. Compe‑ secular law. As long as it employed tence of purely ecclesiastical penalties, there
Ecclesias‑
tical Juris‑ could be no conflict between the two
diction. jurisdictions. This was the case not
only under the Roman empire but also in the Merovingian and Carolingian periods‑all the more because the Germanic penal code con‑
tained but few crimes on which public punishment was inflicted. Up to the twelfth century the Church was thus able to fill up a serious gap in penal legislation by taking cognizance of a number of grave crimes for which the secular law provided no public penalty. When, from the twelfth century on, the latter began to increase the number of crimes which it punished, conflicts could no longer be avoided, and the secular tribunals protested against the invasion of their rights by the Church courts. In practise, then, there developed out of these conditions a distinction of offenses into delicta mere secularid, delicta mere ecclesiastics, and delicta mixta or mixti fori. No general agreement could be or has been reached as to what constitutes the third class, in which both secular and ecclesiastical authorities have competence. Usually it has been held to include the principal offenses against chastity, usury, sorcery, magic, perjury, blasphemy, and the forgery of papal briefs. For modern practice see below, II. The action of the Church against secular offenses is thus confined nowadays almost wholly to the forum internum, i.e., to the imposition of penance in the confessional; and the established ecclesiastical courts only take part in the process in so far as it is a question of cases reserved to the pope or bishop for decision (see CAsus REsERVATI).
	The question of secular jurisdiction over the
clergy was raised early in the ninth century by
ecclesiastical reformers, with the help of the for
geries of Benedictus Levita and the pseudo‑Isidore;
		and they succeeded to a large extent
9. Secular in enforcing their claim of Exemption jurisdiction (q.v.). Throughout the Middle Ages,
over the indeed, secular rulers maintained their
	Clergy.	right to punish even bishops for a
		breach of their obligations as vassals,
officials, or subjects, with imprisonment or exile;
but they made no attempt, except in rare instances,
to exercise a power of deposition, which by the
eleventh century was recognized as a right reserved
to thd pope. In respect to the other clergy, the
Church's claim was never acknowledged for clerics
who were not recognizable as such by the tonsure
and clerical garb, and with the fourteenth century
a strong reaction began against such exemption,
which finally led to its complete abolition in most
countries. The Church, however, still held to it
in theory, even in the Syllabus of 1864.
The opening of ecclesiastical proceedings was conditioned from the earliest times by the notoriety of the offense, or by self‑denunciation on the offender's part, or by the accusation of another;
10. Method or it might follow ex officio when the
of Pro‑ authorities had sufficient cause, as in cedure. well‑grounded suspicion. In all these
cases, the bishop might proceed first by a brotherly admonition, on the basis of Matt. xviii. 15‑17 (the so‑called denuncistio evangelics); if the offender remained obstinate, formal trial and punishment might follow, or in the opposite case he might take upon himself the canonical penance without being shut out of the communion of the Church. From the fourth century the Church adopted the Roman regulations in regard to accusations: the formal charge to be signed by the so‑

271	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Jurisdiction, Eoolesiastioal
cuaer, the obligation to prove the charge, and the lez ttalionia, instead of which excommunication was frequently the penalty for accusers who failed to follow up or to prove their charges. Under the influence of Germanic ideas, the Church further adopted the oath of purgation, especially in the case of clergy who had been tried and not convicted, when some suspicion still remained. The compurgators were dropped, and the process was regarded less as a privilege of the accused than as his duty, to clear himself from suspicion. In the Carolingian period the Frankish Church employed still more of the Germanic procedure; the accused had the right to clear himself by an oath, and if it was made with compurgatora he went free of either the charge or the suspicion (in case of ex officio proceedings). Under the joint influence of the Roman and Germanic systems, by the end of the eleventh century this had become the common law of the Church, except that the accuser in the case of clerics was always required to prove his charge. The Ptcrgestio cesnonica was opposed to the purgestio vulgesris or Wager of Battle (q.v.), which the popes were endeavoring to suppress. The objection to the use of this method in ex officio proceedings, that it allowed no objective investigation of the offenses suspected to have been committed, and the need of stricter,discipline for the clergy, especially in view of the increasing accusations brought against them by the heretical sects, caused Innocent III. to reform the procedure in ex officio cases, distinguishing two courses, per inquisitionzm and per denunciationem. The former was rather a disciplinary than a criminal process, and permitted purgation by oath when no positive result had been reached by the investigation, or when the preliminary proceedings had raised a strong presumption in favor of innocence. The other process required the denunciatio evangelices to precede farther action, which followed the course of criminal procedure in case of recalcitrancy. But this method gradually disappeared from the practise of the Church in consequence of the limitation of its power over the laity in criminal cases. There was the less need for it when, as was frequently the case from the fifteenth century, special officials (called promotores or procurestores fiscales) were appointed as assessors to the ecclesiastical courts, to investigate suspected crimes or disciplinary offenses, bring them before the courts, and represent the public interests at the trial. By the seventeenth century, when the denunciatio evangelica had ceased to be practical in view of the office of these Promotores, and when the requirement of an insinuatio clamosa or infamies for the opening of a process per inqtcisitionem had lost its significance, the place of both methods was taken by a modified form of the latter, the purpose of which was to establish the facts, whether they pointed to the guilt or the innocence of the accused. The purgestio cesrconices, for which in any case it was increasingly difficult to find compurgators, was out of place in this form of procedure, and disappeared with the seventeenth century. Since papal legislation had made no attempt at a universal reconstruction of the penal and disciplinary procedure from the pontificate of Innocent III. until the be‑
ginning of the nineteenth century, the newer system developed variously in different places; but there was a general tendency, caused by the limitation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and by the dimi!~tytion of the revenues which had formerly supported the courts, to dispense with all but the essential forms. A similar tendency is displayed in the instructions of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars issued in 1880, which sets forth an improved and simplified form of procedure, to take place privately and in writing, and allows the bishops to use it when the older form is impossible or inexpedient.
	2. Administrative and Civil Jurisdiction. The
development of the civil jurisdiction of the Church
is	described under AUDIENTIA EPISCOPALIB. Be
sides this, the imperial legislation expressly recog
nized the competence of the bishops de religions,
i.e., in controversies to be decided according to
ecclesiastical rules, concerning, for example, the
right to the incumbency of Church offices. In Gaul
also such matters were tinder the jurisdiction of the
bishops and synods; but since there was a differ
ence of law between Church and State, and the State
did not undertake to execute the ecclesiastical de
cisions, those matters which required state action
(matrimonial causes, questions of church property,
etc.) came before the secular courts. In 614 the
Church succeeded in getting all cases de possessions
(questions of property, to be settled by award, not
by public penalty) in which the clergy were con
cerned before its courts. In the Carolingian period
the claims of the Church were recognized by the
ordinance that disputes between clerics should be
settled by the bishop, and that the bishop should
sit with the court in any question de possessions
between clerics and laymen. In the Middle Ages
the Church succeeded to a great extent in enforcing
its contention that the laity had no competence in
ecclesiastical matters, helped by the contrast be
tween the confusion or weakness of secular courts
and its own prompt and thorough execution of its
decisions, with the power of excommunication to
back them. According to the canon law, the spir
itual courts took cognizance of all causae incidentea
spiritvesles (those which touched the sacraments or
offices of the Church, especially marriage); the
cesusese apiritualibus annexae (such as the right of
patronage, tithes, betrothals, wills, and agreements
ratified by oath); causae civiles eccleaiessticis esccee
soriae (questions of dowry, legitimacy, etc.). Fur
ther, all civil proceedings, in so far as the injustice
of one party could be construed as sin, might be
brought into the church courts; and so might the
cases of personae miserabiles (widows, orphans,
paupers, pilgrims), as well as those in which secu
lar judges denied justice. Clergy, monks and nuns,
all ecclesiastical institutions, crusaders belonged in
any case to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, except in
cases of feudal rights. Here also the Roman Cath
olic Church still clings to these claims in theory,
although they have long ceased to be practical in
most countries. 	(P. HINSCAIUBt.)
II. The Protestant Churches: The jurisdiction exercised at the present time by the churches of western Europe and the United States differs

Jurisdiction, Ecclesiastical	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
both in nature and extent from the jurisdiction of the ancient and medieval Church. The changes have been brought about very largely by the changed relations of political
:. Modern and ecclesiastical institutions. These
	Trend.	modifications have been developing
		since the sixteenth century and
have paralleled the changes in doctrine and forms
of worship. They have at times originated with
the churches themselves, but more frequently have
resulted from the action of the civil power. While
the jurisdiction of the medieval Church covered to
a varying extent the institution of marriage, the
execution and probate of wills, and the descent of
property, and included also a considerable minor
criminal jurisdiction over the clergy, the modern
churches are by the State deprived of such juris
diction and confined to matters defined by the
civil power as purely spiritual in their objects.
Where an ecclesiastical body is by law established,
as is the case with the Church of England (see
ENGLAND, CHURCH OF), the civil power fixes for
the Church its organization and jurisdiction. The
modifications since the Reformation have been
gradual. The changes in jurisdiction have been
most radical where, as in the United States, the
Church has ceased to be a governmental institution.
The sphere of ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised by the American churches has been outlined by the supreme court of the United
s. Funds‑ States in the case of Watson vs. Jones
mental Law (13 Wallace, U. S. Reports 679, as
in the	follows:
United		" in this country the full and free right to
States.	entertain any religious belief, to practise
	any religious principle, and to teach any re
	ligious doctrine which does not violate the laws
of morality and property, and which does not infringe per
sonal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy,
is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment
of no meet. The right to organize voluntary religious asso
ciations to assist in the expression of any religious doctrine
and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted
questions of faith within the association, and for the eccle
siastical government of all the individual members, congre
gations and officers within the general association is un
questioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do
eo with an implied consent to this government and are
bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and
would lead to the total suppression of such religious bodies,
if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal
to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the
essence of these religious unions, and of their right to es
tablish tribunals for the decisions arising among themselves,
that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesi
astical cognisance, subject only to such appeals as the or‑ _
ganism itself provides for."
This sphere of liberty for the purpose of religion has been defined in detail by principles laid down by the civil power. While modern states have in some cases relinquished the power to legislate in ecclesiastical matters, they have everywhere reserved the power to define the sphere of ecelesiastical jurisdiction; and no matter what may be the desires of a church body for added powers over its members, the rule of the State is absolute. Mod‑
ern states, in defining the powers of bodies organized for the purposes of religion, have not enacted formal codes stating the jurisdiction of such bodies in detail; but they have laid down general principles in the civil courts in the adjudication of cases
brought about through church controversies. The civil courts of the United States have in the century past developed some fundamental principles applicable to all the religious organizations of the land which have become law wherever American sovereignty has been extended. Similar principles have been worked out by the civil courts in all parts of the British empire.
The basic principle of modern ecclesiastical jurisdiction is that all ecclesiastical relations must be
voluntary both in their inception and 3. Elemen‑ in their duration. This rule applies tart' Prin‑ as well to church membership as to the ciples. holding of ecclesiastical office. No ecclesiastical relations are of the nature of a civil contract in law. The chest juridical analogy is to an obligation in equity. Such relations can be severed at any time without incurring civil disabilities. The polity of the denomination and the obligations laid down in a discipline as assumed by a member do not, from the standpoint of the State, change the voluntary character of the relationship. Another elementary principle limiting ecclesiastical jurisdiction is that the law of the land is law for the churches. So much of the civil law as applies must be read into the internal or canon law of all religious organizations. So also the internal law of religious bodies can validly contain nothing that contradicts the principles of the common and statute law of the land. The churches, therefore, may enact no rule overriding, restraining, or curtailing the civil rights of their members. Nor can the churches make a valid attempt to exempt their members from their civil and political obligations. Thus a church body may not validly discipline its members for exercising the elective franchise or serving upon juries or taking up arms in defense of the State. A further limitation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is found in the principle that church courts can not with legal sanction adjudicate civil controversies among their members, although the parties may have voluntarily submitted their cases to such courts. No decision can be rendered that will bar the parties from their right of appeal to the civil courts:
With these as fundamental principles of limitation found in the polity of all the states of western
civilization, modern ecclesiastical ju4. Limits risdiction and discipline are definitely of Ecclesi‑ limited to the conduct of moral and astical ju‑ spiritual operations, cooperation for risdiction. the purposes of religion, propaganda of faith, charity, and education. The churches are at liberty to define their faith and to regulate their own affairs. They may lay down rules of conduct for their members and .prescribe what manner of life they shall live. Such .a life, however, must be in accord with the prevailing standards of public morality, and such standards are in the last analysis fixed by the exerCiee Of the police power of the State by the civil authorities.
In many instances modern religious organizations have endeavored to prescribe for their members modes of life not in accordance with the prevailing standards of public morality. There have peen attempts to institute abnormal relations of the

273
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Jurisdiction, Eoolesiaatioal
sexes, the infliction of physical suffering, cruel penance, exhausting tests of physical endurance, and lewd assemblies, and acts which constitute a disturbance of the public peace. All such acts on the part of religious bodies bring about the intervention of the civil power. No argument based upon any assumed sanction of revealed religion will validate such acts. Within these well‑defined limits the churches may exercise a complete and detailed jurisdiction over their members. They can bring members to trial for violations of discipline and for acts and modes of life contrary to the principles of their faith. They are at liberty to prescribe the rules by which their courts shall be organized and the procedure of trials. Such courts are under legal obligation to proceed according to the law of the body that created them, and should they not live up to their own law, their decisions can be set aside by the civil courts.
The discipline that can be meted out to church members upon the findings of church courts may extend only (1) to admonition, (2) sus‑
g. Legal pension of privileges, (3) penance,
Aspects of (4) excommunication, and (5) expulDiscipline. sion from membership. If the church law provides for an appeal to a higher judicatory, such an appeal may not be refused by the trial court. If an appeal be refused, the higher judicatories may be compelled by the civil courts to entertain it. If the decision of a church court affects the civil rights as well as the ecclesiastical relations of a church member, so much of the decision as relates to the civil rights will be regarded by the civil courts as null and void, while due effect will be given to so much of the decision as affects purely ecclesiastical relations. Where membership in a particular congregation carries with it the right of sepulture in a certain ground, the loss of membership will result in the loss of that right, as the civil courts have held that such a right is a privilege that can be lost with membership. Marriage, the annulment of marriage, and divorce are now matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts, so that church discipline in relation to these matters is entirely without legal effect and can affect only the ecclesiastical standings of the parties.
In general the same principles govern the jurisdiction that the churches exercise over their ministers and other officials. Here the
6. Rela‑ modern jurisdiction is in deepest con‑
tions of trast with that of the medieval Church.
Churches From the standpoint of civil law the
and holding of ecclesiastical office is enOfficers. tirely a voluntary matter, no perpetual tenure or obligation being possible. Any ecclesiastical office may be renounced at any time without incurring civil disabilities. One who accepts office in a religious body voluntarily assumes the obligation to obey the rules of that body not only in all matters pertaining to his office but also as to the mode of life required of him. Under the principles of modern ecclesiastical jurisdiction church office is not a civil right, but is in the nature of a vested interest to be enjoyed upon a certain tenure. In several ways the VI.‑18
State recognizes the ministry of the churches. Ordained ministers and priests are among those authorized by the State to perform the marriage ceremony, and such church officials are exempt from jury duty and from enforced military service. The civil courts will entertain the case of a church official when deprived of his office in any other manner than according to the law of the organization to which he belongs. The deposed official can appeal to the civil courts for restitution and can compel the church authorities to grant him a trial according to the law of the body. If, however, he has been duly tried and properly deprived of his office, he has no redress in the civil courts, as he has not been deprived of a civil right and his relation to his church was not contractual. Although the discipline of a church body may require that its ordained ministers refrain from secular employment as means of livelihood, an ordained minister or priest has no claim on his church or superior officials for support unless such a claim is specifically recognized by the law of the church. The penalties which may be prescribed by the judgment of an ecclesiastical court rendered against an official are: (1) censure, (2) the temporary suspension of the right to exercise the functions of his office, (3) deprivation of his office, and (4) expulsion from church membership. No financial penalties can be inflicted nor can the defendant be compelled to share the costs of trial. The church courts have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, but they can compel, with the aid of the civil courts, the production of books and papers in the custody of those over whom they have jurisdiction. The proceedings of ecclesiastical courts need not be made public, but in the event of testimony being given in public or such testimony being subsequently published and proved false on material points, such testimony may constitute libel and an action will lie for damages for defamation of character.
When there is controversy as to the person entitled to a church office, the civil courts will not take the initiative, but if a proper action can be planned involving the title to property, especially in the case of church trustees, the civil courts will take cognizance of the matter collaterally. Such matters come within the equity jurisdiction of the civil courts. The methods employed by the civil courts when they intervene in ecclesiastical matters are usually the issue of writs of mandamus directed to the ecclesiastical authorities compelling certain action, or the issue of writs of injunction restraining certain proposed action. In case a deposed church official has had in his possession funds belonging to the, organization, an action for an accounting will lie in the same manner as against any civil treasurer or trustee.
GEORGE .TAMES BAYLES.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the early Church consult: Bingham,
Originea, IL, iv.‑vii.; J. Fulton, Index canonum; Greek text and Eng. tranal. and Complete Digest of the . . . Code of Canon Law of the . . . primitive Church, New York, 1883.
For the Roman Catholic Church consult: Corpus yuris
canonici, ed. A. L. Richter and A. Friedberg, Leipsio,
1879 (best edition); E. Friedberg, De ftnium inter eccle
siam et civitatem regundorum juclicio, Leipsie, 1861; W.

Jurisdiction, Ecclesiastical
Justification	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	874
Molitor: Usher kanoniachas Gerichtnerfahren gepen Kleriker, Mama 1856; F. Kober, Die Suspension der Kirchendiener, Tilbingen, 1862; idem, Deposition and Depradar tion nach den Grundetttzen des kirchlichen Rechts, ib. 1867; D. Bouu, Tractatus de iudiciis ecelesiasticia, 2 vole., Paris,. 1866 N. Miinehen, Do# kanonische Geriebtaverfahren and Strafrecht, 2 vole., Cologne, 1866 J. F. von Schulte,

Ueber Kirchenatrafen, Berlin, 1872; F. Droste, Kirchliehes Diaziplinar and Kriminalverfahren gepen Geistliche, Paderborn, 1881; E. Katz, Grundriss des kanonischen Sgrqfrechta Berlin, 1881; Jura sacerdotum oindicata, New York, 1883; P. Pievantonelli, Praxis fori ecclesiaetici, Rome, 1883; P. Hinsehius, Kirchenrecht . . . in Deutschland volt. iv.‑vi., Berlin, 1886‑97; A. Nisal, Der Genchiestand des Klemm im frunkischen Reich, Innsbruck, 1886; A. L. Richter, Lehrbuch des . . . Kirchenrechts, $$ 206‑210, 212‑226, Leipsie, 1886; R. Bohm, Geietliche Gaichubarkeit im, frankisden Reich, in Zeitschrift far Kirchenrecht, ix (1889), 193 eqq.; 8. B. Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, 3 vols., New York, 1893; C. Gross, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrecht, Vienna, 1894; E. Friedberg, Lehrbuch des . . . Kirchenrechts, 100, 101, 103‑107 Leipsic 1895; A. T. Wirgman, Constitutional Authority of the Bishops in the Catholic Church, New York, 1899; J. B. 6aegmiiller, Lehrbueh des katholischen KirchenrwJds, Freiburg, 1900‑04; W. von BrUnneck, Beitrage zur Geschichte des Kirchenrechta in den deutacden Koloniaationelanden, 2 parts, Berlin, 1902‑04.
For the German Evangelical Churches consult: O. Meier, Kirchensucht and Konaiatorial‑Kompetenz, Rostoek, 1851; G. Galli, Die lutheriacluen and calvinistischen Kirchenatrafen pegen Laien im Reformationazeitalter, Breslau, 1879; A. L. Richter, ut sup., §¢ 211, 227‑231; R. Frank, Die neueren Diaziplinargesetu der deutach‑evangeliechen Landeskirchen, Marburg, 1890; E. Friedberg, ut sup., ¢$ 102, 108‑109; K. K51iler, Lehrbuch des . . . KW'chenr, pp. 194, 258, Berlin, 1895.
For Protestant Churches in Great Britain consult: J. Brownbill, Principles of English Canon Law, London; 1883; Constitution and Law of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1884; Compendium of the Acts of General Assembly Relating to Procedure in Church Courts ib. 1886; H. W. Cripps, Treatise on the Law Relating to the Church and Clergy, London, 1886; W. Mair, Digest of Laws Relating to the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1887; F. H. L. Errington, Clergy Discipline Act, 189B, London, 1892; T. B. Hardern, Church Discipline, Cambridge, 1892; J. Chitty, Statutes Relating to Church and Clergy, London, 1894; R. J. Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England, 2 vols., ib. 1895; F. W. Maitland, Roman Canon Law in the Church of England, Cambridge, 1898; H. Hardy, Ecclesiastical Proceedings under the Clergy) Discipline Acts, London, 1899; H. Miller, A Guide to Ecclesiastical Law, London, 1899; J. H. Blunt, The Book of Church Law, ib. 1901; T. E. Smith, Summary of the Law and Practice in the Ecclesiastical Courts, ib. 1902; J. M. Dunaan, The Parochial Ecclesiastical Law of Scotland, Edinburgh 1903; W. H. Frere, The Relation of Church and Parliament in Regard to Ecclesiastical Discipline, Oxford, 1903; P. V. Smith, The Law of Churchwardens and Sidesmen, London, 1903; idem, Legal Position of the Clergy, ib. 1905. For the United States: E. Buck, Ecclesiastical Law, Boston, n.d.; R. H. Tyler, American Ecclesiastical Law, Albany, 1868; V. Hoffman, Ecclesiastical Law in New York, New York, 1868; L. T. Townsend, Handbook upon Church Trials, ib. 1885; C. B. Howell, The Church and Civil Law, Detroit, 1886 3. B. Smith, ut cup.; also New Procedure in Criminal and Disciplinary Causes of Ecclesiastics, New York, 1887 W. D. Wilson, American Church Law ib. 1889; H. J. ~Desmond, The Church and the Law, Chicago, 1898; and the literature under CHuaca DISCIPLINE.
JUSTICE, ETHICAL, AND EQUITY: Justice (in the ethical sense) in itself is the maintenance of positive legal order, assuring the peaceful and thriving existence of human society, the supreme political virtue.ustt'tui regrtorum furtdamentum. Aristotle distinguishes juatitia diatru3utiva et corrediva. The first distributes riches, power, and honor according to desert; the other compensates
for inequalities and balances the loss and gain in the transactions of life. Justice provides the enact proportion of duties and rights, and punishes every violation of positive legal order. Justice establishes general lines of direction by laws, which prove themselves emanations of justice whenever they correspond to the original conception of right and reveal it in the decisions and ordinances based upon them.
Equity (Lat. aequitaa, Gk. iaotea) is to be associated with justice. What the latter establishes in a general way, sometimes appears insufficient when applied to the individual case‑‑summum iua, summa injurin. What is just in general and what is individually just may diverge considerably. In such a case equity regards and vindicates rationality of natural right and corrects positive law in its too wide or too narrow comprehension.
Justice as a personal quality is the demeanor of man in accordance with the legal order, his rectitude. Its principle is enact compensation‑suum calque. Benevolence can not stand in its place. Rectitude obliges us to conscientious practising of the law, even when thereby evil may arise to our neighbor. It is wrong and contrary to our duty to spare him out of fear or weakness. In actual practise rectitude becomes probity or honesty.
Here also equity forms the morally indispensable complement of rectitude (Col. iv. I). In our conduct toward our neighbor equity consists in yielding up and desisting from our just claims, where, relentlessly pursuing them, we should damage the neighbor in a degree detrimental to charity; and, on the other hand, in acknowledging and fulfilling claims of our neighbor on us which are not founded on strict legality, if they are of true profit to him and if we do not neglect other duties by complying with them. In the union of rectitude and equity alone true justice of moral conduct is achieved.
(KARL BUROERt.)
In theology justice has been given many aignificatione. In the doctrine of the divine attributes it has been regarded as an inviolable characteristic of holiness, and as such has been set over against love as its opposite (see HOLINESS). It has, however, been moat important in relation to theories of the atonement. On the one band, justice has been defined as " general " or " rectors) " and " distributive," where " general " justice refers to the wellbeing and " distributive " to what is due the individual. In the atonement the latter was conceived as suspended in favor of the former (cf. E. A. Park,
The Attmemertt, Discourses, etc., Boston, 1859).
On the other hand, it has been maintained that jus‑
tice (righteousness) must be satisfied before love could offer pardon to the sinner (see SATISFACTION). The word has been employed also to designate the original state of man as one of integrity, obedience to God, and harmony of all personal powers. Moreover, it ropresenta that renewed condition in which man as forgiven stands toward God and his lawa putative position to the unmerited favor of God. In its deepest sense justice and love in God are

identical, while in man justice pertains to character and voluntary actions.

276	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Jurladietfon, Ecclesiastical
			ioa
Ju..tiftcat
L New Testament Doctrine.
Paul's Doctrine of Righteousness (§ 1).
Relations of Faith and Righteousness (§ 2).
Johannean Doctrine (4 3).
Other New‑Testament Writers (4 4).
II. History of the Doctrine.
I. New‑Testament Doctrine: In the Scriptural presentation one starts naturally with Paul. He alone of the first witnesses of the Gospel had the inner experience of the sharp opposition between Old‑Testament piety and the new thing in Christ out of which as an inevitable interpretation the doctrine of justification arose. After his conver‑
t. Paul's sion he was completely occupied with
Doctrine of the contrast between his own rightRighteous‑ eousness and God's righteousness, beness. tween the works of the law and faith, between Law and Gospel. Any mistake alleged against Paul's earlier life could not be attributed to the law; nor may one adduce a radical distinction between Galatians and Romans. Both affirm that the law was given " because of transgressions " (Gal. iii. 19), " that sin . . . might become exceeding sinful " (Rom. vii. 13); in the redemptive history, however, both see in the law a divine ordinance, and in faith in Christ a fulfilment of this law (Rom. xiii. 8, 10; Gal. v. 14). For his failure to fulfil the law Paul blames neither the law nor his own zeal (Phil. iii. 6). A bitter experience had convinced him of the impossibility of a perfect righteousness under the law. One who with such sincerity and energy seeks to unify his action, can hardly have failed before his conversion to struggle with the doubt (cf. Rom. vii. 7 eqq.) whether he could really fulfil the law of God. As a Pharisee he could not resolve this doubt by a renewed effort after a righteousness of his own, and therefore a righteousness proceeding from the law. The appearance of the exalted Lord convinced him that the one he was persecuting in the name of God was the Messiah. This experience was indeed individual, but it was an instance of the universal weakness of man's fleshly nature (Rom. viii. 3) which no law could quicken (Gal. iii. 21). In the Epistle to the Romans Paul showed that with reference to justification by faith the Jew has no advantage over the Gentile. The law which pronouns a curse upon all men can not, however, be given for this purpose, but for a " schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ " (Gal. iii. 24).
The righteousness of God with which the Gospel is concerned can mean only either an attribute or a relation of God (Rom. i. 17, 19), or else a righteousness created by God (II Cor. v. 20;
s. Rela‑ Rom. x. 3). In any case, it is directly
tions of opposed to Pharisaic self‑righteous‑
Faith and mess under the law; having its sole Righteous‑ source in God, man is only a recipient ness. of it. The significance of faith appears in two characteristic passages of Paul (Rom. iii. 26 and 11 Cor. v, 21). Thus righteousness or communion with God is possible
JUSTIFICATION.
Patristic Doctrine till Augustine 0 1).
Augustine's Teaching (§ 2).
Scholastic and Roman Catholic Teaching (4 3).
The Lutheran Position (¢ 4).
Later Views (§ b).
Ritachl and Dormer (¢ 8). III. Doctrinal Discussion.
The Fundamental Position (¢ 1).
Justification Establishes New R,elationa with God (§ 2).
Conditions of Justification (§ 3).
Relations of Faith and Justification (§ 4).
Justification and Baptism (§ b).
Conclusion (16).
Additional Note (§ 7).
in Christ, since only in him in virtue of his atonement is there righteousness. This divine arrangewent for salvation moat be realized by the subordination of man in the form of faith (Rom. x. 3 sqq.). Legal justification being impossible, faith in Christ alone remains. The distinction between law‑works and faith was for Paul the fundamental question of religion, viz., whether communion with God is from man or from God; if the latter, it can be experienced by faith alone. Faith includes an intellectual element‑related to historical facto, as the death and resurrection of Jesus, yet only so far as by means of these facts Christ hoe become what he is for man. According to its peculiar nature, however, faith is essentially trust in the person of the Lord in its historical and present meaning. Whereever faith is there is also a condition of justification as God's act. This signifies not a making but a declaring righteous (cf. Luke sviii. 14; Matt. aii. 37; Gal. iii. 11; Rom. iii. 20, iv. 4; also the notion of forgiveness of sin, Rom. iv. 7). Further, this meaning accords with the entire understanding of Pauliniam. Moreover, justification is both a result and a completion of the historical redemptive work of Christ. This hoe its continuity in the Word, and aims at the justification of the individual. Paul does not teach empirical aimlessness. He refers to a conflict of the flesh with the spirit and does not underestimate the danger of a Christian's falling into sin. He even applied this warning to himself and toward the end of his life knew of remaining imperfection; but this does not destroy the Christian position. One's safety lies in s constant renewal of that which the Christian has essentially, i.e., Christ and his righteousness. Joined with this in Paul's thought was the certainty of future perfection and blessedness. He urges the Christian to self‑examination, but at the same time to a looking wholly away to Christ in faith. But faith is derived from the Holy Spirit, in it is given the possession of the Spirit‑a witness of sonship, and even pledge and seal of salvation. According to the Synoptica Jesus' preaching seems at first opposed to Paul's message; over against his doctrine of justification, Jesus emphasized the permanent demand of the law, the judgment of works and even reward for the same. One asks only whether Paul's doctrine is a necessary inference from Jesus' self‑witness. Jesus connects the kingdom, salvation, and the judgment with his own person, a fact which the disciples first understood after his suffering and death. Two remarks of Jesus concerning the meaning of his death (Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28) coincide with the ideas of Paul. With Jesus, forgiveness of sin occupies a central place, likewise dikaioayne, " righteousness," al‑

Jnstilloation	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	278
though this both agrees with and diverges from Paul's view. Paul's presentation of the kingdom of God as a gift corresponds with that of Jesus. Jesus distinctly emphasizes the mutual relations between the religious and the ethical aspect of sonship. On the ethical side as a condition of entering that kingdom there is repentance. Faith is conceived as the right relation to Christ‑trust not merely in his wonderful power to help, but in his person. Faith affirms that in him the kingdom of God has come and that he is the Messiah. Jesus complains of lack of faith, prays for increase of his disciples' faith, and he designates those as his followers who have faith in him. Of this the Pauline teaching is only a continuation.
The self‑witness of Jesus, according to John, stands in close relation to the Pauline circle of thought, yet with its own characteristic features. Paul's secret of religion recalls John's living communion with God. The Synoptics
3. Johan‑ designate this as divine sonship, which nean in John is mediated through Jesus.
	Doctrine.	Here both the person of Jesus and
		faith in him are far more strongly ac
centuated; also the saving significance of his death.
The central good is the "life," which includes the
forgiveness of sins‑a, present salvation and a future
perfection. In sonship the ethical and religious
elements are inseparable and conditioned through
faith in Jesus and a new birth, wherein one discerns
a leaning toward the Pauline view of the new birth
as mediated by faith. In faith the aspect of trust
is not lacking, but the intellectual element is con
spicuous. There is an approach to Paul's idea of
faith‑the mystic fellowship with Christ. Nor is
the ethical element wanting: " he that is born of
God doeth no sin" is an ideal judgment and is to
be understood empirically, as is Paul's statement
that the Christian is dead to sin. More strongly
than Paul, John affirms that the Christian is de
ceived who declares that he does not sin. Divine
sonship is traced wholly to God's love, and the
Christian is led to ground his salvation not on his
love to God but on God's love to him, guaranteed
in the sending of his Son and the atonement for sin.
In the rest of the New‑Testament writings, James' Epistle mainly demands attention. The author's interest is wholly practical. The Christian community is presupposed, but the content of faith is never developed and no warning to the Christian community rests on it. Owing to un‑
q. Other certainty in the date of this epistle,
New‑'Feats‑ no intentional polemic against Paul meat can be affirmed. One must, however,
	Writers.	reckon with the possibility that James'
		presentation was directed against a
practical abuse of Pauline preaching. James holds
that a separation of faith and works is impossible;
rather does faith prove itself alive through works.
With reference to other passages in the New Testa
ment: at Pentecost, salvation is connected with the
person of the crucified and risen Christ, and forgive
ness of sins with faith in him. With this agrees I
Peter, where, however, faith appears rather as trust
in the redemptive activity of Jesus, and the ethical
element and fear before God are strongly accentu‑
ated. The Epistle to the Hebrews accords with Paul's view in emphasizing perfection (vii. 11) in Christ's work, and forgiveness of sins in baptism, as well as the enduring high priesthood of Christ.
II. History of the Doctrine: Outside of the canonical Scriptures one seeks in vain for a full conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification. Christianity is imperfectly understood. Men were aware of something completely new in Christianity, but could not specifically distinguish this from
the law; thus Christianity was in
r. Patristic danger of becoming a new law, and Doctrine faith an obedient acceptance of re‑
till vealed doctrine, to be completed by Augustine. works. Of the Apostolic Fathers, Clement did not gain complete understanding of the Pauline faith. For salvation faith and works are combined, and even forgiveness of sins is mediated through love. Ethical action is based on the command of God. For Barnabas the content of the Gospel was the forgiveness of sins, yet he teaches that the way of light is the fulfilling of the law. In the Ignatian Epistles the thought not of faith but of the indwelling of God and Christ is prominent. Ignatius relates faith to the historical person of Christ and especially to his death‑a trust which rescues from death. From him comes the formula, " first faith, then love." The Shepherd of Hermas and the second Clementine Epistle are the classic representatives of a Christianity which is profoundly convinced of the essential significance of faith as the foundation and power of the entire Christian position, but for the practise of the Christian life lays all weight on obedience to the divine requirements. Faith and works are the saving formula, and the doctrine of merit is adumbrated: fasting is better than prayer, alms better than both. In Hermas appears the thought of a supererogatory action which may hope for recompense from God. By Tertullian and Cyprian the notion of merit was made at home in the Church. Tertullian also marked out the path by which the Roman Church has sought to adjust merit to the religious character of Christianity. He knows of a supernatural endowment by which one is qualified for meritorious action. On the other hand, he does not know of a grace through which one becomes pleasing to God. Thus the entire Christian life is under the stamp of fear. The understanding prepares for a distinction between natura and gratis, but uses it only to obliterate the opposition of gratis and merit. It was more fatal still that the doctrine of Tertullian was made effective by the authority of Cyprian. Alnisgiv. ing is paralleled with the forgiveness of sins through baptism. No longer is justification by faith held in the Pauline sense; faith is acknowledgment of
the truth; it is trust only as an expectation that God will not withhold reward for meritorious deeds. Yet one must not conclude that for actual piety the Evangelical thoughts of the Scriptures had
wholly disappeared. These were still influential for personal piety. Augustine reminds those who cavil at his notion of grace of the prayers and institutions of the Church. Even the Didache had required confession of sins before the sacrifice of

2'77	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Justification
the Lord's day. And Tertullian's piety was not simply self‑righteousness, as one may see from his tractate on baptism and his writing concerning repentance. Jovinian, as opposed to the idea of a special reward for supererogatory action, such as that of virginity, admits only a Christian position which rests on Christ and is established by faith and baptism, in which the Father and Son dwell in the believer.
	More clearly than Augustine, Ambrose rests sal
vation and the certainty of it on the historical work
of Christ. Yet he advances the doctrine of merit,
almsgiving, and especially virginity. To Augus
tine more than to any one the Roman Church owes
		its doctrine of justification. For him
2. Augus‑ Christianity is a present rest in God
tine's ‑a conception, shaped, although not Teaching. immediately, by his experience, first, of distance from God, and then by the inward commotion of a finding of God. His earlier, differing from his later, teaching on sin and grace is drawn not directly from his conflict with Pelagius but from his study of Paul and from Neoplatonic sources. His personal experience is for him the key, and as with Paul and later with Luther sin and grace are the two poles of all Christian knowledge. Outside of grace mankind is a "mass of lost souls " which may through God's grace be reunited to God. According to Augustine the Law said: "Do what thou orderestl" the Gospel: "Give what thou orderestl " That is, grace is preeminently a power of religious and ethical renewal. ConcernIng forgiveness of sins Augustine holds that (1) baptism as foundation of Christianity confers forgiveness of sins; (2) forgiveness is bound to justification; (3) there exists a continual forgiveness even for the baptized Christian. Fruitful for piety is the personality of Christ‑his inner life, his humility, his entire manifestation the highest proof of love, his death the ground of forgiveness of sins. But grace through Christ is present by means of " word and sacrament," not clearly connected with Christ's historical work but in the strict sense creative. As operating or prevenient it establishes, as cooperating it alone sustains, the Christian position. From it comes justification, i.e., renewal, which makes one actually righteous; instead of evil concupiscence comes good concupiscence. The entire Christian life becomes a process of sanctification wherein is merit which the Christian must gain for himself. He teaches a justification by a faith that works through love. In De fide et operibus, along with faith, works are so emphasized as to make this writing valuable to Roman Catholic histories of dogma to‑day. He approaches the Reformation doctrine when he gives a more mystical turn to faith‑such a union with Christ that all that is Christ's becomes ours. In love to God a present life from and in God is attained. But here is no personal certainty of salvation.
Scholastic theology adhered to Augustine's didactic definitions, at the same time it was‑influenced by the religious impulse originating in him. Yet here Semipelagianism and Augustinianism appeared in many shades of conflicting differences. According to the Tridentine confession, justification
is not simply, but includes, forgiveness of sins. According to Thomas Aquinas, it is a consequence
of forgiveness of sins‑‑& physical infu3‑ Scholas‑ sion of grace. Other church teachers
tic and regard the connection as ethical, thus
Roman its elation to the historical redemptive
Catholic	work is uncertain. The infusion of
	Teaching.	grace is variously interpreted: the
		substance of the Holy Spirit is planted
in men (Peter the Lombard); sanctifying grace is
identified with love (Duns Scotus); the Tridentine
seeks to combine both views. Later dogmatics
side with Thomas. According to the Roman teach
ing, justifying grace is a pure gift of grace‑a heri
tage from Augustine. Merit (meritum de condigno)
is first grounded on sanctifying grace, while the
corresponding action of man is rewarded by infu
sion of justifying grace (meritum de congrao). Con
cerning this the Tridentine was silent. Later the
ology teaches that grace is not given for merit.
Yet if one does what he can he may humbly hope
that God will lend his grace. Others do not admit
a psychological necessity of a preparation for re
ception of grace. In the Roman Catholic Church
the increase of grace received, eternal life, and the
winning of a higher glory in that life are subjects
of human merit. According to Thomas the three
signs of a state of grace are: joy in God, scorn of
worldly things, consciousness that one is not guilty
of mortal sin.
For Luther the fundamental question was concerning the gracious God, and how one might be justified in the judgment of God. Through a painful experience in the complete renunciation of his own righteousness, he understood the Pauline word ‑by grace alone through faith in Christ. Justifi‑
cation includes not merely forgiveness, 4. The which has precedence, but inner justi‑
Lutheran	fication. Grace is pardoning mercy,
Position.	and faith is trust. Christ himself in
his person and his historical work is man's righteousness. The law can only increase sin and it demands God's righteous judgment against the sinner. The law must indeed be preached; yet God's proper work begins when he comforts the alarmed conscience by the gospel of forgiveness in Christ. Wherever faith lays hold on Christ and becomes one with him, Christ's righteousness becomes our righteousness; God declares man righteous and forgives his sin. Thus Christ becomes the power of a new life. Later, Luther speaks of a beginning, an advancing, and a completed justification yet to be hoped for. Never could faith by reason of an inner quality be regarded as justifying. The Christian position is grounded in God's gracious judgment. Luther warns against confusing the certainty of salvation with the feeling of it. He combines baptism and justification but without precise theological treatment. Through Melanchthon the doctrine of justification received its first symbolic form (The Augsburg Confession, q.v.). We are righteous before God, not " by our own strength, merits or works," but by faith alone. Justification is grounded in Christ and is mediated by faith alone. In the " Apology " the impelling interest of the Reformation against the Roman

Jnstiaoation	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	278
doctrine first came to clear expression. In the Formula of Concord all human action is excluded as a condition of the certainty of salvation; justification as distinguished from regeneration is interpreted as forensic, the righteousness of Christ is imputed so that sins are forgiven, and the doctrine of justification is so formulated that nothing whatever in man but simply the historical work of Christ is the true ground of salvation.
The later dogmatists distinguished not merely between the human and the divine aspect of the appropriation of Christ's righteousness (Baier), but within faith itself a certainty before,
5. Later in, and after regeneration (Quenstedt).
	Views.	The certainty of salvation was to be
		experienced by looking wholly away
from self to Christ as the promise. Thus the proc
ess Of justification was conceived as purely trans
cendental for which faith is only an essential pre
supposition. According to Burk, who presents this
view, justification is withdrawn from all vacillation
of the inner life so that assurance becomes possible
to those whose peace has been disturbed. But the
question arises as to the criteria of faith. The
Lutherans presupposed the universality and prom
ise of Christ's redeeming work; to the Reformed
who restricted this to the elect, personal assurance
of salvation must be gathered from the works of
faith as supernaturally caused. Schleiermacher co
ordinated justification with conversion; to be taken
up into living communion with Christ is, as a
changed form of life, conversion, as a changed
relation to God, justification. He, however, con
ceives this as purely general and progressively real
ized. Some theologians resolve the objective proc
ess of justification into subjective consciousness,
others emphasize the ethical aspect. Hengsten
berg toward the end of his life distinguished stages
of justification; according.to Beck, in justification
mediated through Christ one enters on a condition
of life where on the one hand all earlier sins are
wiped out, on the other hand a new ethical condi
tion is awakened which must express itself in right
eousness of conduct; with Martensen the justify
ing power of faith lay in God beholding in it the
seed‑corn of future blessedness, and in the pure will
the already realized ideal of freedom. In the so
called Bornhohner movement (see BoRNHOLMERB),
since the world is justified in Christ; justification is
identified with his redemptive work and faith is
simply a becoming aware of what one has in Christ.
Ritschl combines justification with the historical work of Christ. In Christ the community is so far justified as God reckons to the community belonging to Christ the position which Christ himself maintained toward God, and for his sake admits the community to fellowship with himself. The individual is justified on the ground that
6. Ritschl through faith in the Gospel he is a and member of the community. Justifi‑
	DOMM	cation and reconciliation have the same
		content. Reconciliation is the result of
justification. Ritechl's entire treatment has en
during significance on account of the many problems
involved, especially the relation of justification to
the historical work of Christ and to faith. Dorner
characteristically emphasized the historical deed of reconciliation in relation to the Christian's present position: faith is thus simply " the assimilating organ " of forgiveness already complete so far as the divine aspect is concerned. Justification is identified with reconciliation: the central significance, the express founding, and the certainty of justification on the basis of the historical work of Christ is a peculiar characteristic of Cremer's theology.
III. Doctrinal Discussion: A comprehensive discussion of this subject must be limited to the clear presentation of the controlling interest and the simplest possible designation of the points on which it depends. Communion with God and personal assurance of this stand or fall together. If Christianity is a present personal communion with God,
a necessary and radical implication is r. The that it can only be a conscious expeFunda‑ rience. This being established, one
mental has further to ascertain whether the
Position. Christian can be certain of it. There
is finally only the alternative, the initiative of communion with God is wholly from God or wholly from man. Whenever the question concerning communion with God wakens in a man, it always occurs at first in his desire to make himself pious, and so to work in fellowship with God. This has its source in the painful consciousness of separation from God in sin; if one recognizes his responsibility for this, it is quite natural for him to establish his own righteousness before God. Yet in all such attempts, on account of their abiding imperfection, one does not escape from inward uncertainty. This has, however, its objective ground: only from God himself can men be admitted to communion with him. It is therefore a more correct understanding when the Catholic view refers the initiative in the entire process of justification definitely to God, and sees the final ground of justification in a justifying act which proceeds from God; this, resulting from suitable preparation and made fruitful in congruous activity, assures one of eternal life. In reality, however, what is here under discussion is such a kind of mediation as brings vividly to consciousness how every attempt to effect reconciliation actually points man after all to his own self‑doing, and thrusts him into inner uncertainty. But one can arrive at an actual assurance of a gracious state only when he is clear that this rests solely on God's offer, and that nothing remains for him except in faith to appropriate this divine gift, or rather to let trust in it be begotten in him. God has completed this offer of himself in the work of Christ in which, through an atonement for sin, he has reconciled the world to himself. In so far, then, certainty of salvation is based wholly upon a justice outside ourselves: the righteousness which has been created by Christ's undertaking in man's behalf is the real ground, or, on the ground of his sufferings and death, he now represents man before God. So far, however, as that historical work of Christ reaches man only in the Word and the sacrament therein contained, the Word and the sacrament are the ground of assurance. Later on, these positions will require completion and confirmation.

279	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	fstifioation
But they designate the central interest which can not be surrendered; that form of the doctrine of justification can alone be adequate which satisfies this interest.
It is now plain in what sense justification as a forensic act is to be understood. If communion
with God is established only by him, a. justifica‑ and if, on the other hand, both on sotion Estab‑ count of the personal nature of this
lishes New relation of communion and because of Relations the remaining imperfection of the jus‑
with God. tified, the thought of a magic trans‑
formation is excluded, then the justifying act of God on which the Christian position is based can be thought of only in the form of a gracious judgment of God which is not analytic but synthetic. In a word, since the justifying act of God does not first of all contemplate the establishing of a new ethical quality in man, but the founding of a new relation to God, it must be understood not as the confirmation of an ethical quality existing in man, but simply as a judgment of God's gracious will which passes over the sinner and in and with forgiveness of sins justifies and takes him up into communion with God. Even faith, without which there can be no justification, may not, as a meritorious attainment, be made the real ground of justification, nor may the continuance of the state of justification be grounded in part on the life‑work of the Christian as a completing of God's act of justification. On the contrary, from beginning to end, the Christian position rests exclusively on God's gracious judgment, so that this, in spite of remaining imperfection, depends solely on affirming the judgment of faith. As a matter of terms, one may question whether God's relation to the sins of the justified person is to be interpreted as daily forgiveness or with older dogmaticians as a continuous justification. According to the former phraseology, the fundamental character of God's justifying act comes indeed to the clearest possible expression, but one may doubt whether the believer can avoid thinking of the daily forgiveness of sins as a constant and radical renewal of his relation to God. In any case, by the acceptance of the notion of a justification continually renewed one is not warranted in supposing that the Christian position is composed of ever new additions. On the contrary, a continuous state of grace is grounded in the original divine act of justification.
If, however, the continuity of this gracious state is due to the historical work of Christ, but originates and is sustained by the gracious judgment of justification, it follows at once that under all circumstances justification and the historical work of Christ must be brought into the closest connection.
But the limits within which this con3. Condi‑ nection is to be sought are designated tions of Jus‑by the following propositions: (1) jus‑
tification. tification may not be identified with
the historical work of Christ‑the Biblical connection between justification and faith would be obscured and the reality of a reciprocal communion of God. and man lost. (2) It would be a relapse into the Roman Catholic way of thinking to see in the historical work of Christ only the
general ground of possible justification‑manifestly the final decisive ground of the divine justifying act of God must then be somehow sought in man himself. If one carries through the combination already suggested in the Biblical presentation, then an adjustment between the apparently divergent interests is possible only when justification is understood as an actual fulfilment of God's offer of himself as completed in the historical work of Christ. Paul does not conceive that the reconciliation in Christ renders the demand " be ye reconciled to God " (II ‑ Cor. v. 20) superfluous; rather he sees in the ‑word of reconciliation the necessary accomplishment of reconciliation. On the other hand, he believes that in the Gospel righteousness is disclosed and made efficacious. A combination of these two lines of thought compels one to see that God's historical offer of himself in the work of Christ endures in his Word and so reaches the individual. It is not the fact that God has reopened the way of access to himself in his historical revelation, while man must work his way through to God in reliance on the divine deed; on the contrary, self‑disclosure of God in the Word effectively reaches the individual, and wherever through God's offer of grace one lets himself be won to trust in this, the judgment of justification is passed upon him, and this both objectively and subjectively establishes the condition of justification.
The same conclusion follows from the answer to the other question‑What position and meaning belong to faith in the act of justification? That faith alone can be regarded as justifying is clear from the foregoing (III., J 1); there it was remarked that the justifying power of faith may not be found in its ethical quality. If fellowship with God rests solely on Christ's redemptive
;‑ Rela‑ work and the righteousness procured
	tions of by it, then faith can be regarded sim.
	Faith and ply as the assimilating organ and as
	Justifica‑ justifying only on account of the ob
		tion. ject apprehended by it. The peculiar
		difficulty first emerges in the question,
how this understanding of faith which is to be
maintained under all circumstances is consistent
with the other proposition which must be as firmly
emphasized, that only where faith exist is there jus
tification. Does not the latter position indeed in
volve that somehow on man's part faith appears as
an efficient condition of justification? In reality
this consequence would be unavoidable if one had
to suppose that man‑always of course under the
influence of the Word‑first himself ripens faith in
Christ, and then God completes the judgment of
justification on the ground of confirming this faith
as if it were a finished achievement. The element
of truth in such a view is that in fact faith in the
strict sense is an offering of Christ to the wrath of
God, and precisely for this reason justification comes
to pass by means of it. Evidently these proposi
tions which aim to complete the doctrine of justifi
cation really point to such a method as will not
allow faith to appear in any way as real ground of
justification. If, on the other hand, the conclusions
just indicated are to be drawn, this means nothing
less than that the original interest of the Reforma‑

Justification
Justin	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	280
tion doctrine would be surrendered. For the Christian would then again be directed to ground his assurance of salvation by reflection upon himself, i.e., on the existence of faith in himself. There would be no place for a simple and radical grounding of certainty on Christ and the Word to which he witnessed. Manifestly that kind of judgment of justification, which amounts to a confirmation of faith already existing in man, can not be thought of as mediated by the Gospel; and again a suggestion of such a judgment of justification could not be presented by means of the Gospel. For the Word, whether it is applied to the individual as a sacramental word or as absolution, can never establish the existence in man of a qualification of justification, but remains simply an active offer of the universal promise. If, therefore, one believes that the reality of the process of justification can be defended only when it is interpreted as confirmation of existing faith, then one must not deceive himself by supposing that a corroboration of such a justifying judgment must be sought in an immediate witness of the Spirit, or won by reflection on the criteria of faith. The Reformed way, on the contrary, which allows the assurance of salvation to be experienced only in the trust springing from the promise, points in another direction‑justification is mediated by the Gospel, so that the word of promise becomes itself a justifying judgment wherever it is able to awaken acceptance in man. Thus the position is fully warranted that only where faith exists is there justification, and faith justifies only because it makes Christ avail before God: Christ is indeed the central content of the Word and he it is who is apprehended in the Word. Accordingly justification takes place before God and not in the heart of man‑in the strict sense an act of God, and not a conscious process in man. Only in this way is it seriously maintained that every action of God necessarily aims at establishing a present communion with himself. But this is manifestly not attained by a purely transcendent process. Where justification is mediated by the Gospel, the meaning is that this rightly demands trust for and in itself; where man trustfully accepts this, he has what he believes; justification and a state of communion with God is subjectively and objectively realized. One can make this plain to himself in the simplest possible way with reference to absolution. Absolution is not confirmation of a faith existing in man, nor an ineffective announcement of a forgiveness bound to conditions; just as little does it bring forgiveness to all who hear it irrespective of their faith; but being an efficacious offer of forgiveness, it is really forgiveness wherever it is received in faith. Thus understood, justification and certainty concerning it are grounded in faith. This excludes neither a possible nor an actual series of degrees in faith and in certainty; the completion of the divine justification is of significance for faith. Here then the Biblical writers have their place, according to whom, where faith and justification are, there the Holy Spirit who was already active in man for this end becomes for the believer a personal possession in such a way that he witnesses to the existing kinship with God and
appears as its seal and pledge. Hence it is possible to apprehend the element of truth in the distinction of faith before and after justification, and in the distinction of justification and confirmation.
The last intimations, if they are to receive concrete form, depend on the answer to a previous question which can not be solved in this article. The foregoing discussion suffers from an unavoid‑
able abstraction in that it can not
g. justifica‑ show whether the original justification tion and is mediated by the Word or by bap‑
Baptism. tism, in the case of children or adults.
In fact, manifold difficulties and obscurities beset the treatment of the subject when one does not seriously consider how the general propositions concerning justification are necessarily modified according as they are put to the test in a community of those who were baptized in infancy, or are maintained in the mission field. It is, e.g., plain how the question of the relation of confirmation to justification gains a wholly different meaning when it is put on the basis of child‑baptism. Yet these questions can not be settled here because they presuppose the understanding of baptism (see BAPTISM, I: II.). Only this, however, may be directly inferred from the treatment of the doctrine of the Scripture, that justification and baptism are to be combined. If this is true in the first instance of baptism itself, then it must of necessity apply to child‑baptism, if only this is regarded as a real baptism. Here the question concerning the relation of justification and faith takes on a new meaning and raises serious difficulties. For a solution of these a path has already been so far prepared as it was expressly emphasized how faith springs from the divine offer. In any case, one must believe that in the baptism of adults there is a completion both of the divine offer of salvation and, under its influence, of faith, and just in this way the Christian position is both objectively and subjectively established. With reference to the baptism of children, it is to be maintained under all circumstances that even in such cases faith, which affirms baptism, must somehow grow out of baptism. But the question, whether and in what sense one is to connect the origin of faith with baptism, can not here be settled.
The discussion concerning the nature of Christian assurance begun in III., § 1, may now be completed so far as need be in accordance with what has been established in III., §§ 2‑5. First
then one may formulate the signifi‑
6. Conclu‑ cance of Rom. viii. 16 for the assurance Sion. of salvation. If faith in the historical
divine revelation, by which the Christian position is created, takes place only by the Holy Spirit, the immanent certainty of the Christian therein given could not maintain itself without the con‑
tinuous witness of the Spirit. This repudiates the Methodistic view which will experience this witness of the Spirit in an immediate feeling of peace; preferable is the Lutheran view which has the entire economy of salvation on its side as it relates the continuous witness of the Spirit to the historical process of salvation, mediating this by the Word and the sacrament. Yet the strictly supernatural

981	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Jnstifioation
		Justin
character of that witness may not be lost sight of;
in this, as well as in the possession of the Spirit, the
Christian has the pledge of his salvation. In the
same way may be defined the significance of self‑ex
amination for Christian assurance. If the Christian
position is connected with faith, the serious Chris
tian can not avoid testing faith and salvation by the
criterion of the whole life. On the other hand, it can
be of service to one in trouble when faith is hidden
from him to become certain of it by means of its
criteria. In both of these ways this self‑examina
tion is to be conceived as a point of departure.
One recognizes the normality of the Christian as
surance in its unreflecting appeal to the divine deed
which produces the Christian position. All finally
comes to this, that the pledge of faith is also the
	pledge of certainty. If the existing Christian posi
tion is assured to faith by historical divine revela
tion, apparently there is no occasion to go behind
that historical revelation to an eternal counsel of
God. Yet in reality not merely the Reformed view
but also the Formula of Concord makes predestina
tion fruitful for Christian assurance. In fact, re
course to this can not be dispensed with by one
	who seeks an assurance not simply for the present
	but also for the future. Only one must add im
	mediately, certainty concerning one's election is to
	be sought in Christ alone. But wherever the be
	lieving Christian, so long as he believes, is certain
	of the divine election, he knows that his entire sal
	vation, present and future, is in the hand of the
	eternal God. Two points yet require mention, the
	brevity of which bears no relation to their signifi
cance: (1) in the necessarily personal nature of
	faith and assurance of salvation one may not for
	get that these will be experienced in the community
	of believers in which the Word and the sacrament
are in use; and (2) this is in precise analogy to the
	first‑the energy with which, in the matter of the
	certainty of salvation, the entire life is related to
	God and to God alone, may not obscure the other
	truth, that after all man meets God only in the
	concrete reality of an individual life, and he there
	fore experiences and maintains the certainty of sal
	vation in the limitless riches of the concrete situa
	tions of this life. Only where this is understood
	does one avoid isolating the witness of the Spirit
	from the actual life. And now it is possible to
	make fruitful the profound thought of James, that
	the Christian is blessed, and that too not by means
	of his deed but in his deed.	(L. H. IHMELS.)
		While a majority of critical authorities favor the
	forensic interpretation of dikaioun, " pronouncing
	righteous," as the only meaning in Paul's writings,
	there is a not inconsiderable number of scholars
			who defend the view that it also sig
		7. Addi‑ nifies making or becoming actually
	tional Rote. righteous." Among the passages cited
			to substantiate the latter claim are
Rom. iii. 24, 26, 28, 30, vi. 7; Gal. ii. 16, 20, v. 6.
That this word is there and in other places used in a
real sense is evident from a variety of considerations,
such as, the forensic view is inconsistent with an in
	telligible interpretation of Paul's words referred to
above; the real interpretation alone meets the exe
getical and rational demands; and in all the passages
dikaiosyne, "righteousness," is used in the proper
sense as the basis of the judgment. Two further
arguments for this position are adduced: the prin
ciple of character running through the whole of life
is one and the same, being that on which the final
judgment is based; faith which works by love is
the essential principle of righteousness and is so
cordingly an inward quality of ethical excellence.
Even when a forensic judgment is signified by di
kaioun, this is grounded not in an outside condi
tion but in an actual inner virtue. It does not, like
works, make a demand on God, but it constitutes
a ground on which one is forgiven who forsakes his
sin and identifies himself with Christ. Some of
those who hold this general view of dikaioun restrict
its main reference to the initial moment of conver
sion, while others extend it to cover the entire period
of Christian experience‑‑one is justified according
as he is sanctified. Justification may relate to that
aspect of the new life in which the person freely
and progressively accepts the grace of God in
Christ, while sanctification refers to the gradual
inner purification of the sources of desire, thought,
and will. 	C. A. B.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the N. T. side consult the works on
N. T. theology, especially that of Beyschlag; the litera
ture on the Apostle Paul; R. A. Lipsius, Die paulinische
Rechlfertipungalehre, Leipsic, 1853; E. Riggenbach, Die
Rechtfertigungalehre des Apoatels Paulus, Stuttgart, 1897;
H. Cremer,Die pauliniacheRechtfertiyungalehre,Giitersloh,
1900; K. F. NSsgen, Der Schriftbeuxis fair die evanpeliache
Rechtfertigunpslehre, Halle, 1901; C. Clemen, Paulus, aein
Leben and Wirken, 2 vols., Giessen, 1904; C. E. Woods,
The Gospel or Mob<nua. A Stildy if! paW"AE P11fuoky,
London, 1909.
On the dogmatic and historical sides consult: G. S. Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification, London, 1839; G. Bull, Harmony of St. Paul and St. James on Justification, 2 vols., in Library of Anglo‑Catholic Theology, Oxford, 1841 sqq.; C. A. Heurtley, Justification, ib. 1846; G. Junkin, A Treatise on Justification Philadelphia, 1850; P. D. Burk, Rechtfertipunp and Versicherunp, Stuttgart, 1854; C. Cholmondely, The Protestant Doctrine of Justification . . . Confuted, London, 1854; J. Buchanan, The Doctrine of Juatiflcation, Edinburgh, 1867; A. Ritsehl, Critical Hiat. of the Christian Doctrines of Juatiiealion and Reconciliation, ib. 1872; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, iii. 114 sqq., New York, 1873; R. N. Davies, A Treatise on Justification, New York, 1878; 1. A. Dormer, System of Christian Doctrine, passim, 4 vols., Edinburgh, 188082; J. H. Newman, Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification, London, 1885; J. T. Beck, Vorlesunpen fiber chriseliche Glaubenslehre, 2 vols., GOtersloh, 1886‑87; T. R. Birks, Justification and Imputed Righteousness, ib. 1887; J. T. O'Brien, An Attempt to Explain and Establish the Doctrine of Juitiheation by Faith mly, Dublin, 191; W. D. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ii. 538 sqq., New York, 1888; H. B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, ed. W. S. Karr, pp. 522‑552, ib. 1890; H. Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice, ii. 177 sqq., ib. 1891; E. V. Gerhart Institutes of the Christian Religion, ii. 717‑759, ib. 1894; J. Miley, Systematic Theology, ii. 308 sqq., ib 1894; R. V. Foster, Systematic Theology, pp. 678 sqq., Nashville, Tenn., 1898; J. Macpherson, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 379‑387, Edinburgh, 1898; J. Wilhelm and T. B. Scannell, Manual of Catholic Theology, ii. 246 sqq, London, 1901; H. W. Holden, Justification by Faith ib. 1902; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 471‑483, New York, 1902; H. C. G. Moule. Justification by Faith, London, 1903; the literature on Luther, and in general the works on the history of doctrine.
JUSTIN: A Gnostic writer refuted by Hippolytus (Haer., v. 18‑22, x. 11; ANF, v. 69‑73, 145). According to him there are three principles in the universe. two male‑the Good and the Father of

Justin Martyr	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	982
all things, also called Elohim‑and one female,
called Eden and Israel, who had the form of a
snake from her waist downward. From the inter
course of Elohim and Eden arose twelve paternal
and twelve maternal angels; through whose medi
ation men were formed from the noble parts of Eden,
and from the ignoble parts animals. Men were
provided with a soul by Eden and with a spirit by
Elohim. Eden was deserted by Elohim, who went
aloft to sit at the right hand of the Good. Eden
now filled the world with sin and evil, and fought
with Elohim, having the maternal angels on her
side. Elohim sent Baruch, the third paternal
angel, to aid the spirit of man which had been
overcome by Naas, " the serpent," the third ma
ternal angel. Baruch found Hercules who per
formed his twelve labors against Eden, but at last
was overcome by Eden by means of Omphale.
Finally Baruch found Jesus who withstood the ser
pent, which brought about his crucifixion, when
his spirit returned to Elohim, but his body and
soul to Eden. The initiated, who faithfully keep
the oath of Elohim to keep the mysteries and not
to turn from the Good to the creature, enter into
the Good and drink of the water of life. To under
stand more fully the relation of Justin to the other
Gnostics see OPHITEs. 	(G. KRtJGER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. M511er, Geechichte der Kosmolopie in der praechischen Kirche, pp.' 241‑248, Halle, 1860; A. Hilgenfeld, in ZWT, v (1862), 446‑‑452; idem. Die Ketzergeachichte dea Urchristentuma, pp. 64, 67, 270, 277, Leipsie, 1884; G. Salmon, in DCB, iii. 587‑589; idem, in Hermathena, xi (1885), 389‑402; H. Stllhelin, in TU, vi. 3 (1891).
JUSTIN MARTYR.
Life and Writings (§ 1). The " Apology " (§ 2). The " Dialogue " and " Resurrection " (§ 3). Justin's Theology (§ 4). His Conversion and Teachings (§ 5). His Doctrine of the Logos (§ 6).
	[The facts of the life of Justin Martyr, the famous
Christian apologist of the second century, so far as
they are known, are gathered chiefly from his own
writings. He was born at Flavia Neapolis (the
ancient Shechem and modern Nablus) in Pales
		tine probably about 114. He suffered
	1<. Life martyrdom at Rome under Marcus
	and Aurelius when Rusticus was prefect of
	Writings. the city (i.e., between 162 and 168).
		He calls himself a Samaritan, but his
father and grandfather were doubtless Greek or
Roman, and he was brought up in heathen customs.
It seems that he had property, studied philoso
phy diligently, became converted to Christianity
(see below, § 5), and thenceforth devoted his life
to teaching what he considered the true philosophy,
still wearing his philosopher's gown to indicate
that he had attained to the truth. He probably
traveled widely and ultimately settled in Rome as
a Christian teacher.] The earliest mention of Justin
is found in Tatian (Oratio ad Graecos, xviii., xix.),
who calls him " the most admirable Justin," quotes
a saying of his, and says that the Cynic Crescens
laid snares for im. Irenaeus (Haer. I., xxviii. 1)
speaks of his martyrdom, and of Tatian as his dis
ciple; he quotes him twice (IV., vi. 2, V., xxvi. 2),
and shows his influence in other places. Tertullian (Adversus Valentinianos, v.) calls him a philosopher and martyr, and the earliest antagonist of heretics. Hippolytus and Methodius also mention or quote him. Eusebius deals with him at some length (Hiat. eccl., iv. 18), and names the following works: (1) The " Apology " addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the senate; (2) a second " Apology " addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Verus; (3) the " Discourse to the Greeks," a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods; (4) a " Hortatory Address to the Greeks "; (5) a treatise " On the Sovereignty of God," in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian; (6) a work entitled " The Psalmist "; (7) a treatise in scholastic form " On the Soul "; (8) the " Dialogue with Trypho." He implies that a number of other works were in circulation; from Irenaeus he knows of the apology " Against Marcion," and from Justin's " Apology " (i. 26) of a " Refutation of all Heresies " (Hist. eccl., IV., xi. 10). Epiphanius (Haeer., xlvi. 1) and Jerome (De vir. ill., ix.) mention Justin. Rufinus borrows from him the Latin original of Hadrian's letter. After Rufinus Justin was not known in the West for a long time, and the Eastern writers got their knowledge of him mainly from Irenaeus and Eusebius, or from spurious works. The Chronicon Paschale is possibly independent in assigning his martyrdom to the year 165. A considerable number of other works are given as Justin's by Arethas, Photius, and other writers; but their spuriousness is now generally admitted. The Ezpositio rectae ftdei has been assigned by DrBseke to Apollinaris of Laodicea, but it is probably a work of as late as the sixth century. The Cohortatio ad Graecos has been attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and others. The Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum, an exhortation to Christian living, is dependent upon Clement of Alexandria, and is assigned by Batiffol to the Npvatian Bishop Sisinnius (c. 400). The extant work under the title " On the Sovereignty of God " does not correspond with Eusebius' description of it, though Harnack regards it as still possibly Justin's, and at least of the second century. The author of the smaller treatise " To the Greeks " can not be Justin, because he is dependent on Tatian; Hahack places it between 180 and 240. For another work wrongly attributed to Justin, see DIOGNETus, EPISTLE To.
On the other hand, the authenticity of the two " Apologies " and the " Dialogue with Trypho " is universally admitted. They are preserved only in
the Sacra parallels; but, besides that they were known by Tatian, Methodius, and Eusebius, their
influence is traceable in Athenagoras, Theophilus, the pseudo‑Melito, and especially Tertullian. Eusebius speaks of two " Apologies," but he quotes them both as one, which indeed they are in substance. The identity of authorship is shown not only by the reference in the " Dialogue," exx‑, to the
	Apology, but by the unity of treatment. Zahn
	has shown that the " ° Dialogue " was originally
	divided into two books, that there is a consider‑
able lacuna at chap. fxxiv" as well as at the beginning, and that it is probably based on an actual

883	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Justin Xartyr
occurrence at Ephesus, the personality of the Rabbi Tarphon being employed, though in a Hellenized form. The treatise " On the Resurrection," of which extensive fragments are preserved in the Sacra parallels, is not so generally accepted. Even earlier than this collection, it is referred to by Procopius of Gaza (c. 465‑528), and Methodius appeals to Justin in support of his interpretation of I Cor. xv. 50 in a way which makes it natural to assume the existence of a treatise on the subject, to say nothing of other traces of a connection in thought both here, in Irenaeus (V., ii.‑xiii. 5), and also in Tertullian, where it is too close to be anything but a conscious following of the Greek. The " Against Marcion " is lost, as is the " Refutation of all Heresies " to which Justin himself refers in " Apology," i. 26; Hegesippus, besides perhaps Irenaeus and Tertullian, seems to have used it.
Of the date of the " Dialogue " it can only be said that it was later than the " Apology "; the time of composition of the latter, however, can be determined with comparative closeness. From the fact that it was addressed to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Verus, its composition must fall between 147 and 161. The refer z. The ence to Felix as governor of Egypt,
" Apology." since this can only be the Lucius Munatius Felix whom the Oxyrhynchus papyri give as prefect Sept. 13, 151, fixes the date still more exactly. Its occasion is evidently a recent occurrence, and the Chronicon of Eusebius gives 152‑153 as the date of the attacks of Crescens. What is designated as the " Second Apology " was written as a supplement to the first, on account of certain proceedings which had in the mean time taken place in Rome before Lollius Urbicus as prefect of the city, which must have been between 150 and 157.
The purpose of the " Apology " is to prove to the emperors, renowned as upright and philosophical men, the injustice of the persecution of the Christians, who are really the representatives of true philosophy. Chaps. i.‑xii. give the preliminary negative proof; chap. xiii. begins a positive exposition of what Christianity really is. Christians are the true worshipers of God, the Creator of all things; they offer him the only sacrifices worthy of him, those of prayer and thanksgiving, and are taught by his Son, to whom they assign a place next in honor to him. This teaching leads them to perfect morality, as shown in their teacher's words and their own lives, and founded on their belief in the resurrection. The doctrine of the Logos made flesh is specially emphasized in xxi., xxii. What interferes with belief in this fact is the deceitful work of demons (xxiii‑xxvi.), in contrast with which Christian righteousness is still further described (xxvii‑xxix.). Then follows the proof that Christ is the Son of God from Old‑Testament prophecy, fulfilled in every detail (xxx. 1.), no matter what evil spirits may pretend (liv. lvii.); even Plato learned from Moses (lviii.‑lx.). The remaining chapters (Ixi.‑Ixvii.) give a glimpse of the daily life of Christians at the time‑baptism, communion, and Sunday worship. The supplementary or " Second Apology " depicts the behavior
of the Christians under persecution, of which the demons are again set forth as the instigators.
In the " Dialogue," after an introductory section (i.‑ix.), Justin undertakes to show that Christianity is the new law for all men (x.‑xxx.), and to prove from Scripture that Jesus is the Christ (xxxi.eviii.). The concluding section (cix.‑exlii.) demonstrates that the Christians are the
3. The true people of God. The fragments of " Dialogue" the work " On the Resurrection " be‑
	and	gin with the assertion that the truth,
" Resur‑ and God the author of truth, need no
	rection."	witness, but that as a concession to
		the weakness of men it is necessary
to give arguments to convince those who gain
say it. It is then shown, after a denial of un
founded deductions, that the resurrection of the
body is neither impossible nor unworthy of God,
and that the evidence of prophecy is not lacking
for it. Another fragment takes up the positive
proof of the resurrection, adducing that of Christ
and of those whom he recalled to life. In another
the resurrection is shown to be that of what has
gone down, i.e., the body; the knowledge concern
ing it is the new doctrine in contrast with that of
the old philosophers; the doctrine follows from the
command to keep the body in moral purity.
Flacius discovered " blemishes " in Justin's theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler and S. G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge. In opposition to the school of Baur, who considered him a Jewish Christian, A. Ritschl has pointed out that it was precisely because he was a Gentile Christian that he did not fully
4. Justin's understand the Old‑Testament founda‑
	Theology.	tion of Paul's teaching, and explained in
		this way the modified character of his
Paulinism and his legal mode of thought. M. von
Engelhardt has attempted to extend this line of
treatment to Justin's entire theology, and to show
that his conceptions of God, of free will and right
eousness, of redemption, grace, and merit prove the
influence of the cultivated Greek pagan world of
the second century, dominated by the Platonic
and Stoic philosophy. But he admits that Justin
is a Christian in his unquestioning adherence to the
Church and its faith, his unqualified recognition of
the Old Testament, and his faith in Christ as the
Son of God the Creator, made manifest in the flesh,
crucified, and risen, through which belief he suc
ceeds in getting away from the dualism of pagan
and also of Gnostic philosophy.
In the opening of the " Dialogue," Justin relates his vain search among the Stoics, Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans for a satisfying knowledge of God; his finding in the ideas of Plato wings for his soul, by the aid of which he hoped to at‑
		5. His taro the contemplation of the nod
	Conversion head; and his meeting on the sea,
		and shore with an aged man who told him
	Teachings. that by no human endeavor but only
		by divine revelation could this blessed
ness be attained, that the prophets had conveyed
this revelation to man, and that their words had

Justin Martyr	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	284
Justinian I
been fulfilled. Of the truth of this he assured him
self by his own investigation; and the daily life of
the Christians and the courage of the martyrs con
vinced him that the charges against them were un
founded. So he sought to spread the knowledge
of Christianity as the true philosophy. He had,
like others, the idea that the Greek philosophers
	had derived, if not borrowed, the most essential
elements of truth found in their teaching from the
	Old Testament. But at the same time he adopted
	the Stoic doctrine of the " seminal word," and so
	philosophy was to him an operation of the Word
	‑in fact, through his identification of the Word
	with Christ, it was brought into immediate connec
	tion with him. Thus he does not scruple to de
	clare that Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians
	(Apol., i. 46, ii. 10). His aim, of course, is to em
	phasize the absolute significance of Christ, so that
	all that ever existed of virtue and truth may be
	referred to him. The old philosophers and law
	givers had only a part of the Logos, while the whole
	appears in Christ. While the heathen, seduced by
	demons, had deserted the true God for idols, the
	Jews and Samaritans possessed the revelation given
	through the prophets and awaited the Messiah.
	The law, however, while containing command
	ments intended to promote the true fear of God,
	had other prescriptions of a purely pedagogic na
	ture, which necessarily ceased when Christ, their
	end, appeared; of such temporary and merely rela
	tive regulations were circumcision, animal sacri
	fices, the Sabbath, and the laws as to food. Through
	Christ the abiding law of God has been fully pro
	claimed. In his character as the teacher of the
	new doctrine and promulgator of the new law lies
	the essential nature of his redeeming work. The
	idea of an economy of grace, of a restoration of the
	union with God which had been destroyed by sin,
	is not foreign to him. It is noteworthy that in the
	" Dialogue " he no longer speaks of a " seed of the
	Word " in every man, and in his non‑apologetic
	works the emphasis is laid upon the redeeming acts
	of the life of Christ rather than upon the demon
	stration of the reasonableness and moral value of
	Christianity, though the fragmentary character of
	the latter works makes it difficult to determine
	exactly to what extent this is true and how far the
	teaching of Irenaeus on redemption is derived from
	him. Still, it is safe to say that Justin's theology
	is characterized throughout by an ethical strain.
	Faith does not justify but is a preliminary to jus
	tification, which is accomplished by repentance,
	change of heart, and a sinless life according to God's
	commandments. Baptism confers the remission
	only of previous sins; the Christian must there
	after show himself worthy of union with God by a
	life without sin. In the Eucharist he shows his
	devotion by offering bread and wine and by prayer,
	receiving in return the food consecrated by a for
	mula of Christ's institution, which is the flesh and
	blood of the incarnate Jesu,, and by which our
	flesh and blood are nourished through a kind of
transformation (kata metabolen).
	Justin is confident that his teaching is that of the
	Church at large. He knows of a division among
	the orthodox only on the question of the millen‑
nium and on the attitude toward the milder Jewish Christianity, which he personally is willing to tolerate as long as its professors in their turn do not interfere with the liberty of the Gentile converts; his millenarianism seems to have no connection with Judaism, but he believes firmly in a millennium, and generally in the primitive Christian eschatology.
His use of the idea of the Logos has always attracted attention. It is probably too much to assume a direct connection with Philo in this particu‑
lar. The idea of the Logos was widely 6. His familiar to educated men, and the
Doctrine designation of the Son of God as the of the Logos was not new to Christian the‑
Logos. ology. The significance is clear, how‑
ever, of the manner in which Justin identifies the historical Christ with the rational force operative in the universe, which leads up to the claim of all truth and virtue for the Christians and to the demonstration of the adoration of Christ, which aroused so much opposition, as the only reasonable attitude. It is mainly for this justification of the worship of Christ that Justin employs the Logos‑idea, though where he explicitly deals with the divinity of the Redeemer and his relation to the Father, he makes use of the Old Testament, not of the Logos‑idea, which thus can not be said to form an essential part of his Christology.
The importance which he attaches to the evidence of prophecy shows his estimate of the OldTestament Scriptures, which are to Christians absolutely the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, and confirmed by the fulfilment of the prophecies. Not less divine, however, is the teaching of the apostles, which is read in the assembly every Lord's Day‑though he can not use this in his " Dialogue " as he uses the Old Testament. The word of the apostles is the teaching of the Divine Logos, and reproduces the sayings of Christ authentically. As a rule he uses the synoptic Gospels, but has a few unmistakable references to John. He quotes the Apocalypse as inspired because prophetic, naming its author. The opposition of Marcion prepares us for an attitude toward the Pauline epistles corresponding to that of the later Church. Distinct references are found to Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and II Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and I Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and I John. The apologetic character of Justin's habit of thought appears again in the Acts of his martyrdom (ASB, Apr., ii. 108 sqq.;
Ruinart, Acta martyrum, Regensburg, 1859, 105
sqq.), the genuineness of which is attested by in
ternal evidence. 	(N. BONWETBCH.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY; Lists of literature are given in ANP, Bib
	liography, pp, 21‑26 and in J. M. Baldwin Dictionary of
	Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp. 285‑286. The best
	edition of the Opera is by J. C. T. Otto, 2 vols., Jena,
	1843, reproduced by W. Trollope, 3 vols., London, 1845
	1847, and in Corpus apolopetarum chrialianorum, 3 1845..
Jena, 18711‑81, and in MPG, vi. 227800, 1571‑1600, cf.
1181‑1564, The edilioprincepswasbyR.Stephanus,Paris,
1551 (Greek), followed by one by F Sylburg, Heidelberg ,
1593 and often (Greek and Latin); and that by P. Maranus,
Paris, 1742 (the best before Otto, critical). There have
been many editions of the single works. The best Eng_

285	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Justin XartTr
		dustinian I
translations are in the Dibrary of the Fathers, ed. E. B.
Pussy, J. Keble, and J. H. Newman, Oxford, 1861, and
in ANF, i. 163‑302.
	On the life and works of Justin consult: K. Semisch,
Justin der Mdrtyrer, 2 vols., Breslau, 1840‑42, Eng. tranel
Edinburgh, 1844; idem, Die apoetolischen Denkwiirdig
keiten des Mdrtyrer8 Justinus, Hamburg, 1848; J. C. T.
von Otto, De Justini Martyris sc^iptis et doctrina, Jena,
1841; A. Hilgenfeld, Kritieche Untersuchunpen fiber die
	Evangelien Justine, Halle, 1850; J. Kaye, Some Account of
the Life and Writings of Justin Martyr, Cambridge, 1853;
G. Volkmar, Ueber Justin . . . and rein Verhdltniss zu
unsern Evangelien, Zurich, 1853; C. G. Seibert, Justinue
der Vertheidiger des Chriatenthums war dem Thron der
	Caesaren, Elberfeld, 1859; C. E. Freppel, Les Apologistes
chr6tiens au ll. aibcle; S. Justin, Paris, 1860; W. M511er,
Die Kosmolopie in der griechischen Kirche his auf Origenes,
pp. 112‑188, Halle, 1860; D. H. de Puiseau, De Chris
	tolopie van Justin Martyr, 'Leyden, 1864; J. Donaldson,
	Critical Hist. of Christian Literature and Doctrine, ii. 62
	344, London, 1866; L. AubE, S. Justin, philosophe et
	martyr, Paris, 1875; J. Drummond, in Theological Re
	view, xii (1875), 471 sqq., xiv (1877), 155 sqq., xvi (1879),
	360 eqq.; [W. R. Cassel,l Supernatural Religion, i. 283
	428, ii. 271‑316, iii. 15‑17, London, 1875 (brilliant but
	criticized as rationalistic); B. F. Westcott, Hist. of the
	Canon of the N. T., pp. 59‑177, ib. 1875; M. von Engel
	hardt, Das Chriatentum Justine des Martyrere, Erlangen,
	1878 (reviews previous discussions); A. StAhlin, Justin
	der Mtirtyrer and sein neuester Beurth:iler, Leipsic, 1880
	(opposes Engelhardt); T. Zahn in ZKG, viii (1885), 1
	84; F. W. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, i. 93‑117, New
	York, 1889; G. T. Purves, The Testimony of Justin Mar
	tyr to Early Christianity, ib. 1889; Mrs. M. E. Martin, Life
	of Justin Martyr, London, 1890; W. Smith, Dictionary
	of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, ii. 682
	687, ib. 1890; C. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophieche Be
	deutung des atoischchristlichen Eudamonismus in Justin's
	Apologie, Leipsic, 1891; E. Huth, Justin Martyr, Paris,
	1894; L. Waterman, The Post‑Apostolic Age, pp. 141‑156
	et passim, New York, 1898; S. Justin et lea apologistes du
	S. siede, Paris, 1907; A. L. Feder, Justin des MBrtyrers
	LehrevonJesusChristus, Freiburg, 1908; W. Walker, Great
	est Men of the Christian Church, Chicago, 1908; Krilger,
	History, pp. 105‑117; Harnack, Litteratur, passim, consult
	Index; idem, Dogma, vols. i.‑iv., passim; idem in TU, i.
	130‑195, Leipsic, 1882; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr&, i. 408‑448;
	Neander, Christian Church, i. 661‑771 et passim; Schaff,
	Christian Church, ii. 710‑726 et passim; Moeller, Christian
	Church, i, 172‑175; DCB, iii. 560‑587 (should not be
overlooked).	The subject is treated at greater or less
	length in the works on the church history of the period,
	one phase appears in the discussions on the Fourth Gos
	pel, another in the treatises on the History of Doctrine,
	while the works on the Introduction to the N. T. are also
to be consulted.
JUSTIMAN L, EMPEROR OF THE EAST.
Life (§ 1).	Ecclesiastical Policy (§ 3)
Religious Policy (§ 2).	Relations with Rome (§ 4).
Writings (§ 5).
	Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus was born,
	probably May 11, 483, at Tauresium (120 m. n.w.
	of Saloniki); d. at Constantinople Nov. 13 [14J,
	565. Coming to Constantinople during his youth,
	he completed the usual course of edu
:. Life.	cation, busying himself mainly with
	jurisprudence and philosophy. His
	mother being a sister to the highly esteemed Gen
	eral Justin, Justinian's military career was one of
	rapid advancement, and a great future was opened
	up for him when, in 518, Justin assumed the gov
	ernment. Consul in 521, later in command of the
	army of the east, he was virtual regent a long time
	before Justin made him associate emperor, on Apr.
	1, 527. Four months later he became the sole sov
	ereign. His administration was of world‑wide
	moment, constituting a distinct epoch in the his‑
tory of the Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Church. He was a man of unusual capacity for work, temperate, affable, lively; but also unscrupulous, and crafty. He was the last of the emperors who attempted to restore the Roman Empire to its former glory. For this end were his great wars and his colossal activity in building directed. Starting from the premise that the existence of a commonwealth rested upon arms and laws, he paid particular attention to legislation, and wrought a lasting memorial for himself by codifying the Roman law (Codex Justinianus, Novellae Constitutiones). In this article, however, there will be considered only his participation in religious and ecclesiastical movements, by means of statecraft and legislation.
Justinian's religious policy was upheld by the imperial conviction that the unity of the empire unconditionally presupposed unity of faith; and with him it was a matter of course
z. Religious that this faith could be only the orPolicy. thodox. Those of a different belief had to recognize that the process which had been begun by imperial legislation from Constantius down was now to be vigorously continued. The Codex contained two statutes (Cod., I., xi. 9 and 10) which decreed the total destruction of Hellenism, even in the civil life; nor were the appertaining provisions to stand merely on paper. The sources (Malalas, Theophanes, John of Ephesus) tell of severe persecutions, even of men in high positions. But what proved of universal historic account, was the ruling whereby the emperor, in 529, abrogated philosophical and juridical instruction at the University of Athens, thus putting an end to this training‑school for Hellenism. And the Christian propaganda went hand in hand with the suppression of paganism. In Asia Minor alone, John of Ephesus claimed to have converted 70,000 pagans (cf. F. Nau, in Revue de Forient chretien, ii., 1897, 482). Christianity was also accepted by the Heruli (Procopius, Bellum Gothicum, ii. 14; Evagrius, Hist. eccl., iv. 20), the Huns dwelling near the Don (Procopius, iv. 4; Evagrius, iv. 23), the Abasgi (Procopius, iv. 3; Evagrius, iv. 22) and the Tzani (Proeopius, Bellum Persicum, i. 15) in Caucasia. The worship of Ammon at Augila in the Libyan desert (Procopius, De Aedificiis, vi. 2) was abolished; and so were the remnants of the worship of Isis on the island of Philae, at the first cataract of the Nile (Procopius, Bellum Persicum, i. 19). The Presbyter Julian (DCB, iii. 482) and the Bishop Longinus (John of Ephfiill6l N'bS6, PGCI,, iv. 5 sqq.) conducted a mission among the Nabatteans, and Justinian attempted to strengthen Christianity in Yeman by despatching thither an ecclesiastic of Egypt (Proeopius, Bellum Persicum, i. 20; Malalas, ed. Niebuhr, Bonn, 1831, pp. 433 sqq.). The Jews, too, had to suffer; for not only were their civil rights restricted (Cod., I., v. 12), and their religious privileges threatened (Procopius, Historia Arcana, 28); but the emperor interfered too in the internal affairs of the synagogue (Nov., cxlvi., Feb. 8, 553), and forbade, for instance, the use of the Hebrew language in divine worship. The recalcitrant were menaced with corporal penalties, exile

Justinian I
Juvenal	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	288
and loss of property. The Jews at Borium, not far from Syrtis Major, who resisted Belisarius in his Vandal campaign, had to embrace Christianity; and their synagogue was changed into a church. (Procopius, De Aedificiia, vi. 2). The emperor had much trouble with the Samaritans; refractory to Christianity, as they were, and repeatedly in insurrection. He opposed them with rigorous edicts, but yet could not prevent a fresh outbreak against the Christians from taking place in Samaria toward the close of his reign. It was no less consistent with his policy, that the Manicheans, too, were persecuted severely, both with exile and threat of capital punishment (Cod., I., v. 12). At Constantinople, on one occasion, not a few Manicheans, after strict inquisition, were executed in the emperor's very presence: some by burning, others by drowning (F. Nau, in Revue de l'orient, ii., 1897, p. 481).
The like despotism was also shown in the emperor's ecclesiastical policy. He regulated everything, both in religion and in law. At the very beginning of his reign, he deemed it proper to promulgate by law his belief in the Trinity and the incar‑
nation; and to threaten all heretics 3. Ecclesi‑ with the becoming penalties (Cod., I., astical i. 5); whereas he subsequently de‑
Policy. clared that he designed to deprive all
disturbers of orthodoxy of the opportunity for such offense by due process of law (MPG, lxxxvi. 1, p. 993). He made the Nicmno‑Constantinopolitan creed the sole symbol of the Church (Cod., I., i. 7), and accorded legal force to the canons of the four ecumenical councils (Novellae, cxxxi.). The bishops in attendance at the Synod of Constantinople in 536 recognized that nothing could be done in the Church contrary to the emperor's will and command (Mansi, Concilia, viii. 970B); while, on his side, the emperor, in the case of the Patriarch Anthimus, reinforced the ban of the Church with temporal proscription (Novellae, xlii.). Bishops without number had to feel the tyrant's wrath. On the other hand, it is true, he neglected no opportunity for securing the rights of the Church and clergy, for protecting and extending monasticism. Indeed, were not the despotic character of his measures so glaring, one might be tempted to call him a father of the Church. Both the Codex and the Novellae contain many enactments regarding donations, foundations, and administration of ecclesiastical property; election and rights of bishops, priests and abbots; monastic life, residential obligations of the clergy, conduct of divine service, episcopal jurisdiction, etc.
From the middle of the fifth century onward increasingly arduous tasks confronted the emperors of the East in the province of ecclesiastical polity.
For one thing, the radicals on all aides ;. Rela‑ felt themselves constantly repelled by
tions with the creed which had been adopted by
Rome. the Council of Chalcedon with the de‑
sign of mediating between the dogmatic parties. The letter of Leo I. to Flavian of Constantinople passed far and wide, in the East, for a document of Satan; so that, here such was the case, nobody cared to hear aught of the Church of Rome. The emperors, however, had to wrestle
with a twofold problem. In the first place, the unity between East and West, between Byzantium and Rome, was to be preserved; and this was possible only if they swerved not from the line defined at Chalcedon. In the next place, the factions in the East which had been stirred up and disaffected on account of Chalcedon must be restrained and pacified. This problem was the more difficult because the dissenting groups in the East excelled the party for Chalcedon in the East both in numerical strength and in intellectual ability; and so the course of events showed the two aims to be incompatible: whoever chose Rome and the West moat renounce the East, and vice versa. For the progress of affairs under Zeno and Anastasius see MoNoPHY$ITE$. Justinian entered the arena, of ecclesiastical statecraft shortly after his uncle's accession in 518, and put an end to the schism that had prevailed between Rome and Byzantium since 483. The recognition of the Roman see as the highest ecclesiastical authority (cf. Novellae, cxxxi.) remained the cornerstone of his policy in relation to the West, although he thus grievously offended those of the East, and though he felt himself entirely free to show a despotic front toward the pope (witness his behavior toward Silverius and Vigilius). But the controversies in the East were alone sufficient to keep the emperor busy all through his reign; and he plainly paid much more attention to them than to the external affairs of the realm. Yet his policy bore marks of greatness, and strove with large understanding to satisfy the religious instincts of the devout in the East, a signal proof of which was his attitude in the Theopaschite controversy (see THEOPABCHTTE$). At the outset he was of the opinion that the question turned on a quibble of words. By degrees, however, he came to understand that the formula at issue was not only orthodox, but might also be used as a conciliatory measure toward the Monophysitea, and made a vain attempt to do this in the religious conference with the Severians, in 533. Again, he reviewed the same approvingly in the religious edict of Mar. 15, 533 (Cod., L, i. 6), and congratulated himself that Pope John II. admitted the orthodoxy of the imperial confession (Cod., L, i. 8). The serious blunder that he had‑ made at the beginning by abetting after Justin's accession a severe persecution of the Monophysite bishops and monks and thereby embittering the population of vast regions and provinces, he remedied eventually. His constant aim now was to win the Monophysites, yet not to surrender the Chalcedonian faith. For many at court, he did not go far enough: the Empress Theodora especially would have been glad to see the Monophysites favored unreservedly. Justinian, however, was restrained in that policy by the complications that would have ensued with the West. Neither, for that matter, could he escape these issues; for instance, the Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.; see also VrcILIU9). In the condemnation of the ThrW Gh
t2rS Justinian tried to satisfy both the East and the West, but succeeded in satisfying neither. Although the pope assented to the condemnation, the West believed that the emperor was acting contrary to the decrees of Chalcedon; and though many dele‑

287	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Justinian I
		Juverial
	gates were found in the East subservient to Justin
	ian, yet there were many, especially the Monophy
	sites, left unsatisfied. So the emperor's efforts were
	wasted on an impossible task; the more bitter for
	him because during his last years he took greater
	interest in theological matters.
		It can not be doubted that Justinian also took an
	actual, personal hand in the theological manifes
	toes which he put forth as emperor; although, in
			view of the author's exalted position,
	5. Writings. it is a difficult matter to ascertain
			whether the documents current under
	his name are the direct product of his pen. Apart
	from letters to the Popes Hormisdas, John II.,
	Agapetus I., and Vigilius, and sundry other composi
	tions (collected in MPL,1xiii., lxvi. and lxix.), the
	following documents may be noted (all to be found
	in MPG, lxxxvi. 1, pp. 945‑1152) : (1) the edict on
	Origen's heterodoxies, in 543 or 544; (2) summons
	to the bishops assembled at Constantinople on oo
	casion of the council of 553, with reference to their
	sitting in judgment on errors in circulation among
	the monastic followers of Origen at Jerusalem;
	(3) an edict on the Three Chapters, probably
	framed in 551; (4) an address to the council of
	553, concerning the Antiochian theology; (5) a
	document probably antedating 550, addressed to
	some unnamed defenders (perhaps Scythians) of
	the Three Chapters; (6) writ of excommunication
	against Anthimus, Severus and companions; (7) an
	address to some Egyptian monks, with a refutation
	of Monophysite errors; (8) fragment of a docu
	ment, mentioned in (7), to the Patriarch Zoilus of
	Alexandria. The theology upheld in these wri
	tings agreed, in general, with that of Leontius of
	Byzantium (q.v.); that is, it aims at the final solu
	tion of the problem by interpreting the Chalce
	donian symbol in terms of the theology of Cyril of
	Alexandria. Two points are worth noting in this
	connection. First, the clever way in which the
	emperor, or his representative, contrives to defend
	the reputation and the theology of Cyril; secondly,
	his antagonism to Origen: a clear sign of the char
	acteristic disinclination of that age for independent
	thinking; at least among personages of weight and
	influence. A word or two should be subjoined on
	the subject of Aphthartodocetism; a doctrine pro
	fessed by the emperor toward the close of his life.
	Evagrius reports (Hist. eccl., iv. 39), and other
	sources confirm the point, that Justinian promul
	gated an edict in which he declared Christ's body
	to be incorruptible and not susceptible to natural
	suffering, and commanded bishops everywhere to
	accept this doctrine. The fall of the Patriarch
	Eutychius (q.v.) is associated with this final phase
	of the imperial policy. The sources saw a lament
	able decline from the right faith in Justinian's latter
	conduct. The train of thought underlying Aph
	thartodocetism, however, is not necessarily unortho
	dox (bee JULIAN of HALICARNA$6U$); because it
	need not be opposed to the acceptance of the essen
	tial identity of Christ's nature with human nature.
	Hence it is not necessary to regard Justinian's final
	theological views as those of an old man, to be dis
	regarded in surveying the aims of his full‑bodied
activity.	G. KROGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chaps. xl.‑xliv.: C, w. F, waleh, H%atorie der Ketzereien, vole. vi.‑viii., Leipeie, 1773‑78; J. B. Bury, H%at, of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vole., London, 1889; A. Knecht, Die Relipionapof%tik Kaiser Juatinians 1., Wiirzburg, 1898: idem, System ties jvatinianiachen Kirehenvermtipenarechlea, Stuttgart, 1905; w. H. Hutton, The Church of the Sixth Century, London, 1897; C. Diehl, Juatinieh. et la culture byzantine, Paris, 1901; G. Pfannmiiller,. Die k%rchLiche aeactzgebung Juatiniana, Berlin 1902; W. Norden, Daa Papattum and Byzanz, ib. 1903; J. Pargoire, L'‑0gLiae byranNne, 627‑84T. Paris, 1905; w. G. Holmes, The Age of Justinian and Theodora, 2 vole.. London, 190b‑07; Hefele, Concilienpeschi.chte, vol. ii., Eng, transl., Vol. iv.: DCB, iii. 538‑559 (elaborate discussion); Neander, Christian Church, vol. iii, passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 788 eqq. et passim; the literature under the articles referred to in the text. Consult further: F. A. Biener, Ceachichte der NoveLLen Justinian&, Berlin, 1824; J. Cauvet, L'Empereur Juatinien et son asuvre Lipfielative, Caen, 1880.
JUSTUS: First bishop of Rochester and fourth archbishop of Canterbury; d. at Canterbury Nov. 10, 627. He was sent to England with Mellitus (q.v.) and others in 601. Augustine (q.v.) consecrated him bishop for West Kent in 604 and Ethelbert, king of Kent, built him a church at Rochester. In 617 during the heathen reaction under Eadbald, with Mellitus he fled into Gaul, but was recalled after a year and restored to his bishopric (see LAURENCE OF CANTERBURY; MELLITUS). He succeeded Mellitus as archbishop in 624, consecrated Romanus as his successor at Rochester, and sent Paulinus (q.v.) to Northumbria. He received the pallium from Boniface V.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Beds, Hint. eccf„ i. 29, 13, 4, 8. 18: Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 72‑81; w. F. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, i. 99‑108, London, 1880; w. Bright, Chapters of Early English Church Hiat., passim, Oxford, 1897; DCB, iii. 592‑593.

JUVENAL, ju've‑nal: First patriarch of Jerusalem; d. c. 458. Of his life little is known, and the date and place of his birth, consecration, and death are also uncertain. The aim of his life was to make Jerusalem one of the important sees of Christendom, and the Council of Nic>3ea had, as a matter of fact, accorded the bishop of Jerusalem special rank and honor, though it placed him under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of CEESafeB, JU• venal endeavored to realize the concession, and took the first step in this direction by transcending his authority in consecrating in the neighborhood a certain Peter bishop of a newly converted tribe of Saracens and attaching him as so‑Called bishop " of Tarembolae " (i.e., " of the camp") to the see of Jerusalem, most probably in 425. This was considered a distinct breach of canon law by the metropolitan of Ca'sarea. The resulting difficulties came to a head at the Council of Ephesl.s in 431. The conditions of the time favored Juvenal. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, was accused of heresy; Cyril of Alexandria was temporarily imprisoned; John of Antioch held a separate council; and the see of Rome was represented only by legates. To Juvenal, therefore, in Cyril's absence fell the right of precedence in signing the resolutions; or, in case Cyril was present, Juvena,l's name came second. Juvenal did not hesitate to make the most of these conditions. He summoned John of Antioch to proceed at once to Ephesus, ranked

Juvenal	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	288
8abasil"
the see of Jerusalem as on a par with that of Rome
and gave it the title " apostolic," which he denied
to Antioch. These indications show plainly that
Juvenal aspired not only after an independent see
within the archbishopric of Cwsarea, but after su
	periority over, or at least, equality with, that of
Antioch. He aimed to have the three bishoprics
	of Palestine attached to Jerusalem, and also, if pos
	sible, those of Phenicia and Arabia. The result
	would be to make the holy city the principal see in
the Orient.
	Several bishops who had been ordained by Ju
	venal and were present at Ephesus, supported his
	claims; this fact, and the absence of the above
	mentioned bishops from the principal sees were ex
	tremely favorable to his ambitions. Cyril of Alex
	andria appeared, however, at the fourth session of
	the council, and at once took charge of the pro
	ceedings. He saw the danger not only for the see
	of Antioch but for that of Alexandria in the exist
	ence of a masterful bishop of Jerusalem. He
	therefore opposed every plan of Juvenal. Neither
	did the idea of a new competitor for supremacy in
	Christendom please the fancy of the legates of the
	Roman see. It could not be foreseen what compli
	cations might arise in favor of Jerusalem, particu
	larly since pilgrimages to the holy city were be
	coming more frequent every year. But Juvenal
	had gained an advantage of which he made the
	most. He ordained several new bishops in Pales
	tine without having any stipulated right by canon
	law. His influence was growing constantly, and
	Maximus of Antioch at the Council of Chalcedon
	in 451 acknowledged Juvenal's claims to the three
	sees Of Palestine on condition that the latter aban
	don his claims to the sees of Phenicia and Arabia.
The council confirmed the agreement.
	Juvenal had numerous difficulties with the mon
	ophysitic monks of Palestine; and even his life was
	threatened. He introduced the celebration of
	Christmas on Dec. 25, possibly to win the favor of
	Rome. See JERUSALEM, PATRIARCHATE OF; and
MONOPHYBITEI;, § 2.	(F. KATTENBUBCH.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: The acts of the councils of
	Ephesus and Chalcedon given in Hefele, Concilienpo
	acAichte, vol. ii. Passim, Eng. tranal., vol. iii, passim; the
	letters of Leo the Great. Eng. tranal. in NPNP, 2 ser.,
	vol. xli., cf. PP. 66, 82, 86 97• Evagrius, Hint. eccl., ii.,
	in MPG, lxxxvl. 2. Consult: M. Le Quien, Oriene Chris
	tianus, iii. 110 aqq, 164 eqq., Paris, 1740; Vailhe. in Revue
	de l'orient, iv (1899), 44 aqq.; DCB, iii. 595 aqq.; Neander,
Christian Church, vol. ii. passim.
	JUVENCUS, ju‑ven'cus, CAIUS VETTIUS AQUI
	LINUS (or AQUILIUS) : Spanish presbyter and
	Teligious poet, in the reign of Constantine the Great,
	to whom he refers at the close of his principal poem.
	This is a rendering of the Gospels into Latin dac
	tylic hexameters, with a close adherence to the
	original text, and contains 3,210 lines. The pro
	Iogue speaks of earlier poets such as Homer and
	Vergil, whose names are well‑nigh immortal though
	their subjects were only the deeds of men, and their
	narratives fictitious; places on a much higher plane
	the acts of Christ; and hopes, under the guidance
	of the Holy Spirit to create a work that shall worth
	ily set them forth, last beyond the conflagration of
	the world, and save the author himself from the
	fire. The events of the life Of Christ are narrated
now from one Evangelist and now from another, in what seemed to the author chronological order. Matthew is throughout his main source, and Mark does not seem to be used at all. The division into four books seems to have been an afterthought, intended to correspond with the number of the Evangelists. Juvencus adheres closely to the scriptural account, and is apparently withheld by reverence from any attempt to enlarge upon it. He was evidently at home in classical literature, and his diction is full of Vergilian echoes; the verse is flowing and for its period strikingly correct. This first Christian epic, although it made no pretense to be a complete narrative or a scientific harmony of the Gospels, and although it does not offer much help in the way of exegesis, of the history of dogma, or of textual criticism (it is based on the Itala as a text), was yet highly regarded in the early Church and continued to be prized throughout the Middle Ages, being frequently used as a text‑book in schools. Its popularity is attested by the large number of manuscripts in which it is preserved. A work by Juvencus on the sacraments mentioned by Jerome has been lost. Some of the later manuscripts give under the name of Juvencus two other poems, De laudibus Domini and TKumphus Christi, of 148 and 108 verses. The former is probably older than Juvencus and the work of a rhetorician from Augustodunum (Autun). The 6,000 verses on the OldTestament history which Cardinal Pitra discovered and attributed to Juvencus are now thought to have been written by a fifth‑century Gallic Cyprian (not the famous Carthaginian bishop). The style is dry and jejune, and the poetical execution far inferior to that of Juvencus. Nor is it possible now to attribute to him the Ldber in Genesim (1441 verses) which Mart6ne published in 1723 from a Codex Corbeiensis, and which Galland, Arevolo, Gebser, Bahr, Teuffel and others believed to be his.
(K. LEIMBACHt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The poem has often b4en edited and printed since the editio princeps of Paris, 1449, is in MPL, xix.; ed. C. Marold, Leipsic, 1886; and, ed. J. Huemer, in CSEL, xxiv., Vienna, 1891. Consult: J. Huemer. in Wiener Studien, ii. 81‑112, Vienna, 1880; A. R. Gebser. Dia‑
eertatiO de . . . Juvenci vita et aeriptia, Jena, 1827; A.
Ebert Allgemeine Geachichte der Literatur de, Mittelalters,
i. 109 aqq, Leipsic, 1889 J. T. Hatfield, A Study of
Juvencus Bonn 1890; Ceillier, Auteura s¢cres, iii. 116
118; DCB, iii. 598‑599.
JU%ON, WILLIAM: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Chichester (57 m. s.w. of London), baptized in Oct., 1582; d. in London June 4, 1663. He received his education at St. John's College, Oxford; became vicar of St. Giles, Oxford, 1609] rector of Somerton, Oxfordshire, 1615; head of St.
John's, 1622, and vice‑chancellor 1626‑27, and in 1626, dean of Worcester; became bishop of Lon‑
don in 1633; on Mar. 6, 163:‑36, he became lord high treasurer, a difficult post; he attended Charles I. to the scaffold as his most faithful servant; was deprived of his see in 1649; and in 1660 was recognized as the only eligible candidate for the primacy, and was elected. He left a well‑deserved reputation for strict honesty, loyalty to Church and king, and great charity to the poor.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. H. Marsh,	ojArchbiahoy Juxon,
	London, 1869; DNB, xxs. ?33_237.

889	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Tuvensl
8abadlas
	BAABA, kd'a ba: The pre‑Mohammedan sano
	tuary at Mecca, adopted by the Mohammedans as
the chief sanctuary of their faith. It is situated
in the heart of Mecca, the sacred city of Islam (see
MOHAMMED, MOHAMMEDANISM), in a court approxi
	mately 535 feet by 355 feet which forms an irregu
	lar oblong, the long axis of which is approximately
	n.e.‑s.w., while its sides are only approximately
	parallel. The wall which bounds the enclosure
	does not preserve its direction throughout on any
one of the four sides, while on the northeastern and
	southwestern sides are projections forming two
	large halls. The wall is pierced by nineteen un
	gated entrances. On the inside and next to the
	bounding wall a triple or, in some places, a quad
	ruple, colonnade a little over twenty feet in height
	limits the open area, while each group of four col
	umns supports a small dome as a part of the roof
	of the colonnade. The ground level of the area
	inside the walls is lower than that outside. The
	Kaaba itself is near the center of the enclosure, a
	structure in the form of a trapezium, no two sides
	exactly parallel, with its long axis transverse to
	that of the court, the diagonals being nearly in the
	direction of the cardinal points, one corner of the
	building being said by the Arabs to face the North
	Star. The structure is about fifty‑five feet by
	forty6five, and between thirty6five and forty feet
	in height, built of the common gray stone of the
	district, the courses of which are irregular. Its
	roof is nearly flat, yet sufficiently inclined to shed
	the rainfall easily. The main structure rises from
	a sloping base two feet in height. It has no win
	dows and but one door, placed on the eastern side
	about six feet from the southeast corner and seven
	feet from the ground. At the southeast corner is
	the Black Stone, an irregular oval about seven
	inches in diameter, the pieces of which it is com
	posed being joined by cement. It has an uneven
	surface, though it is worn smooth by the constant
	kissing and rubbing to which it has for ages been
	subjected by the faithful. It is described now as
	being a deep reddish brown, but whether it is ba
	saltic or a meteorite is undetermined, with probar
	bilities in favor of the latter. It is set in the wall
	about fifty inches from the pavement, and is sur
	rounded by a border of composite cement so set
	as to form a boss, and this is supported by a circle
	of gold or silver or gilt. In the northeast corner
	is another stone of the material common about
	Mecca, eighteen inches by two in size, set horizon
	tally in the wall, which receives a secondary ven
	eration, being rubbed by pilgrims with the right
	hand but never kissed. A slight hollow in the
	northeastern side in the pavement is lined with
	marble and is hallowed as the place where Abra
	ham and Ishmael mixed the material with which
	they built the Kaaba. The roof is sustained by
	three cross beams each supported in the center by
	a column covered with decorated aloe wood. In
	the northern corner is a small door leading to a
	staircase and the roof, used only by the attend
VI.‑19
ants for purposes of work. The roof of the Kaaba is covered by a robe or mantle which hangs over the sides. This is made at Cairo by a family in which the monopoly is hereditary, and is made of coarse silk and cotton. The interior of the court about the Kaaba has three levels: (1) a pavement of marble immediately surrounding the Kaaba in an irregular oval, about which is an oval of small columns between which lamps are suspended; (2) a second pavement about twenty feet broad and slightly higher than the interior pavement; (3) a pavement six inches higher and about forty feet in width, surrounding the two inner pavements. Between the outer edge of this last and the colonnade the ground is graveled except where the stone walks lead to several of the gates. There are a number of smaller structures at different points of the outer pavement which serve various purposes, one of them covering the sacred well Zem Zem. The lowest pavement next the Kaaba is that upon which the sevenfold circuit of the building is made by the pilgrims.
Arabic legend asserts that the present structure is the tenth in historical order. The first was built by the angels before the creation; the second by Adam; the third by Seth, and was destroyed in the deluge; the fourth by Abraham; the fifth by the Amalikah, descendants of Shem; the sixth by the Beni Jurham, about the Christian era; the seventh by Kusay bin‑Kilab, fifth in order 'of ascent among Mohammed's paternal ancestors; the eight in Mohammed's twenty‑fifth (thirty‑fifth) year; the ninth in 686 A.D. (64 A:H.) by Abdullah bin‑Zubaye, nephew of Ayegha, after the gkek Stone had been split by fire or by the weapons of an enemy; the tenth between 1652 and 1662 A.D., after the partial destruction of the house by flood in 1652. The ceremony of circumambulation was performed about all of these, according to Arab tradition. That the Kaaba has a high antiquity is made certain by Diodorus Siculus who asserts that " there is in this country (Arabia) a temple greatly revered by all the Arabs." The very universality of reverence asserted here and supported by Arab tradition guarantees an early origin for the structure.
GEo. W. GILMORE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The foregoing description of the xaaba is taken from a careful comparison of the accounts of R. F. Burton, Narrative of a Pilgrimage to mecoah and vedinah, chaps. xxvi.‑xxx., and Appendix, London, 1879‑ A. Sprenger, Dos Leben and die Lehre den Mohammed, ii. 340‑347, 3 Vole., Berlin, 1861‑65: and J. L. gurA6ard1,
Travels in Arabia, pp, 136 sqq, London, 1829. The history is taken from w. Muir, Life of Mahornet, Vol. i., pp.
cex. aqq., London, 1861; and A. P. Caussin de Peroeval, Eeeai our Mietaire des Arabee avant rialamieme, i. 170‑
175, Paris, 1847.
KABASILAS, ka‑ba's?‑las: Two metropolitans of Thessalonica during the fourteenth century.
Nilos, the elder, lived about 1340 under John Cantacuzenus, and belonged to the strict anti‑Roman party, so that his writings were first noticed among
the Protestants (e.g., De primatu pate, ed. M. Flacius Illyricus, Frankfort, 1553). Far more im‑

KabaeBa°	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	290
8ahnie
	portant was his nephew Nikolaos (d. 1371). Of his
	life the only details known are that he was origi
	nally bursar at Constantinople and sided with the
	Palaeologi, but afterward became a friend of John
	Cantacuzenus, who used him on political missions.
	In the Hesyehastic controversy (see HEsYCHA8TS)
	he sided with the monks of Athos, and was later
	appointed metropolitan of Thessalonica. Nikolaos
	is known as a philosopher, but more especially as
a theologian. Among his philosophical writings
	special mention may be made of one directed against
	skepticism (ed. Elter and Radermacher in Analecta
	Graeca, Bonn, 1899.) The most important of his
	theological writings was his " Seven Books con
	cerning the Life in Christ " (ed. W. Gass, Greifs
	wald, 1849). The line of thought is briefly this.
	True to the development of Greek theology, Ka
	basilas regards the summum bonum as exaltation
	above the sensual, the introduction into life and
	immortality, as given through Christ. Man is to
	be transplanted from the present world to the fu
	ture. This transfer is made by Christ himself.
	The life in Christ which transfers man to the other
	world is perfected through the sacraments and the
	human will. Baptism means to man the begin
	ning of a new existence. The second sacrament,
	that of unction, is unction of the spirit, and initi
	ates man into the true Christian calling. The
	Eucharist adds the third degree of perfection, and
	produces an inward change, causing a mystic kin
	ship with Christ. By the side of this physiological
	mysticism stands a non‑monastic system of ethics.
	Kabasilas teaches that the will must conform un
	reservedly to the sacramental influences, being
	thereby supplied with a train of pious thoughts.
	Through joy and sadness it becomes purified.
	Finally the climax of love is reached, and with it
	perfect altruism. Kabasilas indulges in lofty ex
	pressions when he describes the power of love, de
	claring that as once it had caused God to descend
	to man, so now it breaks the bonds of selfish isola
	tion and constrains man to live for God, and not
	for self. This power of love rises to complete self
	renunciation and self‑forgetfulness, and this is the
	state of him in whom sacrament and will work to
	gether in perfect harmony.	PHILIPP MEYER.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Works are in MPG, el. Consult:
		Fabncius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Graeca, x. 20‑30; Demetra
		kopulos, Graecia orthodoaia pp. 76 sqq., 83 sqq., Leipsic,
		1872; Krumbacher Geschichte pp 109‑110, 158‑159;
		W. Gass, Die Mystik des Nakolaos Kabasilaa, Leipsie, 1899.
		KABIR: Hindu religious leader. See INDIA,
	I., 3, § 3; SISHs, SIKHIsM.
		KADESH. See NEGEB.
		KAEHLER, kPler, CARL MARTIN AUGUST:
	German Protestant; b. at Neuhausen (7 m. n.e. of
	K6nigsberg), Jan. 6, 1835. He studied law at
	Konigsberg (1853‑54), and theology at Heidel
	berg (1854‑55), Halle (1855‑58), and Tiibingen
	(1858‑59); became privat‑docent at Halle, 1860;
	associate professor of theology at Bonn, 1864;
	went in a similar capacity to Halle, 1867, and has
	been full professor of systematic theology and New
	Testament exegesis in Halle since 1879. His wri
	tings include: August Tholuck, ein Lebensabriss
			1877); Julius miiller, der hallische Dog‑
mdtiker (1878); Neutestamentliche Schriften in genauer Wiedergabe ihres Gedankenganges dargestellt (3 vols., comprising Hebrews, Galatians, and Ephesians, 1880‑94); Die Wissensehaft der chrisllichen Lehre (3 parts, Erlangen, 1883‑87); Der sogenannte historisehe Jesus and der geschichtliche Christus (1896); Jesus and das Alte Testament (Leipsie, 1896); Dogmatische Streitfragen (2 vols., (1898); Wiedergeboren durch die Auferstehung Jesu Christi (1901); and Die Sakramente als Gnadenmittel (1903).
	KAEHLER, LUDWIG AUGUST: German Prot
estant; b. at Sommerfeld (44 m. s.s.e. of Frank
fort‑on‑the‑Oder), Prussia., Mar. 6, 1775; d. at
Ktinigsberg Nov. 7, 1855. He attended the Royal
School at Meissen, the Gymnasium at Gorau, and
the University of Erlangen, and, after spending
two and a half years as private tutor, became
assistant pastor at Kanig, near Guben, in 1798.
Here he found leisure to write a number of ro
mances, some of which won even Goethe's approval.
He declined a call to the office of general superin
tendent of Lower Lusatia, ‑but in 1809 entered
upon the diaconate at Guben. Ten years later he
was called to K6nigsberg as consistorial counselor,
professor of theology, and superintendent of the
L6benicht parish. He took an important part in
the direction of the provincial Church, and after
Borowski's death officiated four years as acting
general superintendent. In 1841 he resigned all
his offices on account of a paralytic stroke. Kah
ler was one of the chief representatives of a ra
tionalistic‑idealistic school, which, like that of
Schleiermacher, rejected both supernaturalism and
the older rationalism of the Enlightenment. He
was largely under the influence of the philosophy
of Kant and Jacobi. His principal works are:
Geschichte von Cottbus, wkhrend der Jahre 1813‑14
(Cottbus, 1814); Supernaturalismus and Rational
ismus in ihrem gemeinschaftlichen Ursprunge, ihrer
Zwietracht and hohern Einheit (Leipsic, 1818);
Philagathos: Andeutungen iiber das Reich des Guten
(K6nigsberg, 1823); the unfinished Christliche Sit,
tenlehre (1st section of part 1, 1833); and Wi8sen
schaftlicher Abriss der christlichen Sittenlehre (2
parts, 1835‑37). 	HERMANN HERING.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. A. Kibler, Ludurig August Kdhler, .
M1ttheilungen fiber sein Leben and seine Schriften, K6nigsberg, 1856 (by his son).
KAFTAN, kdf'tdn, JULIUS WILHELM MARTIN: German Protestant; b. at Loit (a village near Apenrade, 35 m. n. of Schleswig), Schleswig‑
Holatein, Sept. 30, 1848. He was educated at the universities of Erlangen, Berlin, and Kiel from 1866 to 1871, and in 1873 was appointed associate
professor of systematic theology at Basel where he was promoted to a full professorship in the same subject in 1881. Since 1883 he has been professor of apologetics and the philosophy of religion at Berlin, He has written So&n and 9ein in iltrem 1'erhaltnis zu einander (Leipsie, 1872); . Die Predigt des Evangeliums im nwdernen Geistesleben (Basel,
1879); Das Evangelium des Apostels Paulus in Predigten der Gemeinde dargelegt (1879); Das Wesen der christlichen Religion (1881); Das Leben in Christo

291	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	gabasilas
		8,shnis
(sermons, 1883); Die Wahrheit der christlichen Re
ligion (1888); and Dogmatik (Ttibingen, 1897).
	gAHNIS, hd'nis, KARL FRIEDRICH AUGUST:
German Lutheran theologian; b. at Greiz (49 m.
s.s.w. of Leipsic) Dec. 22, 1814; d. at Leipsic June
20, 1888. Despite the poverty of his parents, he
was educated at the gymnasium of his native town,
and after acting as private tutor for several years
began the study of theology at Halle. He was at
			first an ardent Hegelian, but becom
	Earlier	ing conscious that Hegelianism failed
		Life.	to recognize the value of individual
	Professor effort, personality, and the influence
at Breslau. of the Christian faith, he passed to
			orthodox Lutheranism. The transi
tion may be dated from the publication of his Dr.
Ruge and Hegel: Ein Beitrag zur Wiirdigung Hegel
scher Tendenzen (Quedlinberg, 1838). At the in
vitation of Hengstenberg; Kahnis went in 1840 to
Berlin, where he studied under Neander, Marhein
eke, Twesten, and others. To Tholuck's Litter
arischer Anzeiger fur chrietliche Theologie he contrib
uted a criticism of Strauss, which appeared in
expanded form under the title Die moderne Wissen
schaft des Dr. Strauss and der Glaube unserer Kirche
(Berlin, 1842). In 1842 he became privat‑docent
and then spent two happy years in close relation
ship with Neander, Steffens, and the circle of ro
manticists who gathered about Ludwig von Ger
lach. In 1844 he was called to Breslau as professor
extraordinary to represent the orthodox party in a
rationalistic faculty, but in his inaugural speech
De Spiritus Sancti persona he departed from the
accepted doctrine of Trinitarianism, ranking the
Son as subordinate to the Father, and assigning the
last place to the Holy Spirit, which he described
as the impersonal principle of life, binding together
the other two. This first venture of Kahnis into
the field of theology is important for his subse
quent development. Hampered to a large extent
in his academic work by the lack of harmony be
tween himself and his colleagues, he devoted him
self to scientific investigation in theology, the first
results being his Lehre vom heiligen Geiste (Halle,
1847), which marked no departure from the doc
trines enunciated in his earlier work, yet voiced his
protest against the liberalism of the times.
	After the revolution of 1848, in which Kahnis
supported the king and the established order, he
came to believe that the safest defense against irre
			ligion was in rigid orthodoxy, and
	Professor gradually drifted into an attitude of
	at Leipsic. opposition to the Union (the consoli
			dation of the Lutheran and Reformed
churches in Prussia effected by a royal decree in
1817). He strove to preserve the integrity of the
Lutheran creed. Convinced at last that the Lu
theran confession possessed neither a logical nor a
legal basis under the Union, he joined the old Lu
theran party in Nov., 1848, a step by which his
academic activity at Breslau became still more dif
ficult. In 1850, therefore, he gladly accepted a
call to Leipsic, where he succeeded Harless in the
chair of dogmatics, to which he later united that
of church history. In the following year the Uni‑
versity of Erlangen gave him the degree of D.D., and he acknowledged this honor by his Lehre vom Abendmahle (Leipsic, 1851), one of the best formulations of the type of Lutheranism taught at Erlangen. His professorial work at Leipsic was attended with success, but, feeling himself out of sympathy with the prevailing tone in the faculty, he would have accepted a call to Erlangen in 1856 had not the authorities promised to fill the first vacancy in the faculty by a theologian entirely in agreement with his own views. In the same year, Luthardt was called from Marburg, and he and Kahnis, together with Delitzsch, who came to Leipsic from Erlangen in 1867, constituted a triumvirate which raised the university to an unrivaled eminence in the realm of theology. In addition to his academic duties, Kahnis found time for much useful labor in the field of practical Christianity. From 1851 to 1857 he was a member of the board of missions, from 1853 to 1857 edited the Sachsische Kirchen‑ and Schulblatt, and from 1866 to 1875 was one of the editors of the Niednersche Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie. At Leipsic in 1854 he published Der inhere Gang des deutschen Protestantismus seit Mitte des vorigen Jahrhunderts (Eng. transl. by T. Meyer, Internal History of German Protestantism since the Middle of Last Century, Edinburgh, 1856), expanded in the second edition (1860) so as to include the entire period from the Reformation. These same years witnessed a literary controversy with Nitzsch over the question of the Union and confessional latitudinarianism, a controversy in which Kahnis sought to demonstrate the lack of doctrinal unity prevailing among the supporters of the movement.
In 1860 Kahnis became canon of the cathedral at Meissen and in 1864‑65 he was rector of Leipsic University. Before that time, however, his religio,ts views had undergone the change which found
expression in his Luthcrdsche Dog‑
Later matik (3 vols., Leipsic, 1861‑68). The Views and character of the work was foreshad‑
	Works.	owed in the second edition of Der in
		nere Gang, which revealed an approxi
mation to rationalism, the abandonment of his old
belief in inspiration, a readiness to admit the ne
cessity of progress in doctrine, and an insistence
upon the importance of recognizing the facts of
human nature and natural morality. The five di
visions of the Dogmatik deal with the history of
Lutheran dogmatics, religion, revelation, creed,
and system. The problem which Kahnis set him
self was the derivation of the doctrines of the
Lutheran Church from the basic principle of justi
fication by faith, and the proof of their verity by
the sole authority of the Scriptures. He found the
nature of Christianity in the community of salva
tion between man and God through Christ in the
Holy Spirit, seeking his proof in history, philosophy,
and the common facts of life. It was not the sys
tem he advanced that aroused opposition, but the
liberal attitude assumed by him toward the higher
critics of the New Testament, his readiness to
adopt the most of their theories, and his conse
quent modification of the doctrine of inspiration,
as well as his dissent from the dogma of the Church

gg°am°a	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	292
in respect to the Trinity and the Lord's Supper. Hengstenberg was the most prominent among those who now accused Kahnis of apostasy. In 1884 he published the second volume of his Dogmatik, wherein he traced the history of the development of dogma in connection with the history of the Church, so as to prove the Lutheran doctrines of the present day the logical result of this twofold development. The third volume, Das System, which appeared in 1868, was disappointing, partly because its contents repeated the matter contained in the first two volumes, and partly because it contradicted the basic principle of investigation laid down in the first part. In 1871 he published at Leipsic a condensation of the historical portion of the work under the title Chri tentum and Luthertum, a treatise written in a masterly fashion and constituting, together with the third edition of Der inhere Gang, the best of his literary productions. After the completion of his Doymatik, Kahnis devoted himself especially to his historical studies, wherein his work may be charaoterized as marked less by the modern spirit of painful research, than by a strong sympathy with his subject and an exceptional charm of style. To this period belong his Deutsche Reformation (Leipsie, 1872) and his Gang der Kirche in Lebenabildern (1887). His success as a teacher was due both to the graciousness of his personality and his lofty conception of his duties. (JOHANNES KUNZE).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. J. Winter, Karl Friedrich Aupuet Kahnis, Leipsic, 1898; C. Schwarz, Zur Geschichte der neuesten Theolopie, pp. 311‑317, Leipsic, 1884.
gAIIRES, ka'i‑r6z (KAIRIS), THEOPHILUS: Modern Greek liberal; b. on the island of Andros Oct. 19, 1784; d. on the island of Syra Jan. 12, 1853. After attending the academy at Cydonia, he studied for eight years in Pisa and in Paris, coming under the influence of Count Frayssinous (q.v.) and imbibing the political doctrines of the French Revolution. Returning to his fatherland in 1810, he taught in Smyrna and in Cydonia. After the successful termination of the War of Liberation, in which he took an active part, he was admitted to the priesthpod and formed the plan of founding an orphan asylum on Andros especially for the sons of those who had fallen in the war. He collected funds for the project by a journey to western Europe and in 1835 opened an institution which soon became the resort of all Greeks who would learn modern culture in their native land. Then rumors were spread that the fasts were not observed on Andros, that the customary prayers were not offered in the school, and that scientific doctrines were taught which were at variance with those of the Church. Writings were disseminated, treating of the " Fear of God," asserting the purely human character of the Scriptures and attacking ecclesiastical dogmas and mysteries. The national synod felt called upon to interfere and by an official ordinance of July 10, 1839, demanded from Kalres a statement of his belief. He attempted to evade the issue, claiming that he was no theologian and had not taught dogmatic theology; in philosophy, however, he had taught the existence of God and immortality as well as a final judgment. When the synod re‑
newed its demand he asked for a few months more
time and offered to close his orphan asylum and go
wherever the authorities might require. The
synod, influenced by the narrowly orthodox patri
arch Gregory VI. (q.v.), had him brought to Athens
and put him on trial Oct. 21, 1833. He repeated
his former declarations, adding that he had taught
nothing contrary to Christianity, refused to give a
more detailed exposition of his faith, and offered
to leave the country. By intervention of the gov
ernment he was sent for further reflection, first to
a monastery on the island of Seiathus, then at his
own request to a more healthful and agreeable
place of confinement in a monastery on Thera.
Persisting in his course, in Oct., 1841, he was
deposed and excommunicated. He then lived
abroad, most of the time in London, until 1844,
when he was permitted to return to Andros. Pro
tected by an old school friend, the minister Koletti,
he resumed his former activity more boldly than
ever. Koletti died in 1847, however, and when
Kalres published (Athens, 1849) his most impor
tant book, I'‑araa5, the best exposition of his re
ligious system, his opponents made formal charge
against him under a section of the criminal law,
declaring that all adherents of religious sects not
recognized by the government should be treated
as members of forbidden societies. On Dec. 21,
1852, Kalres was condemned to two years and one
month imprisonment in Syra; two of his friends
were sentenced for shorter terms. The judgment
was set aside by the Areopagus on appeal Jan. 26,
1853, but in the mean time Kalres had died in
prison at Sym. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIHLIOORAPHY: C. A. Brandis, Mitteiiunpen fiber Griechenland, i. 299‑304, iii. 3e‑38, Leipsic, 1842; J. Wenger, Baitrape sur Kenntnis des pepsnwdrtipen Gmtes and Zustandes der priechischen Kirche, pp. 11‑13, Berlin, 1839 A. D. Kyriskos‑Rsusoh, Gesehichte der orienrabdren Kirchen, pp. 191‑194, Leipsic, 1902; E. Curtius, Bin Lebembild in Briefen, ed. F. Gurtius, pp. 185, 215, Berlin, 1903; Further literature in Greek is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xix. 889‑870.

KAISER, kai'ser (gAESER), LEONHARD: German reformer; b. at Rab (a market‑town near Schirding, 8 m. s.s.w. of Passau) about 1480; executed at Schlcrding Aug. 16, 1527. He was educated at Leipsic, and about 1517 became vicar of Waitzenkirchen, but in accordance with the Regensburg Edict of 1524 was cited before the consistory of Passau for preaching Evangelical doetrines. After a brief imprisonment, he was permitted to return to his congregation, whereupon, in defiance of the duke's prohibition forbidding his subjects to attend the University of Wittenberg, he matriculated there June 7, 1525, and for a year and a half enjoyed the teaching of Luther and his colleagues. Despite personal danger, he returned to Rab in the early part of 1527 on account of his father's mortal illness, and himself fell sick. Donounced by the parish priest of Rab, Kaiser was arrested and imprisoned at Passau on Mar. 11, 1527. He refused to retract his views, and his trial, because of the prominence of his family, attracted wide attention. Luther sent him a letter of consolation (Luthers Briefwechsel, ed. E. L. Enders, vi. 54‑55, Frankfort, 1895), but all petitions,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
including those of the count of Sehaumberg, the
margrave of Brandenburg, and even the elector of
Saxony, were in vain. On July 18, he was con
demned to be unfrocked and executed and the sen
tence was carried out on Aug. 16, when he was
delivered to the secular arm and burned at the
stake. 	(T. KOLDE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Roth, Bin evanpslieaher Mdrtyrer Bus dem Innviertd, Halle, 1900; V. A. Winter, (leschiehte der 8chicksals der evanpdiachen Lehre, i. 237 eqq., Munich, 1809; A. Schmid, in Zeitachrift fitr allgancine Oeschichte, iv (1887), 308 eqq.
gAISERSWERTH. See DEACONESS, III., 2, a; FLIEDNER, THEODOR.
KALDI, kal'di, GYORGY: Hungarian Jesuit; b. at Tyrnau (60 m. e. of Vienna), Hungary, 1570; d. at Presburg (35 m. e. of Vienna) Oct. 30, 1634. He held various positions in his order, preached in Vienna, taught theology at Olmftz, and finally became head of the college at Presburg. He translated the Bible into Hungarian (Vienna, 1626), and published a part of his sermons (2 vols., Presburg,1631). His translation of the Bible (see BIBLE VERSIONS, B, ix., 2) has been frequently reprinted.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. dnd A. de Backer, Lee Aerivaina de la compapnie de J6sus, e.v., 7 vole., Lidge, 18831; XL, vii. 50, ii. 770‑771.
gALISCH, ka'hsh, (MORITZ) MARCUS: Biblical scholar; b. of Jewish parentage at Treptow, Pomerania, Prussia, May 16, 1828; d. at Rowsley (18 m. n.n.w. of Derby), Derbyshire, England, Aug. 23, 1885. He studied classical and Semitic languages at the universities of Berlin and Halle (Ph.D., 1848), and Talmudic literature at the rabbinical college in Berlin. On the subsidenee of the revolutionary movement of 1848, in which he had been actively interested, he settled in London. From 1849 till 1853 he was secretary to the chief rabbi, N. M. Adler, through whom he obtained a tutorship in the family of Baron Lionel Rothschild. Throughout the remainder of his life he was intimate with the Rothschilds and their munificence enabled him to devote himself to scholarly work. He planned a Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament with a New Translation, and published Exodus (London, 1855), Genesis (1858), and Leviticus (2 vols., 1867‑72), which at the time of publication were the best commentaries on the respective books in the English language and are not yet wholly superseded, having especial value as the work of a learned Jew. III health prevented the continuation of the work and also interrupted a projected series of Bible Studies after the appearance of The Prophecies of Balsam (1877) and The Book of Jonah (1878). Kalisch also published a Hebrew grammar (2 parts, 1862‑63; 2d ed. of part i., 1875); a book of poems in German (Leipsic, 1868); Life and Writings of Oliver Goldsmith (London, 1860); and Path and Goal; a Discussion on the Elements of Civilization and the Conditions of Happiness (1880).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. 8. Morais, Eminent Israelites of the Nineteenth Century, pp, 170‑173, Philadelphia, • 1880; DNB, xxx. 237; JE, vii. 420.
gALKAR, kal'kar, CHMSTL43 ANDREAS HERMANN: Danish theologian; b. in Stockholm Nov. 27, 1803; d. at Copenhagen Feb. 2,
1886. He was the son of a Jewish rabbi, spent his childhood at Cassel, Germany, where his father held a high position in the Jewish community, and upon the latter's death went to Copenhagen (1812), being later admitted to the university of that city. From 1819 to 1823 he devoted himself to the study of law, but on being baptized chose a theological career, and was graduated in theology in 1826. In the following year he was appointed adjunct at the Latin school of Odense, and in 1834 became rector. During his stay in Odense he published a commentary on the Old Testament (1836‑38), a history of the Bible (2 vols., 1837‑1839; German tranal., Kiel, 1839), and lectures on the apostolic history (1840). In 1842 he received a royal stipend enabling him to travel through European countries to collect material for a history of Denmark during the Reformation, and on his return was appointed minister at Gladsaxe, near Copenhagen. In 1845 he published as the result of his travels "Documents relating to the History of Denmark in the Time of the Reformation," which was intended as an introduction to a contemplated Corpus reformatorum Danicorum, but he was prevented from accomplishing his task by a fire which destroyed his collected material. In 1847 he published, with other theologians, a new Danish version of the Bible, with maps and illustrations. During the following years Kalkar de. voted himself more to the history of missions, and published numerous works on Protestant and Roman Catholic missions in general as well as missions among Jews and Mohammedans. As a historian in this field, however, he displayed a lack of critical and thorough investigation, which detracts from the value of his works. In 1868 he retired from active life, and spent the remainder of his days in Copenhagen, engaged in literary pursuits.
(F. NIELBENt.)
KALTEISEft, kilt‑ni'zen, HEINRICH: Dominican; b. at Ehrenbreitstein (2 m. e. of Coblenz), Rhenish Prussia, c. 1390; d. at Coblenz Oct. 3, 1465. He early entered the Dominican convent at Coblenz, and studied subsequently at Vienna and at Cologne, where he became professor of theology and also a preacher of note. Later he was stationed at Mainz as inquisitor‑general for Germany. He attended the Council of Bawl, and, in 1433, made himself famous by a three days' speech against the demand of the Hussites for the free preaching of the word of God (printed by Canisius, in Thesaurus monumentorum ecclesiasticorum et his,. toricorum, ed. J. Basnage, iv. 628‑708, Antwerp, 1725). During his residence at Basel he seems to have been prior of the Dominican convent there. In 1443 he was made magister sacri palatii by Eugenius IV., and in 1452 Nicholas V. made him titular archbishop of Trondhjem. In 1463 he retired to the cloister of his order at Coblenz. Friedrich Steill edited a few of Kalteisen's Writings in Ephemerides dominicano‑sacra; (Dillingen, 1692), but most of his works remained in manuscript.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Quetif and J. Eahsrd, Scriptures ordinia
Praedicatorum, i. 828, Paris, 1719; XL, vii. 58.
KAM, kam, JOSEPH: Dutch missionary to the Moluccas or Spice Islands; b. at Bois‑le‑Due (28 m. s.s.e. of Utrecht) 1770; d. on the island of Am‑

~t In	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	294
boyna, Malay Archipelago, 1833. He early desired to be a missionary, but yielded to his father's wishes and became a business man. At the age of forty he resigned his position as court messenger at Amsterdam, and entered the missionary seminary at Berkel, where his elder brother was educating candidates for the Netherlands Missionary Society. The Indian colonies being at that time in the hands of the English, he entered the service of the London Missionary Society, in whose seminary at Gosport he spent a year. In 1813 he was sent to the Moluccas. The heathen population there had been forcibly Romanized by the Portuguese in the sixteenth century, and in like manner transferred to the Reformed Church by the Dutch at the beginning of the seventeenth century. When Kam appeared on the scene, everything was in a sad state of decline. At rare intervals a preacher would make a hasty visit to the islands to baptize children by throngs, and to solemnize marriages. Kam took up his abode on Amboyna, where in 1817 he was appointed government preacher. He now developed a wonderful activity in reviving the defunct Christian congregations. The twenty thousand or more baptized members were organized under his charge, into eighty congregations, the remotest of them being 300 miles away. For hiss journeys he had a vessel built, which he himself commanded as captain. Thanks to his exertions seventeen missionaries were sent out during the years 1819‑32, including Schwarz and Riedel, who became distinguished for their success in Celebes. Honored as " apostle of the Moluccas," Kam labored on indefatigably till his end.
R. GRUNDEMANN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. J. van Rhijn, Rein door den indischen Archipel, pp. 443 Rqq., Rotterdam, 1851; E. F. Kruijf, Geschiedenia van het Nederfandache Zendelinggenootachap, Groningen, 1894; P. Wurm, in Allgemeine MissionsZeitechrift, 1897, pp. 385 sqq.

gAMMIN, kamrmin, BISHOPRIC OF: A bishopric named from the town of Kammin (Cammin) in Pomerania, near the Baltic (38 m. n.n.e. of Stettin). Among the companions of Otto of Bamberg (q.v.) in his missionary work in Pomerania was a priest named Adalbert, who, when Otto's plan for the erection of a bishopric at Julin, the present Wollin, was carried out, became its first bishop. At Adalbert's request, Innocent II. took it in 1140 under papal protection, and assigned to its jurisdiction, besides the town of Wollin, ten other castra. Nothing was said about its inclusion in any ecclesiastical province, though in 1160 the imperial pope, Victor IV., placed it under Magdeburg. A little later Wollin was destroyed in the war between the Danes and Saxons, and the see was consequently transferred to Kammin in 1175, apparently once more as an exempt bishopric. This status it managed to retain, except between 1216 and 1244, when it was again subject to Magdeburg. Three attempts were made in the fourteenth century to assert over it the metropolitan rights of Gnesen but the Curia decided against them in 1371. The Reformation found the diocese in a state which facilitated its introduction. Its spread began from the Premonstratensian monastery of
Belbuck, of which Bugenhagen was an inmate. The Dukes Bogislas X. and George were hostile to it; Barnim, however, forwarded it, and after the death of the last Roman Catholic Bishop Erasmus von Manteufel (1544) a Protestant was appointed in his place, and the estates of the bishopric and the monasteries secularized.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. F. W. Hasselbach, J. G. L. Kosegarten and F. von Medem, Codex diplomaticua Pomeraniae, vol. i., Greifswald, 1843; L. Giesebreeht, Wendische Geachichten, 3 vols., Berlin, 1843; Pommeraches Urkundenbuch, ed. R. Klempin and R. PrGmers, 3 vols„ Stettin, 1888‑91.
gAMPHAUSEN, kamp‑hau'zen, ADOLF HERMANN HEINRICH: German Protestant; b. at Solingen (18 m. n.n.e. of Cologne) Sept. 10, 1829; d. at Bonn Aug. 13, 1909. He studied at the University of Bonn (Ph.D.s 1855), where he was privet‑docent for a few months before he went to Heidelberg as private secretary of C. K. J. Bunsen. Still in the service of Bunsen, he was privet‑docent at the University of Heidelberg from 1856 to 1859, when he returned with his employer to Bonn; there he was associate professor of Old‑Testament exegesis 1863‑68, full professor 1868‑1901. From 1871 to 1890 he was a member of the committee for the revision of Luther's translation of the Old Testament. He regarded Christ as the bodily son of Joseph and Mary, and held that the Resurrection was an objective or real vision. He contributed the translation of the Books of Kings, Proverbs, and II Maccabees to E. F. Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments (Freiburg, 1894), and wrote independently among other works Die Hagiographen des Alten Bundes each den iiberlieferten Grundtexten iibersetzt and mit erklarenden Anmerkungen versehen (Leipsie, 1868); Die Chronologie der hebraischen Konige (Bonn, 1883); Das Buch Daniel and die neuere Geschichtsforschung (Leipsie, 1892); Book of Daniel in The Polyehronae Bible (New York, 1896); and Das Verhdltnis des Menschenopfers zler israelitisehen Religion (Bonn, 1896),

KANT, kant, IMMANUEL: German philosopher; b. at K6nigsberg, Prussia, Apr. 22, 1724; d. there Feb. 12, 1804. His father, of Scotch descent, was a saddler in humble circumstances, his mother a woman of great natural force and fervent piety.
His entire life with exception of a few Life and years as tutor in a country. family was Works, spent in his birthplace. After grad‑
uating from the University of K6nigsberg and teaching for several years, in 1755 he became privet‑docent, in 1770 full professor at the university. Here his chief subjects were logic, metaphysics, physical geography, anthropology, moral philosophy, and mathematics; other subjects were natural law, encyclopedia of philosophy, natural theology, pedagogics, theoretical phTsicsI mechanics, and mineralogy. His philosophical writings fall into two groups‑the dogmatic or pre‑critical, influenced by Leibnitz and Christian Wolff, until 1770; the critical, due in part to Hume's influence (1770‑1804), wherein his principal works appeared, combating both the dogmatism of Leibnitz and Wolff and the empiricism of Hume. The writings of the earlier period may be passed over here, for it is upon the great sys‑

296	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	want
tematic works of the second period that Kant's fame rests. His new point of view is first seen in the Latin dissertation De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et prineipiis (Kdnigsberg, 1770); but more important for the critical philosophy were the epoch‑making Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Riga, 1783; revised ed., 1787; best Eng. transl. by F. Max Miiller, Critique of Pure Reason, 2 vols., London, 1881, 1 vol., 1897) and the briefer and more popular Prolegomena zu einer jeden kiinftigen Metaphysik die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten konnen (Riga, 1785; Eng. transl., Prolegomena to Every Future Metaphysic which can appear as a Srience, London, 1819). These works are concerned with epistemology and metaphysics. Of fundamental importance for Kant's ethics and religious philosophy are: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Riga, 1785); KratikderpraktischenVernunft(1788); Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft (Konigsberg, 1793; Eng. transl., Theory of Religion, Edinburgh, 1838); and Die Metaphysik der Sitten (2 parts, KOnigaberg, 1797; Eng. transl., Metaphysics of Ethics, 3d ed., with introduction by H. Calderwood, Edinburgh, 1871). Other works belonging to this period are: Metaphysische Anfcangsgriinde der Naturwissenschaft (Riga, 1786); and Kritik der Urtheilskraft (Berlin and Libau, 1790; Eng. transl., Kritik of Judgment, London, 1892). Kant's works were edited by G. Hartenstein (10 vols., Leipsic, 1838‑39; another ed., in chronological order, 8 vols., 1867‑69), by K. Rosenkranz and F. W. Schubert (12 vols., 1838‑40), and by J. H. von Kirchmann (8 vols. and supplement, Berlin, 1868‑73). Other translations from Kant are: Prolegomena and Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Translated . . . with a Biography and Introduction, by E. B. Bax (London, 1883); Critique of Practical Reason, and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics, Translated by T. K. Abbott (4th ed., 1889); and Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics . . , translated by T. K. Abbott (1895).
Kant characterized his metaphysical standpoint as transcendental idealism (see IDEALISM). In his epistemology he taught that there are two sources of knowledge: sensation‑‑given through the senses, and thought‑intuitions of space and time and
categories of the understanding. This Philosophy knowledge is restricted to phenomena. in Outline. By pure reason a priori we are, how‑
ever, compelled to affirm the reality of a noumenal world, not as this is in itself, but as it appears to us, and then only as to its form. A basis is here laid for the later divorce of theoretical knowledge and religious faith, as in Mansel's Limits of Religious Thought (London, 1858), and in the theology of Albrecht Ritschl (q.v.). Religion is the recognition of one's duty as divine commands. Commands are proved to be divine through our sense of them as duties (natural religion); whereas those which we know as divine commands become our duty (revealed religion). Religion is essentially belief in God as a good will realizing itself in nature and history, evinced by neither prophecy nor miracle, but by the same good will in ourselves‑its object to develop and confirm the will of good in us. The sovereign test of the Bible is
our own morality. Sin, which presupposes free causality, is an extra‑temporal, voluntary adoption by the reason of an evil motive, but incapable of further explication. Regeneration takes place through one's becoming aware of the ideal of moral perfection, and forgiveness through the ethical reproduction of the same ideal as that which the Church attributes to Christ. The Church is the invisible body of the redeemed. Kant subjected the traditional theistic arguments to a searching scrutiny, with the result that these lost most of their cogency. His criticism reached the following conclusions: (1) concerning the ontological argumentthe idea does not prove the objective existence of its content; (2) as to the cosmological argument, an infinite series of finite causes is thinkable, the cause which this argument postulates is not a necessary cause, and even if the necessary cause were thus reached, this would not be the God of theology; (3) the teleological proof‑mentioned with respect‑rests on the unproved assertion of universal adaptation and teleology, and leads to an artificer not to a Creator; (4) the moral proof, drawn from conscience and feeling of responsibility, the universality and teleology of the moral order, is invalid in the light of pure reason, although it holds good for the practical reason. Kant's denial of the worth of the theistic arguments, to which must be added freedom and immortality, means not that these are finally to be rejected, but, incapable of proof by reasoning, are removed to the jurisdiction of the practical reason. In the moral consciousness are given those ideas of God, freedom, and immortality. The reason had not denied freedom, but conceived it as an intelligible, not as an empirical, reality; and since freedom was the absolute condition of moral responsibility, the practical reason postulated immortality as the sphere within which this moral problem was to be solved, and God as the guarantor both of the moral order and the ultimate realization of the good will. The only good without qualification is a good will. The categorical imperative as addressed to the will compels a teleological interpretation of reality and a recognition of the autonomy of the practical reason. In the swmmum bonum virtue and happiness must be thought of as combined, but virtue is supreme and is alone worthy of happiness. Owing to the supremacy of the practical reason, man is to act as if the postulates of the moral consciousness were proved. Kant's ethical teaching is marked by " vigor and rigor." Duty stands in no relation to feeling. Duty is for duty's sake alone. The moral law admits of no exceptions. His categorical imperative enjoins, "Act only on that maxim which thou oanst at the same time will to become a universal law."
Kant's philosophy as a whole may now be characterized: (1) We know phenomena, not things in themselves. (2) Objects are scientifically known,
i.e., by the reason a priori, since they Summary. are created by the understanding.
(3) Our knowledge is objectively valid for phenomena or for possible experience but not outside of these. (4) Things‑in‑themselves are

HKaTaites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	1398
intelligible ideal realities, belonging to the unity
of the All‑Real Being, teleologically related to the
highest good. (5) Philosophy	culminates not in
the theoretical but in the practical reason, giving
rise to a rational working faith	(of. F. Paulsen, Im
manuel Kant, Eng. tranal., pp. 115‑116, New York,
1902. The philosophy of Kant	has been profoundly
influential in religious thought. First, in the fur
ther working out of the dualism involved in his
epistemology (neo‑Kantian theology); secondly,
in the transcendence of that dualism in the asser
tion of the ultimate unity of	thought and being
(idealistic theology); thirdly, in the supremacy of
the practical reason as related	on the one hand to
theological construction and on the other to per
sonalism as the solution of the conflict between
naturalism and religion (cf. R. Otto, Naturalism
and Religion (London, 1906). See PANTHE1sM, j 5.
	C. A. BEc$wrTH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature upon Kant is enormouscf. the list of works in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp. 286‑320, New York, 1905. On the life the best single book is F. Paulsen, Immanuel Kant, ssin Leben and seine Lehre, Stuttgart, 1898, Eng. transl., Immanuel Kant, his Life and Doctrine, New York, 1902; L. E. Borowski, Darstellung des Lebens and Charakter Kants, Kdnigeberg, 1804 (revised by Kant himself); H. Schmidt, Immanuel Kant's Leben, Halle, 1858; K. Fischer, Kants Leben urd die Grundlapen seiner Lehre, Mannheim 1860; J. H. W. Stuckenberg, Life of Immanuel Kant, London, 1882; M. Kronenberg, Kant, rein Leben and seine Lehre, Munich, 1891.
On his philosophy consult: J. Barni, Philosophic de Kant Paris, 1851; M. B. W. Bolton, Kant and Hamilton, London, 1866; K. Fischer, Commentary on Kant's " Critick of the Pure Reason," ib. 1866; C. DOwell, Kant's Relipionsphilosophie, FOratenwalde, 1872; J. Kaftan, Die religionsphilosophiache Anschauung Kants, Basel, 1874; F. Paulsen, Vereuch einer Enturickelungapeschichts der kantiechen Erkenntnissaeorie, Leipsic, 1875; E. Caird, The Philosophy of Kant Explained and Examined, London, 1877; idem, The Critical Philosophy of Emmanuel Kant, 2 vols., Glasgow, 1889; C. Ritter, Kant and Hume, Halle, 1878; J. G. Schurman, Kantian Ethics and the Ethics of Evolution, London, 1881; J. H. Stirling, Textbook to Kant, ib. 1881; G. S. Morris, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Chicago, 1882; G. Thiele, Die Philosophic Immanuel Kants, 2 vols., Halle, 1882‑87; W. Wallace, Kant, Oxford, 1882; J. MeCosh, A Criticism of the Critical Philosophy, New York, 1884; J. P. Mahaffy, Kant's Critical Philosophy for English Readers, 2 vols., London, 1889; J. Royce, The Spirit of Modern Philosophy, Boston, 1892; T‑H. Green, Works, ed. R. L. Nettleship, if. 2‑155, London 1893; C. W. Hodge, Kantian Epistemology and Theism, Philadelphia, 1894; V. Basch, Essai .
cur 1'esthbtique e Kant, Paris, 1896; A. Cresson La Morale de Kant, ib. 1897; W. M. Washington, The Formal and Material Elements of Kant's Ethics, New York, 1898; T. Ruyssen, Kant, Paris, 1900; H. S. Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant, die Personliehkeit als Einfuhrung in das Werk, Munich, 1905; G. Gerland, Immanuel Kant, seine geographischen and anthropologischen Arbeiten, Berlin, 1906; J. Guttmann, Kants Gottesbegri$ in seine‑ positiven Entuicklung, ib., 1906; M. Apel, Kommentar zu Kants "Prolegomena," ib., 1908; 0. Ewald, Kants kritischer Idealismus als Grundlage von Erkenntnistheorie and Ethik ib., 1908• J. Watson, The Philosophy of Kant Explained, Glasgow, 1908.

KANTZ, KASPAR: Reformer of NSrdlingen; b. at Ndrdlingen (38 m. n.n.w. of Augsburg) in the last quarter of the fifteenth century; d. there Dec. 6, 1544. Some time before 1501 he appears to have entered the monastery of the Carmelites in Nardlingen and in 1501 went to the University of Leipsic. In 1502 he became bachelor, 1505 master, 1511 biblicus, and 1515 sententiarius. He returned to his native city and became prior of the monas‑
tery, but was deposed in 1518, although he was allowed to remain in the monastery. Whatever may have been the reason for his deposition, it is certain that at a very early time he advocated the ideas of the Reformation. After the church of the Carmelites had opened its doors to the Gospel, there followed the church of St. George, where Billican preached from Nov., 1522. Although the city council considered public sentiment, it was averse to all decisive measures, and when Kantz openly announced from the pulpit that he had taken a wife, he was expelled from the city on June 26, 1523. From one of his sermons, printed in 1524, he appears to have been recalled. In 1530 he applied in vain for the position of " Latin schoolmaster " in Nordlingen. In the list of preachers he appears as diaconua first in 1535, but before that time he held the position of German schoolmaster. On June 21, 1535, he was placed as preacher at the head of the churches in Ndrdlingen in place of the wavering Billican. The first church order of Ndrdlingen of 1538 was his work. He also promoted catechetical instruction, which had been neglected by Billiean, and succeeded in bettering the moral conditions.
	Kantz was the real reformer of Ndrdlingen. He
enriched Evangelical devotional literature by wri
tings which bear comparison with those of the
more famous men of the sixteenth century. He
deserves an honorary place in the history of the
Evangelical church service because he drew up and
put in practise a German Evangelical mass four
years before Luther's German mass, under the title,
Von der Euangelischen Messz. Mit ChriWichen
Gebetten vor vnd nach der empfahung des Sacraments
(1522). It was the first attempt to arrange a Ger
man celebration of the Lord's Supper according to
Evangelical principles in close relation to the Ro
man formulary. Kantz also wrote an excellent
book for the sick, Wie man den krancken vnnd Ster
benden menschen ermanen, trosten, vnnd Gott be
felhen soll, das er von diser Welt, seligklich abschaide
(Augsburg, 1539; Strasburg, 1556; Nuremberg,
1568, and 1580; Tabingen, 1577), which was read
also by the Roman Catholics. He published also
Die Hi8toria des leydes Jesu Christi nach den vier
Eudgelisten. Vnd such von der Juden Osterlam;
mit trostlicher ausalegung (Augsburg, 1538; en
larged 1539; Nuremberg, 1555), a book distin
guished by its religious depth, and left a cate
chism (N6rdlingen, 1542), besides composing some
hymns. 	(C. GEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Geyer, Kaspar Kantz, in Beitrage zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte, ed. T. Kolde, v. 101‑127, Erlangen, 1898; idem, Die Ndrdlinger evangelischen Kirehenordnungen des IB. Jahrhunderta pp. 1‑23, Munich, 1896; J. D. Haakh, in V. L. von Seckendorf, Hist. Lutherani8mi, iii. 183 sqq., Leipsic, 1692; A. Steichele, Doe Bistum Augsburg, iii. 954‑955, 1024 sqq., Augsburg, 1872• H. Beck, Die Erbauungalitteratur der evangeliachen Kirche Deutschlands, i. 168 sqq., Erlangen, 1883; idem, Die religiose Volkelitteratur der evangelischen Kirche Deutechlands, p. 40, Gotha, 1891; J. Smend, Die evangelischen deutschen Messen, passim, Gottingen, 1896.
KAPFF, SILT KARL: German Protestant; b. at Guglingen (20 m. n.w. of Stuttgart), WUrttemberg, Oct. 22 1805; d. in Stuttgart Sept. 1, 1879. From early childhood he was religiously disposed,

29"1	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Rant
Karaites
and at the University of Tiibingen he engaged in daily prayer with his intimate friend, Wilhelm Hofacker. After filling the positions of vicar at Tuttlingen, teacher in the Fellenberg school at Hofwyl, Switzerland, and repetent in Tubingen, he became, in 1833, pastor of the colony of Pietists at Kornthal, near Stuttgart. In 1843 he was made Dekan at Miinsingen, and in 1847 at Herrenberg. He was transferred to Reutlingen in 1850, and to Stuttgart in 1852, where, for the remainder of his life he was Prdlat and the greatly beloved and influential pastor of the Stiftskirche.
Kapff combined the genial manners, trustfulness, and sympathetic warmth of the Swabian character. He was a friend to ministers all over Wiirttemberg, and attracted all classes who had an interest in religion. As a preacher, he did not represent any sharply defined theological or ecclesiastical tendency. His sermons had much of the supernaturalism of the old Tiibingen school, but more warmth and sympathy than belonged to it. He had an eye to the domestic and social wants of his people, and drew largely upon his every‑day intercourse with them for his subjects. He also took a warm interest in the ecclesiastical affairs of Wurttemberg, and in foreign missions as advanced by the missionary institution in Basel. For more than a quarter of a century, he was the center of the pious circles of the land.
The best known of his publications are: Gebetbuch (Stuttgart, 1835; 21st ed., 1905); Communionbuch (1840; 24th ed., 1901); Des Heine Communionbuch (1841; 36th ed., 1905); Warnung eines Jugendfreundes (1841; 20th ed., 1902); Achtzig Predigten fiber die alten Episteln (1851; 6th ed., 1879); 83 Predigten fiber die alter Evangelien (1862; 6th ed., 1876); and Casualreden (ed. C. Kapff, 1880). (KARL VON BuRSt.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Kapfi, Lebenabad von sixt Karl Kapf,
2 vole., Stuttgart, 1881 (by his eon).

KAPPEL, PEACE OF. See ZWINGLI, HULDREICIi.

gARAITES, k6'ra‑sits.
The Sect in Babylonia (¢ 1). Egypt and the Crimea (§ 4).
In Palestine Q 2).		Constantinople (¢ 5).
Religious Philosophy (1 3).	Poland (¢ 6).
	Doctrine and Law (§ 7).
The name of the Karaites (Hebr. Kara'im, sing. Kara), a very important Jewish sect, may be an intensive noun from the verb kara, " to read," signifying " readers," i.e., readers of the Bible par excellence. It is better, however, to take Kara as a denominative form from mikra (Aram. kera), " Scripture " and to interpret it as an " adherent of the Scriptures," i.e., one who follows strictly the text of the Bible and rejects the rabbinical tradition of the Talmud. This explanation finds support in the fact that the Karaites are also called Bene Mikra, " sons (adherents) of the Scripture," as opposed to the Bene mishnah, or "sons of the mishnah " or of tradition.
The founder of the Karaite sect was Anan ben David, who, according to tradition, was disappointed in his expectations of becoming either goon (head of one of the Babylonian academies) or real
galuta (head of the Babylonian diaspora), and therefore renounced the Talmud, founding at Bagdad
in 761‑762 a new community which :. The rejected mishnaic and talmudic tra‑
Sect in dition. Like all prominent Kamites,
Babylonia. he wrote a Sefer ha‑Mizwot (" Book
of Precepts ") and two other works, of which only a few fragments are extant; the statement that he wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch is without proof. Anan's pupil Mocha and his son Moses (780‑800) introduced a new system of vowels and accents which displaced the former system and promoted the Masorah, while other Karaites applied the so‑called hermeneutical rules (middot), borrowed from Mohammedan theology, to the interpretation of the law. At a very early period the Karaites followed the philosophical tendency of Mohammedanism, and about 800 Judah Yudghan attacked the rabbinical doctrine of the anthropomorphism of God. His system was elaborated by Benjamin ben Moses Nahawendi, who flourished about 830. According to him, God is too exalted to reveal himself to man, and revelation was accordingly made by the medium of an angel, who not only created the world but also performed all the acts of God recorded in the Torah. Benjamin's writings, with the exception of his Sefer dinim (" Book of Laws ") are known only from citations. With Benjamin and a few others the Arabic period of Karaism came to a close, and the Karaite communities of Babylonia and Persia soon lost their importance.
Under the impulse of the Messianic expectations which are a marked characteristic of Karaism, Palestine now became the center of a Karaite propaganda, which, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, reached even to Greece and Spain, while the Ka‑
raites living in Jerusalem took the s. In name of Shoshanim or Maskilim, with Palestine. reference to Dan. xii. 3. Karaite con‑
gregations already existed in Egypt, and Constantinople was selected as a missionary field; but the chief object of attack was the first and last great teacher of Judaism to polemize against them, Saadia Gaon (b. 892; d. 942), who had assailed Hiwi al‑Balkhi and Ibn Sakuxah in his Kitab al‑Tamyiz (" Book of Distinction "), written in 926, and in his Sefer Emunot we‑De'ot (" Book of the Articles of Faith and Doctrines of Dogma "), written seven years later. The first Karaite who wrote against Saadia was Solomon ben Jeroham (b. at Fostat c. 915‑920; d. about 960), whose 3filhamot Adonai (" Wars of the Lord ") is still extant in its main portions. He also wrote commentaries on Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, The Psalms, and Lamentations, as well as others which are now lost. He denounced philosophy and all other sciences, and acknowledged only the study of the Torah, although he respected the Mishnah. His Partizan, the Jerusalem Ra, raite Sahl ben Mazliah also wrote against Saadia and the latter's disciple, Samuel ben Jacob. Solomon ben JerOham's successor, Yaflth ibn Ali (Japheth ha‑Levi) of Bassora, the greatest and inost fruitful
Karaite exegete, was also an opponent of Saadia, but he was moderate in his polemics and iii his com‑

8araites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	298
mentaries quoted many passages from his opponent. He paid special attention to grammar, and in lexicographical respects his commentaries, which are extant on the entire Old Testament, are very instructive. Like Benjamin Nahawendi, he referred Isa. hii. to the Messiah and his sufferings, in opposition to the Rabbinical exegetes, who, on account of their hostility to Christianity, referred the chapter to the people of Israel. Yafith lived about 915‑1008, and wrote his commentaries in the last quarter of the tenth century, apparently composing his Sefer ha‑Mizwot before his commentaries. In the first half of the eleventh century lived Abu al‑Faraj Harun of Jerusalem, the author of a grammatical work entitled Mushtamil (" The Comprehensive "), in which he compared Hebrew with Arabic. He also wrote an Arabic commentary on the Bible, in which he explained all difficult words and sometimes entire sentences. To the middle of the eleventh century belongs Jacob ben Reuben, the author of commentaries on the Bible, composed chiefly of compilations from older authorities.
With the first half of the tenth century began the first epoch of Karaite religious philosophy which was based upon the Arabic scholastic theology of the kalam (literally " word "; cf.
3. Relig‑ logos), a system developed in the sec‑
ious Phi‑ and century of the Hejira, and in‑
	losophy.	tended, according to the statements of
		the Arabs themselves, to harmonize
tradition with philosophy. It therefore afforded a
means of defending religious doctrines by argu
ments based on reason, and was primarily directed
against the tenets of the heterodox sects, and sec
ondarily against the teachings of the philosophers.
Thus Aaron ben Elijah (see below, § 5) could con
trast the Mutakallamun (" teachers of the word "),
with the " philosophers," or the Aristotelians,
whereas the main elements of the kalam were
evolved from the Peripatetic philosophy. The
Mutakallamun also include the Mohammedan sect
of the Mutazilites ("Separatists, Dissenters"; see
MOHAMMEDANISM), who were founded by Wasil ibn
Ata (b. 699/700; d. 748, 749), a contemporary
of Anan and the founder of an Islamitic religious
philosophy which professed a rationalistic formu
lation of Mohammedan dogmas in opposition to
the liberal belief of traditional orthodoxy. The
Karaites were closely allied to this sect, and their
teachers even called themselves Mutakallamun.
The first religious and philosophical work of Karaism was the Kitab al‑Anwar (" Book of Lights "), written by Jacob al‑Kirkisani in 937, and devoted to a summary of the marriage law of the Karaites, so far as it deviated from the rabbinical system. He also wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, and was followed in the eleventh century by Joseph ben Abraham ha‑Roeh, who is mentioned by Maimonides in his Moreh Nebukim as a representative of the kalam and an opponent of Hai Gaon. Joseph was the author of Kitab alMuhtawi, a philosophical work on " the roots of religion." Hitherto the Karaites, interpreting Gen. ii. 24 to mean that husband and wife form a unit, had made it almost impossible for them to marry among themselves. This theory was abolished by
Joseph and his pupil Joshua ben Judah (Abu alFaraj Furkan), although an exaggerated application of the method of analogy prohibited marriage within many degrees of affinity which were permitted. by the rabbinical Jews. About the middle of the eleventh century Joshua ben Judah wrote an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch and a treatise on the law of marriage. According to his pupil Ibn al‑Taras, the works of Joshua promoted Karaism in Spain, although they were soon counteracted by rabbinical Judaism.
In the twelfth century Egypt took the place of Jerusalem as the center of Karaism, and this century also marks decay of Arabo‑Karaite literature,
for its last representative was the
4. Egypt physician Daniel, who wrote a work
and the in 1682 in imitation of the Hobot ha‑
Crimea. Lebabot (" The Duties of the Hearts "),
composed by Bahya of Saragossa in the eleventh century, while Egypt was also the home of the Hebrew poet Moses Dari. There were also many congregations of Karaites in the Crimea, where a community is said to have existed in 1279. Crimean Karaite literature was extremely scanty, and little of it has been preserved, although it is known that the Karaites of the Crimea applied themselves diligently to the study of the law. Since they laid great stress on a sojourn in Jerusalem, which could easily be reached by way of Constantinople, several books of travel were written by Karaites, including Samuel ha‑Kadosh ben David (1641‑42), Moses ben Elijah ha‑Levi (16541655), and Benjamin ben Elijah of Koslov (1785‑86). About the middle of the eighteenth century there were 500 families in the Crimea, represented by four communities at Kala, Koslov, Kafa, and Manguf. In the Crimea the Karaites enjoyed special privileges, as when, in 1796, the Empress Catharine remitted half the poll‑tax for every young man and also exempted them from military service.
The Karaite community which existed at Constantinople in the early part of the eleventh century, and numbered 500 families in the second half of the following century, is important for the history and literature of the sect. There is no doubt
that Karaites lived in Constantinople
5. Constan‑ at the time of Judah Hadassi (b. at tinople. Jerusalem 1075; d. at Constantinople
1160), who began his Eshkol ha‑Kofer (also called Sefer ha‑Peles) in 1148. He classified all religion on the basis of the ten commandments and sought to oppose all heresies known to him. In natural history he had no superior among his contemporaries and he gave an extended and valuable account of the progress of philosophy, a subject which he also treated in his Sefer Teren biTeren on Hebrew homonyms. Karaite literature was especially promoted by two scholars named Aaron. The first of these was Aaron ben Joseph, whose literary activity falls between 1270 and 1300. He was a physician and wrote commentaries on the Pentateuch the earlier and later prophets, and the Psalms. His most important work was his commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled Mibhar (" Choice ") and completed in 1294. Aaron was likewise the author of a grammatical and exeget‑

299	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Karaites
ical hand‑book entitled Kelil Yot (" Diadem of Beauty ") and a book of prayers which enjoyed great popularity among the European Karaites. The second Aaron was Aaron ben Elijah of Nicomedia. (b. at Cairo 1300; d. at Constantinople 1369), who wrote Ez ha‑fayyim (" Tree of Life "), in which he developed the doctrinal system of the new faith, showing how the Jew should practise his religion to gain eternal life. He sought to blend the system of the Mutakallamun with the school of Maimonides, and thus produced an eclectic system, although at the same time he defended the kalam, which he followed rather than the Aristotelian method. In his Gan `Eden (" Paradise ") he recapitulated all his predecessors. This work, which is to the Karaites what the Maimonidean Yad ho‑Hazakah is to the rabbinical Jews, is based upon the principle that the belief in the unity and other attributes of God as well as in his government of the world forms the end and aim of the law, while his Keter Torah (" Crown of the Law "), a commentary on *the Pentateuch, is intended as an elucidation of his philosophical Ez ho‑,Hayyim. The latest bloom of Karaite literature in Constantinople is represented by the writings of Elijah Bashyazi (b. at Adrianople c. 1420; d. there 1490), the author of the Aderet Ehyahu (" Mantle of Elijah "), a summary of the works of his predecessors. His pupil and nephew, Caleb Afendopolo (b.
1465), completed the work of his master, in addition to writing independent works on theology, astronomy, and medicine, while his two kinot (" Lamentations ") on the expulsion of the people of God from Spain, Russia, and Lithuania (1493) are historically interesting. A contemporary of Caleb was Judah hen Elijah ha‑Gibbor, who enriched the liturgy of the Karaites, while his son Elijah Shusbi wrote a poem on the calendar. Moses Bashyazi, a great‑grandson of Elijah Bashyazi, was a distinguished figure of the sixteenth century.
While the literature of the Karaites in the Byzantine countries was mainly doctrinal, their Polish coreligionists, who were the last to produce Karaite literature, were obliged to write contro‑
versial books owing to the inquiries of 6. Poland. Christians. The first Karaites entered Poland at the end of the fourteenth century at the request of the king, coming from the Crimea to Lithuania, where Grand‑duke Witold took them under his protection and granted them privileges which were afterward (1446) confirmed by King Casimir Jagellon. The first communities were at Lutsk and Troki, the two principal cities of Lithuania, and in 1581 Stephen Bathori allowed the Karaites to settle also in VolhYnia, Podlasie, and Kiev. The first Karaite to make an open attack on Christianity was Isaac hen Abraham Troki (b. 1533), who opposed the Christian faith in the first part of his ,Hizzuk Emunah (`° Confirmation of Faith ") on the ground that the prophecies of the Old Testament can not refer to the founder of Christianity, while in the second part he criticized the contradictions in the Gospels. Mention may also be made of Mordecai hen Nisan, who wrote a treatise in answer to four questions propounded by Jacob Trigland, professor at Leyden, in Apr.,
1698, the first being whether the Karaites were the ancient Sadducees or originated with Anan. Though full of anachronisms this treatise (entitled Dod Mordechai) possesses a certain amount of importance, since it was long the chief source for the history of Karaism. For the king of Sweden Mordecai wrote his Lebush Malkut on the differences between the Karaites and the Rabbanites, and was also the author of a book of grammatical rules (Kelalim). Equally noteworthy was Solomon ben Aaron Troki, the author of Appiryon (c. 1700), containing an account of the distinctive features and the origin of Karaism, together with an outline of its ceremonies, written for the information of the minister of the Swedish government. The second part of another work of the same name contains refutations of Christianity. In 1756 Simhah Isaac Lutski, one of the most revered and learned of the Karaites, wrote his ()rah ,Zaddikim, containing a list of the most celebrated Karaites and their works.
Karaite literature ends with Abraham Firkovich of Lutsk (d. at Chufut‑Kale, 1874), whose valuable services to the criticism of the Old Testa, ment are overshadowed by the systematic falsifications of manuscripts and epitaphs by which he sought to prove that the Karaites were the descendants of the Israelites who had been led into the Assyrian captivity and who had settled in the Crimea during the reign of Cambyses. Since 1830 the Crimean Karaites have had a printing‑establishment at Eupatoria, where editions of their most important manuscripts have been published. Karaite communities are found not only in the Crimea but also in Jerusalem and Constantinople, as well as throughout Egypt, Galicia, Moldavia, Wallachia, and southern Russia. In 1871 the Karaites numbered about 6,000, but this number has decreased to some 5,500, the majority of whom live in Russia.
The Karaites recognize as binding precepts for religious and moral conduct only those which can be deduced from the Bible by means of an accurate exposition of the literal sense according to usage and context. From this main doctrine, which has been compared with that of Protestantism, other principles are inferred as necessary corollaries. They acknowledge no tra‑
7. Doctrine ditional exposition of passages of the
	and Law.	Bible, but every experienced teacher
		is permitted to correct or change for
mer interpretations according to the best of his
knowledge and belief, provided his views are justi
fied by the text; and slleh mbbinical laws as are
recognized by the Karaites are regarded as valid
solely because they are based on the Bible, this
category including injunctions concerning slaugh
tering, fixing of the new moon, circumcision, and
marriage. The ihtroduction of new laws and the
recognition of those which are non‑Biblical are for
bidden, and the Karaites, therefore, do not cele
brate the Feast of Lights (,Hanukkah). This strict
adherence to the letter of the law, as based upon
textual hermeneutics, has also exerted an influence upon individual rules and regulations. Important divergencies exist between the Karaites and the rabbinical Jews with regard to the Sabbath, phylac‑

st°a	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	800
teries, (see TEPHILLIN) and the calendars, while less essential differences concern the celebration of the feasts, especially Passover, the Feast of Trumpets, and the Feast of Tabernacles, as well as the fasts and religious exercises. The earliest Karaite teachers formed the liturgy by omitting all rabbinical additions, so that religious customs have been exempt from change or discussion. The rigor with which the Karaites observe all their customs has had a deep influence on their lives. They are not content with religious worship on festivals and on semi‑festivals like Purim, but refrain from work even on the intermediate days, while on fast‑days they abstain from all commercial pursuits. The laws of ritual purity are also extremely exaggerated, and their strictness in the observance of legal obligations extends to the moral duties. They attend to their avocations in quiet simplicity, and generally wear dark clothing in their aversion for everything which pleases the sight.
The main principles of the religious system were fixed as early as the time of Hadassi, and were formulated in ten articles by Elijah Bashyazi and his pupil Caleb Afendopolo, as follows: (1) The universe was created (made out of nothing); (2) there is a Creator, who was neither created by any other power nor self‑created; (3) he has no form, is one in every respect,‑and is like none of his creations; (4) God sent Moses, our teacher; (5) through him God revealed the Torah, which contains the absolute truth; (6) every Jew is bound to read the Torah in the original; (7) God also revealed himself to the other prophets; (8) God will raise the dead on the Day of Judgment; (9) God will recompense every one according to his deeds; (10) God will deliver Israel from their affliction and send to them the son of David. On the whole it may be said that the Karaites agree with the rabbinical Jews in fundamental doctrines, but differ from their opponents in carrying them out.
(VICTOR RY88ELt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A minute, critical and extensive guide to literature concerning the Karaites, including the productions of their leaders, is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, x. 54‑60, cf. 881‑882. Consult also: 8. Pinaker, Liillcute $adhmoniot, Vienna, 1860 (in Hebrew, on Karaite history and literature); A. Neubauer, in JA, 1865, i. 534542; Idem, Aua der Peteraburger Bibliothek; Beitrage and Dokumente zur Geschichte des Karaerthuma, Leipsic, 1866; G. Karpeles, Geschichte der judiachen Litteratur, pp. 404412 et passim, Berlin, 1886; The Anti‑Karaite Writings of Saadiah Gaon, in JQR, x (1898), 238‑276; A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Jephat ben Ali the Karaite, ad. in Arabic with tranal. by D. S. Margoliouth, in Anecdota Oxonienaa, 3d ser., i., part 3, Oxford, 1889.
On the history consult: J. M. Jost, Geachichte des Judentumm8 and seiner Sekten, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1857‑59; J. FOrst Geachichte des Karltertums, 3 vols., ib. 1862‑69 (to be used with caution); A. Gottlober, Bikkoret letoledot Karaim, Vilna, 1865; J. Gurland, Ginse Yiarael, St. Petersburg, 1865‑66; W. H. Rule, Hiat. of as, Karaite Jews, London, 1870; A. Harkavy,. Denkmtdler aua der Krim, St. Petersburg, 1876; M. Steinschneider, Polemische Literatur,‑ Lelpsic, 1877; idem, Arabische Literatur der Juden, Frankfort, 1902; H. Grate, Geachichle der Juden, especially v. 163‑204, Leipsic, 1895, Eng. transl., London, 1892; Semitic Studies in the Memory of Rev. Dr. A. Kohut, pp 435‑456 Berlin, 1897; David,ben Sa'del, Ibn al‑Hili'a Arabic Chronicle of karaite Doctors, tranal. by G. Margoliouth, London, 1897; Ersch and Gruber, EncYclopddae, section II., vole. xxvii., xxxiii.; JE, vii. 438‑447.
gARENS. See BURMA.
	KARG, GEORG (GEORGIUS PARSIMONIUS):
German Lutheran theologian; b. at Heroldingen
(near Harburg, 31 m. n.e. of Augsburg) 1512; d.
at Ansbach (25 m. s.w. of Nuremberg) Nov. 29,
1576. He was educated at Wittenberg, and then
began to preach, though unauthorized by the uni
versity to do so. He promulgated heretical doc
trines, however, and in 1537 was imprisoned in the
castle of Wittenberg. He soon regained the con
fidence of Luther and Jonas, and the former, at the
request of Count Louis of Oettingen, ordained Karg
minister at Oettingen, where he worked zealously
for the Reformation until ford to flee in 1547.
He found a welcome in the district of Anabach and
was appointed pastor in Schwabach. In 1552 he
received a call to Ansbach, and was soon made su
perintendent for the entire district. There he grad
ually allowed the rites of the Roman Catholic
Church to fall into abeyance, and against the wishes
of the government sought to abolish all usages of
the Auctuarium, a sort of modified interim which
had been introduced in an attempt to comply with
the imperial demand. At the request of the prince,
Karg took part in 1551 in the conferences of the
Wittenberg theologians on the Council of Trent,
and also attended the sessions of the conferences
at Frankfort and Worms. His heretical tend
encies had not entirely disappeared, however, and
in 1557 he was involved in a discussion on the
Eucharist, and later caused a commotion by his
teaching concerning justification by faith, declaring
that the law exacted either punishment or obedi
ence, but not both, and that Christ had suffered
passively for man, but had rendered obedience for
himself. His active obedience, accordingly, was
not part of his vicarious task, nor was his right
eousness imputed to man in the Scriptures, Luther's
interpretation of Phil. iii. 9 being incorrect. The
atonement for the sins of mankind was due to the
death of Christ, not to his righteousness, and he
had confirmed the law, not abrogated it. The
enunciation of these views resulted in a contro
versy, and Karg was suspended from office and
obliged to make a solemn retraction before he was
reinstated by Jakob Andre& (q.v.) on Oct. 31, 1570.
The most important of his numerous writings was
his Katechismus, which was first printed in 1564
and was still used in Ansbach in the early part of
the nineteenth century. 	(T. KoLDE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. F. Karrer, in Zeitechrift fur luthereache Theologie and Kirche, 1853, pp. 661 sqq.; G. Frank, Geachichte der protedantiachen Theologie, i. 158 eqq., Leip®ie, 1862, cf. J. J. I. Dollinger, Die Reformation, iii. 564 sqq., Regensburg, 1846.

KARTANOS, kdr'ta‑nee, JOANNIKIOS: Greek theologian of the sixteenth century; b. in Corfu at the end of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century; place and date of death unknown. He was originally a monk and protosynce1111S $t Corfu, and in the first third of the sixteenth century was sent to Venice, where he incurred the hostility of Arsenios Apostolis and was imprisoned. He was later released and returned to Greece, but no further details of his life are known. Kartanos was one of the first to revive a knowledge of the Bible and the teachings of the Church among the

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
common people by writing in Romaic, since they
were no longer familiar with classic Greek. His
chief work was his " Flower," written during his
imprisonment and first published at Venice in
1536. It enjoyed immense popularity, but the ad
mixture of apocryphal elements roused the hostil
ity of the Orthodox Greek party. His heresies
were successfully assailed and the movement which
he had inaugurated was stopped. The ethical
treatises of Kartanos were incorporated in the
Thesaurus of Damascenus the Studite and thus
gained a certain degree of currency in the Greek
Church. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Legrand, Biblioyraphie HelUnique, i. 228, j Paris, 1885; P. Meyer, in TSK, 1898, pp. 315 sqq.; idem, Die theolopiache LiUeratur der griechiachen Kirche im 16. Jahrhunderte, pp. 120 sqq., Leipsie, 1899.
KASSHITES. See BABYLONIA, VI., 5.
	KASSIA (KASIA) : Byzantine poetess of the
ninth century. Krumbacher (ut inf.) suggests
that the form " Icasia " (Gibbon, Decline and Fall,
v. 199) is possibly a corruption of J Kaaia. She
lived at Constantinople under the Emperors The
ophilus (829,842) and Michael 111. (842‑867) in
a cloister of her own founding. Both ecclesiastical
and secular poems are extant under her name; but,
excepting such as were adopted in liturgical books,
they occur rarely in manuscript. Her three best
known sacred hymns are the " Idiomela " on the
birth of Christ, the birth of John the Baptist, and
on Ash Wednesday. The last‑named is identical
with the song Eis ten pornen. W. Christ and N.
Paranikas edited the three songs in their Anthologia
Graeca (pp. 10‑104, Leipsic, 1871). Four short
poems were published by Papadopulos‑Kerameus
(Byzantinische Zeitschrift, x. 60‑61, 1901), and an
acrostic dirge and some epigrams were issued by
Krumbacher (ut inf.). 	G. KRt?GER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. Krumbacher, Kasia, Munich, 1897; idem, Geschichte, pp. 715‑716; P. Maas, in Byzantiniwbe Zeitschrift, x (1901), 54‑59; S. Petrides, in Revue de 1'orient chr6hen, vii (1902), 218‑244.
KATERKAMP, kd'ter‑kamp, JOHANN THEODOR HERMANN: German Roman Catholic; b. at Ochtrup (25 m. n.w. of Monster), Westphalia, Jan. 17, 1764; d. at Munster June 9, 1834. He studied in Munster, was ordained priest in 1787, and for ten years was tutor to the sons of Baron Droste‑Vischering, spending a part of this time traveling with his wards in Switzerland and Italy. From 1797 till 1806 he resided in the home of Princess Amalie Galitzin. In 1809 he became professor of church history at Munster, and in 1831 was appointed dean of the cathedral at Munster. His prineipal work is his church history to the year 1153 (6 vols., Munster, 1819‑34). He also published Denkwurdigkeiten aus dam Leben der Furatin Amalia van Gallitzin (1828).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Trauerrede, by H. Brookmann Monster, 1834; E. Rasemann Nachrichten von dam Leben and dens Schriftm Mtmterlandischer Schrifteteller, ib. 1866; KL, vii. 333‑335.
KATTENBUSCH, kat'ten‑bfish, FRIEDRICH WILHELM FERDINAND: German Lutheran; b. at Kettwig (7 m. s.s.w. of Essen) Oct. 3, 1851. He studied in Bonn, Berlin, Halle (1869‑73), and
HRraitss 8suts
G6ttingen (lie. theol., 1875); became privat‑docent in Gatingen, 1876; professor of systematic theology at Giessen 1878, at Grittingen 1904, and at Halle,1906. He was created a privy ecclesiastical councilor in 1897 and since 1903 has been a member of the Norwegian Videnskabsselskabet. In theology he is a follower of Albrecht Ritschl, and has written among other works: Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Confessionakunde, i. (Freiburg, 1892); Das
apostolischee Symbol, seine Entsfzhung, sein ge‑
achichtlicher Sinn and seine umprangliche Stellung im Kultus and in der Theodogie der Kirche (2 vols., Leipsie, 1894‑1900) ; and Das sittliche Read des Krieges (Giessen, 1906).

KAULEN, kau'len, FRANZ PHILIPP: German Roman Catholic; b. at Dusseldorf Mar. 20, 1827; d. at Bonn July 11, 1907. He studied in Bonn (1846‑49) and at the theological seminary in Cologne (1849), and was chaplain at Duisburg (1850‑52) and Dottendorf (1852‑53), rector and prison chaplain at Putzchen, near Bonn (1853‑59), lecturer in the theological seminary at Bonn (1859‑63), and privatdocent in the University of Bonn (1863‑80). In 1880 he became associate professor of Old‑Testament exegesis in Bonn, and full professor in 1882. After 1892 he was a domestic prelate to the pQFVI He edited the fifth to the eighth editions of C. H. Vosen's Rudiments. linguae hebraicae (Freiburg, 18721899); the twelfth to the eighteenth editions of the same author's Kurze Einleitung zum Erlernen der hebrdischen Sprache (1874‑1900); the second edition of the KL (12 vols., 1882‑1903); and the second and third editions of K. Martin's translation of the "Antiquities" of Josephus (Cologne, 1883‑92). As independent works he wrote: Ltber Jonae prophetae (Mainz, 1862); Legende von dam seligen aermann Joseph (1862); GesehichtederVulgata(1869); Htzndbuch zur Vulgates (1870); Einleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten and Neuen Testaments (2 parts, 18761881); Assyraen and Babylonian naeh den neueeten Entdeckungen (Cologne, 1877); Kurze Einleitung in die heilVe Schrift des Allen urtd des Neuen Testaments
(Freiburg, 1897); and Der
nick erkldrt (1902).
KAUTZ, kauts (CUCIUS), JAKOB: Anabaptist; b. at Grossboakenheim (8 m. S.W. of Worms), Bavaria, a. 1500; d. after 1532, in 1524 he was preacher in Worms, where the reformatory movement took on a radical character, and Anabaptism found a favorable soil. The resentment of the citizens, caused by their long and violent struggles with the bishop, found expression at the beginning of the Reformation in violent attacks upon the Church and the clergy. The same tendencies showed themselves in the participation of the city in the Peasants' War. By the intervention of
Count Palatine Ludwig, the bishop and the clergy were reinstated in their rights, but Evangelical preaching was continued. Amon$ the
icals there Was a eonmrvatlve and a radical party.
Ulrich Preu and Johann Freiherr, two of the preachtendency, in connection with Wittenberg while Kautz and Hilarius represented a more radical tendency, especially after the appearance of the two leading Anabaptists, Desk and Hfitzer, in

Kautz	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG.	802
Keane
Worms, whose teaching Kautz adopted in 1527.
The number of Anabaptists in Worms grew rapidly.
Kautz with Denk, HAtzer, and Melchior Ring pub
lished seven theses against their Evangelical op
ponents in which the peculiar teachings of Denk
find expression: the distinction between the exter
nal and internal word of Scripture; the impossi
bility of all external words and sacraments to as
sure the inner man of his salvation; rejection of
the baptism of children and of the essential pres
ence of Christ in the Lord's Supper; universal sal
vation; denial of the objective value of Christ's
satisfaction; and exhortation to follow him. The
Lutheran preachers in Worms immediately replied,
also Cochlaeus as representative of the Roman Cath
olics. The excitement in the town increased and
the clergy of Strasburg declared themselves against
the theses and warned the people of Worms. At
the urgent request of Count Palatine Ludwig, the
preachers of both Evangelical parties were dis
missed, and severe measures were adopted against
the adherents of Anabaptism among the citizens;
but the power of Anabaptism in Worms and its
neighborhood was not broken. The movement had
found a sympathetic response among the people,
and it was possible to hold it down only by force.
As the Lutheran preachers had been banished at
the same time, the progress of the Reformation in
Worms was considerably retarded. Kautz wan
dered from place to place, leading the restless life
of an agitator. In the summer of 1527 he appeared
for some little time at Augsburg, then at Rothen
burg‑on‑the‑Tauber with Wilhelm Reublin. In
June, 1528, they were both at Strasburg, disputing
with the preachers; in October they were arrested
for their inflammatory speeches. Capito and
Schwenekfeld tried in vain to divert Kautz from his
revolutionary ideas, and he was expelled from the
city. In 1532 he reappeared before the town, beg
ging to be admitted; disappointment, despair, and
exhaustion had broken his, courage; but the coun
cil did not receive him, and thenceforth he disap
pears from history. (A. HEGLERt.) K. HOLL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are in the works of Zwingli, vol.
	viii. passim, ed. of Zurich, 1828‑61. Consult: T. W.
	RShrich, Geschichte der Reformation in Elsass, i. 338 sqq.,
	ii. 76‑77, 1830‑32; idem, in ZHT, 1860, pp. 20 sqq., 43
	sqq., 60 sqq.; L. Keller, Ein Apoatel der Wiedertdufer,
	Leipsic, 1882; C. Gerbert, Geschichte der Strasaburger Sek
	tenbewegung, pp. 57 sqq, 83‑84, Strasburg, 1889; A. H.
	Newman, in American Church History Series, ii. 25, New
	York, 1894; idem, Hiat. of Anti‑Pedobaptism, pp. 170,
	245 eqq., Philadelphis, 1897.
	KAUTZSCH, kautsh, EMIL FRIEDRICH: Ger
man Protestant; b. at Plauen (21 m. s.w. of Zwick
au) Sept. 4, 1841. He studied in Leipsic (Ph.D.,
1863), taught in the Nicolai Gymnasium of Leipsic,
1863‑72; became privat‑docent in Leipsic, 1869,
associate professor, 1871, full professor of Old‑Tes
tament exegesis at Basel, 1872; at Tiibingen, 1880;
at Halle, 1888. In 1877 he shared in founding the
Deutscher Palastina‑Verein. He has written: De
Veteris Testamenti locis a Paulo apostolo allegatis
(Leipsie, 1869); Die Echtheit der moabitischen Al
tert4mer (1876; in collaboration with A. Socin);
Johann Buxtorf der Aeltere (Basel, 1879); Uebungs
bueh zu Gesenius‑Kautzsch hebrdischer Grammatik
(Leipsic, 1881); Grammatik des Biblisch‑Aramd‑
ischen (1884); Predigten iiber den zweiten Jahrgang der murttembergischen Evangelien (Tiibingen, 1887; in collaboration with H. Weiss); Die Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften ubersetzt (Freiburg, 1888; in collaboration with A. Soein); Die Psalmen iibersetzt (1893); Abriss der Geschichte des aittestamentliehen Schrifttums (1897); Bibelwissenschaft and Religionsunterrlcht (Halle, 1900); Proverbs in the Polychrome Bible (New York, 1901; in collaboration with A. Miiller); Die Poesie and die poetischen Mieher des Alten Testaments (Tiibingen, 1902); and Die Aramdismen im Alten Testament (Halle. 1902). He has also edited the second to the eighth edition of H. Scholz's Abriss der hebrdischen Laut‑ and Formenlehre (Leipsie, 1874‑99); the twenty‑second to the twenty‑seventh edition of W. Gesenius' Hebrdische Grammatik (18781902); and the tenth and eleventh editions of K. R. Hagenbaeh's Eneyklopadie and Methodologie (18801884). He likewise published, in collaboration with other scholars, Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments (Freiburg, 1894); Die Apokryphen and Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (1899); and Textbibel des Alten and Neuen Testaments (TUbingen, 1900).

KAWERAU, kd've‑rau, PETER GUSTAV: German Protestant; b. at Bunzlau (65 m. n.w. of Breslau), Silesia, Feb. 25, 1847. He studied at the University of Berlin (1863‑66), and was pastor at Langheinersdorf, Brandenburg (1871‑76), and Klemzig (1876‑82). He became professor and spiritual inspector at the Kloster Unserer Lieben Frau, Magdeburg, 1882; professor of practical theology at Kiel, 1886; at Breslau, 1894. He was appointed University preacher at Kiel in 1888 and at Breslau in 1894, was created a consistorial councilor in the latter year; became provost of St. Peter's at Berlin, 1907. In 1883 he was one of the founders of the Verein fur Reformationsgeschichte, and has edited: Der Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas (2 vols., 1885); shared in the Brunswick edition and edited the third, fourth, eighth, and part of the twelfth volumes of the Weimar edition of Luther (Weimar, 1885‑91); Zwei alteste Cateehismen der lutherischen Reformation (Halle, 1891); the third volume of W. Moller's Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte (Tiibingen, 1907); Schlesisches Hauschoralbuch (Breslau, 1898); and the fifth edition of J. K6stlin's Martin Luther (2 vols., Berlin, 19041905); AS independent works he has written: Johann Agricola von Eisleben (Berlin, 1881); Caspar Giittel, ein Lebensbild aus Luthers Freundeskreise (Halle, 1882); Ueber Berechtigung and Bedeutung des landeshemlichen Kirchenregiments (Kiel, 1887); De digamia episeoporum (1889); Luthers Lebensende in neuester ultramontanistischer Beleuchtung (Barmen, 1890); C. H. Spurgeon, ein Prediger von Gottes Gnaden (Hamburg, 1892); Hieronymus Eraser (Halle, 1898); Die Versuche Melanchthon zur katholischen Kirche zurackzvf4hren (1902); and Luthers Riickkehr von der Wartburg nach Wittenberg (1902).
KAYE, kA, JOHN: Bishop of Lincoln; b. at Hammersmith, London, Dec. 27, 1783; d. at Riseholme (2 m. n. of Lincoln), Lincolnshire, Feb. 18,

303	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	gee
1853. He studied at Christ's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1804; M.A., 1807; B.D., 1814; D.D., 1815), where he became fellow in 1804. He was tutor of Christ's College, 1808‑14, master 1814‑30, vicechancellor of the university 1815, and regius professor of divinity after 1816. In this capacity it was his peculiar service to recall theological students to the study of the Fathers. He was consecrated bishop of Bristol in 1820, and translated to Lincoln in 1827. His episcopal administration was marked by aggressiveness and efficiency. He increased the number of resident clergy in the diocese of Lincoln, revived the office of rural dean, and was the first bishop to require candidates for orders to pass the theological examination of the University of Cambridge which up to that time had been voluntary. His prineipal works are: The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, Illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian (Cambridge, 1825); The Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr (1829) ; The Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria (London, 1835); The Council of Nieaa, in Connexion with the Life of Athanasiua (1853) ; The External Government and Discipline of the Church of Christ during the First Three Centuries (1855). All of these, with his sermons, charges, and miscellaneous writings, were collected in his Works (8 vols., London, 1888).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Memoir is prefixed to the Works, ut sup.
Consult DNB, xxix. 252‑253.
KAYSER, kai'zer, AUGUST: German Protestant theologian; b. at Strasburg Feb. 14, 1821; d. there June 17, 1885. He was educated at the university of his native city, and was appointed assistant librarian in 1840. From 1843 t0 1855 he acted as private tutor at Havre and Gebweiler. In 1858 he was appointed pastor at Stossweier, Upper Alsace, whence he went to Neuhof, near Strasburg, in 1868, and nine years later became associate professor of theology at the University of Strasburg. Influeneed by his teacher, Eduard Reuss, Kayser was especially attracted to the study of the Old Testament, althougn his first scientific investigations dealt with the literature and theology of the first centuries of the Christian era. The results of these investigations were embodied in La philosophie de Celse et ses ropporta avec le Chriatianisme (Strasburg, 1843), De Justini Martyris doctrina dissertatio hiatorica (1850), and Die Testaments. der zw6f Patrtarchen (in Reuss and Cunitz, Beitrdge zu den theologischen Wissenachaften, iii., 1851).
By comparing the commandments with the historical traditions of the Pentateuch Kayser had early come to the conviction that the Elohistic code could not possibly antedate the restoration of the Jewish commonwealth under Persian rule. He had just prepared a work on this question when C. H. Graf's Die geachichilichen Ruche, des Allen Testaments (Leipsic, 1866) appeared, voicing the same view. Kayser therefore refrained from publishing his own book, and devoted himself to the problem from the point of view of literary history. The results of his studies appeared under the title Das vorexilische Bush der Urgeschichte Israel& and seine Erraeiterungen (Strasburg, 1874). He wrote the posthumous Die Theologie des Alien Testaments
in ihrer geachichtlichen Entwickelung dargeatellt (Stras‑
burg, 1886).
(A. ERICHSONt.)
BEACH, BENJAMM: Particular or Calvinistic Baptist; b. at Stoke Hammond (11 m. n.e. of Aylesbury), Buckinghamshire, Feb. 29, 1640; d. at Southwark, London, July 18, 1704. He entered the Baptist ministry as a self‑taught man in 1659, and suffered during his career frequent persecutions. On Oct. 8, 1664, he was tried at Aylesbury before Sir Robert Hyde, for having taken " certain damnable positions " regarding the second advent in a catechism he had published. He was sentenced to a fine of twenty pounds and two weeks' imprisonment, with the pillory on separate days at Aylesbury and Window. This sentence was rigorously executed, and Keach's little book was burned by the public hangman. In 1668 he removed to London and became pastor of the Baptist church .in Tooley Street, Southwark. On the indulgence of 1672 his congregation erected a large wooden structure at Horsleydown. Keach was an advocate of congregational singing, and his church is said to have been the first Baptist church to introduce that practise (1688). He attained considerable fame as a preacher and defender of Baptist doctrines. His most important works are: Tropologia: a Key to open Scripture Metaphors (London, 1682; new ed., 1855); and Gospel Mysteries Unveiled (4 parts, 1701; new ed., 1856). Other works still remembered are, Travels of True Godliness (1683; new ed., 1849); The Progress of Sin: ar the Travels of Ungodliness (1684; new ed., 1849); and A Golden Mine Opened (1694).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, xxx. 254‑255, whpi9 moy be found
references to scattered notices; a Memoir, by H. Malcom, was prefixed to his Travels of True Godliness, New York,
1831.
gEAPE, JOHN JOSEPH: Roman Catholic archbishop of Dubuque, Ia.; b. at Ballyehannon (22 m. n.e. of Sligo), County Donegal, Ireland, Sept. 12, 1839. At the age of seven he was taken by his parents to the United States, and after engaging in business for some years, studied at St. Charles' College, Ellicott City, Md. (1859‑62), and St. Mary's Theological Seminary, Baltimore (1862‑65). He was ordained to the priesthood in 1866, and from that year until 1878 was curate of St: ‑Patrick's, Washington, D.C. In 1878 he was consecrated bishop of Richmond, Va., whence he was translated, in 1888, to the titular see of Ajasso, that he might devote himself to the upbuilding of the Catholic vkversity of America, Washington, D. C., of which he had been appointed rector two years previously, when he had resigned his diocese at the request of
the American hierarchy and of the pope. He remained at the head of the Catholic University until 1897, when he was elevated to the titular archdiocese of Damascus. On his return from a visit
to Rome he was translated to his present archdiocese of Dubuque. During his curacy at Washington he helped to organize the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America, and the Catholic Young Men's National Union, while during his episcopate at Richmond he established in his diocese the Confraternity of the Holy Ghost, besides taking part in the Third Plenary Council, held at Baltimore in

gairm	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	804
1884. He was likewise active in the promotion of religious and educational work among the colored people of his see. He was Dudleian lecturer at Harvard in 1890, and has written Onward and Upward (Baltimore, 1902).

KEATOR, FREDERIC WILLIAM: Protestant Episcopal missionary bishop of Olympia, Wash.; b. at Honesdale, Pa., Oct. 22, 1855. He was graduated at Yale College in 1880, the Yale Law School in 1882, and the Western Theological Seminary, Chicago, in 1891. He practised law in Chicago from 1882 to 1890, and after completing his theological training was ordained to the priesthood in 1891. He was then rector of the Church of the Atonement, Chicago, 1891‑96, Grace Church, Freeport, Ill., 1896‑99, and St. John's, Dubuque, Ia., 1899‑1902. In 1902 he was consecrated missionary bishop of Olympia.
KEBLE, JOHN: A leader of the Oxford movement in the Church of England (see TRACTARIANisx); b. at Fairford (24 m. s.e. of Gloucester), Gloucestershire, Apr. 25, 1792; d. at Bournemouth (25 m. s.w. of Southampton), Hampshire, Mar. 29, 1866. He was educated by his father (a clergyman) and at Corpus Christi College, Oxford; became fellow of Oriel (at the time the foremost college in Oxford) in 1811 and was tutor 1818‑23; was ordained priest in 1816; became curate of East Leach and Burthorpe (near Fairford) in 1818, curate of Hursley, Hampshire, in 1825, vicar of Hursley in 1836. From 1831 to 1841 he held the lectureship on poetry at Oxford.
Keble's reputation rests on his contributions to devotional poetry and his share in spreading sacra, mentarian views in the Church of England and in the development of the Oxford movement. In 1827 he published, anonymously, The Christian Year (2 vols., Oxford), a collection of sacred lyrics, which had been issued in 140 editions when the copyright expired in 1873. Some of the poems have been pronounced faultless of their kind. In 1839 appeared The Psalter, or Psalms of David in English Verse, and in 1846 Lyra Innocentium, a collection of sacred poems for childhood. Of Keble's hymns the best in common use are " 0 God of mercy, God of might," and " Sun of my soul, thou Savior dear," the latter taken from the second poem in the Christian. Year, entitled " Evening." With the help of his brother Thomas, and Charles Dyson, an intimate friend, he edited the works of Richard Hooker (3 vols., Oxford, 1836), spending five years on the task and producing what is still the standard edition (revised by R. W. ChurCh and F. Paget, 3 vols., Oxford, 1888). In 1838 with F. W. Newman and E. B. Pusey he began to work on the Library of the Fathers, for which he translated Irenmus. At Oxford he was intimate with Newman, Pusey, and Richard Hurrell Froude, and his views concerning the sacraments‑he regretted that circumstances did not admit of his introducing the confessional‑and the episcopal constitution of the Church inevitably brought him to the front in the Oxford movement, Newman in his .4 pologia pronounces Keble its " true and primary author." He wrote nine of the Tracts for the Times (nos. 4,
13, 40, 52, 54, 57, 67, 60, 89), the first being on apostolic succession and the last on the mysticism attributed to the early Fathers. He approved of Newman's Tract 80, but did not leave the communion of the English Church and regarded the doctrine of the immaculate conception as an insuperable barrier to ecclesiastical union. Other works are Praelectiones Academicae (2 vols., Oxford, 1844), his lectures on poetry; Sermons (1847); and a Life of Bishop Wilson (2 vols., 1863). After his death appeared Occasional Papers and Reviews (Oxford, 1877) and eleven volumes of sermons (1876‑80). Keble was not eloquent as a preacher, but scriptural and impressive. He had a remarkable power of attracting both old and young. Shortly after his death his friends and admirers raised a fund and erected to his memory Keble College at Oxford, which was opened in 1869.
D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographies are by J. T. Coleridge, 2 vole., Oxford, 1889; w. Lock, Boston, 1893. Consult also: J. C. Sairp, John Keble: Essay on the Author of the " Christian Year," Edinburgh, 1888; The Birthplace, Home, Churches and other Places connected with the Author of " The Christian Year," with Notes by J. P. Moor, Oxford, 1867; J. H. Newman, Essays Critical and Historical, ii. 421 eqq., London, 1873, and cf. the Apologia; S. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 500‑502, New York, 1866; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 610‑613; DNB, xxx. 291‑295.

KECKERMARH, BARTHOLOMAEUS: German Reformed theologian; b. at Danzig 1571 (1573?); d. there Aug. 25, 1609. He studied at Wittenberg, Leipsic, and Heidelberg, where he became professor of Hebrew. From 1601 till his death he was rector and professor of philosophy at the Reformed Gymnasium of his native city. All his literary works grew out of courses of lectures. His Opera omiia (2 vols., Geneva, 1614) comprise the whole sphere of philosophy, which he treated in the spirit of a strict Aristotelianism, while many other Reformed theologians adopted the method and ideas of Petrus Ramus. His theological works, Rhetorrca ecclesiastics (3d. ed., Hanau, 1606), and Systema theologicum (1602, and often; Eng. transl., A Manuduetion to Theology [London, 16207]) form only an appendix; and his dogmatic system is interesting chiefly on account of its method. Kicker mann starts from a subjective point of view, from the enjoyment of God by man. The first book of the Systema treats of God as the highest aim of man. From the highest aim Keckermann proceeds analytically to the means for its attainment, which are knowledge of our misery and deliverance from it. Hence he distinguished two parts of theology,
a theotogk pathoWke (book ii., doetrinoo of tho er~‑
	inal state, fall, and sin), and a theologia therapeutike
	(book iii., election, redemption, justification, and
perfection).	But he did not follow the consequences
	of his subjective starting‑point beyond the structure
of the external frame.	Keckermann's attempt to
	transfer ethics from theology to philosophy is still
worthy of note.	(E. F. KARL MOLLER.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Adam, Vitae Germanorum philolophorum
	pp: 232 sqq., Frankfort, 1706; P. Bayle, Dictionary His
	torxcal and Critical, iii. 656, London, 1736; A. Schweizer,
	Claubenalehre der evangelisch‑reformferten Kirche, i. 98,
	ii. 151 sqq., Zurich, 1844; F. W. J. H. Gals, Oeaehichle
der proteatantiachen Dogmatik, i. 408 sqq.. Berlin, 1854.

3oa
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
KEDNEY, JOHN STEINFORT: Protestant Episcopal; b. at Bloomfield, N. J., Feb. 12, 1819. He was educated at Union College (A.B., 1838) and General Theological Seminary (1841). He was ordered deacon in 1841 and priested in 1843. After being a missionary in North Carolina from 1842 to 1845, he was rector of St. John's, Salem, N. J. (1847‑52), Bethesda, Saratoga Springs, N. Y. (1852‑59), Trinity, Society Hills, S. C. (1859‑65), Trinity, Potsdam, N. Y. (1865‑70), and Trinity, Camden, S. C. (1870‑71). Since 1871 he has been professor of divinity in Seabury Divinity School, Faribauh, Minn., although advancing years have compelled him to retire from active work. He has written : Catawba River, and Other Poems (New York, 1846); The Beautiful and the Sublime (1884); Hegel's Xsthetics (Chicago, 1886); Christian Dootrine Ha»Iaonized (2 vols., New York, 1888); Mens Christi (1890); and Problems in Ethics (1900).
KEDRON. See KIDRON.

KEENE, JAMES BENNETT: Church of Ireland, bishop of Meath; b. at Dublin Oct. 25, 1849. He studied at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1871), and was ordered deacon in 1872 and ordained priest in the following year. He was curate of St. Matthias, Dublin (1872‑74), diocesan curate of Meath (1874‑77), Y. M. C. A. chaplain at Dublin (18771879), incumbent of Ballyboy (1879), and rector of Navan (1879‑97). In 1897 he was consecrated bishop of Meath. He has been examining chaplain to the bishop of Meath (1885‑94), prebendary of Tipper and canon of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin (1892‑97), and rural dean of Skryne (18961897).
KEENER, JOHN CHRISTIAN: Methodist Episcopal (South) bishop; b. at Baltimore, Md., Feb. 7, 1819. He was graduated at Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn., in 1835, and, after being engaged in business for six years, entered the ministry of his denomination in 1841. For the next seven years he was pastor of churches in Alabama and from 1848 to 1861 was pastor at New Orleans, being also presiding elder in 1858 and 1860. He was then superintendent of the chaplains attached to the Confederate Army west of the Mississippi until 1864, when he returned to New Orleans as presiding elder and editor of the New Orleans Christian Advocate. In 1870 he was elected bishop. In 1873 he established a Methodist Episcopal mission in Mexico. He has written: The Post Oak Circuit (Nashville, Tenn., 1857); Studies of Bible Truths (1899); and The Garden of Eden and the Flood (1900).
	KEIL, kail, KARL AUGUST GOTTLIEB: Ger
man theologian; b. at Grossenhain (19 m. n.n.w.
of Dresden), Saxony, Apr. 23, 1754; d. at Leipsic
Apr. 22, 1818. Left an orphan at an early age, he
was adopted by an uncle in Leipsic in 1763, and
studied at the university of that city. In 1785 he
was appointed assistant professor of philosophy;
became assistant professor of theology two years
later and in 1792,. upon the death of his former
teacher, Professor Morus, he succeeded to the chair
of theology. Keil may be regarded as a worthy
		VI‑20
Sestor Helm
representative of the Leipsic school of theology, which exercised a considerable influence during the latter part of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. He published a Lehrbuch der Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments (Leipsie, 1810) and wrote a number of essays, which were collected by J. D. Goldhorn and published under the title Keilii opuscula academica ad Novi Testctmenti interpretationem grammatico‑histor6cdm et theologiae christianae origines pertinentia (1820). From 1812 to 1817 Keil collaborated with Tzschir ner in editing the Analekten fur das Studium der exegetischen and systematischen Theologie.
(WOLDEMAR SCHMIDTt.)
BIHwGGRAPHY: His autobiography is included in Kreusler,
Beschreibunp der Feferlichkeiten am Jubelfeete der Universitat Leipzig, Dee. 4, 1808, pp. 10‑16, Leipsie, 1810.
KEIL, JOHANN FRIEDRICH KARL: German Protestant exegete; b. at Lauterbach near 0lsnitz (25 m. s.w. of Zwickau), Saxony, Feb. 26, 1807; d. at R6dlitz (8 m. s.e. of Glauchau), Saxony, May 5, 1888. He studied theology in Dorpat and Berlin, and in 1833 accepted a call to the theological faoulty of Dorpat, where he labored for twenty‑five years as docent and professor of Old‑ and New‑Testament exegesis and Oriental languages. With Aartorius, Busch, later Philippi, Theodosius, Harnack and Kurtz, he educated for the Baltic provinces a generation of preachers who faithfully adhered to the confession of the Church. In 1859 he settled at Leipsic, where he devoted himself to literary work and to the practical affairs of the Lutheran Church. In 1887 he removed to Rtldlitz, continuing there his literary activity until his death. He belonged to the strictly orthodox and conservative school of Hengstenberg. Ignoring almost entirely modern criticism, all his writings represent the view that the books of the Old and New Testaments are to be retained as the revealed word of God. Till the very last he regarded the modern development of German theological science as a passing phase of error. His chief work is the commentary on the Old Testament (4 vols. in 14, Leipeie,1861 75; Eng. tranal., 25 vols., Edinburgh, 1864‑78), which he undertook with Franz Delitzsch. To this work he contrib. uted commentaries on all the books from Genesis to Esther inclusive, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets. He also published commentaries on Maccabees (Leipsic,1875), Matthew (1877), Mark and Luke (1879), John (1881), Peter and Jude (1883), and Hebrews (1885). Other works are: Der Tempel Salomos (Dorpat, 1839); Einleitung in die kanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments (Frankfort, 1853; 3d ed., 1873; Eng. transl., 2 vols., Manual of Histonco‑Critical Introduction to . . . The 0. T., Edinburgh, 1870); and Handbuch der biblischen Arehdologie (1858‑59; 2d. ed., 1875; Eng. transl., Manual of Biblical Archa;ology, 2 vols.,
Edinburgh, 188788). `W' J, 4 laIb.~
I'I, Maim, KARL THEODOR: German his. torical theologian; b. at Stuttgart Dec. 17, 1825; d. at Giessen Nov. 17, 1878. He studied theology from 1843 to 1847 at Tubingen, devoting himself with special zeal to Oriental Iangllages, and being influenced by F. C. Baur. He w tutor in the family of Count Sontheim, 1848‑;' in 1850 ~n‑

Keim
Seller	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	808
tinued his studies at Bonn; was lecturer at Tiibingen, 1851‑55; pastor in Esslingen, Wtirttemberg, 1856‑59. From 1860 to 1873 he was professor of historical theology at the University of Zurich, and from 1873 until shortly before his death, when ill health compelled his resignation, held a corresponding position at Giessen. The three years of preaching and pastoral labor at Esslingen, of which a memorial exists in Freundesworte zur Gemeinde, a collection of sermons (Stuttgart, 1861), show him to have been an eloquent and edifying preacher; but he was essentially a scholar. His chief importance for Evangelical theology lies in the sphere of history, especially in the investigation and scientific establishment of the historical foundations of Christian faith. After his first theological examination he published a prize essay, Verhdltnis der Christen in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten bis Konstantin zum r6mischen Reiche (1848). The Revolution of 1848 caused him to leave Tdbingen and return to his native city where he occupied himself first with the study of primitive Christianity, but soon turned to the history of the Reformation, especially in Swabia. In the latter field he published: Die Reformation der Reichsstadt Ulm (Stuttgart, 1851); Schwdbische Reformationsgeschichte bis zum Augsburger Reichstag (Tiibingen, 1855); Ambrosius Blarer (Stuttgart, 1860); Reformationsbldtter der Reichsstadt Esslingen (Esslingen, 1860). His historical investigations show scientific earnestness and great freedom from prejudice combined with a deep insight into the character of the Reformers as Thinkers upon the great religious and political questions of the time. At Zurich Keim devoted himself exclusively to the study of primitive Christianity. His special effort was to explain the development of the Christian Church from its apostolic origin up to its conquest over the old faith and the military power of the Roman Empire, and to give a scientific representation of the historic origin of our faith, the history of Jesus. The results along the first of these two lines are set forth especially in: Die remischen Toleranzedikte fur das Christentum and ihr geschichtlicher Wert and Bedenken gegen die Echtheit des hadrianischen Christenreskripts (in Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1852, 1856); Der Uebertritt Konstantins des Grossen zum Christentum (Zurich, 1862); Celsus' Wahres Wort (ib. 1873); Aus dem Urchristentum. Geschichtliche Untersuchungen in zwangloser Folge (ib. 1878); and Rom and das Chrastentum (Berlin, 1881). In regard to the origin of our faith he wrote: Die menschliche Entwickelung Jesu Christi (Zurich, 1861), Die geschichtliche Wiirde Jesu (ib. 1864); he then republished the two just named, with a new lecture, under the caption, Der geschichtliche Christus (ib. 1865); then followed his greatest works, Die Geschiehte Jesu von Nazara in ihrer Verk‑ettung mit dem Gesammtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht and ausfiihrlich erklart (3 vols., ib. 1867‑72; Eng. transl.. The History of Jesus of Nazareth, 6 vols., London, 187382). In order to give his views a wider currency, Keim published Die Geschichte Jesu nach den Ergebnissen heutiger Wissenschaft fit weitere Kreise abersichtlich erzdhlt (1874, 1875). Although he emphasized chieflX‑the human side in Christ, he can
not be called a "Unitarian." While minimizing the miraculous element in Christianity, and in spite of the most concrete conception of the human limitations and development of its founder, he considered Jesus not only the greatest upon earth, but the Son "in whom the Father reveals himself." In his criticism of the historical sources he starts from Paul, whose epistles he regards as the firm basis for Evangelical history and the decisive test for judging all other events; and in this criticism he proceeds entirely according to objective points of view, unhampered by any dogmatic theory of inspiration. He rejected the fourth Gospel; among the synoptic Gospels he gave the preference to Matthew, which, according to him, originated as early as 68 and is distinguished by primitive simplicity and absence of preconceived notions, showing only slight traces of revision. Luke, according to Keim, obscured the simple representation of Matthew by his mediating Pauline standpoint. Mark wrote in the interest of a world‑embracing universalism, changing the picture of Jesus in Matthew by omitting the most important speeches wherever they clash with his theory. Keim's work shows rare scientific solidity and deep penetration, and holds a position in the literature of the life of Jesus which can not be neglected even by those who do not share his rationalistic standpoint.
(H. ZIEGLER.)
gEIMANN, kai'mdn (gEYMANN), CHRISTIAN: Saxon educator and hymn‑writer; b. at Pankraz, near Gabel (50 m. n.n.e. of Prague), Bohemia, Feb. 27, 1607; d. at Zittau (50 m. e.s.e. of Dresden), Saxony, Jan. 13, 1662. He attended the gymnasium at Zittau and the University of Wittenberg (M.A., 1634), became associate rector of the gymnasium at Zittau in 1634 and was rector from 1639 till his death. His Easter hymn, Meinen Jesum lass ich nicht (" My Savior will I not forsake ") has been extremely popular. Also the Christmas hymn, Freude, Freude fiber Freude (" O joy all joys excelling "), the Advent hymn, Hosianna, Davids Sohn (" Hosannah to the Son of David "), and the Passion hymn, Sei gegrasset, Jesu gatig (" Hail to the Savior benign "), a paraphrase of Salve, Jesu, summe bonus by Bernard of Clairvaux, found much acceptance. On July 31, 1651, he was crowned imperial poet‑laureate. He was also active as a pedagogical author. Religious education was fostered by his Mnemosyne sacra (G6rlitz, 1646), and Micae evangelicae (Zittau, 1655); also by the collection of proverbs originally issued, by Gerlach, Sententiarum sacrarum centuriae duae (Dresden, 1635). Of wide use in linguistic instruction were his Tabulae declinationum (Leipsic, 1649), and the Enchiridion grammaticum Latinum (Jena, 1649), and his books on his logic, rhetoric, and arithmetic were issued repeatedly. He also wrote a number of school dramas. GEORG MUELLER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An early life is by C. Weis, Memoria C. Keimanni, Zittau 1689; the modern one by H. J. K6mmel, Christian Keimann, ib. 1856; idem, in ADS, xv. 535‑536. Consult further: O. E. Koch, Geschichte des Kirchenlieds, Stuttgart, 1867; A. F. W. Fischer, Kirchen, liederlexikon, i. 195 312, ii. 52, 248, 282, 449, Gotha, 1878‑79; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 613‑614. A large literature is indicated in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, x. 202.

307
KEITH, kith, ALEXANDER: Clergyman of the
Free Church of Scotland; b. at Keith Hall (11 m; 1 n.w. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenshire, Nov. 30, 1791, d. at Buxton (160 m. n.w. of London), Derbyshire, Feb. 8, 1880. He studied at the Marischal College and University of Aberdeen (B.A., 1809; D.D., 1833), was licensed to preach in 1813, and was presented the same year to St. Cyrus, Kincardineshire, which he resigned in 1840 on account of ill health. In 1839 he visited Palestine as a member of a commission sent out by the Church of Scotland to inquire into the condition of the Jews, preparatory to the establishment of a mission among them. At the disruption of 1843 he joined the Free Church. He was the author of several works on prophecy, the best known being Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion, Derived from the Literal FVJ_ filment of Prophecy (Edinburgh, 1828; 40th ed., London, 1873). Other works are: The Signs of the Times (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1832); Demonstration of the Truth of Christianity (1838); The Harmony of Prophecy (1851); and The History and Destiny of the World (London, 1861).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Black, Jeurish Missionary Travels to the Jews, pp. 3 sqq., Newcastle, 1841; Hew Scott, Fasti ecclesiae Scoticanae, iii., 2, pp, 885, 881, London, 1871; DNB, xxx. 315‑316.
KEITH, GEORGE: Scotch Quaker, afterward Anglican clergyman and missionary to America; b., probably in Aberdeenshire, 1639; d. at Edburton (20 m. e. of Chichester), Sussex, Mar. 27, 1716. After receiving the degree of M. A. from Marischal College, Aberdeen, he became tutor and chaplain in a noble family. He was designed for the Presbyterian ministry, but about 1664 adopted the tenets of the Quakers, and soon won a prominent position in the councils of the sect. He was intimately associated with Robert Barclay, George Fox, and William Penn. After having been frequently imprisoned for preaching in England, Keith emigrated to America about 1685, served for a time as surveyor‑general in New Jersey, and settled in Philadelphia in 1689 as principal of a Friends' school. Subsequently he traveled in New England and defended the principles of the Quakers in controversy with Increase Mather and others. Having become involved in bitter disputes with other leaders of the sect, in 1692 Keith headed a faction called " Keithites," or "Christian Quakers." In 1694 he returned to England, where he was denounced by Penn as an apostate and dismissed from the society at the Annual Meeting of 1695. After preaching to his followers for five years at Turners' Hall, London, he united with the Established Church in 1700, and subsequently led several hundred Quakers to conform. From 1702 till 1704 he traveled in America as a missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. From 1706 till his death he was rector of Edburton, Sussex. He is said to have been one of the most scholarly and versatile men ever enrolled by the Quakers. The more important of his numerous writings are: The Deism of William Penn arid his Brethren (London, 1699); The Standard of the Quakers Examine
of Travels (1706).	cd (1702); and A Journal
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Helm
Holler
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, %=. 318‑f21, where references to scattered notices are given.
KEITH‑FALCONER, HONORABLE ION GRANT NEVILLE: Church of Scotland layman; the third eon of the ninth earl of Kintore; b. in Edinburgh July 5, 1856; d. at Aden, Arabia, May 11, 1887. He was educated at Harrow Public School, and at Cambridge University, at both of which he distinguished himself not only by scholarship but by his bicycle‑riding. He was appointed Lord Almoner's professor of Arabic at Cambridge, 1886. He also taught himself Pitman's system of shorthand and attained uncommon speed for a non‑professional. He became deeply interested in evangelistic work in Cambridge and in London, and so his thou8hts
turned to making his remarkable Oriental learning available on the foreign field. With this in view he paid a visit to Aden to see for himself the prospects of a mission to the Mohammedans and being I convinced that his lifework lay in that direction he laid aside his ambition as an Oriental scholar in England, and in 1886 went to Aden as a lay missionary of the Church of Scotland. There, however, he quickly succumbed to an attack of fever. He was destined to be of much more consequence in inciting others to labor for the conversion of Mohammedans and other non‑Christians than as a worker himself. It was one of the sources of this influence that he was a nobleman of wealth and therefore one who could not be accused of sordid motives. He died too soon to do much in literature. Still his article on shorthand in the ninth
edition of the Encyclolrcedia Britannic,,, his edition (1885) of Kalilah and Dimnah, otherwise known as j the Fables of Bidpai, and some of his papers attracted wide attention.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. Sinker, memorials of . . . Keith..Falconer, Cambridge, 1888.
SELLER (CELLARIUS), ANDREAS: Early German Evangelical; b. at Rottenburg (25 m. s.w. of Stuttgart), Wurttemberg, 1503; d. Sept. 18, 1562. He probably studied at Vienna. In the spring of 1524 he preached the Gospel with youthful fire in his native town and combated the papacy, and accepted in the same year a call to Strasburg as assistant at St. Peter's. In Dec., 1524, he became pastor at Wasselnheim near Strasburg. By means of brief tracts he sought to promote the cause of the Gospel, and also wrote his nOW Y49‑
ished catechism, Bel~ejtf der kinder zu Waselheim
in Frog and Ankwort gestellt (Strasburg, 1530). In
Sept., 1536, he became pastor at Wildberg, Wiirt
temberg, and later superintendent. In 1542 Stras
burg wished to recall him, but he remained at Wild
berg, reformed the neighboring cloister of Reuthin,
and participated in the weightiest affairs of the'
State Church, e.g., in the memorial with reference
to the attitude of the Evangelicals toward the coun
cil, 1543‑44; and in the matter of advisement con
cerning the Conjessio Wirtembergica, June, 1551.
As a writer he now confined himself to German ver
sions of foreign works. 	G. BossEirr.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: L. M. Mechlin, Memaria thootoporum Wirtemberpenaium, supplement, pp. 46, 378,
Ulm, 1709‑1710; C. F. $chnurrer, ErIButerungen der
`irOiacAen Kirchen‑ Reformations‑ and (;elehrten‑Ge•
8ch. PP‑ 39. 209. Ttibingen,1798; T. W. Roehrich.

HeUer
Sempis
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Geschkhte der Reformation %m Elsaas, i. 277, 375, fi. 19, Strasburg, 1830‑32. Consult also: C. T. Keim, SehWbiache Reformationageaehiehte, pp. 24 eqq., Tiibingen, 1855; Wgruembargiads Kirchengeachichte, pp. 272 eqq., Stuttgart, 1892.
KELLER, LUDWIG KARL: German Reformed layman; b. at Fritzlar (16 m. s.w. of Camel), Prussia, Mar. 28, 1849. He was educated at the universities of Leipsic and Marburg (Ph.D., 1873), and from 1874 to 1895 was connected with the state archives of Westphalia at Munster, where he was successively second assistant (1874‑81), and director (1874‑95). Since 1895 he has been privy state archivist at Berlin. Besides being editor of the Monatuchrift der Cmnenius‑Gesellachaft, he has written the following works of theological interest: Geschichte der Wiedertdufer and ihres Reichs zu Munster (Munster, 1880); Die gegenreformation in Westfalen and am Niederrhein, Actenstucke and Erlduterungen (3 parts, Leipsic, 1886‑95); Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer (biography of Hans Denk; 1882); Die Reformation wnd die alleren Reformparteien in ihrem Zusammenhange dargestellt (1885); Die Waldenaer and die deutschen Bibeliibersetzungen (1886); and Johann von Staupitz and die Anfdnge der Reformation (1888).
KELLNER, KARL ADAM HEINRICH: German Roman Catholic; b. at Heiligenstadt (15 m. n.w. of Miihlhausen), Prussia, Aug. 26, 1837. He studied at the academy of Munster, the University of Tubingen, and the seminary of Treves, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1861. He was then vicar at Treves 1862‑65, parish priest at Bitburg 1866‑67, and professor of canon law in the theological seminary at Hildesheim from 1867 to 1874, when the institution was closed as a result of the Kulturkampf. In 1874 he was appointed professor of church history in the University of Bonn, and held this position until his retirement from active life in 1902. He has written Buss‑ and Stra,$'verfahrungen gegen Kleriker in den aechs ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten (Treves, 1863); Helleniamus and Christentum (Cologne, 1866): Ausgewdhlte Schriften Tertullians ilberselzE (2 vols., Kempten, 1870‑72); Verfassung, Lehramt and Unfehlbarkeit der Kirche (1872); Tertullians admmtliche Schriften iibersetzt (2 vols., Cologne, 1882); and Heortologie oder das Kirchenjahr and die Hedigenfeste in ihrer geschichtliehen Entwicklung von den dltesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart (Freiburg, 1901). He also revised the eleventh volume of Rohrbacher's Universalge8chichte der katholischen Kirche (Munster, 1880).
KELLS, SYNOD OF: A synod convened in 1152 at Kells (38 m. n.w. of Dublin), by Eugenius III., for the purpose of reorganizing the Church of Ireland. It divided the country into four archbishoprics, established a hierarchy, introduced tithes and the Peter's‑pence, acknowledged the papal supremacy, etc. See CELTIC CHURCH IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND, III., 2, § 5.
KELLY, THOMAS: Irish dissenting preacher and hymn‑writer; b. at Kellyville (4 m. w. of Athy), County Queen's, July 13, 1769; d. there May 14, 1855. He was graduated at the University of
Dublin and studied law in London, but took orders in the Established Church in 1792 and began to preach in Dublin. For his fervent Evangelical sermons he was soon inhibited by the archbishop from preaching in the diocese of Dublin. After preaching for a time in two unconsecrated buildings in the city, he became a dissenter and, from his ample means, erected chapels at Athy, Portarlington, Waterford, Wexford, and other places, where he continued to preach. His reputation rests upon his Hymns on Various Passages of Scripture (Dublin, 1804). The ninety‑six hymns of the first edition grew to 765 in the seventh (1853), the last that appeared before his death. His best‑known hymns are, " Come, see the place where Jesus lay," and " On the mountain's top appearing."
BIBmoaRAPHY: 3. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 206207 et passim, New York, 1886; Julian, Hymnology, pp.
614‑615.
KELLY, WILLIAM: Plymouth Brother; b. of Episcopalian parentage in the north of Ireland 1821; d. at Exeter, England, Mar. 27, 1906. He was early left fatherless, supported himself by teaching in the island of Sark, and joined the Plymouth Brethren (q.v.) in 1840. He retained a close connection with the Channel Islands for thirty years, residing in Guernsey, but for the latter half of his career his home was at Blackheath, London, S. E. He graduated with classical honors at Trinity College, Dublin, and by his writings established a reputation for sound scholarship and acquired distinction as an able controversialist. Besides aiding Tregelles in that eminent scholar's investigations as a Biblical textual critic, he himself published, in 1860, a critical edition of the Revelation of John, which earned a commendatory notice from Ewald in the Guttingen Jahrbiinher. Such studies were carried on concurrently with the editing of a periodical entitled The Prospect, which gave way to The Bible Treasury, carried on by Kelly to the time of his death. This brought the editor into correspondence with such men as Dean Alford, Dr. Robert Scott the lexicographer, Principal Edwards, Professor Sanday, and other theologians. In his last days Archdeacon Denison was wont to speak of The Bibls Treasury as the only religious magazine worth reading, so steadfast was the editor in rejection of what he believed to be Christ‑dishonoring views of the Bible put forth by higher critics.
Kelly identified himself whole‑heartedly with the body of doctrine developed by the late John Nelson Darby (q.v.), whose Collected Writings were edited by him. According to Neatby, he " was essentially the interpreter of Darby to the uninitiated." Kelly's own merits were, however, manifest alike in living as in written ministry. Spurgeon, judging by the latter, has applied to him, in the Guide to Commentaries, words of Goldsmith, " born for the universe, who narrowed his mind" by Darbyism. Although friction at last arose between them, the younger retained his veneration for the older man.
In the list of Kelly's writings will be found Lectures on or formal expositions of all the books of the Bible. Kelly exercised considerable influence upon outside readers by his Lectures on the New

809
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Testament Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (London, (1867); On the Church of God (10th ed., 1906); On the Pentateuch (1877); On the Gospel of Matthew (1868); and On the Book of Revelation (1861). " In the Beginning " (Mosaic Cosmogony), Expositions of the Prophecies of Isaiah and the Gospel of John (enlarged ed. by E. E. Whitfield, 1907); The Epistle to the Hebrews arid the Epistles of John; a work on God's Inspiration of the Scriptures, and his last words on Christ's Coming again (in which he vindicated the originality of Darby in regard to the " Secret Rapture " after its impugnment by an American writer) are other works which warrant notice.
E. E. WHITFIELD.
Braw0GaAYHY: W. B. Neatby, William Kelly as a Theologian, in Expositor, 7 ser., no. 17.
KELSO, JAMES ANDERSON: Presbyterian; b. at Rawal Pindi (90 m. s.e. of Peshawur), India, June 6, 1873. He was graduated at Washington and Jefferson College in 1892, Western Theological Seminary in 1896, and studied in Berlin and Leipsic (Ph.D., 1902). He was tutor of Greek and Latin at Washington and Jefferson College 18921893, instructor in Hebrew in Western Theological Seminary 1897‑1901, professor of Hebrew and OldTestament literature in the same institution 19011909, and president since 1909. He is "an adherent of the confessional Theology of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A." He has written Die Klagelieder, der masoretische Text and die Versianen (Leipsie, 1901).

BEMPIS, THOMAS A.
I. Life, Minor Writings.	General Surver0 1).
	II. The Imitation of Christ.	Gersen'e Claims (§ 2).
	III. Disputed Authorship of 	Gerson's Claims (§ 3).
the "Imitation of Christ." 	Thomas A Kempis (¢ 4).
I. Life, Minor Writings: Thomas a Kempis, German mystic and author of the " Imitation of Christ," was born at Kempen (40 m. n.w. of Cologne) in 1380 and died near Zwolle (52 In. e.n.e. of Amsterdam) in 1471. His paternal name was Hemerken or Hammerlein, " little hammer." In 1395 he was sent to the school at Deventer conducted by the Brethren of the Common Life (q.v.). He became skilful as a copyist and was thus enabled to support himself. Later he was admitted to the Augustinian convent of Mount Saint Agnes near Zwolle where his brother John had been before him and had risen to the dignity of prior. Thomas received priest's orders in 1413 and was made subprior 1429. The house was disturbed for a time in consequence of the pope's rejection of the bishopelect of Utrecht, Rudolph of Diepholt; otherwise, Thomas' life was a quiet one, his time being spent between devotional exercises, composition, and copying. He copied the Bible no less than four times, one of the copies being preserved at Dam. stadt in five volumes. In its teachings he was widely read, and his works abound in Biblical quotations, especially from the New Testament. His life is no doubt fitly characterized by the words under an old picture first referred to by Francescus Tolensis. In all things I sought quiet and found it not save in retirement and in books." A monument was dedicated to his memory in the presence
Seller
8empie
of the archbishop of Utrecht in St. Michael's Church, Zwolle, Nov. 11, 1897.
Thomas a Kempis belonged to the school of mystics who were scattered along the Rhine from Switzerland to Strasburg and Cologne and in the Netherlands. He was a follower of Geert Groote and Florentius Radewijns, the founders of the Brethren of the Common Life. His writings are all of a devotional character and include tracts and meditations, letters, sermons, a life of St. Lydewigis, a Christian woman who remained steadfast under a great stress of afflictions, and biographies of Groote, Radewijns, and nine of their companions. Works similar in contents to the " Imitation of Christ" and pervaded by the same spirit are his prolonged meditation on the life and blessings of the Savior and another on the Incarnation. Both of these works overflow with adoration for Christ.
II. The Imitation of Christ: The work which has given Thomas a Kempis universal fame in the Western churches is the De imitations Christi. It is the pearl of all the writings of the mystical German‑Dutch school of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, and with the ll Confessions " of Augustine and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress it occupies a front rank, if not the foremost place, among useful manuals of devotion, after the Bible. Protestants and Roman Catholics alike join in giving it praise. The Jesuits give it an official place among their " exercises." John Wesley and John Newton put it among the works that influenced them.at their conversion. General Gordon carried it with him to the battlefield. Few books have had so extensive a circulation. The number of counted editions exceeds 2,000; and 1,000 different editions are preserved in the British Museum. The Bullingen collection, donated to the city of Cologne in 1838, contained at the time 400 different editions. De Backer (Essai, ut inf.) enumerates 545 Latin and about 900 French editions. Ori6inally Writ‑
ten in Latin, a French translation was made as early as 1447, which still remains in manuscript. The first printed French copies appeared at Toulouse 1488. The earliest German translation was made in 1434 by J. de Bellorivo and is preserved in Cologne. The editions in German began at Augsburg in 1486. The first English translation (1502) was by William Atkinson and Margaret, mother of Henry VII., who did the fourth book.
Translations appeared in Italian (Venice, 1488, Milan 1489), Spanish (Seville, 1536), Arabic (Rome, 1663), Armenian (Rome, 1674), Hebrew (Frankfort, 1837), and other languages. Corneille produced a poetical paraphrase in French in 1651.
The " Imitation of Christ " derives its title from the heading of the first book, De imitation, Christi et contemptu omnium vanitqf,m fgg. It ~~ll~ts

Of f0U! 6oolcs and seems to have been written in meter and rime, a fact first announced by g. Hirsche in 1874. The four books are not found in all the manuscripts, nor are they arranged invariably in the same order. The work is a manual of devotion intended to help the soul in its communion with God and the pursuit of holiness. Its sentences are statements, not arguments, and are pitched in the highest key of Christian experience. It was

Hempie	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	310
meant for monasties and recluses. Behind and within all its reflections runs the council of selfrenunciation. The life of Christ is presented as the highest study possible to a mortal. His teachings far excel all the teachings of the saints. The book gives counsels to read the Scriptures, statements about the uses of adversity, advice for submission to authority, warnings against temptation and how to resist it, reflections about death and the judgment, meditations upon the oblation of Christ, and admonitions to flee the vanities of the world. Christ himself is more than all the wisdom of the schools and lifts the mind to perceive more of eternal truth in a moment of time than a student might learn in the schools in ten years. Excellent as these counsels are, they are set in the minor key and are especially adapted for souls burdened with care and sorrow and sitting in darkness. They present only one side of the Christian life, and in order to compass the whole of it they must be supplemented by counsels for integrity, bravery and constancy in the struggle of daily existence to which the vast mass of mankind, who can not be recluses, are called. The charge has even been made that the piety commended by the "Imitation" is of a selfish monkish type. It was written by a monk and intended for the convent; it lays stress on the passive qualities and does not touch with firmness the string of active service in the world. That which makes it acceptable to all Christians is the supreme stress it lays upon Christ and the possibility of immediate communion with him and God. The references to medieval mistakes or superstitions are confined to several passages, viz., the merit of good works and transubstantiation (iv. 2), purgatory (iv. 9), and the worship of saints (i. 13, ii. 9, iii. 6, 59). In other works, however, Thomas z't Kempis exalts Mary as the queen of heaven, the efficient mediatress of sinners, and to her all should flee as to a mother. She should be invoked. He also gives prayers to Mary (cf. the De tabernaculis, and Hortus rosarum, Pohl's ed., ut inf., i. also iii. 357, vi. 219, 235 sqq.).
111. Disputed Authorship of the "Imitation of Christ": To some extent national sentiments have entered into the controversy which for 300 years has been waged over the authorship
i. General of the "Imitation," France and Italy
	Survey.	contending for the honor of furnishing
		the author as against the Netherlands.
The weight of opinion is in favor of Thomas 3
Kempis. Among the recent treatments of the sub
ject are: K. Hirsche, Prolegomena xu einer neuen
Ausgabe der Imitatio Christi (Berlin, 1873, 1884,
1894), containing a copy of the Latin text of the
manuscript dated 1441; C. Wolfsgruber, Giovanni
Gersen, sein Leben and seinWerk De Imitatione Christi
(Augsburg, 1880); L. Santini, 1 diritti di Tommaso
da Kempis (2 vols., Rome, 1879‑81); S. KettIewell,
Authorship of the "De Imitations Christi" (London,
1877; 2d ed., 1884); V. Becker, L'Auteur de l'1mi
tation et lea documents NeMandais (The Hague, 1882) ;
also Les derniers traveaux our l'auteur de l'Imitation
(Brussels, 1889); H. S. Denifle, Kritische Bemerk
ungen zecr GersenrKempis Frage, in ZKT (1882
1883); O. A. Spitzen, Thomas a Kempis als schKiver
der navolging (Utrecht, 1880), also Nouvelle dEfense en reponse du Denife (1884); F. X. Funk, Gerson and Gersen, also Der Verfasser der Nachfolge Christi, both in his Abhandlungen (ii. 373‑444, Paderborn, 1899); P. E. Puyol, Descriptions bibliographique8 des manuserits et des principalm editions du livre De Imitatione Christi (Paris, 1898); PaUographie, classement, genkalogie du livre de Imitations Christi (1898), and L'Auteur du livre De Imitatione Christi (2 vols., 1899‑1900); G. Kentenieh, Die Handachriften der Imitatio and die Autorschaft des Thomas, in ZKG, xxiii. 18 sqq., xxiv. 504 sqq.; J. E. G. De Montmorency, Thomas d Kempis, his Age and his Book, New York, 1906; and L. Schulze, in Hauck‑Herzog, BE, xix. 719‑733. For other works, see the bibliography below. Pohl gives aj list of thirty‑five persons to whom the authorship has at one time or another been ascribed, among them Thomas h Kempis, Jean Charlier de Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, Giovanni Gersen, the reputed abbot of Vercelli, Italy, St. Bernard, Bonaventura, David of Augsburg, Johann Tauler, Heinrich Suso, and even Innocent III., the last chiefly on account of the second part of the title of the "Imitation," recalling Innocent's work on the contempt of the world. The only claimants worthy of attention are Thomas b, Kempis, the Chancellor Gerson (d. 1429), and the. Abbot Giovanni Gersen, who is said to have lived about 1230. The uncertainty arises from several facts: (1) a number of manuscripts and printed editions of the fifteenth century have no note of authorship; (2) the rest are divided between these three men and St. Bernard; and (3) the manuscript copies show important divergences. The matter has been made more perplexing by the forgery of names and dates in manuscripts of the " Imitation " since the controversy began, these forgeries, however, being largely in the interest of Gerson and Gersen. A reason for the absence of an author's name in so many of the manuscripts is to be found, if Thomas h, Kempis was indeed the author, in his wishing to remain unknown according to his maxim Ama nesciri, Love to be unknown. Of the Latin editions belonging to the fifteenth century, Pohl gives twentyeight as accredited to Gerson, twelve to Thomas, two to St. Bernard, and six anonymous. Or, to follow Funk (p. 426), forty editions of that century ascribed the work to Gerson, eleven to Thomas, two to St. Bernard, one to Gersen, and two are anonymous. Spitzen gives fifteen as ascribed to Thomas h, Kempis. Most of the editions containing Gerson's name were printed in France; a few were issued in Italy and Spain. The editions of the sixteenth century show a change. There, thirty‑seven Latin editions ascribe the authorship to Thomas b, Kempis, twenty‑five to Gerson. As for the manuscripts, all of them dated before 1450, the dates of which are probably genuine, were written in Germany or the Netherlands. The oldest is included in a codex preserved since 1826 in the royal library of Brussels. The codex contains nine other writings of Thomas besides the "Imitation." It is dated 1441, containing the note, in Latin, f nitus et compldus MCCCCXLI per man= fratris Th. Ke7npensis in Monte S. Agnetis props Zwollis, " Finished

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
and completed in 1441 by the hands of brother Thomas A Kempis, at Mount Saint Agnes near Zwolle " (cf. Pohl, ii. 461). If this be a genuine writing the manuscript is an autographic copy. The text of the Imitation is written on older paper than the other documents comprised in the codex. It also contains corrections which are found in the first Dutch translation of 1420. For these reasons Spitzen, Funk and others place this text of the Imitation between 1416 and 1420.
The literary controversy over the composition began in 1604 when Dom Pedro Manriquez, in a work on the Lord's Supper issued at Milan, declared the "Imitation" to be older than Bonaventura,
basing his statement upon an alleged
z. Gersen's quotation from it by that schoohnan. Claims. In l6o6 Bellarmine in hisDe acriptoribus
ecdesiasticis stated it was already in existence in 1260. About the same time the Jesuit Rossignoli found in a convent at Arona near Milan a manuscript without date bearing the name of the Abbot Giovanni Gersen as its author. The house had at one time belonged to the Benedictines, and the Benedictine Cajetan, secretary of Paul V., defended the abbot's claim in his Geraen restitutw (Rome,
1614) and later in his Apparatus ad Gersenem re8titutum. Cajetan also announced the discovery of a manuscript in Venice containing the statement,
" Not Johannes Gerson but Johannes abbot of Ver
celli wrote this book." Gersen's claims were at
tacked by the Augustinian Heribert Rosweyde in
his Vindieiae Kempenses (Antwerp, 1617), and so
cogently that Bellarmine withdrew his statement.
The Congregation of Propaganda, urged by the
Benedictines, gave permission for the book to be
printed in Rome and elsewhere under the name of
Gerson. A revival of the assertion of the Italian's
authorship was started by the Piedmontese noble
man, Gregory, in his 1storia delta vercellese lettera
tura (Turin, 1819). He was confirmed in his view
by a manuscript of the "Imitation" Purchased in
Paris £n 1830, containing the statement that in
1550 it was the property of an Italian Girolamo
d'Avogadrt. The family Avogadri had its ances
tral seat near Vercelli, and an old diarium, which
Gregory found, contained under the date of Feb.
5, 1347, the record of the transmission of a book
called the "Imitation of Christ." Gregory issued
his manuscript (Paris, 1833), and in his ffi$Wre dU
livre de l'Imitatione (Paris, 1842) he defended the
alleged authorship of the abbot of Vercelli. He
was thoroughly answered by J. B. Malou, bishop of
Bruges, in his Recherches historaques et critiques Bur
le v6ritable auteur du livre de l'Imitation Christi (Tournay, 1848; 3d ed., Paris, 1858). The Italian origin again found a vigorous advocate in Coelestin Wolfsgruber (ut sup.). The abbot's claim has at present little or no standing; and it has been shown that the details of his life are simple conjectures. Funk pronounces him a fiction. A monument was dedicated to the Italian's memory at Vercelli in 1884.
After the decision of the Congregation of propaganda the matter Of the authorship was taken up with spirit in France. A careful examination of the manuscript copies of the Imitation was made,
but with uncertain result. Richelieu in his splendid
edition of 1640 issued the work without name of
		author, but in 1652 the French Parlia
3. Gerson's ment ordered the work issued under the
	Claims. name of Thomas A Kempis. Mabillon
		made a fresh examination of manu
scripts at three gatherings (1671, 1674, 1687), the
case being decided against Thomas & Kempis.
Dupin, in his edition of Gerson's works (cf. 2d ed.,
1728, vol. i., pp. lix.‑lxxxiv.), made a comparison of
Gerson's writings with the "Imitation" and showed
that it was possible that Gerson was the author of the
latter, but closed his discussion with the statement
that it is not possible to come to a final decision
between the claims of Gersen, Gerson, and Thomas
h, Kempis. The controversy again broke out with
the edition of 1724 made by the Benedictines Er
hard and Mezler, who ascribed the authorship to
Gerson as also did Vollardt in his edition (Paris,
1758). A strong reply was made by the Augus
tinian E. Amort of Polling, Bavaria, who defended
with much learning the claims of Thomas h, Kempis
in his Infommatio de statu eantroversiae (Augsburg,
1728), and especially in his Scutum Kempense seu
vindiciae IV librorum de Imitations Christi (Cologne,
	1728). The editions of De Sacy (Paris, 1853) and
Caro (ib., 1875) leave the authorship undecided.
After the claims of Thomas 5 Kempis seemed to be
very generally acknowledged, still another stage in
	the controversy was opened by P. E. Puyol (1898,
	ut sup.), who gave a description of 348 manuscripts
	and annotated the variations between fifty‑seven of
	them. His conclusion was that the text of the
	Italian manuscript is the more simple and conse
	quently the older. He has been followed by Ken
	tenich; Pllyol'6 work may lead to a more careful
	comparison of the texts of the Imitation. The
	claim that Gerson is the author of the "Imitation
	of Christ " is based upon editions and manuscripts
	made before 1500 bearing his name and upon prob
	abilities drawn from Gerson's style and mystical
	temper of thought. The manuscript upon which
	chief stress used to be laid is at Valenciennes and
	is dated 1462. It contains Gerson's sermons on
	the Passion of Christ and a book called interndle
	Consolation. On6sime Leroy in his etudes sur lea
	mysthres et sur le divers manuscritc de Gerson (Paris,
	1837), and in his Corneille et Gerson da91$ J'1f~q.
	t'I,On de Jetu Christi (Paris, 1841), drew the con
	clusion that all these works must be by the same
	author. It was later shown from a manuscript in
Amiens dated 1447 that the work Jnternedde Conso
lation was a translation of the Imitation made by
Hesden from the Latin. The similarity between
Gerson's writings and the "Imitation" was amply
refuted by J. B. Schwab in his life of Gerson
(Wilmburg, 1858, pp. 782‑786). Gerson in his
judgment would have required the endowment of
a wholly new tongue to write the work. The first
edition of Gerson's works (1483) does not contain
it. Again, the lists of the chancellor's writings given
by his brother John (1423) and by Canesius (1429)
do not mention it. The author was by his own
statement a monk (iv. 5, 11, iii. 56), and Gerson
was not a monk. The attachment of Gerson's name
to the book can be explained only by the considers‑

Re'		pi~e
$entlrick
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tion that the "Imitation" first went forth anonymously, and Gerson's mystical treatises gave to French editors and copyists the supposed cue to its authorship.
The claim of & Kempis has many arguments in its favor. Jan Busch in his Chronicon Windeshemense, written in 1464, seven years before the death of Thomas h Kempis, expressly states that
Thomas wl:ote the " Imitation." This
4. Thomas statement might be considered suf&h Kempis. cient of itself were it not for the fact
that the so‑called Gaesdoncker Codex of the Chrtmicon does not contain this statement. Caspar of Pforzheim, who made his German translation in 1448, says the work was written by " a devoted father, Master Thomas, a canon regular." Hermann Rheyd, who met Thomas at the chapter of Windesheim in 1454, speaks of him as the author. John Wessel, who spent some time with Thomas, was according to his early biographer attracted by the book at Windesheim. Funk gives thirteen dated manuscripts written before 1500 ascribing the " Imitation " to Thomas h Kempis. The original Brussels Codex of 1441 has already been referred to above. Its date is accepted by Hirsche, Pohl, Funk, Schulze, and others; and the conclusion drawn is that the manuscript of the "Imitation" it contains was written before 1420. The date 1441 has recently been disputed as ungenuine by Puyol and Kentenich on the basis of its divergences from other texts by the way of additions and also the conclusion. A second manuscript in Louvain is also subscribed as autographic and seems to be nearly as old (cf. Pohl, vi. 456). Another manuscript preserved in Brussels has the date 1425 and states that Thomas was the author. The Codex Magdalenvs in Oxford, dated 1438, strangely gives the work under the title De musica ecclesiaslica, the title of a work by Walter Hylton, an English mystic. Of printed editions of the fifteenth century, at least twelve present Thomas as the author, beginning with the Augsburg edition of 1472. Finally, in style and contents the " Imitation " agrees closely with other writings of Thomas h. Kempis; and the flow of thought is altogether similar to that of the Meditatio de incarnations. Spitzen has made it seem probable that the author was acquainted with the writings of Jan van Ruysbroeck and other mystics of the Netherlands. Funk has brought out the references to ecclesiastical customs which fit the book into the early part of the fifteenth century better than into an earlier time. Scholars like Schwab, Hirsche, Pohl, Schulze, and* Funk (and also the Italian Santini) agree that the claims of Thomas h Kempis are almost beyond dispute. On the other hand, Denifle cleared the deck of all suggested names and ascribed the work to some unknown canon regular of the Netherlands. Karl Mtiller in a brief note (Kirchengeschichte, ii. 122). pronounces the theory of the Thomas authorship to be " more than uncertain "; and Loofs (Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 633) expresses substantially the same judgment. In addition to the historic considerations for the Thomas authorship the philosophical consideration certainly has weight, that no sufficient reason can be given why the name
of Thomas h Kempis should have been attached to the book if he did not write it. D. S. ScllAFp'.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The first ed. of the Opera by N. Ketelaer and G. de Leempt appeared at Utrecht, 1473 (contained fifteen writings, not including the "Imitation"). Others are by P. Danhaeaor, Nuremberg, 1494 (includes twenty compositions); J. Badius, Antwerp, 1520, 1521, 1523; G. Dupuyherbsult, with Vita by J. B. Ascensius, Paris, 1549; G. Putherbeus, Antwerp, 1574; H. Sommalius, 3 vols., ib. 1599, 5th ed., Douai, 1635 (regarded as the best until the next to be mentioned): M. J. Pohl, to be in 8 vols., vola. i.‑v., Freiburg, 1903 aqq. On the Imitation there is a discussion of the literature by R. P. A, de Backer, Eaaai bibliographique sur le livre De imitatione Christi, Liege, 1884. The editions of the work are past counting. Among them may be singled out: the first Latin ed., Augsburg, 1472 (bound up with a copy of Jerome's De vir. ill., and writings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), cf. Facsimile Reproduction of the First Edition of 1471 with Historical Introduction by C. Knox‑Little, London, 1894. Of the many English translations may be noted: the first, by W. Atkinson and the Princess Margaret, mother of King Henry VIT., London, 1502; reprinted ib. 1828, new ed. by J. K. Ingram, ib. 1893; The Imitation of Christ, Being the Autograph MS. of Thomas a Kempia, De imitations Christi, Reproduced in Facsimile from the Original Preserved in the Royal Library at Brussels, with Introduction by C. Ruelena, London, 1879; The Imitation of Christ, now for the First Time Set
forth in Rllthm and Sentences, with Preface by Canon Liddon, ib. 1889; Meditations on the Life of Christ . . . Translated and Edited . . by Archdeacon Wright .
and . . S. Kettlewell, with a Preface by the Latter, Oxford, 1892; The Imitation of Christ; Translation by Canon
1V. Benham, with 12 Photogravures after Celebrated Paintings, ib. 1905; J. H. Srawley, The Imitation of Christ or the Ecclesiastical Music, Cambridge, 1908.
On the life of Thomas the fundamental source is J. Busch, Chronicon Windeahemeraee, ed. H. Roaweyde, Antwerp. 1821, and K. Grubs. Halls, 1888; with which should be used H. Rosweyde, Chronicou ME. S. Apttetia, Antwerp, 1615, ed. cum Roaweydii vindiciia Kempenaibua, ib. 1622. Consult further: Vol. i. of the Opera by Pohl (ut sup.) contains a discussion of the life and writings; B. Bkhring, Thomas h Kempis der Prediger der Nachfolge Christi, Leipsic, 1872; S. Kettlewell, Thomas h Kempia and the Brethren. of the Common Life, 2 vole., London, 1882,
abridged ed., 1885; F. R. Cruise, Thomas h Kempia, with Notes of a Visit to the Scenes in which his Life was Spent, with Some A ccouuE of the Examination of his Relics, ib. 1887; L. A. Wheatley, Story of the Imitation of Christ, ib. 1891; poring, Thomas n Kempis, Zijne voorgangera en zijtte ti9d0en.ooten, Utrecht, 1902; C. Bigg, Wayside Sketches in Ecctesiaatical History, ib. 1906; KL, viii. 1555‑59.

KEN (KENN), THOMAS: Bishop of Bath and Wells; b. at Great (or Little) Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, July, 1637; d. at Longleat (22 m. w.n.w. of Salisbury), Wiltshire, Mar. 19, 1711. He studied at Winchester College, and at New College, Ox ford (B.A., 1661; M. A., 1664; D.D., 1679), was fellow of New College 1657‑66, and tutor in 1661. In 1665 he went back to Winchester, became chaplain to Bishop George Morley, and took gratuitous charge of the parish of St. John in the Soke. He was elected fellow of Winchester in 1666, and collated to a prebend at Winchester in 1669. He was rector of Brightstone, Isle of Wight, 1667‑69, and of East Woodhay, Hampshire, 1669‑72. With the exception of a visit to Rome in 1675, he again resided at Winchester, 1672‑79, resuming charge of the parish of St. John in the Soke. In 1679 he went to The Hague as chaplain to Mary, the king's sister, wife of William II. of Orange, but returned to England in the autumn of 1680 and became chaplain to Charles II. In the summer of 1683, when the court was about to visit Winchester, he refused

81g	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	gempie
Kendrick
to allow his prebendal house to be appropriated for the use of Nell Gwyn. Charles respected his attitude in the matter, admired his courage, and in Nov., 1684, gave him the bishopric of Bath and Wells. He was consecrated Jan. 25, 1685. In the mean time he had sailed for Tangier in Aug., 1683, as chaplain to Lord Dartmouth, commander of the English fleet, returning to England in Apr., 1684. In Feb., 1685, he attended the king on his deathbed,. gave him absolution, and vainly urged him to receive the sacrament. He was loyal to James H., but in May, 1688, refused to publish the second Declaration of Indulgence. He was one of the seven bishops thrown into the Tower June 8, 1688. With his six brethren he was tried on June 29, and acquitted and liberated June 30. For refusing to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary he was deprived of his see in Apr., 1691. He then retired to the home of his friend, Lord Weymouth, Longleat, Wiltshire, where he resided chiefly during the remainder of his life. He was not in sympathy with the more violent non‑jurors, and opposed the clandestine consecrations of 1694. For joining the other deprived bishops in a " charitable recommendation " on behalf of the deprived clergy, he was summoned before the council in Apr., 1696, but was quickly set at liberty. In June, 1704, (queen Anne granted him a treasury pension of 2200, he having declined, in 1702, her offer to reinstate him in his see.
In early English hymnology Ken occupies an important place. The morning hymn, " Awake, my soul, and with the sun," and the evening hymn, " Glory to thee, my God, this night " (or, as it is usually written, " All praise to Thee, my God, this night "), are among the best hymns in the language, and are known wherever English is spoken. Each of these, as also the midnight hymn, " My God, now I from sleep awake," ends with the familiar doxology, " Praise God from whom all blessings flow." He wrote these hymns for the boys of Winchester College, and first printed them in the 1695 edition of his Manual for the Use of Winchester Scholars (London, 1674; printed by S. P. C. K., 1880), as Hymns for Morning, Evening, and Midnight (ed. R. Palmer, 1898). Owing to their length these three hymns have been rearranged in modern hymnals, and divided into about a dozen separate hymns. Other works by Ken are: An Exposition of the Church Catechism, or the Practice of Divine Love (London, 1685; new ed., 1849); Prayers for the Use of all Persons who come to the Baths for Cure (1692; S. P. C. K., 1898); and the posthumous Hymns for All the Festivals of the Year (1721; new eds., 1868, etc.). Selections from his devotional writings have been frequently published under various titles. W. Hawkins published his Works (4 vols.,1721), including only poetical compositions. J. T. Round collected his Prose Works (1838), which have been reedited and augmented by W. Benham (1889; new ed. 1899).
Ken was one of the best and most fearless preachers of his time, and a man of rare piety and sweetness of spirit. He was anxious to do good; and during his incumbency of the see of Bath and Wells he devoted his revenues to charitable purposes.
On coming into the possession of £4,000 in 1686 he gave the greater part of it to the fund for Huguenot refugees. He was an accomplished linguist, and a musician, as well as a poet. He was accustomed to sing his hymns to his own accompaniment on the lute. The reverence felt for Ken was revived by the Oxford Movement. In Tract 85 (London, 1836) Newman gives a form of service for Mar. 21, the day of Ken's burial.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The (Poetical) Works appeared ed., with a Life, W. Hawkins (Ken's great‑nephew), 4 vols., London, 1721, and his Prose Works and Letters, ed. J. T, Round, ib. 1838, also containing the Life by Hawkins (which is the original authority). Besides this, consult the Life by a layman (J. L. Anderdon), 2 vols., London, 1851‑54 (admirable); E. H. Plumptre, ib. 1890; and F. A. Clarke, ib. 1896. Valuable material is also found in T. Lathbury, Hist. of the Noniurors, ib. 1862; J. Evelyn, Diary, ed. W. Bray, vols. ii.‑iii., passim, ib. 1879; S. W. Duffield, English Hymns, pp. 49‑50, New York, 1886; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, vol. ii. passim, ib. 1897; W. H. Hutton, The English Church (16.1'6‑171/,), passim, ib. 1903; Julian, Hymnology, pp.616‑622 (valuable); DNB, xxx. 399‑404.
KENDRICK, ASAHEL CLARK: Baptist; b. at Poultney, Vt., Dec. 7, 1809; d. at Rochester, N. Y., Oct. 21, 1895. He was educated at Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. (B.A., 1831), and after being professor of Greek in Madison University, Hamilton, N. Y., from 1832 to 1850, occupied a similar chair at the University of Rochester until his death. He was also professor of Hebrew and New‑Testament interpretation in Rochester Theological Seminary from 1865 to 1868, and from 1852 to 1854 studied and traveled in Europe, especially in Greece. Although ordained to the Baptist ministry, he never held a pastorate. From 1871 to 1881 he was a member of the New Testament Company of the Anglo‑American Bible Revision Committee. He was the author of: Life and Letters of Mrs. Emily C. Judson (New York, 1860); Commentary on the Epistle totheHebrews (Philadelphia, 1889); and The More( Conflict of Httmanily, and other Papers (1894). He likewise collaborated on several biographies, and revised the translation of H. Olshausen's Biblical Commentary on the New Testament (6 vols., New York, 1836‑58), besides translating C. B. Moll's commentary on Hebrews for the American Lange commentary (1868) and H. A. W. Meyer's commentary on John (1884).
KENDRICK, JOHN MILLS: Protestant Episcopal missionary bishop of Arizona and New Mexico; b. at Gambier, 0., May 14, 1836. He was graduated at Marietta College, Marietta, 0., in 1856, studied law, and was admitted to the New York bar, but feeling himself drawn toward the Church, entered the theological seminary connected with Kenyon College, Gambier, 0. He interrupte(1
his studies to Seryp in & Unlon Army during the

Civil War, and rose to be assistant adjutant‑general. Graduating from the theological seminary in 1864, he was ordered deacon in the same year, and advanced to the priesthood in 1865. He served as a missionary for two years at Put‑in‑Bay, 0., and was then rector of St. Andrew's, Fort Scott, Kan. (1867‑69), St. Paul's Leavenvhorth Kan. (18691875), and the Church of the Good Shepherd, Co‑
lumbus, 0 (1875‑78). In 187889 he was a een‑

Henites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	814
Henosis
eral diocesan missionary, and for five years of this
period was superintendent of city missions in Co
lumbus. In 1889 he was consecrated missionary
bishop of Arizona and New Mexico.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in America,
	p. 71, New York, 1895.
	KENITES. See CAIN.
KENIZZITES. See CALEB.
	KENNEDY, ARCHIBALD ROBERT STIRLING:
Church of Scotland; b. at Whitehills (2 m. w. of
Banff), Banffshire, Scotland, Dec. 21, 1859. He
studied at the universities of Aberdeen (M.A.,
1879), Glasgow (B.D., 1883), Gottingen (1883),
and Berlin (1883‑‑85), and in 1885‑87 was fellow of
Glasgow University. He was professor of Hebrew
and cognate languages in the University of Aber
deen 1887‑94, and since 1894 has been professor of
Hebrew and Semitic languages in the University of
Edinburgh. He prepared the English editions of
the Hebrew, Syriac, Assyrian, and Arabic gram
mars in the Ports Linguarum Orientalium (London,
1885‑95), and has edited Exodus, Joshua, and
Judges in The Temple Bible, besides writing the
commentary on Samuel for The Century Bible (1905).
	KENNETT (KENNET), WHITE: Bishop of
Peterborough; b. at Dover Aug. 10, 1660; d. at
Westminster Dec. 19, 1728. He studied at the
Westminster School and at St. Edmund's Hall,
Oxford (B.A., 1682; M.A., 1684; B.D., 1694;
D.D., 1700), and was vicar of Ambrosden, Oxford
shire, 1685‑1700. As a student he had been an
admirer of James II., but afterward he became an
open supporter of the Revolution and a zealous
Whig partizan. In 1691 he returned to Oxford as
tutor and vice‑principal at St. Edmund's Hall, and
gave a considerable impetus to the study of Brit
ish antiquities. He was rector of St. Botolph,
Aldgate, London, 1700‑07, and then rector at St.
Mary, Aldermary, London. In 1701 he became
prebendary of Salisbury Cat]ledral, archdeacon of
Huntingdon, and one of the original members of
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts. In the same year he entered into
a famous controversy with Francis Atterbury (q.v.)
regarding the rights of convocation. In 1708 he
was collated to a prebend in Lincoln and installed
dean of Peterborough. Through the influence of his
friend Charles Trimnell, bishop of Norwich, he was
made bishop of Peterborough in 1718, despite the
fact that he was a Low‑churchman and had taken
the side of Benjamin Hoadly (q.v.) in the Bango
rian controversy. Kennett's most important works
are: Parochial Antiquities . . . of Oxford and
Bucks (Oxford, 1695; greatly enlarged from the
author's manuscript notes, 2 vols., 1818); the third
volume of A Complete History of England (3 vols.,
London, 1706), covering the period from Charles I.
to Queen Anne; and the unfinished Register and
Chronicle, Ecclesiastical and Civil . . . from the
Restoration of King Charles 11. (vol. i., 1728).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An anonymous Life of ..W. Kennet appeared, London, 1730; also Remarks on Some Passages in the Life of Dr. Kennett (by J. Sharp), ib. 1730. Consult: A. tv Wood, Athenae Oxoniensee, ed. P. Bliss, iv. 792, 1003, London, 1820; DNB, xxxi. 2‑6; J. H. Over‑
ton, Church in England, London, 1897; W. H. Hutton, The English Church (18,1'5‑1714). ib. 1903.
KENNICOTT, BENJAMIN: Biblical scholar; b. at Totnes (22 m. s.s.w. of Exeter), Devonshire, Apr. 4, 1718; d. at Oxford Aug. 18, 1783. He spent seven years in the grammar‑school and became master of the charity school at Totnes, and subsequently studied at Wadham and Exeter colleges, Oxford (B.A., 1747; M.A., 1750; B.D. and D.D., 1761). He was fellow of Exeter College 1747‑71, Whitehall preacher 1753, vicar of GWham, Oxfordshire, 175383, chaplain to the bishop of Oxford 1766, Radcliffe librarian at Oxford 17671783, canon of Westminster Abbey 1770, canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 1770,83, and held the vicarage of Menheniot, Cornwall, 1771,81. His life was spent chiefly in the study of the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament. After the publication of The State of the Printed Text of the Old Testament (2 vols., Oxford, 175359; Latin transl., Leipsic, 1756‑85), he was induced by Thomas Secker to undertake a collation of the text. For this work the sum of about ten thousand pounds was raised by subscription, and many scholars were employed, both at home and abroad. During the progress of the undertaking (1760‑69) ten annual reports were published, which were afterward collected in one volume (Oxford, 1770). The result of these labors was Kennicott's Hebrew Bible, Yetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibua (2 vols., 1776‑80). To the second volume he appended a Di8sertatio generalia (also separately, Oxford, 1780; Brunswick, 1783), giving an account of the manuscripts of the Old Testament. The text is that of Van der Hooght, but without points, and the various readings are placed at the bottom of the page. The number of manuscripts collated was 615. Kennioott has been criticised for his preference for the Samaritan Pentateuch, for his neglect of the Massorah, for his disregard of the vowel points, and for occasional inaccuracy. A considerable literature was issued embodying these and other objections, to which Kennicott and his friends made answer. His Letter to a Friend Occasioned by a French Pamphlet (issued anonymously, 1772) answers a French attack, and his Contra ephemeredum Goettigensium criminalionea (1782) replies to German criticisms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Gentleman's Magazine, 1747, 1768, 1771, 1783, 1789, 1830; 8. Davidson, Lectures on Biblical Criticism, Edinburgh, 1839; DNB, xxxi. 10‑12.
KENNION, GEORGE WYNDHAM: Church of England, bishop of Bath and Wells; b. at Harrogate (27 m. w. of York), Yorkshire, Sept. 5, 1845. He studied at Oriel College, Oxford (B.A., 1867), and was ordered deacon in4869 and ordained priest in 1870. After being domestic chaplain to the bishop of Tuam in 1869‑70, he was diocesan inspector of Yorkshire 1871‑73 and vicar of St. Paul's, Sculcoates, Yorkshire, 187376 and of All Saints', Bradford, 1876‑82. In 1882 he was consecrated bishop of Adelaide, and in 1894 was translated to the see of Bath and Wells. He was also visitor of Wadham College, Oxford, in 1882, lecturer in pastoral theology in the University of Cambridge in 1900, and Ramaden Preacher in the same university in the following year.

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
KENOSIS.
Scriptural Basis of Kenoeis ($ 1). Modern Rise of the Doctrine (§ 2). Early Orthodox Exegesis not Kenotic ($ 3). Concreteness of Early Chrietology ($ 4). Foreshadowinga of Kenoticiam ($ 5). The Antiochian School and Tertullian ($ 8). Kenotic Undercurrent (§ 7). The Problem Ignored by Scholasticism (§ 8). Calvinism not Really Kenotic ($ 9). Luther's Christology (§ 10). Early Post‑Lutheran Doctrine ($ 11). Summary (§ 12). English and American Treatment ($ 13).
Ever since the middle of the nineteenth century, it has been usual among Protestant, and especially Lutheran, theologians to find the basis for a special doctrine of what is called the kendsis or self‑empty‑ I
ing of Christ in the passage (Phil. ii.
r. Scrip‑ 6‑8) where Paul says that Christ
	rural	" being in the form of God, thought it
Basis of not robbery to be equal with God, but
Kenosia made himself of no reputation (Gk.
heauton ekenosen) and took upon him the form of a servant." Although this doctrine is now of little influence among dogmatic theologians, the popularity which it enjoyed and its relation to the older dogmatic development makes a detailed treatment of it useful for the knowledge of the present condition of the Christological problem (see CHR1aTOL0(iY, IX., X.).
The regular Lutheran orthodoxy had seen in the phrase quoted an aphorism relating to the historic Christ, partly because the subject of the verb, " Christ Jesus," is a term usually so applied, and partly because " a kenoais properly so called can
not be predicated of the Logos apart
z. Modern from the flesh, of the abstract Deity,
Rise of the who is immutable and invariable "
Doctrine. (J. Gerhard, Loci, IV., xiv. 294). The
application of the expression to the preexistent Christ was made first, among modern Lutheran theologians, by Ernst Sartorius, tentatively in 1832 and then more fully in his Lehre von der heiligen Liebe (ii. 21 sqq., Hamburg, 1844). In the same year Johann Ludwig Kdnig expressed similar ideas in Hegelian phraseology; and in 1845 began to appear Thomasius' Beitrdge zur kirchlichen Christologie, which inaugurated the triumph of the modern conception of the kenosis. Here, apDarently, the perfect oneness of the person of Christ was assured, since it was the divine Logos himself who laid aside the fulness of his divine Nature in all the relations in which it manifests itself externally, bringing himself down to the level of a human individual; the possibility of a real human development of Jesus was assured, since the Logos determined to subject his divine being to the forma of human existence, under the laws of human development, retaining the use of his absolute power only so far as it was required for his redeeming work; the Calvinistic theory of the union of Godhead and manhood so that the whole of the former still existed outside the latter was avoided; and the doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum (q.v.) was preserved. Substantial assent was given to the teaching of Thomasius by Lutherans like Kahnis, Luthardt and Delitzsch, by United theologians like
Hbnites
Beaoeis
Gaupp and J. P. Large, and by some Reformed writers, especially Ebrard and later Godet in his commentary on John. Thomasiua took heed of criticism so far as to attempt, in his most important work, Christi Person and Werk (part ii., Erlangen, 1855), to avoid the alleged Apollinarianiam of his Beitr6ge by a distinction between the essential attributes of God (absolute power, truth, holiness, love) and the merely relative attributes affected by the kenosis (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence), thus meeting the charge that he had taught a mutability of the divine nature. He maintained, however, that' his doctrine of the kenosis was the necessary outcome of the whole previous dogmatic development. He did not deny that the view of the early Church had in general been a different one, but he was convinced that Lutheran ChristCology, in which the Incarnation was more deeply realized, required his conclusion.
The Passage in Philippians was used as early as Mareion; but the important phrase for him was " the likeness of man ": for his Docetic position the ekenoaen phrase could be nothing more than a general indication of the apparition of the Logos in the lower world. The work ekenasen is quoted first by the Gnostic Theodotus, Clem‑
3. Early ent of Alexandria, and Tertullian, to all
Orthodox of whom it seems to be nothing more
Exegesis than an expression designating the
		not Incarnation. As long as the estimate
	genotlc. of the person of Christ took its depar
		ture from the historic Christ (which,
apart from Gnosticism, was the case down to the
apologists), no reflection was likely to be made upon
the kenosis of the preexistent Logos. It is only
after the beginning of Catholic theology with Clem
ent, Irenaeus, and Tertullian that the text in Phi
lippiana belongs to the passages regularly used to
describe the Incarnation; Origen, in fact, under
stands the official doctrine to assert that the Son
of God " emptying himself (se iPsum exinaniens)
and becoming man was incarnate." With scarcely
an exception the early writers saw the subject of
ekendsen in the logos asarkos, the Word apart from
the flesh. Only Novatian, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius,
and the commentary based on him which goes under
the name of Primasius of $04wmctum ImdgtDA
the subject to be the Word made flesh. An exe
getical predisposition was therefore extant in the
early Church for a theory similar to the modern
kenosis‑theory. But that is the most that can be
said. For the usual exposition of the text sees in
the " self‑emptying " of the Logos merely an equiv
alent for the " taking the form of a servant," and
that again is merely an equivalent for " becoming
incarnate." Origen asserts that the rule of faith lays
down that the Logos "being made man remained
that which he was before "; and Augustine, echo‑
ing the voice of the older tradition, says: " Thus
he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,
not losing the form of God; the form of a servant
was added, the form of God not subtracted."
Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa while admitting
that the Word so far emptied himself as to appear
not in his native majesty but in the humility of
human nature, yet waist on his unaltered substan‑

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tial greatness; and this remained the established view. Athanasius, in opposition to the Arians, who made the Son of God mutable in nature and immediately subject to human development, necessities, troubles, and sufferings, fights for the unchangeableness of the Logos as the palladium of orthodoxy; the Logos does not increase in wisdom (Luke ii. 52), is not hungry or troubled even unto death (John xii. 27), is not in ignorance of the day of judgment, does not suffer or die‑all these things happen only to his " flesh," to his human nature. And after Athanasius not only the Antiochian school but even Apollinaris and Cyril make similarly strong assertions of the unchangeableness of the Godhead of the Logos, such things as ignorance, sleeping, being troubled, and still more suffering and death being referred only in a derived or loose sense to the Logos proper. By a corresponding train of thought, the " exaltation " of Phil. ii. 9 is always in patristic theology referred exclusively to the human nature of Christ. In all this there is no room for such a theory as that of Thomasius; in fact, it is more than once expressly opposed. Hilary mentions something not dissimilar as one of the views on the Incarnation to be avoided, and Cyril of Alexandria controverts two different kenotic theories, the exact meaning of the more important of which is disputable and obscure‑but Cyril's attitude is unmistakable; he rejects both with equal firmness, and insists again on the way in which the Godhead fills all in all; a limitation of the Godhead in Christ is essentially unthinkable on account of his unity with the Father. But the very energy with which the Fathers reject any mutability of the Godhead, as much in relation to the Incarnation as anywhere else, would, taken by itself, make the whole conception of the Incarnation practically unsustainable. Its immense importance to early Christian thought would be unintelligible if this were all we knew about primitive Christological development.
But this is not all. It must be borne in mind that the idea of the Incarnation is older than any realization of the difficulties which beset it. It springs not only from the passage in Philippians, but also from such thoughts as those of II Cor. iv. 4; John i. 14; I John i. 1. It appears
definitely in Ignatius, in a form as far 4. Con‑ as possible removed from Docetic creteness imaginings. With almost paradoxof Early ical sharpness he contrasts the God‑
Christology. head and the passible manhood of Christ, in a way that by no means suggests what would now be called kenosis; he is rather filled with the conception that, the invisible, incomprehensible, impassible God became visible, tangible, passible in the historical person of Jesus. How the revelation of the invisible God in the historic Christ came to pass, he does not undertake to say; he merely asserts the fact with firm conviction, dealing with a condescension of the revelation of God to our level, in a " simple modalistic " manner. Ideas of this kind did not die out with Ignatius, but through the theology of Asia Minor leavened the later development. Irenaeus, although he does not quote the ekenosen, obviously connects them with
the thought of the passage. With him, however, it is clear that the basis is not a metaphysical kenosistheory of the self‑transformation of the Logos, but the " simple modalistic " conviction that " the man without beauty and subject to suffering," the historic Christ, was, " in a different way from all men who then lived, God and Lord and King eternal, the only‑begotten, the incarnate Word proclaimed by all the prophets and apostles " (Haer. IV., xx. 2). The faith in " God manifest in the flesh," centering around the indivisible historic personality of Jesus, is what carries the belief in the Incarnation through all the difficulties which arose as soon as men began to attempt to define the manner of the Incarnation. It is this unquestioning belief in " God in man " (Ignatius, EPhesians, vii. 2), not any formal theory of a kenosis or anything else, which forms the real basis of the primitive doctrine on the subject.
Nor, when theories begin to appear, are they kenotic, at least not in the sense of Thomasius. The oldest occurs in Irenaeus‑the same Irenaeus who speaks of " the impassible becoming passible " and
of " the very Word of God incarnate
g. Fore‑ suspended on the tree," and who ve‑
shadow‑ hemently opposes the Gnostic disings of tinction between " Jesus who suffered " genoticism. and " Christ who departed before the
Passion." In so far, however, as he had a theory, he distinguished in the historic Christ the Logos and the homo ejus, and, quite in accord with the later development, regarded the man as the object of temptation, suffering, death, in which the Logos had no part, being, on the other hand, " with " " the man " in victory, resurrection, and ascension. Here is the source of the appearance of kenotic ideas, in this doctrine of the Logos taking into himself a part of his creation. He who " according to his invisible nature contains all things " came " to us not as he was able to come, but as we were able to receive him." Here is indeed a selflimitation of the Logos; but it is a progressively less and less self‑limited communication of himself on the part of a Logos remaining all the while in undiminished majesty, to man who progressively responds more and more to the approach; it is the sort of self‑limitation asserted, not of the Logos but of the " One God," by dynamic Monarchianism. This conception of the dynamic indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus is not peculiar to Irenaeus, but is to be perceived down to the final disappearance of the Antiochian tradition in the reign of Justinian. Origen is the special representative of this view. In his controversy with Celsus, who had objected that if God came down in person to men he must have left his throne and suffered change, Origen replies that Celsus knows not the power of God nor that " the Spirit of the Lord filleth the earth " Mad. i. 7); that even if the God of all, according to his power, came down to take part with Jesus in earthly life, if the Logos who in the beginning was with God and was God came to us, it did not mean that he lost or left his throne, or that he quitted one place to fill another which before had not contained him. That in some of Origen's expressions there is room for an

817
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
earthly and human development of Jesus is clear enough; but these views have nothing in common with a kenosis theory like that of Thomasius. Through Paul of Samosata and Lucian , with some direct influence from Irenaeus, these views came down to the Antiochian school; and it is neither unfair nor surprising that Cyril
6. The and Apollinaris object to their theAntiochian ology that it goes only as far as School and uniting man with God, not as far as Tertullian. God in man (enanthropesis). But this weakness of the early teaching on the Incarnation shows itself not only in Origen and the Antiochian school. Similar thoughts are met with in Athanasius, though already with the complementary ideas which alone remain in Cyril; and from the Council of Nicxa a direct road leads through Marcellus to the dynamic Monarchianism of Photinus. In the West also, which followed Antiochian lines down to 553, in spite of the insistence on the single personality, there are clear enough traces of the idea of a dynamic indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus. It is evidently not worth while to seek echoes of kenotic ideas in Tertullian; if it could be done at all, it could only be after all danger was past of getting lost in the maze created by a mixture of " simple‑modalistic " thoughts, of apologetic conceptions of a theophany, and of traditions of a dynamic indwelling of the verbum (=sapientia=spiritus) in Christ. Thematter is still more complicated in the case of Hilary, even after the painstaking labors of Baur, Dorner, Thomasius, and Wirthmiiller. But a minute examination of the works of that eloquent and deepthinking theologian should convince the unprejudiced student that his doctrine is as little kenotic, in the sense of Thomasius, as that of Irenaeus, on whom he shows a certain dependence.
That in theoretical expositions of the Incarnation which held strongly to the immutability of the Godhead expressions should now and then be used which give color to kenotic ideas is not to be wondered at; and the phenomenon occurs not only in
Hilary, not only in Irenaeus and Ori7. Kenotic gen, but also in the two Gregories,
Under‑ of Nazianzus and of Nyssa. .This was
current. natural enough, both because the doc‑
trine of the Incarnation rested on the thought of " God manifest in the flesh," and because simple souls understood " the Word was made flesh " for themselves, regardless of the restrictions of theologians; and when "
simple‑docetic " views were ruled out, there was s rmly anything left for them but the kenotic. The spread of
Arianism may possibly be explained by the fact that without hair‑splitting it recognizes its Logos as the passable subject of the historic person Jesus.
The kenotic undercurrent is partly re sponsible for
the title " Mother of God "and for the phrase (very
old in a simple‑modalistic sense) " GOd crucified."
In proportion as the Antiochian school, which dis
approved of these expressions, was Suppressed, the
undercurrent came to the surface. and ~posedarhthe antithesis of the Antiochian theologians sought' to give a theological dress to the id
with it. After the condemnation
ism, such kenosis theories as he had framed were of course impossible‑though it is strange that the Alexandrian theology won its victory over Nestorianism and its final triumph at the Council of Chalcedon without showing traces of them. For if (as was de fine after 553) the hyPostasis ton logou took to itself an impersonal human nature, a real human life of the historic Jesus is unthinkable if the real subject of this historic person, the Logos, retained his omniscience and his impassibility. But so far as it was possible without endangering the conceptual integrity of the two natures, theologians combated the undercurrent; and they were content to guard the formulas which set the " mystery of the Incarnation " beyond understanding.
In the medieval West, the scholastic theology
spent much formal labor on the doctrine of the Incarnation, without paying any attention to the
`passage in Philippians. That "the Word of God was not changed 11 in the Incarnation
was an accepted axiom; but whether the finally prevalent formula, that not the nature common to the divine Persons, but the person of the Word, became incarnate, was ever brought into connection with the Philippian pas‑
sage, it is impossible to say. In any case, its distinction between the nature and the person of the Word would have no significance for the question under discussion; and in regard to the kenosis the medieval Church did not get beyond the early consensus indicated above. The present Roman Catholic theology is in the same position, and pays no heed to the question of kenosis.
Nor did Calvinistic theology go beyond the early consensus, although the use made of the tent 111
Philippians ha8 given the impression that there was
a special Calvinistic doctrine on the subject. Cal
vin says (Institutes IL, xiii. 2): "Paul shows in
		Phil. ii. 7, that Christ, since he was
	9. Calvin‑ God, might have at once manifested
	ism not his glory openly to the world, but
	Really waived his right and of his own will
	Kenotic. emptied himself, putting on the form
		of a servant and, content with that
humble station, suffering his Divinity to be hidden
by a veil of flesh." This kenoais is sometimes de
scribed in language which seems to imply a real
alteration of the condition of the Logos; but too
much weight must not be laid on these expressions,
the limitations of which may easily be Shown by
other more authoritative R~p1d
	g~ e$~eial~v thA an
Pa.llrrl 1,'~.t,.,. ‑ ..r_.~____..
8. The Problem Ignored by Scholasticism.
	...,~,,utv: " 0inee the Godhea ‑ Can not be comprehended and is everywhere pres,
	ent, it follows of necessity that it exists outside of
(extra) the human nature which it assutned~ but
none the less abides within it and pemonan y United
with it " (Catec4, ques. 48); " the Logos kited

human nature with himself in such a manner that
he totally inhabited it, and yet to
outside of 	tally remained
(extra) it since he is immeasurable and

infinite ' (My here	s jf hneckenburger, p. 9).
There is reap	emptying. the Calvin‑
eas which it bore ist theologians said with Augustine that the Logos of Apollinarian‑ " hid 'what he was," ~d t~ v~ was humanity

geno°i'	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	318
which was capable of containing the Godhead only in a limited measure.
The question now arises whether the Lutheran theology supplied the defects of the earlier teaching on the Incarnation. Luther's own teaching has so many sides that great care is needed to avoid misrepresenting him. Certain points may be
brought out safely, however. (1) Lu‑
io. Lu‑ ther adhered with equal firmness, durther's ing his whole public career, to the true
Christol‑ divinity and the true humanity of the
ogy.	one historic person of Christ. (2) He
was never inclined to bring the two into relation by anything like the theory of Thomasius, and as early as 1518 gave an exegesis of Phil. ii. 7, which would cut all Scriptural ground from under such a theory. (3) Phrases reminding us of Dorner's view are indeed present in Luther's earlier work; but it is impossible to explain his Christology by insistence on these. (4) He rather shaped his Christology from the first, and especially after the Lord's Supper controversy, along the lines of a doctrine of the two natures understood in an anti‑Nestorian sense; and it is indisputable that his view of the suffering of the Son of God and of the communication of the divine attributes (including omnipresence) to Christ according to his humanity was a scholastic development of the communicatio idiarnatum as taught in the early Church (see UBIQUITY). (5) But in spite of all Luther's polemics against the alloisis of Zwingli, it may fairly be asked whether he always regarded the communication of the divine attributes as real and actual. A number of logical difficulties in the way of this might be collected from his works, and sober thought must be convinced that the root of his doctrine was not in the teaching as to the two natures into which his historical position forced it to grow. (6) It is rather the ultimate datum of his Christology, that the historic person of Jesus was and is the God of revelation. The essential feature of his Christology is really this understanding of the revealing condescension of God, this harking back to " simple‑modalistic " ideas. In connection with the notion of the dynamic indwelling of God in the man Jesus, this understanding of the historic personality of Jesus might have led to a' new construction of Christology‑if theologians had not been bound to the old tradition which constructed from above downward and to the scheme of the natures.
But since they were, the Lutheran development could lead to nothing but a scholastic working out of the idea of the communiratio idiomatum as extended by Luther beyond the traditional content of the term. Schools differed in the manner of this working out; but they agreed in denying any real kenosis of the Logos. Chemnitz and Brenz are at one not only in saying that in the Incarnation the
Word retained the fulness of his God‑
a. Early head, but that this fulness was imPost‑ parted to the humanity of Christ at
Lutheran the Incarnation. The only place where
Doctrine. real kenotic ideas are found in the
Lutheran theology of this period is among the Philippists; but even here they occur in nothing like the modern sense. When they speak
of the Son of God " hiding " his majesty in our flesh and blood, or of an " exaltation according to both natures," they are merely Crypto‑Calvinists. It is against them that the condemnation of the Formula of Concord is pronounced: " We reject the opinion that to Christ according to his divine nature all power in heaven and in earth was restored at his resurrection and ascension, as though he had laid aside and stripped himself of that power, even according to his divinity, while he was in the state of humiliation." The condemnation goes further than was necessary at the time, for neither Philippists nor Calvinists taught a " transmutation of the divine nature "; the important point is that it goes far enough to reach the modern kenotics.
For the Giessen‑Ttibingen controversy see CaRISTOLOGY, IX.
The official or ecclesiastical theology of all ages, then, has rejected the idea of kenosis as now held. Just as in the early Church it appeared only in inferior undercurrents and with the " heretical " Apollinarists, so it was in the period
rz. Sum‑ from the sixteenth to the eighteenth mary. century. Echoes of kenotic thought appear especially in Schwenckfeld, and an indubitable kenosis theory in Menno Simons; but in anything like official Protestant theology they occur first in the reckless speculation of Zinzendorf‑although here there is no consistently worked out theory, and the kenotic ideas are crossed by regard paid to the official doctrine, including the communicatio idiomatum. But if not the mental ancestors, at least the forerunners of the modern kenotics are (with the nameless persons condemned by Hilary and Cyril and with the Apollinarists) Menno Simons and Zinzendorf. The kenosis theory is an attempt, made at the cost of breaking with certain undeniably ecclesiastical traditions, to save what has been characteristic of the official Christology of 1,700 years‑a doctrine of the Incarnation constructed from above downward. Were it tenable in itself, modern theology would have no ground to reproach it with not being. traditional. But its weaknesses, nay, its impossibilities, have been frequently indicated, and there is not space here to go into them again. It might be pointed out that the theory proceeds from views of the Trinity which are not far from an intolerable tritheism. If the Logos can become man in such a manner that " outside of the human form assumed by him, he has not reserved to himself a special existence, a special consciousness, a special sphere of operation or possession of power " (Thomasius, ii. 201), little is left of the principle of the Athanasian Creed, " not three Gods, but One God." The justification of the theory, so far as it has one, lies in the recognition, on the negative side, of the insufficiency of the old Christology, and on the positive in the necessity of leaving room for a real, true human life of Jesus. But all theories men can make of the Incarnation of God are temerarious at best; and the most temerarious of all, because it assumes to describe the inmost secrets of the Word as he becomes man, is the modern doctrine
of kenosis.	(F. Loo>rs.)

319	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	geno°i°
English and American theories of kenosis are scarcely more than reproductions of German speculation on the same subject, influenced by the same motives and exhibiting the same general types (see CHRIBTOLOQY). The conditions which determined this movement in Christology werethe pantheistic philosophy of Hegel and SchIeiermacher which broke down the division wall be‑
tween God and man and introduced a 13. Eng‑ universal principle of identity; a hulish and manitarian spirit which directed atAmerican tention to the nature, the ideals, and Treatment. the possibilities of man; a new inter‑
	est in the historical Christ, fostered
and made fruitful by a more adequate study of
Christ and his times, especially by means of the
synoptic Gospels; and a better method of psychol
ogy by which the human consciousness is inter
preted and a truer estimate of personality reached.
The three types of kenosis represented by English
and American writers are: (1) During the whole
	period of the Incarnation, although the essential
	deity existed necessarily at all times and in all
	places, yet his conscious and efficient deity was
	wholly quiescent; he became very man. Only at
the resurrection did he reassume the full power of
	deity‑a condition insoluble to the reason (H.
	Crosby, The True Humanity of Christ, New York,
	1880). (2) The Son of God voluntarily surren
	dered or abandoned certain natural prerogatives
or external attributes of God, while he yet re
	tained the essential, ethical properties of truth,
	holiness, and love (C. Gore, The Incarnation, New
	York, 1891, p. 172; A. M. Fairbairn, The Place
	of Christ in Modern Thought, New York, 1893, p.
	476). (3) On the basis of an original kinship of
	God and man, in the incarnation by self‑limitation
	God has become man (W. N. Clarke, An Outline of
	Christian Theology, New York, 1898, pp. 291‑293;
	H. Van Dyke, The Gospel for an Age of Doubt:
	The Human Life of God, New York, 1897, pp.
	123‑167). Two explanations of this alleged inner
	change of the Logos in the Incarnation are given.
	One is the capacity of consciousness to retire a
	portion of its riches into the region of the sub
	conscious so that for the time they become as if
	they were not (R. H. Hutton, Essays Theological
	and Literary, London, 1871, pp. 259‑260). The
	other suggestion is derived from the assumption of
	a self‑limitation of God in the creative action and
	with reference to future choices and deeds of moral
	beings; and the Incarnation is a further exhibition
	of the principle by which God governs himself in
	relation to the world (D. W. Simon, Reconciliation
through Incarnation, Edinburgh, 1898).	There is
	at present a strong tendency to seek a solution of
	the problems raised by the personal life of Christ
	by the ethical, rather than by the metaphysical
path. 	C. A. B.
BIBLIOGRAPH7: The history of the subject is ne y
dealt with in the treatises on the history of doctrine on dogmatics, especially in the sections on Christology.
Consult further: : F. C. Baur Die cdrieaiche Lel,re von der
	nd Men8chwerdu'g G°tte 3 vole.. T>nbin
gen, 1841‑43; M. Schneckenburger, Zur kirchloche„ T~‑
Die orthodox. Lh, e vo,x doppelten 8tdnde, pf ora‑
helm. 1848; 1. A. Dorner, Entmickelungepeschichte der Lorze
von der Person Christi, 2 vole., Stuttgart, 1845‑83, Eng. tranal., Hist. of tAe Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 5 vole., Edinburgh, 1881‑83; idem, in Jahrbaclur for deutwhe Theologie, i (1856), 361‑416; A. Tholuek, Dieputatio chrietolopica de . . . Phil. ii. B‑9, Have, 1848; . G. Thomasius, Christi Person and Werk, vol. ii., Erlangen, 1857; H. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, Goths, 1881; F. J. Hall, The Kenotie Theory Considered, with Particular Reference to its Anglican Forma, London, 1898; O. Bensow, Die Lehre von der Kenoee, Leipsic, 1903; R. C. Morgan, God's Self‑empties Servant, ib. 1906; Harnaok, Dogma, iv. 140, 181‑182, vii. 244; DCG, i. 927928; and the commentaries on Philippians.
gENRICK, FRANCIS PATRICK: Archbishop of Baltimore; b. at Dublin, Ireland, Dec. 3, 1797; d. at Baltimore July 8, 1863. He received his theological training in the College of the Propaganda, Rome, and came to America, in 1821. He was the head of the Roman Catholic seminary at Bardstown, By., 1821‑30, coadjutor bishop of Philadelphia 1830‑42, bishop of Philadelphia 1842‑51, and archbishop of Baltimore 1851‑63. As apostolic delegate. he presided over the first plenary council of the United States, convened at Baltimore May, 1852 (see BALTIMORE CouxcILS); and in 1859 the pope conferred upon him and his successors the "primacy of honor" over other American archbishops. Besides polemical works, he wrote Theologia dogmatica (4 vols., Philadelphia, 1839‑40; 2d eel., 3 vols., Mechlin, 1858), and Theologia moralia (3 vols., 1841‑43; 2d eel., Mechlin, 1859). These volumes constitute a complete body of divinity, and are considered classical in the Roman Catholic seminaries of America. He also published an annotated and revised translation of the entire New Testament (2 vols., New York, 18491851), and of the Psalms, Book of Wisdom, and Canticles (Baltimore, 1857), Job and the Prophets (1859), the Pentateuch (1860), and historical books of the Old Testament (1862).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. J. O'Shea, The Two Kenricka, Philadelphia, 1904.
gENRICK, PETER RICHARD: Archbishop of St. Louis, brother of Francis Patrick Renrick (q.v.); b. at Dublin, Ireland, Aug. 17) 1$(Qj dl a
Louis Mar. 4, 1996. He studied theology at May. nooth, came to Philadelphia in 1833, took charge of The Catholic Herald, and became pastor of the cathedral parish of Philadelphia in 1835. After having been for a time president of the diocesan seminary he became vicar‑general about 1837. He was coadjutor bishop of St. Louis 1841‑43, bishop 1843‑47, and archbishop 1847‑96. In the Vatican Council he opposed the dogma of papal infallibility, but accepted it when it was promulgated. Besides a number of translations, he published The Holy House of Loretto (Philadelphia, n.d.), and The Validity of Anglican Ordinations Examined (1841).
BIBUOGRAPHV: J. J. 0'8hea, The Two Ke, p
	phis, 1904.
BENT, CHARLES	1 (~.

1st; b. at 096 ~~‑ ~llgre~at~onal‑
educated at' N. Y., Aug. 13, 1867. He was Yale (D.AI, 1889; Ph.D., 1891), Yale Divinity School (B.D., 1891), and the University of Berlin (1891‑92). After being instructor in the University of Chicago(1893‑95) and Professor of Biblical literature and history in Brown University (1895‑1901), lie became, in 1901, Woolsey professor

Kenwgern
Keewick Convention	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	320
of Biblical literature in Yale University. Besides his work as editor of The Historical Series far Bible Students (in collaboration with F. K. Sanders; New York, 1899 sqq.), he has published: The Messages of the Bible (1899 sqq.); Library of Ancient Inscriptions (in collaboration with F. K. Sanders; 1904 sqq.), and The Student's Old Testament (1904 sqq.), he has written Outlines of Hebrew History (Providence, R. L, 1895); The Wise Men of Ancient Israel and their Proverbs (New York, 1895); A History of the Hebrew People: The United Kingdom (1896); A History of the Hebrew People: The Divided Kingdom (1897); A History of the Jewish People: The Babylonian, Persian, and Greek Periods (1899); The Messages of the Earlier Prophets (1899); The Messages of the Later Prophets (1900); The Messages of Israel's Lawgivers (1902); Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew History (1904); Israel's Historical and Biographical Narratives (1905); Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament (1906); Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents (1907); Founders and Rulers of United Israel ftom . . . Moses to the Division of the Hebrew Kingdom (1908) ; Heroes and Crises of Early Hebrew History (1908); and Kings and Prophets of Israel and Judah (1909).

gENTIGERIP, ken'ti‑gem, SAINT: known also as St. Mungo: The apostle of the Strathclyde Britons and patron of the city of Glasgow; according to his twelfth‑century lives, b. at Culross, probably in 518; d. in Glasgow Jan. 13, 603. His birth is surrounded with a halo of mystery, and his mother may have been a nun. He was trained in a monastic school at Culross, and in early manhood settled at Cathures (Glasgow) and became bishop of those who had remained Christian from the time of Ninian. Because of attacks from the heathen he went to Wales and founded there the monastery of Llanelwy (St. Asaph). In 573 the Christians gained the supremacy in the north and Kentigem returned. He reclaimed the Picts of Galloway and the Strathclyde Britons who had lapsed into paganism, visited the land northeast of the Forth, and is even said to have sent missionaries to the islands, to Norway, and to Iceland. His life was written by Jocelin of Furness, c. 1180.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lives of St. Ninian and St. Kentigern, ed. A. P. Forbes, Edinburgh, 1874; idem, Kalendara of Scottish Saints, pp. 362‑373, Edinburgh, 1872; T. MacLauchlan, The Early Scotch Church, chap. x., Edinburgh, 1865; DNB, xxxi. 26‑27; DCB, 603‑605 (excellent for sources).

KEPHART, kep'hart, ISAIAH LAFAYETTE: United Brethren; b. in Decatur Township, Pa., Dec. 10, 1832. He studied at Otterbein University, Westerville, 0. (1857‑61), was licensed to preach in 1859, joined the Allegheny Conference of his denomination, and was at East Salem, Pa., 1861‑&3. He was chaplain of the Twenty‑First Pennsylvania Cavalry throughout the war, and preached at Hummelstown, Pa., 1865‑&7. He became principal of the public schools of Jefferson, Ia., 1867; superintendent of schools in Greene County, Ia., 1869; professor of natural science in Western College, Ia., 1871, actuary of the United Brethren Aid Society of Pennsylvania, residing at Lebanoa, Pa., 1876; professor of mental and moral
science in San Joaquin Valley College, Cal., 1883; president of Westfield College, Westfield, Ill., 1885; editor of The Religious Telescope, the official organ of his denomination, 1889. He has written: Biography of Rev. Jacob S. Kessler (Dayton, 0., 1867); Evils of the Use of Tobacco by Christians (1882); The Holy Spirit in the Devout Life (1904); and Life of Ezekiel Boring Kephart (1908).

gERI AND XETHIBH: Words (in the form of Aramaic participles) employed by the Masoretes (see MASORAH) to distinguish the pointed or voweled from the unpointed text of the Old Testament. Kethibh, " written " or " what is written," designates the original form of the text of the Old Testament in which the words were represented by their consonants alone; keri, " read " or " what is to be read," refers to the completely vocalized text. Of the kethibh it is necessary to say only that it was intended to represent the form in which all the Hebrew Scriptures were written (without vowels) by their authors, and that after it was adopted as the authorized text, no alteration in the words or letters was ever permitted. The keri serves two main purposes. It makes the exact reading or pronunciation of the words perfectly clear by inserting their vowels; and it is used to correct the possible errors which, perhaps from the very beginning, were observed in the kethibh or traditional text. Since the second purpose could not be attained by introducing notes into the body of the text, the divergences of the keri from the kethibh were pointed out in the margin by characteristic methods and devices which may be observed in any current copy of the Hebrew Bible. As a help to the understanding of them, several modem 0ditions contain a useful Masoretic‑clavis.
Some common and natural misconceptions may be alluded to. The keri, when cited in the margin, is not always intended as a substitute for the kethibh or official reading. It often merely records a traditional variant reading. Nor, on the other hand, was the kethibh made an unchangeable text because it was thought to be infallible. The official text (authorized not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 A.D.), was chosen not because it was perfect but because it was thought to be the most correct, and because a single archetype was (perhaps wisely) deemed necessary. This is proved by the fact that even the accidental peculiarities of the copy thus chosen were retained and still remain. Again, the Masoretes or Jewish editors did not establish or even seek to influence the keri or the traditional readings as marked by the vowel signs. The received form of words goes back to times several centuries before the Masoretes began their work. It was perpetuated chiefly by the synagogal services (see SYNAGOGUE); and, of course, without the pronunciation of the words the kethibh itself could not have been preserved. ~
J. F. MCCURDY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Ma!soretico‑Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, London, 1897; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., ib. 1896; T. H. Weir, A Short Hiet. of the Hebrew Text of the O. T., ib.1899. Much of the literature in the bibliography under BIBLE TEXT, I., contains information on the subject.

821	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g3`,OnVentlori
BERN, JOHN ADAM: Methodist Episcopal, South; b. near Winchester, Va., Apr. 23, 1846. He studied at the University of Virginia 1868‑70, having already entered the ministry of his denomination in 1864. For twenty‑one years he was engaged in pastoral work in the Baltimore Conference. From 1886 to 1893 he was professor of moral philosophy in Randolph‑Macon College, of which he became vice‑president in 1893 and president in 1897. Since 1899 he bas been professor of practical theology in Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. He has been elected four times to the General Conference of his denomination, and in theology is Evangelical, and favorable to all reverent and scholarly study of the Scriptures and development of Christian doctiine. He has written The Ministry to the Congregation (Nashville, Tenn., 1897); The Way of the Preacher (1902); The Idea of the Church (1906); and The Listening Heart (1908).

gEERO: A monk said to have lived in the monastery of St. Gall during the rule of Abbot Othmar (720‑759) and formerly supposed to have been the author of the Old High German interlinear version of the Benedictine rule and the " Keronian glosses." This tradition, however, originated with Jodocus Metzler (d. 1639), and owes its currency chiefly to Melchior Goldast (d. 1635). Other works were also attributed to Kero, probably on the basis of the name Kero or Kerolt written at the end of a St. Gall manuscript which was burned in 1768. There was actually a Kero at this monastery in the latter part of the eighth century, but he can not have been the author of the translation of the Benedictine rule prepared shortly after 802 at the command of Charlemagne, for this version, uncouth, corrupt, and grossly unintelligent, was the work of several hands. The Keronian glosses, moreover, are an extract from an Old High German interlinear translation of a Latin dictionary, the version apparently originating at Freising about 740.
(E. STEINMEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On Kero consult: B. Pes, Thesaurus aneodotorum noviasimus, i. 3, p. 588, Augsburg, 1721; W. Scherer, in Zeitsehrift fiir deutaches Altatum, xviii. 145149; KL, vii. 393. On the Benedictine rule, P. Piper, Nach&Uge sur ditern dmtechen Litteratur, pp. 22‑182, Stuttgart, 1898; on the glosses, R. K5ge1, Ueber das Keronude Glossar, Halle, 1879.
	gEWLER, JOHANN (JOHANNES CHESSELIUS,
or AHENAARIUS) : Reformer and chronicler of
St. Gall; b. at St. Gall, Switzerland, 1502 (15037);
d. there Feb. 24, 1574. He studied theology at
Basel, and in 1522, attracted by Luther's fame,
went to Wittenberg, where he was fully won for the
Reformation. On his return to St. Gall in 1523 he
abandoned the idea of taking orders, and became
a saddler. Nevertheless, in 1524 he began to
preach and hold meetings in private houses, and
the impression he made was so strong that the mag
istrates became alarmed and interfered. In 1525
he resumed his ministerial work, and in 1536 he
became, with the consent of the council, the regular
preacher to the Evangelical congregation of St.
Margaret. Vadian introduced him into the circle
of his friends, and the council elected him to vari
ous positions. In 1537 he became teacher of an
		VI.‑21
cient languages at the gymnasium, and in 1542 reg
ular pastor of St. Gall. On the death of Vadian
in 1551 it became the task of Kessler to continue
the Reformation. He was a careful observer and
made use of his leisure hours to write a chronicle
on the persons and events of his time, which he
entitled Sabbata (ed. Ernst GStzinger, in MitteiY
ungen zur uaterlandischen GeschicAte, v.‑s., St. Gall,
1866‑68). It is one of the best and most fruitful
sources for the history of the Swiss Reformation
from 1519 to 1539, and for the history of the inner
life of the time. 	(EMIL EGLIt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are his own letters, preserved at St. Gall and his writings. A new ad. of the Sabbata, with notes and biography, was published by E. Egli and R. Schoch, St. G&V, 1902. Consult also: J. J. Bernet, Johann Kesakr, ib. 1828; Schaff, Christian Church, vi. 385, vii. 127; S. M. Jackson, Huldreich Zwin^ New York, 1903.
BEMCK CONVENTION: A stammer religious reunion, lasting one week, which has been held annually at Keswick (24 m. s.s.w. of Carlisle), England, since 1875, chiefly " for the promotion of practical holiness " by means of prayer, discussion, and personal intercourse. It may be said to have had its origin in the general revival that swept over England in the early seventies (Moody and Sankey, and others). The first meeting was held at Broadlands, near Romsey, July 17‑23, 1874, followed by a convention at Oxford Aug. 29 to Sept. 7, 1874, and one at Brighton May 29 to June 7, 1875. At the Brighton convention Canon Harford‑Battersby, vicar of St. John's, Keswick, suggested a convention at Keswick, to be held the following July on the grounds of his own vicarage. Since then the convention has met annually at Keswick, the last week in July, and year by year it has grown in numbers and influence. The meetings are held in a large tent and are attended by several thousand people, including representatives from foreign countries. The services are notable for their spiritual character, for the prominence given to silent prayer, and for their apostolic simplicity, music and all else being subordinated to the one object ‑the glory of God through the promotion of truth and holiness. Since the Holy Spirit is recognized as the leader of all meetings, there has never been any formal election of a chairman. During his lifetime Canon Harford‑Battersby presided over the convention. After his death the chairmanship passed by general consent to Mr. Henry Bowker, and, after him, to Mr. Robert Wilson. The He&. wick movement is distinctly Evangelical in charaoter, and is supported chiefly by the Evangelical branch of the Church of England. Keswick stands for no new school of theological thought. The Keswick speakers and teachers, some fifty in number, are conservative in spirit, clinging to old truths and avoiding new and strange doctrines. Without exception they hold to the absolute plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures in every part. To them the Bible is the final court of appeal in matters both of faith and duty. In the Keswick teaching stress is laid upon the infilling of the Spirit, and upon the power of faith to claim promised blessings. The convention takes an active interest in missions and maintains a number of

Hethe
Keys, Power of the
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
322
missionaries in foreign fields. The literature of the convention includes the Life of Faith (London, 1879 sqq.), the weekly organ of Keswick teaching, The Keswick Week (an annual volume. containing addresses delivered at the convention), and the Keswick Library (London, 1894 sqq.), a series of religious booklets.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Keswick Convention; its Mesaape, its Method and its Men ed. C. F. Harford, London, 1907; A. T. Pierson, The Keswick Movement, New York, 1907; E. H. Hopkins, The Story of Keswick, London, 1892; and T. D. Harford‑Battersby, Memoirs of the Keswick Convention, ib., 1890.
KETHE, WILLIAM. See STERNHOLD, THoMAs.
KETHUBHIM. See CANON of SCRIPTURE, I., 4, § 2.
KETTELER, ket'te‑ler, WILHELM EMANUEL, BARON YON: Bishop of Mainz; b. at Munster Dec. 25, 1811; d. at Burghausen (58 m. e. of Munich), Upper Bavaria, July 13, 1877. He was educated by the Jesuits at Brieg, Switzerland. He studied law at Gbttingen, Berlin, Munich, and Heidelberg, and was Referendar at Munster 18341838. After studying theology at Munich and Monster he received ordination in 1844, became pastor at Hopsten, Westphalia, in 1846, and provost of the Hedwigskirche, Berlin, in 1849. He was appointed bishop of Mainz in 1850. To restore the Church of Rome to its old power and splendor was the great idea of his life; and, as the acknowledged leader of the Ultramontane party in Germany, he fought for this idea with as much adroitness as audacity. At the Council of the Vatican he belonged to the minority, but, as soon as the dogma of papal infallibility was promulgated, he accepted it and published it in his diocese. Well aware of the danger to the realization of his ideas which arose from the establishment of a German empire under the Protestant house of Hohenzollern, he resisted the consolidation of the new organization in every possible way. He opposed vigorously Bismarck's policy of placing the Roman Catholic Church, in its relation to the State, on an equality with other social institutions, and advocated a policy of resistance to state legislation involving ecclesiastical affairs. His numerous writings include, Freiheit, Autaritat, and Kirche (Mainz, 1862) ; Die wahren Grundlagen des religi6sen Friedens (1868); Das allgemeine Konzil and seine Bedeutung fur unsere Zeit (1869); Die Katholiken im deutschen Reich (1873); Der Kulturkampf (1874); and Predigten (2 vols., 1878).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. Pfiilf, Bischof von Ketteler, 3 vols., Mainz, 1899; F. Greiffenrath, Bischof . . . von Ketteler and die deutsche Socialreform, Frankfort, 1893; J. Wenzel, IV. E. ..von Ketteler, der Lehrer . . . der katholiseh‑sociaten Bestrebungen, Berlin, 1895; E. de Girard, Ketteler et la question ouvri&e, Berne, 1896; KL, vi. 402406.
KETTENBACH, ket'ten‑baH, HEINRICH YON: German Franciscan monk. The place and year of his birth and death, as well as his ancestry, are unknown, and there seems to be little foundation for the common belief that he was a member of a noble family, although from the style of his writings it might be presumed that he was of Franconian origin. In the latter part of 1521 he was in the
	li Franciscan monastery at Ulm, where he displayed
	great zeal as a preacher and denounced the idleness
	and corruption of the clergy with fearless satire.
	In a controversy with the Do mlcan preacher
	Peter Nestler he denied that the ~urch was em
	powered to amend or supplement the sanctions of
	the Scriptures, declaring that it was based on an
	unalterable Gospel, ridiculing the doctrine of papal
	infallibility, and praising Luther, Melanchthou and
	Karlstadt as soldiers in the divine cause. In his
	sermon Von der christlichen Kirche (Ulm 1522?),
	delivered in the summer of 1522, he expounded the
	doctrine of a Church consisting of the community
	of the elect, living in common possession of service,
	chattels, joys and sorrows, and founded upon Christ
	and not upon Peter, whose church was rather the
	synagogue of Satan, the imposture of the western
	world, as Mohammed's is of the East. Luther is
	hailed as the prophet of the times, laboring in the
	spirit of Elijah and with the wisdom of Daniel. In
	spite of the Edict of Worms and the opposition of
	the bishop of Constance, Kettenbach remained at
	his post till late in 1522, supported by the good‑will
	of a large part of the population. At the end of
	the year, however, he was obliged to make a pre
	cipitate retreat from the city. It is not definitely
	known where he went, although, from his active
	participation in Franz von Sickingen's expedition
	against Treves, it might be inferred that that region
	was his immediate place of refuge. The imprint
	of his later works would point to a residence in
	Saxony.
The character of Kettenbach's works reveals the growth of an opposition to the Roman Catholic Church which found vent in exhortations to the clergy and the cities to take up arms for the Reformed religion. The Vergleichung des Allerheiligsten Hewn and Vaters, des Papsta, gegen den aellsam fremden Gast in der Christenheit, genannt Jesus (Augsburg, 1523) is a succession of sharply drawn antitheses between the doctrines of the Gospel and those of the Church. In his Practica, praktixiert ava der Babel atlf viel zwkiinftige Jahre (1523), Kettenbach addressed himself to the inhabitants of the imperial towns, urging them to embrace the cause of the lower nobility against the princes, and defending Luther against the charge of having brought disorder into the country. The magistracy of Nuremberg prohibited and confiscated the Practira on Sept. 15, 1523, because of its attack on the pope and the emperor. After the death of Franz von Sickingen in May, 1523, Kettenbach published the Vermahnung Fratuens von Sickingen an scan Heer, in which the attempt was made to vindicate him from the accusation of having brought civil war into Germany. There is no certain proof, however, that Kettenbach himself was the author. The last of his important writings was Eine neue Apologia and Veranlwortung Martini Lathers under der PaPisten Mordgeschrei (Wittenberg, 1523), in which the Reformer is cleared of such charges &S those of opposing the sacraments minimizing the importance of confession, attacking the mass, and introduring disorder into the Church. After such intense literary activity during 1522 and 1523 it is surprising to find him silent during the following

323	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	g ey perm. of the
year. He is known to have preached a sermon
on Matt. vii. 15 in the summer of 1525, but this is
the last trace of his existence. It has been con
jectured that he may have perished in the Peas
ants' Revolt or that he may have been identical
with the Franciscan Heinrich Spelt who was still
active in 1526. 	(G. KAWERAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Veesenmeyer, BeWBge zur Geschichte der Litteratur and Reformation, pp. 79‑117, Ulm, 1792; ADB, xv. 676‑678,
KETTLER, GOTTHARD: Last master of the Teutonic order in Livonia and first duke of Courland; b. in Westphalia 1511; d. at Mitau (25 m. a.w. of Riga), Courland, May 17, 1587. He was of prominent family and was educated for the ministry. When about twenty years old, he went to Livonia and entered the service of the Teutonic order, in which he won high respect by his prudence and energy. The Reformation had already found its way into Livonia, and Kettler did not oppose its progress; he was strengthened and confirmed in Evangelical convictions by repeated sojourns at Wit_ tenberg (1553 and 1556), where he became personally acquainted with Melanchthon. To strengthen his order against attacks from Russia, he worked eagerly for an alliance with Poland, and became the foremost representative of the Polish party in Livonia. He soon overcame the opposition of Wilhehn F0rstenberg, the master of the order in Livonia, and in 1559 succeeded to his position. Kettler's main efforts were now directed toward a secularization of the order in Livonia after the model of Prussia (see TEUToNIo ORDER). The king of Poland would assist Livonia against the Russians only on condition of its entire submission to Polish rule, and under the force of circumstances Kettler had to comply with this demand; he became merely feudal duke of Courland (1562). As such he devoted his whole time and energy to the reform and regulation of ecclesiastical conditions in his state and achieved remarkable results. Church affairs in Courland were in a very entangled and neglected condition. The people had adopted Christianity only in an external form, and heathen
traditions and superstitions still prevailed among them. The introduction of the Reformation had effected no essential change. A lack of preachers and churches obstructed all efforts toward a thoroughgoing reform. In 1567 the state assembly decreed at Kettler's instance the erection of seventy new churches. Church visitations were instituted, and Superintendent Alexander Eichhom was commissioned to draw up a church order which was approved by the duke in '1570 and printed in 1572. The first part, the " Church Reformation," relates chiefly to the organization of the Church, to the foundation and maintenance of churches, schools and charitable institutions, and regulates the appointment of preachers and their visitation by the superintendent. In the second part, the " Church Visitation," the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church are treated as the norm of the Church, beside the Bible and the ecumenical symbols. Then follow the precepts for pastors in regard to their practical dealings with the congregation. The attendance at church was strictly controlled by the elders; fines and other punishments were to be imposed, and culprits to be delivered to the secular authorities if they did not change their lives. Church government was exercised in the beginning by the superintendents and visitators; a consistory was instituted later. (F. HOERSCHEIMANNt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Henning, Bericht mie ea in Religionaeachen im . . . KurlandpehaUen morden, Rostock, 1589; T. Kallmeyer, Die Begrindung der evangeliach‑lutluriaden Kirche in Kurland, Riga, 1851; T. Schiemann, in Hiator iache Daratellungen and archivalieehe Studien, p. 91, Hamburg‑Mitau, 1886.
KEVIN, SAINT. See CU:MGEN, SAINT.
KEY, JOSEPH STAUNTON: Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; b. at La Grange, La., July 18, 1829. He was educated at Emory College, Oxford, Ga. (A.B., 1848), and was a pastor or presiding elder from the year of his graduation until 1886, when he was elected a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. In his official capacity he has made repeated tours of Mexico, China, Japan, and Korea.
KEYS, POWER OF THE.
III. The Middle Ages and the Roman
I. Biblical Sources of the Doctrine. II. The Patristic Period.
Sub‑Apostolic Views (§ 1).
Extension of the Power (§ 2).
ongen, Cyprian, and Augustine ($ 3).
Sins Controlled by the Power (§ 4).
Treatment of the Lapsed and Pen‑
. itent (§ 5).
The Power and the Priesthood (§ 6),
I. Biblical Sources of the Doctrine: The " power of the keys " is a symbolical term which in its more extended sense denotes the whole range of the power of the Church, while in its restricted usage it connotes simply the power of granting or refusing absolution. The concept goes back to Christ's words to Peter (Matt. xvi. 19), " i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." This is doubtless based on " the key of the house of David " mentioned in Isa. xxii. 22,
a mvr,,na n ••, v.. 1..,...., ._‑ .. __
the Church. This act vwas termed reconciliation, and was performed by the laying on of hands, prayer, and the kiss of peace by the bishop, assisted by the clergy before the altar in the presence of the congregation. The pardoning power of the Church thus coincided with absolution (see CoNFEssioN), though not in the medieval sense, since the atoning force of penance rested in the act of the penitent himself, not in the reconciling power of the Church. While God alone forgave sins, the Church, as his merciful institution, could not refuse her cooperation, but pointed out to the penitent the way in
Catholic Doctrine. Penance ($ 1).
The Problem of Priestly Fallibility Th0 6). e Keys in the Greek Church ( § 7).
The Priest se Judge or as Mediator IV. The Reformation and the Protsa‑
($ 2).
Combination of the Two Views ($ 3).
The Twofold Key and Thomas Aquinas 0 4).
The Tridentine Decree ($ 5).
tant Doctrine.
Luther and Melanchthon (§ 1),
The Calvinistic Theory (§ 2).
Lutheran Attacks on the Doctrine
Theological Aspect of the Doctrine
and quoted in Rev. iii. 7, and implies that the steward of the house received the keys so that no one might open the door he had shut, or shut the door he had opened. This metaphor is not carried through in Matt. xvi. 19, but passages like Matt. xxiii. 13 and Luke xi. 52 prove that " binding and loosing " must have been related to the concept of admission and exclusion. In Matt. xviii. 18, where the power of binding and loosing is conferred upon all disciples as the representatives of the Church,
dealt with penitents only, as a general wur v v. i ,..._cature above all the faithful. The first indication of this tendency was that, through monastic discipline, sins in thought gradually became subject to the "power of the keys," deviating herein from the practise of the early Church. In the monasteries it was considered a rule of discipline to confess to the brethren even the slightest occurrences of sinful emotions. The penitential of the Irish Vimmians prescribes for sins in thought a rigid fast for half a year, and abstinence from wine and meat for a whole year. The Anglo‑Saxon penitential, which bears

8079, Power of the	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	324
the connection of the passage leaves no doubt that it refers to the exclusion of sinners from or the admission of penitents to the congregation. Nor can the similar words in Matt. xvi. 19 have an essentially different meaning, so that the concept of the early Church, which is shared by the Greek exegetes, can not be wrong in interpreting the passage by John xx. 23. It is especially to be emphasized that in both passages the disciples receive no commission of a new function, but are merely assured that the exercise of their former function is valid before God. It is still more desirable to interpret the passage in Matthew from the whole connection of the Synoptic Gospels, and it thus becomes plain that in consideration of such passages as Matt. xxiii. 8‑10 we can not ascribe any legislative power to the disciples. The sense of the " power of the keys " seems to be, therefore, that Jesus gave Peter, or his disciples, or the body of Christian believers, authority to receive into the kingdom of heaven by forgiveness of sins or to exclude from it by refusal of pardon, thus forgiving sin (especially on earth) in the name of God and with efficacy with God in the same way as the Son of Man had hitherto exercised it (cf. Matt. ix. 6).
	II. The Patristic Period: In the patristic period
the "power of the keys" was held to connote
strictly the remission (or retention) of sins, and
not legal enactments. This is clear from Tertul
lian (Scorpiace, x.; De pudicitia, xxi.), from the
letter of the churches at Lyons and Vienne (Euse
bius, Hiet. eccl., V., ii. b), from Cyprian (Epist.,
bodii. 7, lxxv. 16), and from other sources (Am
brose, De pmniwntia, i. 2; Augustine, Contra ad
versarium legis et prophetarum, 136; Faustus of
Riez, Serino vi.; Leo the Great, Sermo x ix. 3;
Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 11 Sqq.). It would be
		erroneous to suppose that this was a
r. Sub‑ narrowing of the concept. The deApostolic velopment was rather in the opposite
	Views.	direction, for when the " power of the
		keys" came to be interpreted as a ju
dicial act, especially in relation to the lapsed, the
furtherance of the juristic aspect of the concept was
easy. Thus the pseudo‑Clementine Homilies (iii.
72; cf. Clement, Epiat. ad Jacobum, 2) see in the
" power to bind and loose " the functions of the
episcopal office.
While in the primitive Church the " power of the keys " may be regarded, roughly speaking, as t,scribed to the Church, or to its officials, or to those endowed with the Spirit, in the sense that all three concurred, nevertheless the official element gradually superseded the other two. In this early period the " power of the keys " was indubitably possessed by the Church as a whole (cf. Tertullian, Scorpiam, 10; Cyprian, Epist., lxxv. 16), the Church consisting of the bishops, the clergy, and the body of the faithful (Cyprian (Epiat., xxxiii. 1). Cyprian is the first to permit to the clergy what he ascribes to the Church, since " the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers " (Epiat., xxxiii. 1), although he still maintains that " remission of sins can not be given by those who, it is certain, have not the Holy Spirit " (Epiat., Ixix. 11). Elsewhere
the idea is found (cf. Eusebius, Hint. eccl., V., xviii. 7; Cyprian, Epist., xviii. 1, xix. 2, xxxiii. 2; De lapais, 19) that apostles and prophets, as well as martyrs, have the right to forgive sins as, posses. sing the Holy Ghost. It is not clear, however, that
they exercised this function without
2. Exten‑ the cooperation of the other agents al‑
sion of the ready mentioned, nor does Cyprian
Power. grant the martyrs more than interces‑
sionary powers, the remission itself being granted by the priest (De lapais, 16, 29; Epiat., Iv. 24) who is "judge in the place of Christ" (Epist., lix. 7). But these three classes were never held to be the sole decisive possessors of the " power of the keys," and Montanistic expressions contain indubitable innovations. Thus Tertullian mentions " God's dear ones " (De pcenitentia, 9) as those to whom the lapsed should kneel next after the presbyters. When, however, he grants the " power of the keys " to the " spiritual," whether prophets or apostles (De pudicitia, 21), he includes the Church, instead of excluding it, opposing only a priesthood in which he fails to find this spiritual characteristic.
Alexandrine theology seems to have made little change. Origen, while energetically vindicating the " power of the keys " to Christians of true spiritual insight, presupposes, in the case of grievous faults, the participation of priests or bishops in the forgiveness of sins (De oratione, 28; Commentary on Matthew, xii.14), thus restricting to them such a spiritual character. It is evident, moreover, that the " power of the keys " was held to be vested in the bishop (cf. Tertullian, De baptismate, 17; Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 11); but there is no evidence in Cyprian to show that Peter, to say nothing of his successors at Rome, had any prerogative of this
power over other apostles or bishops
3. Origen, (Epist., lxxv. 16), his view being that
Cyprian Christ gave this privilege first to Peter, and and then to his fellow apostles (Epiat.,
Augustine. lix. 19; De unitate, 4). So according
to Augustine, the keys were given to the Church, represented by Peter (Epiat., cxlix. 7, cexcv. 2). The Church is administered by the bishops (Sermo cccli. 9), but it is the Holy Ghost which remits sins both " above man " and " through man " (Sermo xcix. 9). The bishops of Rome, however, laid special claims at an early date to the " power of the keys " in virtue of their succession to Peter (cf. Tertullian, De pudicitia,
1, 21; Cyprian, Epist., 1xxv. 17); while Leo the Great (on Matt. xvi. 19), maintaining the " privilege of Peter," held that the " power of the keys " was extended to the other apostles and to all the heads of the Church; and Optatus (De schiamate Donati, vii. 3) believed that Peter received this prerogative that he might communicate it to the other apostles.
The " power of the keys " was used by the Church especially in the administration of baptism, and also in penance for grievous sins committed after baptism, more venial faults being atoned for by the daily penitence of the faithful heart, the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer, fasting, the oblations, and the Eucharist. Although the list of grievous

326	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Keys, Power of the
sins was somewhat uncertain (cf. Tertullian, De pudicitia, 19; Adversus Marcionern, iv. 9; Augustine, Serino eceli. 4; Pacianus, Paraneaia ad paenitentiam, 3), practically idolatry, murder, and adultery were from the very first the chief
4. Sins objects of ecclesiastical discipline.
Controlled The passages supposed to prove that
by the in the Greek Church the belief was
	Power.	early prevalent that all sins might be
		forgiven (Clement, Stromata, ii. 13;
Origen, Contra Celaum, iii. 51; Dionysius of Corinth
in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., iv. 23, 6) are too vague to
admit of this interpretation; and while it is clear,
from Tertullian's De pudioitia that no rigid rule
was followed with respect to carnal sins, he states
as a general principle (De pudicitia, 12; cf. 22 and
Origen, De oratione, xxviii.) that idolatry and
murder were considered unpardonable.
The Western Church, on the other hand, steadily extended pardon to all sins, thus connecting the " power of the keys " more closely with the episcopal office. After 250 even the lapsed (see LAPsi) were admitted to pardon, thus postulating forgiveness for idolatry, although in many regions the more rigid practise was retained as
g. Treat‑ in Spain at the beginning of the fourth
ment of century and at Ca~sarea in Cappadocia.
the Lapsed Pardon for a second lapse, however, and was forbidden by Pope Siricius and
	Penitent.	was unknown to Augustine (Epist.
		cliii. 7), besides being rejected by the
eleventh canon of the third Synod of Toledo, al
though Sozomen had already declared his convic
tion that " God has decreed that pardon should be
extended to the penitent, even after many trans
gressions " (Mist. eccl., vii. 16).
As a matter of fact the " power of the keys " was exercised by the clergy under the supervision of the bishop, and the laity took no further part as early as the middle of the third century (cf. Cyprian, Epist., xix. 2, xlix., lix. 15; Augustine, Serino cccli.). After excommunication and penance for a mortal sin, the penitent was again received into the Church. This act was termed reconciliation, and was performed by the laying on of hands, prayer, and the kiss of peace by the bishop, assisted by the clergy before the altar in the presence of the congregation. The pardoning power of the Church thus coincided with absolution (see CONFESSION), though not in the medieval sense, since the atoning force of penance rested in the act of the penitent himself, not in the reconciling power of the Church. While God alone forgave sins, the Church, as his merciful institution, could not refuse her cooperation, but pointed out to the penitent the way in which the wound of sin might be healed. Then evolved the attitude represented by Cyprian: " Outside the Church there is no salvation," even though the absolving power of the Church was not final, but must be confirmed at the Last Judgment, thus requiring prayer and the laying on of hands.
Beginning with Augustine, the tendency arises to bring the priest's activity in the exercise of the " power of the keys " into closer connection with divine grace; and the sinner is no longer considered as a wounded man to be healed, but as a corpse
to be revived. Since this is impossible for the Church, a preliminary working of grace in the heart is assumed, which is later to be completed by the operation of the " power of the keys." While Augustine bases forgiveness in reconciliation simply on the petition of the congregation of the faith‑
ful, Leo the Great regards the priests
	6. The	as the specific intercessors for the
	Power	fallen, basing his view on Matt. xxviii.
	and the	20, which he restricts to the clergy
Priesthood. (Epist., lxxxii.; Ad Theodorum, 2).
The Roman Catholic concept of a clerical priesthood independent of the laity, and with whose mediation all works of grace are connected, thus received sharp and conscious expression, and the accretions of later times are but the development of the basal idea of Leo. There was, however, as yet no formal pronouncement of absolution. An entirely different view is advanced by other Fathers. On the basis of Lev. xiv. 2 sqq., Jerome (Commentary on Matthew, iii.) held that ecclesiastical authority possessed merely the right to decide that they were set free whom the inward grace of God had freed, and that they were bound whom divine grace had not set free. Very similar are the terms used by Gregory the Great (Homilies xxvi.. in Evangelia, 6), but it is clear from his own statements how little this theoretic distinction practically implied.
III. The Middle Ages and the Roman Catholic Doctrine: The primitive Church distinguished between three classes of members‑the faithful, catechumens, and penitents. The "power of the keys " was established chiefly for the third class, though in some respects also for the second; for these two classes alone stood in need of ecclesiastical reconciliation or absolution. Early in the Middle Ages, however, a tendency arose among the newly converted Germanic peoples to make penance, which originally was a special institution for special occa‑
sions, a general characteristic of the r. Penance. whole Church, and to establish the
"power of the keys," which originally dealt with penitents only, as a general court of judicature above all the faithful. The first indication of this tendency was that, through monastic discipline, sins in thought gradually became subject to the "° power of the keys," deviating herein from the practise of the early Church. In the monasteries it was considered a rule of discipline to confess to the brethren even the slightest occurrences of sinful emotions. The penitential of the Irish Vinnians prescribes for sins in thought a rigid fast for half a year, and abstinence from wine and meat for a whole year. The Anglo‑$axon penitential, which bears the name of Theodore of Canterbury, prescribes from twenty to forty days' fast for feeling lust. This system was introduced into the Frankish Church by St. Columban of Luxeuil (q.v.) and his pupils, and received the support of the Frankish bishops, as is evidenced by the eighth canon of the Synod of Chalon‑sur‑Sa8ne (after 644). It must also be noted, however, that as early as the fifth century, Johannes Cassianus of Marseilles (q.v.), a semi‑Pelagian influenced by Eastern monasticism, had postulated eight " principal sins " of thought,

Keys, Power of the	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	gag
which later developed into the seven deadly sins of scholasticism. The first provincial synod which made confession a general duty was that of Aenham (1109), and Innocent III. (1198‑1216) finally introduced confession, and the consequent extension of the " power of the keys " over all Christians, throughout the Church in spite of the opposition which the penitentials produced in France, his evident object being to check the growth of heresy. The result was a radical change in the treatment of penance and reconciliation; for whereas since the fourth century reconciliation had invariably been public, while private penance had been prescribed for secret sins, private penance was now restricted to cases of voluntary private confession; and public penance (followed by public reconciliation, gradually termed absolution) was reserved for open sins attested by witnesses, or for such heinous crimes as murder (Councils of Arles [813], canon 26; Chklon‑surSa$ne [813], canon 25; Mainz [847], canon 31; Pavia [850], canon 6; Mainz [852], canon 10 sqq.; Capilularia Regum Francorum, ed. S. Baluze, Paris, 1677, v. 112). Public penance and reconciliation still remained the prerogative of the bishop, while private confession and absolution were delegated to the priests, though only as the delegates of the bishop (cf. Ratramnus, contra Grcecorum opposites, iv. 7; Capitularia Regum Francorum, vi. 206). Whereas, moreover, reconciliation primarily followed immediately after the completion of penance, the penitential of Gildas (§ 1) permitted private reconciliation on the expiration of half the period of penance, and that of Theodore of Canterbury after a year or six months (i. 12, § 4), while in the so‑called Statutes of Boniface (cap. 31) reconciliation must immediately follow confession. In the course of the Middle Ages, however, public penance and public reconciliation‑the latter performed in the Roman Church on Maundy Thursday as early as the fifth century, and on Good Friday in the Milanese and Spanish churches ‑were steadily superseded by private confession and private absolution, so that since the Reformation they have become entirely antiquated.
With regard to the theological definition of absolution, and the share of the priest in its administration two opposing views inherited from the patristic period, run almost parallel with each other during the first part of the Middle Ages. According to the one, the priest is simply judge in foro ecclesim; he declares that forgiveness has taken
z. The place by the act of divine grace in the Priest penitent soul, but takes no part himas judge self in the act of forgiving. The divine
or as forgiveness takes place before the abMediator. solution by the priest, and even before confession, in the very moment the heart repents; so that the Church's absolution is but the declaration of what God has already done. How prominent this view was, even in the thirteenth century, may be seen from the manner in which Gratian treats the subject. He raises the question whether a sinner can satisfy God by repentance and secret penance without confession, then states the arguments and authorities on both sides, and finally leaves the reader to decide the question for himself.
Peter the Lombard, the contemporary of Gratian, defines (iv. 17) the priest's power to bind and to loose merely as a power of declaration, signifying simply he loosed before the Church him who was loosed in the sight of God. Similar but still more explicit were the views of Cardinal Robert Pulleyn (Sent. vi. 52, 61, vii. 1) and Peter of Poitiers, chancellor of the University of Paris (d. about 1204). According to the other view, represented by Leo the Great and Alcuin, the priest is not simply a judge in foro ecclesice, but is a mediator, intercessor and reconciler between God and the penitent. This position, taken by the priests throughout the penitentials, and exercising a profound influence on the development of the doctrine of the " power of the keys," attained increased importance in the De very et falsa pcenitentia, a work belonging to the eleventh or twelfth century, but ascribed to Augustine. Here the priest appears as the representative of God in confession, and his forgiveness is the forgiveness of God; while the view of Gregory the Great, that sins in themselves beyond forgiveness become forgivable through penance (but not through absolution), is here modified so that the sinner in his confession does not become clean in the sight of God, but has his mortal sin changed to venial. This residue of venial sins no longer involves eternal punishment, but must be atoned for either by penance on earth or purgatory after death (chaps. 25, 35). These concepts were now evolved into a formal system by the Victorines. To Hugo of St. Victor the priest represents the humanity of Christ, is the visible medium needed by sin‑bound man to draw near to God, and is used by God to pour his grace into the human heart. Thus the priestly absolution not only declares forgiveness, but effects it (De sacramentis, ii. 1 aqq., 8). Hugo regards the sinner as bound by the inner bondage of hardness of heart and the outer chain of merited damnation, the former loosed by God alone through contrition, and the latter by the priest as the divine instrument. Going still further, Hugo's pupil, Richard of St. Victor, in his De potestate ligandi et solvendi held that God himself released from sin either immediately or through the mediation of men who were not necessarily priests, this being done by contrition even before confession. "He also held that through the priest, who possessed the " power of the keys," God transformed eternal punishment into a transitory one, and that the priest transformed transitory punishment into penance.
In the case of two views so divergent, yet running parallel, further progress could be possible only in their dialectic reconciliation and combination. This was attained by the great scholastics of the thirteenth century, especially by Thomas Aquinas, although Richard of St. Victor had plainly sought to effect such a result. In his
3. Combi‑ Summa theologice (pars iv., qustio 20,
nation of membrum iii., art. 2; quEestio 21,
	the Two membrum i.; membrum ii., arts. 1‑3)
	Views. Alexander of Hales, closely followed
		by Bonaventura and Albertus Magnus,
held that, while the power to bind and to loose
belonged to God alone, the priest merely praying
for and obtaining absolution, but not imparting it,

88"I	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Keys, Power of the
nevertheless, the priest, as the medium between the sinner and God, being the spokesman both of the sinner and of God, was deprecator and judge in one. Eternal punishment can not be remitted by the priest, but only by God. On the other hand, the " power of the keys " extends to temporal punishment, since the priest is a divinely appointed judge; while purgatory is remitted only per accidens, the priest being able to change the pains of purgatory into temporal punishment, and thus into penance.
	On this basis Thomas Aquinas completed the
Roman Catholic doctrine of the " power of the
keys." He distinguished between the clavis or
dini8 and the clavis jurisdictionia (Summa, qumatio
19, art. 3, resp.), the former, received by the priest
in his ordination, opening heaven immediately to
individuals through sacramentary absolution; and
the latter having this effect only through excom
munication and absolution before the forum of the
Church. The clavis ordinis alone having a sacra
mental nature, laymen and deacons may possess
the clavis jurWictionis, which also includes the
		granting of indulgences (quiestio 25,
4. The art. 2 ad 1 m.). The exercise of the
Twofold	clavis ordinis presupposes the posses
Sey and	sion of the clavis juriadictionis; but,
Thomas	on the other hand, the clavis ordinia be
Aquinas.	comes effective only through the clavis
	jurisdictionis (quiestio 20 art 1 2
reap.), so that by depriving schismatics,heretics,and the like of the c7avis jurisdictionis, a bishop may withdraw from them the power of exercising the davia ordinis (quaestio 19, art. 6, reap.). The sacramental clavis ordinis finds its exercise in priestly absolution, and it was through Thomas Aquinas that the individual elements of the sacrament of penance were united in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the " power of the keys." He bases his view on the concept that God alone remits sin and eternal punishment as a return for a contrition which is perfected by fulness of love and by a desire for sacramental confession and absolution. Such a penitent has the grace given him increased by the " power of the keys ";and in case his contrition is not sufficiently deep, the same power removes the obstacles to the entrance of the atoning grace, provided the sinner himself sets up no opposing barriers. The "power of the keys" remits a portion of the temporal punishment, the residue being atoned for by the prayers, alms, and fasting prescribed to the penitent by the priest as satisfaction (quiestio 18, art. 2‑3). These latter, moreover, may be remitted by the clavis jurisdictionia through indulgences (quiestio 25, art. 1, reap.), which, in view of the concept of vicarious satisfaction on which they are based, may be used for the benefit of souls in purgatory. This development of the " power of the keys " essentially changed the form of absolution; for although Alexander of Hales states that in his time the deprecatory formula, was followed by the indicative, the latter moat have been an innovation, since until thirty years before Thomas Aquinas the formula used by all priests had been AbsolutiQnem et remiasionerratibi tnbuat Deus. He himself defended the use of Ego to abaolvo on its analogy to the other sacraments, and
as exactly expressing the effect of the sacrament of penance and the " power of the keys," even though retaining the deprecatory formula as a prayer before the indicative, a usage still followed by the Rituals Romanum.
The teaching of Thomas Aquinas on the " power of .the keys " was essentially adopted by Eugene IV. at the Council of Florence (1439) and still more fully by the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent (Nov. 25, 1551). While the Decree (cap. 6)
and the Canons (9‑10) of the Council
g. The of Trent declare that the absolution is
Tridentine not a mere statement of forgiveness, but
Decree. is a judicial and sacramental set, the
Roman Catechism makes the"power of the keys " extend to all sins without exception (i. 11, 5), while the absolution pronounced by the priest, who represents in all sacraments the person of Christ, actually effects the forgiveness of sins (ii. 5, 10, 11, 17). While, moreover, in contrition, confession, and satisfaction the penitent is active (opus operans), he is absolutely passive and receptive toward absolution, which works entirely ex oPere operato.
From another point of view, the Roman Catholic priest is essentially a judge, not only in foro ecdesi~e, but in foro Dei. In this capacity he investigates the sins of the penitent to determine their proper punishment, and considers the spiritual state of him who makes confession, that he may know whether to bind or loose. Since, however, on the one hand, the formula Ego to absolvo implies that the absolution is infallible and absolute; while,
on the other hand, the possible error
6. The of the priest, the infrequency of his
Problem of ability to know completely the state of
Priestly his penitent's soul, and the insuffi‑
Fallibility. ciency of confession as a substitute for
omniscience, render his decision only conditional, Roman Catholic dogmatics wavers as a result of the combination, without true union, of the two courses of development sketched above. Praotically, however, the entire remission of sins requires from the penitents only contrition (repentance made perfect in love), confession, and satisfaction. For contrition is substituted attrition (mere fear of punishment), and what it lacks in earnestness and depth is made up by confession in its entirety and by absolution. The latter transmutes eternal punishment into temporal, and temporal into penance, this being remitted by indulgences. Thus the infallible judgment of the priest becomes fallible only in the case of the deliberate hypocrite; and the one firm and immutable result of the confused course of development here sketched is the infallibility of the power of the Church to bind and loose, the single unalterable kernel of the entire dogma of the " power of the keys " and of the sacra, went of penance.
In the Greek Church private confession was introduced for the monks by Basil (d. 379); and from about the end of the iconoclastic controversy (see IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, IL) until the middle of the thirteenth century the "power of the keys" was vested exclusively in the monks according to their ecclesiastical grade. Collision with the priest‑

Xle=, Power of the	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	328
hood was avoided by ordaining monks as priests and appointing them as confessors; but since the
thirteenth century, without annulling y. The the prerogatives of the monks, the
Keys in " power of the keys " has gradually the Greek been taken from the monastic orders
Church. and entrusted to the priests; while,
under Roman Catholic influence, penance has become a sacrament. The doctrines of the Greek Church in this respect, however, have remained more general than the Roman Catholic, and have not assumed so juristic a character.
IV. The Reformation and the Protestant Doctrine: The entire concept of the " power of the keys " was transformed by the Reformation, Luther especially representing a return to early beliefs. Holding that the " power of the keys " was not legalistic, but denoted simply the forgiveness or retention of sins, he emphasized its entirely spiritual character as contrasted with its secular usage.
He taught, moreover, that it concerned :. Luther the personal relation of the sinner to
and Me‑ God, and that it opened or closed the lanchthon. path to sharing in the divine grace,
and was not a mode of punishment. As a power conferred on man by God or Christ, it belonged to the Church, this being not the pope or the clergy, but the body of the faithful who have the Holy Spirit. While, however, in theory every Christian has this power and can exercise it in the name of the Church, practically only one commissioned by the Church may do so, again in the name of the Church, and as obeying God and acting in his stead. The spiritual Church thus becomes a mediator between the individual and God. The key of binding proclaims the unrepentant sinner doomed to eternal death; but if he repents, the key of loosing pronounces him free from sin and renews the promise of everlasting life (Yon den Schlusaeln, Erlangen edition, xxxi. 178). The " power of the keys " is exercised by the Church first in preaching, the preaching of the law binding and the preaching of the Gospel loosing; in public and private absolution; and in excommunication, or prohibition to receive the Sacrament or to share in the other blessings of the Church until repentance and amendment, although the person so excommunicated was not to be prevented from hearing sermons. All forgiveness was conditioned by faith, but excommunication vas to be pronounced only on gross and open sinners, who were to permit this judgment of God and the Church to work in them to repentance. Melanchthon agreed with Luther in his doctrine of the " power of the keys," and Maintained the right of the Church to appoint officials to exercise it. He insisted, moreover, on confession and absolution before receiving the Sacrament, and, influenced by Roman Catholicism, he distinguished the " power of the keys," as a potestas juriadictibn4, from the Potestas ordinis. He likewise held that the "power of the keys " belonged, at least in practise, to the clergy, while the Reformed concept of the Church regarded her as the essential possessor of this power.
The divergent view of the " power of the keys " held by the Reformed, and especially by Calvin,
was intimately connected with their distinction between the invisible Church of the predestined and the visible Church. which was to be
s. The organized and ruled according to the
Calvinistic word of God; additional elements beTheory. ing the line drawn between the divine and the created factors of salvation and a concept by which forgiveness of sins presupposed only the true renewal by the Holy Ghost in regeneration. Accordingly, Calvin, distinguishing between Matt. xvi. and John xx, on the one hand and Matt. xviii. on the other, postulated a double " power of the keys " (Institutes, IV., xi. 1). Proceeding from the theory of individual need and individual pastoral care, he approximates the Lutheran idea of the consolation of private absolution (III., iv. 14, IV., i. 22) although this never gains the importance of an actual absolution. From this " power of the keys," which rests in the " ministry of the word" (cf. III., iv. 14, IV., vi. 4), must be distinguished the " spiritual jurisdiction and discipline " of the Church, which concerns the punishment meted out by the Church as a theocratic and secular institution. It is clear that here there is no question of a direct relation to God. Despite the difficulty of the reconciliation of Calvin's view with the promises of Christ regarding the " power of the keys," his double interpretation was retained in the Reformed confessions, as in the Helvetic Confession, 14, and the Heidelberg Catechism, 83. The Council of Trent, on the other hand, in its opposition to the Reformation, while abandoning the old theory of the two keys, retained the substance of the ancient dogma (session xxiii. 1); and postulated still more explicitly that the " power of the keys " was a prerogative granted by Christ to Peter and his auccesaors.
In the Evangelical churches, and especially the Lutheran, the exercise of the " power of the keys " became more and more restricted to the clergy, who used it, on the one hand, in private absolution after a general confession, and, on the other, as a punishment in the form of excommunication, though, as a matter of fact, the latter was restricted by the consistories to carnal sins. Gradually, however, protests were raised against the " power of the keys," in part through a more or less mistaken idea regarding the Reformatory concept of the consolation and the sacramental signification of the forgiveness of sine. The pioneer of this tendency
WM Theophih» Gr0MbIll4r, WhA %uJ only
confession to God for secret a' ,t held public
			bu ms confession and reconciliation to be
	3• Lu‑	necessary for open sine, in which alone
At	he believed the power to bind and
	Attacks	loose to be effective, judgment being
	on the	exercised by a body of elders chosen
	Doctrine.	by the congregations concerned. Spe.
ner sought to transform
private
confes‑
sion and absolution into a declaration before the pastor for counsel and spiritual investigation; but
insisted that only the penitent might be absolved, doubtful cases being referred to a body of elders for judgment. While he held that the " power of the keys " belonged to the entire Church or brotherhood, and had wrongly become restricted to the clergy and

8149	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	HeyfR, Power of the
		Hie
the authorities, his followers assailed private con
fession still more vigorously.	On Nov. 16, 1698, as
a result of the diatribes of Johann Kaspar Schade of
	Berlin, an electoral resolution made general confes
sion and absolution binding on all, private confession
	and absolution being left to the discretion of the in
dividual.	Prussia's example was followed by the
	other national Churches; and what Pietism began
rationalism completed.	This development dimin
	ished the stress laid on the concept of the " power
	of the keys." Schleiermacher, though reintroducing
	it into dogmatics, restricted it, with the express
	exception of the sermon, to the legal and judicial
authority of the Church.	He was closely fol
	lowed by Dorner; but, on the other hand, the
" Neo‑Lutherans " of the nineteenth century en
	deavored to revive the " power of the keys " as a
	specific attribute of the pastoral office which had
	succeeded the apostolate, only to meet the opposi
tion of the Erlangen school.
	From the point of view of dogmatics the " power
	of the keys " may be defined as the duty and the
	authority of the spiritual Church to make the ever
	lasting decision for mankind and for individuals de
	pendent on the relation to her as the body of Christ.
	In this sense it presupposes not only
	4. Theo‑ special and general absolution, but the
logical	entire administration of the sacra
Aspect	ments; and this must be exercised in
of the the Holy Ghost.	The determination of
	Doctrine. its concrete forms and its transmission
	from the spiritual to the earthly Church
	falls within the province of practical theology.
	Naturally, however, the " power of the keys " can
	be ignored only where the Church is regarded merely
	as a religious association based on the pious thoughts
	of men; but not where it is held to have arisen
	from the determination and the participation of the
living God.	(JOHANNES KUNZE.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Morin, Commentarius historicus de dis
	ciplina in administratione sacramenti poenitentiae, Ant
	werp, 1692; J. Waterworth, The Faith of Catholics, i. 98
	sqq., iii. 1‑25, London, 1846; C. Elliott, Delineation of
	Roman Catholicism, ed. Hannah, ib. 1851; F. W. H. Was
	serschleben, Die Buasordnungen tier abendltindischenKirche,
	Halle, 1851; G. Steitz, Daa r6mische Bussakrament,
	Frankfort, 1854; idem, Die Privatbeichte and Priva6
	absolution, ib. 1854; idem, in TSK, 1866, pp. 435‑483;
	T. Kliefoth, Beichte and Absolution, Schwerin, 1856;
	G. F. Pfisterer, Luthers Lehre von tier Beichte, Stuttgart,
	1857 J. Barrow, A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy,
	ed. A. Napier, pp. 94, 145 et passim, Cambridge, 1859;
	J. Bowen, The Power of the Keys and the Athanasian
Creed, London, 1860;	H. L. Ahrens, Das Amt tier
	Schliiasel, Hanover, 1864; F. Frank, Die Busedisciplin,
	Mainz, 1867; F. Probst, Sakramente and Sakramenta
	lien, Tilbingen, 1872; E. LSming, Geachichte ties deutschen
	Kirchenrechts, (i. 252 sqq, ii 448 sqq., Strasburg, 1878;
	H. J. Schmitz, Die Bussb4cher and die Bussdisciplin tier
	Kirche, Mainz, 1883; H. C. Lea, A Formulary of the
	Papal Penitentiary in the 13th Century, Philadelphia,
	1892; K. Holl, Enthusiasmus and Buasgewalt beim grie
	chiechen MSnchthum Leipsic, 1898; F. H. Foster, Fun
	damental Ideas of the Roman Catholic Church, pp. 41‑42,
	284, Philadelphia 1899 J. K6stlin, Luthera Theolopie,
	ii. 245 aqq., Stuttgart, 1901; Neander, Christian Church,
1200, iii.‑V. Passim; KL, x. 1834‑39; DCG, i. 929.
KHLYSTY. See RUSSIA, III., § 4.
	KIDRON: A valley or ravine east of Jerusa
	lem, now known as Wadi Sitti Maryam (" Valley
of St. Mary "). 	At present it is always dry except
occasionally after severe rains in the winter (see JERUSALEM). The name (Hebr. kidhron) occurs eleven times in the Old Testament and once (John xviii. 1) in the New Testament, where the A. V. has " the brook Cedron " (following the Greek form, kedran), the R. V. "the brook Kidron." The marginal reading of the R. V., " of the Cedars," is a possible translation of the Greek, but not applicable to a Hebrew word; kidhron is usually referred to the root kadhar, " to be dark, gloomy."
KIEF, kf'ef (KIEW, KIJEW): A city of Russia, on the Dnieper, noted in ecclesiastical history as an ancient metropolitan see, the cradle of the Russian Church. In 1320 it came into the possession of the Lithuanians, and thus in 1386 became part of the kingdom of Poland, which ceded it to Russia in 1686. Greek missionaries were the first to preach Christianity in this region, and Christians are found there as early as the beginning of the tenth century. After the conversion of Vladimir in 988, the Greek patriarch sent thither the first archbishop, Michael, a Syrian by birth (988‑992). Under the episcopate of Theopemptus (1035‑47) the great cathedral of St. Sophia was built, and the province then included twelve dioceses, to which Smolensk was added in 1137. Early in the twelfth century the relations of the see with Rome became more and more strained. Under Matthew (1200‑20) Kief was destroyed by the Mongolian invaders, and in 1299 the see was formally transferred to Vladimir, and under Peter (1308‑26) to Moscow, the old title being still retained of " metropolitan of Kief and all Russia." Under Gregory 1. (1416‑19) the Ruthenian Church was completely separated from Moscow and Constantinople, and he seems to have been disposed to promote a reunion with Rome and to have attended the Council of Constance. Isidore (1437‑58) took more decisive steps in the same direction, labored diligently for the reunion scheme of the Council of Ferrara‑Florence, and died a cardinal and (Latin) patriarch‑elect of Constantinople in 1463. But the reunion project found little favor among the people, and a state of schism and conflict followed, the union being wholly dissolved at the death of Joseph II. (1498‑1517) under the influence of Helen, the Russian wife of King Alexander II., who instigated the employment of harsh measures against its adherents. In 1595, however, the metropolitan of Kief with all his eight suffragans, decided once more to look to Rome for help against the disorders of the times, and Clement VIII. received them, permitting them to retain their own ecclesiastical language and customs. By the influence of Moscow a rival line of Greek metropolitans was kept up until 1707 without a break. The successive divisions of Poland and the anti‑Roman influence of the Empress Catherine II. tended to weaken the position of the Uniat Church in the eighteenth century, and under Russian pressure in 1839 most of its adherents returned to the communion of Moscow. In 1771 they had numbered twelve millions; in 1834 scarcely a million and a half were left.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Le Quien, Oriena Christianus, i. 12571282, iii. 1127 sqq, Paris, 1740; C. G. Friese, De epiaco‑
patu Kiovensi, Warsaw, 1763; L. Lesooeur, L'ffplise

Bieran
gimchi
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
wtholique en Pologne, Paris, 1860; A. Pichler, GeachicUa der kirehlichen Trennung, ii. 1 sqq., Munich, 1864; J. Pelesz Geschichte der Union der rutheniachen Kirche mit Rom, 2 vols., Vienna, 1878‑80; L. K. Goetz, Das Kiever Hdhlenkloster als Kulturzentrum des vormongoliachen Russlands Passau, 1904 KL, vii. 428‑446 (a full article). Further material will be found in the literature under POLAND; RUSSIA. On the two councils of the Eastern Church held there consult: E. H. Landon, Manual of Councils London, 1846; A. N. Mouravieff, Hiet. of the Church of Russia, pp. 35, 179, Oxford, 1842.
KIERAN, SAINT. See CIARAN, SAINT.
KIERKEGAARD, kyer'ke‑gbrd, SOREN AABY: Danish philosopher and religious author; b. in Copenhagen May 5, 1813; d. there Nov. 11, 1855. He was matriculated at the University of Copenhagen in 1830, and took up the study of theology, devoting also considerable time to philosophy and esthetics. His first literary product was a small pamphlet in which he attacked Hans Christian Andersen, contending that the latter was mistaken in making the hero of his " Only a Fiddler " a peevish nature, and maintaining that genius can know of no defeat, but that, like a thunder‑shower, it will force itself against the wind. This utterance may serve as a specimen of Kierkegaard's thought. In 1840 he obtained his first degree in theology, and in the following year the master's degree for a dissertation on the conception of irony, with special reference to Socrates. Shortly afterward, he went to Berlin. He wished to demonstrate the truth of Christianity, but not, like other apologists, by explaining its dogmas. On Feb. 20, 1843, the first part of his large work " WhetherOr " appeared pseudonymously, rapidly followed by the second part, entitled " Neither," in which he answers the question propounded by himself as to whether the esthetical or the ethical type of life ought to be chosen. Between 1843 and 1846 numerous other works appeared from his pen, of which may be mentioned " Fear and Trembling," " Bits of Philosophy," " What is Fear? " and "Stations on the Path of Life," in all of which he conceals his identity behind various alleged contemporary authors, representing himself as merely the publisher of their pseudonymous literature. Only his sermons were published over his own name.
The first part of these works endeavors to impress the solemnity of Christianity upon an age which lived, either without Christianity, or with a Christianity founded on custom only. The theme " only the truth which builds is worth having " forms the substance of the entire pseudonymous literature published by Kierkegaard, and by his treatment of this theme he became a religious reviver of great importance. His positive construction of Christianity, however, did not fail to find opponents. Dogmatically he defined Christianity as the paradox; ethically, as unmixed suffering; psychologically, as a passionate departure from the ways of the world. He rejected the ideas of creed, church, priest, etc., and according to his conception a Christian is an isolated individual, alone with God, and in contact with the world only through suffering. When this part of his literary activity was completed he felt as though he had fulfilled his mission, and desired to retire to a secluded parsonage; the attacks of which he now became the
subject in the press, however, led his activity into a new channel, and the mental suffering which he had endured led him to consider the influence which mental agony exerts upon the life of a Christian. The fundamental idea in his subsequent writings became more religious, more Christian; his sermons treated of the gospel of suffering.
From his early childhood Kierkegaard had regarded the old bishop of Zealand, J. P. Mynster (q.v.), with great reverence, for the latter had been " his father's pastor." But now that he had come to consider it the duty of a Christian to lead a life of suffering he asked himself if Mynster's preaching was not rather an esthetic misrepresentation of the paradox and the gospel of suffering than true Christianity; and was Mynster's life a martyrdom? For a long time Kierkegaard hoped that Mynster would admit that the Christian ideal had been correctly defined in his writings, and also that he, the primate of the Danish church, did not live according to this ideal. Mynster, however, maintained silence, and as Kierkegaard did not wish to disturb the old prelate's tranquillity of mind he also refrained from uttering his opinions. On the death of Mynster, however, a sermon preached by Martensen, in which the latter designated the late bishop as " a faithful witness of truth,"aroused Kierkegaard's ire, and he wrote a protest, the publication of which, however, he delayed for some time. But when Martensen, nine months later, was appointed Mynster's successor as bishop of Zealand this protest appeared in the periodical Fwdrelandet of Dec. 18, 1854, under the title " Was Bishop Mynster a Witness of Truth, a Faithful Witness of Truth‑Is this Truth? " Martensen practically ignored this attack, simply stigmatizing Kierkegaard as a Thersites who danced upon the tombs of heroes; this, however, enraged Kierkegaard all the more, and he returned to the attack with various articles and brochures in all of which he censured " official Christendom," its divine services, its religious acts, and its adherents. As an advocate of individualism Rierkegaard had no sympathy for the multitude, or for the awakening tendency to organization. The enormous mental strain which his attack on organized Christianity had necessitated left him physically weak, and hastened his death. Kierkegaard's works have established in Denmark a literature so rich, so original, and so complete in form that it is absolutely without parallel in that country. (F. NIELSENt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Selections from Kierkegaard's unpublished papers, which throw much light upon his books, ed. H. P. Barsod and H. Gottsched, appeared in 8 vols. at Copenhagen, 1869‑81. His "Works, ed. A. B. Drachmann, J. L. Heiberg, and O. H. Lange, appeared, 14 vols., Copenhagen, 1901‑1906. There are biographies in Danish by G. Brandes, Copenhagen, 1877, Germ. transit., Leipsic, 1879• C. Koch, Copenhagen, 1898; P. A. Rosenberg, Copenhagen, 1898. Of the voluminous literature, mention may be made of A, Bil

gaard, sine Vertaaser‑Existenz eigener Art, Halberstadt, 1873; idem, Aus and fiber SSren Kierkegaard, ib. 1874; idem, Noten zu 8oren Kierkegaard's Lebensgeschichte,
Halle 1876• idem, Die Bedeutung der dathetischen Schriften Saren Kierkegaard's, ib. 1879• idem, S6ren Kierkegaard's PersOaliehkeit in ihrer ~erwicklung der Ideals, Gotersloh, 1886• V. Deleuran Esquisae d'une Etude our

Sdren Kierkegaard, Paris, 1897; Ausgewdhlte chriattiche Reden, German by Julie von Reincke, with an account of

331	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	gieran
		Himchi
	his family and life from personal reminiscences of his
	niece, Giessen, 1901; P. Winch, Die Haupt‑ und Grund
	gedanken der Philosophie S6ren Kierkegaards, Leipsic, 1902.
	gILHAM, ALEXANDER: Founder of the Meth
	odist New Connection, frequently called Kilham
ites; b. at Epworth (21 m. n.n.w. of Lincoln),
	Lincolnshire, July 10, 1762; d. at Nottingham Dec.
	20, 1798. He began to preach in 1783, and was
	received by Wesley into the regular itinerant min
	istry in 1785. On the death of Wesley (1791) he
	became an energetic leader of the faction favoring
	complete separation of the Methodists from the
	Church of England and published a number of
	rather violent pamphlets in support of his views.
	At the conference held in London in 1792 he was
	censured, and at the conference of 1796, also held
	in London, he was unanimously expelled from the
	conference. On Aug. 9, 1797, Kilham met three
	other Methodist clergymen and a number of lay
	men at Leeds and organized the Methodist New
Connection. See METHODISTS, L, 3.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hfs Life (written by himself) was edited
	with a preface by J. Grundell, and R. Hall, Nottingham,
	1799; [J. Blackwell,] Life of Rev. Alexander Kilham,
	London, 1838; W. J. Townsend, Alexander KiZham, the
	First Methodist Refm‑mer, ib. 1890; DNB, xxxi. 102‑103.
KILIAN, SAINT:	Irish cleric in Germany,
	who, with several companions, met a martyr's
	death at Wiirzburg in the eighth century. He is
	called Bishop Chilianus in a necrology of the time
	and in the martyrology of Rabanus is spoken of as
	coming from Ireland to preach the Gospel of Christ
	in those regions and meeting death because of his
	faith. There are difficulties connected with the
	tradition, not the least being that the Franks
	dwelling on the middle Main were no longer a pagan
	people and Kilian's labors, therefore, were not
	those of a missionary. Only the fact of the Cel
	tic bishop's violent death is undoubted; the exact
	period of his martyrdom at the hands of a Dux or
	a Judge Gozbert can not be verified. Concerning
	the form of the name " Kilian " the following seems
	to be well established. The Ch of the " Chilianus "
	in the oldest authority is to be ascribed to the reg
	ular working of the laws of Germanic phonology.
	Irish names ending in an, iane, ene are always
	nicknames, appellatives, etc., as in the case of the
	abbot of Armagh, about 640, addressed by Pope
	John V. as Tomian and Tomene. The old Irish cell
	(gen. celle, dat. and ace. cill, a being always pro
	nounced like k) signified the cell of an anchorite,
	a monastery or a church, and Cellan and Cillene
	were common names among the Irish clergy in the
	seventh and eighth centuries, signifying " anchor
	ite." On the analogy of Tomian and Tomene, Kil
	lian, spelled with two 1's might properly be regarded
	as a variant of Cillene. The difficulty presented
	by the fact that the Frankish form is Kilian, with
	single 1, may be explained by supposing the sub
	stitution for the liquid double 1 of a single letter
	bearing the same sound. St. Kilian's reputation
	dates from the time of Burchard, bishop of Wiirz
burg (d. about 754).	(A. HAUCK.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: An early Vila, with comment, is in ASB,
	July, u., 599‑614. Consult: T. D. Hardy, Descriptire
	Catalogue of Materials, i. 1, p. 339, in Rolls Series, no. 26,
	London, 1862; W. D. Mllen, Ecdesiastical Hist. of Irdana,
2 vols., London, 1875; H. Zimmer, The Irish Element in Mediasroat Culture, New York, 1891; Rettberg, KD, ii. 303; Hauck KD, i. 370; DCB, i. 544‑555; KL, vii. 446‑448• DNB, x. 363‑‑364.
KILLEN, WILLIAM DOOL: Irish Presbyterian; b. at Ballymena (23 m. n.w. of Belfast), County Antrim, Apr. 5, 1806; d. at Belfast Jan. 10, 1902. He studied at the Belfast Academical Institution, and in 1829 was ordained minister of Raphoe, County Donegal. From 1841 he was professor of church history and pastoral theology, and from 1869 until his death was president of the Presbyterian College, Belfast. In theology he was a liberal Evangelical. He wrote: The Ancient Church (London, 1859); Memorial of John Edgar (Belfast, 1867); The Old Catholic Church from the Apostolic Age to A.D. 755 (Edinburgh, 1871); The Eccle8iastical History of Ireland from the Earliest Period to the Present Time (2 vols., London, 1875); The Ignatian Letters Entirely Spurious (Edinburgh, 1886); The Framework of the Church: A Treatise on Church Government (1890); and Reminiscences of a Long Life (London, 1901); he also continued J. S. Reid's History of the Presbyterian, Church in Ireland from 1733 (Belfast, 1853).
KILWARDBY, ROBERT: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. in England c. 1200; d. at Viterbo (42 m. n.n.w. of Rome), Italy, Sept. 11, 1279. He probably studied at Oxford, but certainly at the University of Paris, where he first distinguished himself as a lecturer and writer on grammar and logic. Later he joined the order of St. Dominic and devoted himself to theology, distinguishing himself in this field by dividing most of At;gustine's works into chapters and prefixing to each an analysis of its contents. He was provincial prior of his order in England 1261‑72, archbishop of Canterbury 1272‑78, and cardinal‑bishop of Porto 12781279. He was the first mendicant advanced to a great post in the English Church. As archbishop he held frequent synods. Those of 1273 and 1277 mark important developments in the representation of the lower clergy. On leaving England in July, 1279, he took with him, along with other property of the see, all the records of Canterbury. To this day the oldest records of the see date from the time of Archbishop Peckham, Kilwardby's successor. Kilwardby was a voluminous writer, and in his day he was widely studied. Manuscripts of his De ortu scientiarum, his most important work, are preserved in the Biblioth6que Nationale, Paris, and in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: N. Trivet, Annales sex regain Angliae, ed. T. Hog; London, 1845; and in the Rolls Series: Annales Monaatiei, 5 vols., London, 1884‑69 (consult Index); Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I. and IL, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., ib. 1882‑S3; Bartholomew of Colton, Hist. Anglicana, ed. H. R. Luard, London, 1859. Consult: J. Qu4tif and J. Echard, Scriptores ardinie praedicaforum i. 374‑380, Paris 1719; W. F. Hook, Archbd8hops of Canterbury, iii, 304‑326, 12 vols., London, 1860‑76; J. B. Haurdsu, Hint. de la philosophie 8eolastique, II., ii. 28‑33, Paris, 1880; DNB, xxxi. 120‑122.
gIMCHI, kim'ki (gIMHI): The name of a Jewish family of scholars of Spanish descent, flourishing in France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
1. Joseph ban Isaac Kimchi, b. in southern

Ilamchi
Hiaadom
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Spain e. 1100; d. probably in Narbonne c. 1175; migrated from Spain to Narbonne. In his grammatical studies he was influenced by Judah bon Hayyuj, Abul‑Walid, and Abraham ibn Esra. His grammar, Sepherzikkaron, °` Book of remembrance " (of. Mal. iii. 16), gives for the first time the division of the Hebrew vowels into five long ones and five short ones. The Sepher haggalui, " Book of Open Evidence" (of. Jer. xxxii. 14) is a criticism of the dictionary of Menahem bon Sari* and its defense by Jacob bon Meir. Joseph wrote also commentaries on Proverbs, Job and the Song of Songs. Codex de Rossi 166 contains excerpts from an exposition of the Pentateuch, and marginal notes in the Codex de Rossi 1070 give comments on the prophets. A commentary on the whole Bible belonged, according to the catalogue Collectio Davidis, p. 525, to the library of Oppenheimer. According to Zunz (Litteraturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, p. 460, Berlin, 1865), Joseph wrote also six liturgical poems. From the Arabic he translated the Mibhhar happeninim of Solomon ibn Gabirol and a large part of the "Duties of the Heart" of Bachja ibn Pakuda. Of his Sepher habberfth, " Book of the Covenant " (cf. Ex. xxiv. 7), a conversation between a believing Jew and an infidel, only the beginning has been preserved.
2. Moses Ximch4 the older son of Joseph, d. about 1190, has become generally known by his Mahalakh ahebile hadda'ath, "Guide to the Paths of Science," a concise epitome of Hebrew grammar. His grammatical work Sepher Tahbosheth quoted by David Kimchi seems to have been lost. Zunz (ut sup., p. 462) enumerates four liturgical poems by Moses. His exposition of Proverbs was completed 1178, that of Job 1184.
	S. David Kimchi, usually called Reda$, the
younger son of Joseph, was born at Narbonne c.
1160; d. there 1235. He often calls his father and
his brother his teachers. As a grammarian and
exegete David distinguishes himself by his diligent
compilation of facts, sober judgment and clear ex
pression. By making an exhaustive use of Abul
Walid, he enjoyed great authority among both
Christians and Jews, although he possessed little
originality. Reuchlin and Sebastian Miinater made
large use of his works. These have been very fre
quently printed, many of his commentaries with
Latin translations. E. KBnig's Lehrgebdude der
hebraiachen Sprache (Leipaie, 1881 sqq.) was com
piled " in constant dependence upon (ilohil" and
even now scholars may receive many a suggestion
from Kimchi'a works. 	(H. L. STRAcs.)
B133LIOGRAPEIT: In general: G. B. de Rossi Historisdes WGrterbuch der jildischen Schr%ftateller. pp. 164‑171,
Bautzen 1839; Ersch and Gruber, Enmclop4die, lI.
:wcvi. 54‑57; J. Winter and A. Wtineehe, Die jadieche
Liueratur, ii. 191‑205, 306‑314, Troves, 1
494‑497.	894; JE, vii.
	On 1: E. Bluth, in 	agann filr die Wiesevachaft des
Jhuma, 1891‑92 passim; W, Bacher, in Revue des
ut des iu%ves, of (1883), 208‑221. On 2; W. Basher,

p.' Xxi (1890), 281‑285. On 8: J. Tauber, Stand‑' and Leistung des David Kimch% ale Grammatiker,
Breslau, 1887; Encycloymdia Britann%ca, xiv. 77‑78.
KING, HENRY CHURCHILL: Congregationalist; b. at Hillsdale, Mich., Sept. 18, 1858. He studied at Hillsdale College, Oberlin College (B.A.,
1879), Oberlin Theological Seminary (from which he was graduated in 1882), Harvard (1882‑84), and Berlin (1893‑94). While a student in the seminary he was tutor in Latin (1879‑81) and mathematics (1881‑82) in the preparatory department of his college. He returned to Oberlin in 1884 and was associate professor of mathematics there until 1890, when he was transferred to the department of philosophy, being promoted to a full professorship of the latter subject in the following year. Since 1897 he has been professor of theology in the same institution, of which he was elected sixth president in 1902. He was a member of the committee of ten appointed in 1893 by the National Education Association to report on studies in secondary schools, and has written: Outline of Erdman7l'a History of Philosophy (New York, 1892); Appeal of the Child (baccalaureate sermons; Oberlin, 1900); Outline of the " Microcosms " of Hermann Lotze (1901); Reconstruction in Theology (New York, 1901); Theology and the Social Consciousness (1902); Personal and Ideal Elements in Education (1904); Rational Living: Some Practical Inferences from Modern Psychology (1905); Letters to Sunday School Teachers on the Great Truths of our Christian Faith (Boston, 1906); Seeming Unreality of the Spiritual Life (New York, 1908); and Laws of Friendship‑Human and Divine (1909).
KING, JOHN: Bishop of London; b. at Worminghall (8 m. e. of Oxford), Buckinghamshire, c. 1559; d. in London Mar. 30, 1621. He studied at the Westminster School and at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1580; M. A., 1583; B.D., 159E D.D., 1601) and, on taking orders, became domestic chaplain to John Piers, archbishop of York. He was made archdeacon of Nottingham 1590, rector of St. Andrew, Holborn, 1597, prebendary of St. Paul's 1599, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, 1605, prebendary of Lincoln 1610, and bishop of London 1611. He was vice‑chancellor of the University of Oxford 1607‑10, and was also a royal chaplain, both under Queen Elizabeth and James L, who styled him the " King of preachers." The report that on his death‑bed he became reconciled to the Church of Rome is unfounded. He published several single sermons and Lectures upon Jonas, Delivered at Yorke in . . . 169. (Oxford, 1597), reprinted in Nichols' Commentaries of the Puritan Period (vol. i., London, 1864).
BIHLIOCIRAPHT: A. & Wood1 (1~, ~. .
Bhse, n. 2g4 834, 881 iii. 839,Fa~a~t~% i, 248, 2b5, 4 vol&,
London, 1813‑20; DNB, xxxi. 138‑138 (where reference to scattered notices is given).

KING, JONAS: Congregational missionary; b, at Hawley, Mass., July 29, 1792; d. at Athens, Greece, May 22, 1869. He was graduated at Williams College, 1816, and at Andover Theological Seminary, 1819; entered the Congregational ministry; labored as missionary in Syria 1823‑26, and in Greece from July, 1828, till his death. From 1821 till 1828 he held (nominally) the professorship of Oriental languages and literature at Amherst and spent a part of his time studying in Paris, with

a view to entering upon the duties of his chair. He published several volumes of translations, and original works in modern Greek. His work in Athena

388	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	mom
was at all times disliked by the ecclesiastical authorities; and in Mar., 1852, he was convicted of teaching doctrines contrary to the religion of the Greek Church, and sentenced to fifteen days' imprisonment and to exile, with costs. A protest from the United States government prevented the execution of this sentence, and in 1854 it was revoked. King's " Miscellaneous Works " (Modern Gk., 2 vols., Athens, 1859) include documents referring to his trial.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mrs. F. E. H. Haines, Jonas King, Missionary to Syria and Greece, New York, 1879.

KING, THOMAS STARR: Unitarian; b. in New York Dec. 16, 1824; d. in San Francisco Mar. 4, 1864. His education was interrupted by the death of his father, a Universalist clergyman then residing at Charlestown, Mass., and he was compelled to go to work in a dry‑goods store. Later, while engaged in teaching, he studied theology in his spare time, and began to preach in 1845. He was pastor of the Universalist Church at Charlestown 1846‑48, of the Hollis Street Unitarian Church, Boston, 1848‑60, and of the Unitarian Church in San Francisco 1860‑64. He was a brilliant speaker and achieved a national reputation as a lecturer. At the outbreak of the Civil War, when it seemed probable that California would secede, King threw himself into the breach and by his eloquence saved the State to the Union. During the war he was active in the interest of the United States Sanitary Commission. While located at Boston he spent much time exploring the White Mountains and published The While Hills, their Legends, Landscape, and Poetry (Boston, 1859). Patriotism and other Papers (1864), Christianity and Humanity (1877), Substance and Show, arid other Lectures (1877) were published posthumously.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Memoir, by E. P. Whipple, was prefixed to Christianity and Humanity, ut sup., pp. vii. lxxx. Consult also: R. Frothingham, A Tribute to Thomas Starr King, Boston, 1864; O. T. Shuck, Thomas Stan King in Verse, privately printed, 1905.

KING, WILLIAM: Archbishop of Dublin; b. at Antrim, Ireland, May 1, 1650; d. at Dublin May 8, 1729. He studied at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1670; M.A., 1673; D.D., 1689), and took orders in 1674. He became provost of the cathedral church of Tuam 1676, chancellor of St. Patrick's and rector of St. Werburgh's 1679, dean of St. Patrick's 1689, bishop of Derry 1691, and archbishop of Dublin 1703. For espousing the cause of William of Orange he was imprisoned by James II. in 1688 and again in 1690, but was liberated after the defeat of James' army at the battle of the Boyne (July 1, 1690). Though a Whig, he was an Irish patriot, and defended vigorously the interests of the Irish against the encroachments of the English. His major work is De origins mali (Dublin and London, 1702; Eng. tranal. by Edmund Law, London, 1731), which attempts, on a Lockean basis, to reconcile the existence of evil with the goodness of God. The work attracted considerable attention, and was criticized by Bayle, Leibnitz, and others. King also published a number of sermons and The State of the
Protestants in Ireland under the Late King James' Government (London, 1691), an important vindication of the principles of the Revolution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief authority is J. Ware, Arehiepiscoporum Casaeliensium et Tuamensium vitae, Dublin, 1626; very valuable is A Great Archbishop of Dublin. WilUiam King, his Autobiography, Family, and a Selection from his Correspondence, ed. Sir Charles Simeon King, London, 1968. For other scattered references consult DNB, xxxi. 163‑167.

KINGDOM, BROTHERHOOD OF THE: An organization having for its aim the study of the teachings of Jesus regarding the kingdom of God and the realization of these teachings in a spirit of brotherhood. There are no officers except an executive committee elected annually, with chairman, and corresponding and recording secretaries. The Brotherhood was founded in Dec., 1892. Shortly thereafter the compilation of a series of essays on the kingdom in its various relations was suggested and the work of their preparation was undertaken by a small group of men. Later, it was agreed that the writers should meet at Marlborough on the Hudson, N. Y., in the month of August, 1893, for the purpose of comparing their essays and bringing them into a full agreement and unity. The simple basis of organization, entitled Spirit and Aims o,/' the Brotherhood, was then adopted, and the first executive committee was elected. Thirteen annual conferences have since been held, all but one at Marlborough, and a few smaller conferences have been held at various times between these annual conferences, in the city of New York and elsewhere. The first conference was attended by eleven men. The second being more largely attended and exciting considerable neighborhood interest, the meetings took on a more public character, so that in announcing the third conference it seemed desirable to extend a public invitation to all interested in the movement, and since that time the conferences have been entirely open to the public, with the exception of a short business session each morning, confined to the enrolled members of the Brotherhood. Reports of four of these conferences have been published, besides tracts, leaflets, and magazine articles from time to time.
	While the Brotherhood	has as yet attempted
little beyond the holding of its annual conference
and the putting forth of occasional expressions of
opinion regarding current questions of a social and
religious character in pamphlets and circulars, it
has made preparation for a larger sphere of activ
ity in the future in several ways. It has a standing
committee on evangelization, whose aim is to pro
mote evangelistic effort on a social basis. It has
also a committee on foreign correspondence, through
which it seeks to come into touch with those of
similar views and aims in England, on the continent
of Europe, and elsewhere. And latterly, as the
need Of more permanent organization and lateral
extension has become manifest, provision has been
made for local chapters of the Brotherhood, receiv
ing their charters from it and pledged to its spirit
and aims as their unalterable basis of constitution.
		LEIGHTON WiLUielas.

Kingdom of God	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	$84
Jewish Views of the Kingdom (§ 1).
The Pauline Doctrine (§ 2).
The Teaching of Jesus (§ 3).
The Kingdom Previous to Augustine
(§ 4).
Augustine's Doctrine of the Kingdom
(§ 5).
In the teaching of Jesus " kingdom of God " is a phrase denoting his adherence to the expectation of salvation developed from the Israelitic belief in God as the king of the people; although in modern systematic theology it implies a body of subjects who obey a ruler, so that the highest good, in the religious and ethical sense, is regarded as a saving gift of God and as a common aim to be attained. Since, however, the Oriental kingdom is not an organic nation, but dominion over a territory, the dominant idea is not so much the rule of God over his people, as manifested in their obedience, as the realization of the future kingdom (Isa. Iii. 7; Ob. 21), overcoming its present obstacles in favor of his people. From this kingdom mankind shall reap abundant blessings, though for its progress they can do nothing, since it comes only through the miraculous intervention of God, and by means of a total and sudden change of the world (Dan. ii. 44). These deviating concepts of history and of systematic theology, however, are supplementary rather than contradictory, since the realization of the kingdom of God in favor of his people presupposes that they are obedient to the divine governance, as is evident from the prophetical writings (cf. Isa. vi. aqq., x. 20 sqq., xlv. 8, lx. 21).
The hope of the future " kingdom of God " in Jewish eschatology had various forms regarding the obstacles to God's rule, whom the kingdom concerned, the manner in which it was to be realized,
and the consequences of its establish:. Jewish ment. The obstacle to God's rule was
	Views	seen at first in the oppression of God's
	of the	people by neighboring nations and by
Kingdom. the universal empires which followed
each other; later in the oppression of the pious by impious factions and rulers; subsequently in the dominion of hostile spiritual powers, such as stars, avenging angels, and Satan; and finally, about the first century s.c., in the belief that the whole present world is evil and doomed. Those whom the kingdom of God concerned were originally the people of Israel; then righteous individuals, first in Israel, and later also outside the chosen people. Its realization meant primarily the restitution of the old national glory by the aid of God and the cooperation of man; but later, as conditions became worse, solely by miraculous divine intervention. Finally there was expected an entire change of all things, a new world which already exists in heaven and is brought about by the conquest of Satan, the last judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the downfall of the old world. The gifts of the kingdom are partly temporal and partly heavenly, consisting on the one hand in the universal rule of Israel or of the pious, with peace on earth; and on the other hand in eternal life, the cessation of evil, Sabbath rest, and communion
KINGDOM OF GOD.
Luther on the Kingdom (¢ B).
Luther's Earthly Kingdom of God
Theories of Zwingli and Calvin (§ 8).
Pietism and the Enlightenment on the Kingdom (¢ 9).
Kant and Herder (§ 10).
The Theory of Schleiermaoher (§ 11).
Reconciliation of Conflicting Views by 8chleiermaeher (¢ 12).
Ritechl's Theory of the Kingdom

The Kingdom of God and the Church
with God and the angels. Nevertheless, there was only a partial spiritualization, and the expectation of the blessings of salvation was still more or less connected with the idea of a recompense for the fulfilment of the law.
In the New Testament both the old elements of Judaism and the new concepts of Christianity are clearly represented by Paul. He shares with Judaism the pessimistic view of the present world which stands under the dominion of Satan (II Cor. iv. 4; cf. Gal. i. 4; Rom. viii. 20 sqq., xii. 2); and, as in Judaism, only the righteous, who fulfil the law, can inherit the future kingdom of God (Gal. v. 21; I Cor. vi. 9; I Thess. ii. 12, iii. 13; of. I Cor. xv. 50 sqq.). With him, too, the " kingdom " is the dominion of God, who will be " all in all " (I Cor. xv. 28), and the just shall rule with him (Rom. v. 17, iv. 13). He goes beyond the Jewish conception, on the other hand, by dating the arrival of the kingdom from the coming of Jesus the Messiah, by substituting universal human moral requirements for specifically national conditions, by spiritualizing the gifts of the kingdom (Rom. xi. 17, cf. viii. 19 sqq.), and by abolishing the concepts of legalism and reward, which are replaced by ethical fulfihnents (Rom. xiv. 18; Gal. vi. 7 sqq.). While these changes may still be considered as purifying
and completing the Jewish idea, Paul a. The differed essentially from Judaism by
Pauline the new concept that the future world
Doctrine. with its miraculous powers projects
into the present world (Rom. viii. 24 eqq.; Phil. iii. 20), and that upon earth God grants the blessings of the kingdom to those who believe in Christ, as partaking already, in a sense, of the life of the world to come (II Cor. i. 22, v. 5, 17; I Cor. xv. 24 sqq.; Gal. i. 4; Col. i. 13). Nor does the Pauline equation of the Church and the kingdom of Christ (which represents no essential change in the concept, but only a divergent view of the initiation and the development of the consummation) denote a human society for the independent solution of ethical problems, much less a legalistically organized association, but an organism of divinely granted powers or " graces," by which God permits the Church to grow as the body of Christ (Eph. ii. 19‑22, iv. 16). Paul again transcends the Jewish concept by not considering these divine powers to be ethically indifferent " grog,"
but by regarding the moral life of the Christians in sanctification and love as the fruit of the aupranatural and supramundane power of the Spirit
(Gal. v. 22 sqq.), and by valuing the other " graces " according to their usefulness for the moral upbuilding of the Church (I Cor. xiv. 5).
In consequence of thin projec(lon of the future kingdom of God with its powers into the present world, the fundamental ethical and religious ideas

335	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Kingdom of God
of the kingdom a®, on the one hand, an obedient
people ruled by God, and, on the other, as the totality of gifts which God's rule vouchsafes to its members, approach each other much more closely than in the Jewish scheme. The exercise of the " graces," by which the kingdom of God or Christ is extended, becomes an ethical task for the Christian, however much before and after the efforts of his will he may be filled with the consciousness of his dependence on the working of divine grace (Rom. xii. 6‑8; I Cor. xii. 14 sqq.); so that Paul calls his missionary associates " fellow workers unto the kingdom of God " (Col. iv. 11).
The Apocalypse, in like manner, recognizes not only a future kingdom of God (xix.‑xxi.), but also one that is active in this present world. The believers are already rulers (i. 6, v. 10), though the special blessings of the divine kingdom are promises and there is no organic connection between obedience and promise. On the other hand, the Gospel and Epistles of John set forth the same concept as that of Paul, except for the individualism and spiritualism of Hellenistic terminology, as exemplified in the substitution of eternal life for the kingdom (except in John iii. 3, 5, xviii. 36 sqq.). While, however, Paul makes the arrival of the kingdom in this world dependent upon the elevation of Jesus to the right hand of God, for John the kingdom comes immediately through the knowledge of God (xvii. 3, xviii. 37, xiv. 9).
In distinction from Paul and John, the preaching of Jesus follows the Jewish scheme, in that he urges the will of man to the acquisition of moral justice by pointing to the future kingdom, since God will reward such an attitude alone with a share in his kingdom (Matt. v. 1‑12, vi. 2, 33, vii. 21, xviii. 3, 8 aqq., xix. 21, 27‑29, xxv. 34; Luke xii. 35‑48). By the kingdom Jesus understood the establishment of the rule of God in the immediate future, with a general resurrection and judgment by a miracle of God, accompanied with a renovation of the world denoting for the just the enjoyment of an abundance of blessings, such as participation in the divine governance (Matt. xix. 28), a share in the Messianic meal with the patriarchs (Matt. viii. 11, xxvi. 29), and the sight of God, whose children they become, being equal to the angels (Matt. v. 6, 8, 9; Luke xx. 36). From Jewish hopes he drew the political and national factor and
3. The the portrayal of physical pleasures, but
Teaching	he did not use the term " kingdom of
	of Jesus.	God " to signify the obedient subjects
		of God, or an organized community of
such subjects. Whether the view of Paul and John
concerning the projection of the future kingdom
of God into this world was foreign to the spirit of
Jesus depends on the question whether the justice
demanded by him as a condition for a share in
God's kingdom was of the same high quality as the
gifts of the kingdom; whether he considered those
gifts as an organic completion of justice or as a re
ward which stood only in a mechanical relation to
it; and whether his preaching was merely mandar
tory, or possessed a creating and saving power, so
that voluntary obedience to it could at once be
felt to be the reception of miraculous, morally sa‑
ving, and beatifying powers of God. As to the first point, we know that Jesus abolished the heteronomy of the legalistic attitude, and consequently the basis of a mechanical concept of a future reward, by laying all stress upon the disposition of the heart (Mark vii. 15; Matt. vii. 16‑17), by substituting for the legalistic relation the relation of children to a father (Mark x. 14 sqq.), by denying any legal claims to reward (Matt. xx. 1 sqq.; Luke xvii. 710), by making God himself the model (Matt. v. 48), and by promising the kingdom of God to those who long for righteousness (Matt. v. 6). At the same time, Jesus subordinated temporal rewards to the spiritual blessings of the kingdom, so that with him there is an organic relation between the moral condition in this world and the blessings of the world to come. Jesus himself knew that sonship with God was a blessed thing (Matt. xi. 27), and he admonished others to feel themselves to be the children of God (Matt. x. 29‑32; Luke x. 19). He promised rest to all who should take his yoke upon them (Matt. xi. 28‑30), and he urged his hearers to trust boldly in God with the full assurance that their prayers were heard (Mark xi. 22 sqq.; Matt. vii. 7), and to live in purity of heart and in love even of their enemies. It is thus clear that, despite divergencies in terminology and concept, the teachings of John and Paul on the kingdom of God were in harmony with the preaching of Jesus. It is plain from Matt. xii. 28 and Luke x. 18‑20 that Jesus held that the kingdom of God had already come in its religious, though not in its ethical, concept; and in like manner the comparison of John the Baptist to the least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xi. 11; cf. Luke xvi. 16) implies that with him the time of prophecy had ended and that of fulfilment begun. Such parables as those of the grain of mustard seed, the leaven, and the tares also teach that the kingdom had already begun, and foreshadow the progress of revelation and of the divine power entered into the world; while the victories over the powers of evil and the divine success of his preaching of the kingdom also confirmed his belief.
In later primitive Christianity the kingdom of God was an exclusively eschatological concept, so that, according to Hegesippus, kinsfolk of Jesus declared to Domitian that " the kingdom of Christ is not cosmic or earthly, but heavenly and angelic at the consummation of the age " (cf. also I Clem. xlii. 3; Hermas,.Similitudes, 5c. 12, 8). The Church
is distinguished from the kingdom of 4. The God; she will be gathered from the Kingdom four corners of the earth into the kingPrevious dom which God has prepared for her to Augus‑ (Didache, ix. 4, x. 5). For Tertullian, tine. Cyprian, Justin, and Irenaeus the characteristic feature of the coming of the kingdom is the rule of God, by which they understood the discontinuance of their state of servitude and oppression, and the enjoyment of a wonderfully increased fertility of the earth. On the other hand, Lactantius (Divinae institutiones, VII., xxiv. 4) held that the righteous would reign with God and Christ on earth, the wicked being not entirely destroyed, but doomed to perpetual bondage

8ta"om of God	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	888
and the objects of the victory of God and the triumph of the just. Irenaeus (Haer., v. 32 sqq.), in opposition to the Gnostic allegorical interpretation of the New Testament, understood the cosmic Sabbath of the millennium (cf. Heb. iv.), and the heavenly feast (Matt. viii. 11) as the expectation of the kingdom, that the just might rightly enjoy the reward of their patience where they had suffered oppression. Among the Greek Fathers it was Origen who, under the influence of the Greek ideal of the dominion of reason over the passions, originated an ethical and individualistic concept of the kingdom of God based on Luke xvii. 21; Rom. xiv. 17, vi. 12; I Cor. xv. 28, but so modified that the gift of God and of his saving blessings transcends ethical duty, and the spiritual state of the Christian is considered the beginning of heavenly perfection. He understands the second petition of the Lord's Prayer expressly after the analogy of the rule of a king over his subjects in a well‑ordered city, so that the soul must submit to the governance of God and obey his spiritual laws. The perfection of the kingdom of God, so that God will be all in all, takes place in every individual when Christ has conquered the enemies in him, and he progresses unceasingly until knowledge, wisdom, and other virtues come to perfection in him. The same thoughts are found in Cyril of Jerusalem (" Mystagogical Lectures," v. 13) and Gregory of Nyasa (De orations, ii), while Chrysostom, influenced by the Stoic idea of the wise man as king, develops the thought that with the coming of the kingdom the soul itself will become a king, thus coming into harmony with the New‑Testament test of the kingdom of God that we shall acquire dominion in it (De orations daminiea hom.). Ephraem (Cohortatio ad pcenitentiam, xxiv., cf. ix., x.), like Johannes Cassianus (Cohortatio, i. 13), following Origen, laid stronger stress on the mystic indwelling of God.
Augustine unites in the concept of the kingdom of God the two characteristics of " being ruled by God " and of " reigning with God," the latter, which begins after the resurrection, being the decisive indication. The saints or the just themselves constitute the kingdom of God, since their hearts are governed inwardly by Christ or God (MPL, xxxix. 830, 832); but the kingdom, strictly speaking, is still in the future (MPL, xxxiv. 1814, xloCvi. ,3$8), and he de. clared it madness to connect temporal life with the kingdom of heaven. With Augustine
	5. Augus‑ the future °` reigning with God " had
	tine's Doc‑ no analogy with a rule to be exercised
	trine of the over others or with an influence upon
	Kingdom. others, but consisted wholly of the con
	templation and enjoyment of God.
	Nevertheless, Augustine gave up his former expec
	tation of the millennium and referred the promises
	of Rev. xx. to the present (De civitate Des, xx. 9),
	so that the reign of the saints with Christ promised
	for the millennium must exist in the present, though
	with a power far inferior to that of the future. The
	kingdom consequently implies for him, as for Barna r
	bas before him, Sabbath rest (ed. MpL, xxxvi
	1198). However personal this conception of the
	kingdom in which God rules may be, Augustine re
	garded it from the very first as a community, a
phase in the battle which is waged in the course of
the world between the " kingdom of heaven " and
the " kingdom of earth " or " of the devil." On
the other hand, he also identified the empirical
church, which includes sinners, with the kingdom
of God (MPL, xxxvi. 409, wii. 672 sqq.). This
organization is for him an instrument of the rule
of God, and the activity of its ministers is useful to
the kingdom, even if their personal conduct is evil
(MPL, xxxvi. 1169). It was not strange, there
fore, that scholasticism should make Augustine's
ethical " Church of conflict " the " Church mili
tant," and in like manner he influenced the course
of medieval development by his idea that the secu
lar state should submit to the guidance of the
Church, which embodies true justice for the com
munity. Alongside the concept of the kingdom of
God as relating to organized society, there developed
after Augustine the idea of the kingdom in relation
to the individual. St. Bernard, like the Greek
Fathers (cf. Thomas Aquinas, Catena durea, on Matt.
vi. and Luke xi.) and Augustine, distinguished, on
the basis of Luke xvii. 21, between a free submis
sion of man's will to the will of God in the present
world, and the future reign with Christ. Bona
ventura (Stimulus amaris, iii. 17) regards devotion
to God and the experience of salvation as the high
est good, which is the indwelling of God; while so
cording to Tauler (Predigten, Frankfort, 1703, 774,
926, 1202, 1206), the kingdom of God is God him
self, dwelling in the soul in his own nature and
essence, with all his heavenly gifts and treasures.
	Luther follows, on the whole, the thoughts of
Augustine, though with important modifications.
He treats the kingdom of God from the standpoint
of the law and the Gospel, the law expressing the
eternal destiny of man, which is realized by the
Gospel, so that life according to the law is life in the
		kingdom of God. In this connection
	6. Luther he also uses the analogy of a command
	on the ing king and an obedient people. The
	Kingdom. life of voluntary submission to the will
		of God is at the same time the blessed
life, so that " blessedness means that God rules in
us, and we are his kingdom " (Werke, Erlangen ed.,
xxi. 184). Thus the kingdom of God as the ethical
rule of God is for him the highest good in the eth
ical as well as in the mligioua sense. Ian is under
the dominion of sin, but the Gospel comes as a mss
sage of redemption through Christ, whereby the
law is fulfilled, or the rule of God is realized ac
cording to its two factors, beginning in the present
and completed in the future. Upon earth this is
called the kingdom of Christ, but for Luther there
is no real difference between the kingdom of Christ
and that of God. Owing to Luther's concept of
redemption, he differs from Augustine in regard to
the realization of the kingdom of God. While both
regard the kingdom as voluntary devotion un
trammeled by the law, and as a miraculous gift of
the spirit of God, Luther derives the effect of this
change, which still takes place through the miracu
lous powers of God, psychologically from the indi
vidual assurance of forgiveness through Christ.
Moreover, in consequence of his doctrine that, more
than all human actions, faith resting upon the

337	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Kingdom of C+od
pledge of forgiveness in Christ is the certainty of salvation, the faith of the Christian means for Luther experience of salvation in a way quite different from that of Augustine, and thus for him the future " reigning with God " coincides with the present " rule by God " both in time and in content. Luther extends the thought of the royal dominion of the believers over all creatures and over heaven and earth, in the sense that the assurance of the fatherhood of God includes the assurance that all things work together for good, i.e., for eternal life. Thus by his concept of the kingdom, which is a share in the dominion of God or Christ over all, he avoids the disregard of the good and evil of this world which had been taught by Augustine and, at first, by himself.
As the kingdom of God consists of the Christians over whom and in favor of whom God or Christ rules, and who rule with him, it was but natural for Luther to regard the kingdom on earth as in an extensive and intensive state of growth, so that it
is the duty of every Christian to in7. Luther's crease the number of the faithful or to
Earthly build up God's kingdom (Erlangen ed.,
Kingdom viii. 241, xii. 319, xxxiii. 344, xxxix.
of God. 14, 1. 153, 235). But Luther did not
go far enough to regard the kingdom of God as the highest ethical good or as an all‑comprehending ethical end. This was because, in the first place, his ethics was not teleological but experiential, and in the second place because he did not subordinate the spheres of the economic and political states which, together with the Church, make up his ideal of life on earth, to a common and eternal purpose. The secular spheres and their various vocations have for him only earthly aims, and their works are governed by natural law. He did not think of the possibility and necessity of elevating earthly callings to a higher sphere of morality by means of Christianity; yet he did not contradict the view of Melanchthon, who saw in the good works of Christians in their secular callings a " policy of Christ to show his kingdom before the world." For Luther, as for others, the realization of the kingdom of Christ was the Church, which, however, he held to be the congregation of believers whom Christ rules through the Word and the Spirit. On the other hand, he recognized the kingdom of God wherever faith and love were manifest in earthly callings, and he held the Church to be the kingdom only where her activity truly proceeded from faith and love (Erlangen ed., xxiii. 385).
With Zwingli the ethical conception of the kingdom of God preponderated. For him it is contained, in the first place, in preaching, i.e., in the offering of heavenly blessings and of the grace vouchsafed in Christ, and, in the second place, in the Church, to which preaching calls. Where the
Gospel is received, there is established 8. Theories the kingdom of God, which consists of
of Zwingli faith, piety, justice, and innocence, so
and Calvin. that it coincides with those who are
regenerated through Christ (Opera, ed. H. Schuler and J. Schulthess, Zurich, 1828‑42, vi. 210, 236, 239, 289, 302, 352, 390, 609, 693); and he VI.‑22
emphasizes the view that the " people of God " are characterized simply and solely by their striving to have the kingdom of God within them. With Calvin the fundamental characteristic of the kingdom was the rule of God, in the sense of the subordination of man to the divine will (Commentarii in N. T., ed. A. Tholuck, Berlin, 1833‑34, i. 167). It is not in the future, but begins in faith upon earth through the Word and the secret working of the Holy Spirit (ib., i.167, iii. 44, 336). It is, therefore, a product of divine as well as human activity; nor did it first come with Christ, whose office it was " to spread through all the world the kingdom of God, which was then restricted to a corner of Juda!a " (ib., i. 287). The future kingdom is thus the completion of the one begun on earth, and is characterized by continued progress (ib., i. 167; CR, xxx. 667). Unlike Luther, Calvin sought to bring the kingdom of God to expression in the external forms of life. The realization of the rule of God is, in the eyes of Calvin also, the Church, and the communion of saints is the test of the empirical church (ed. A. Tholuck, i. 146, 262, ii. 198; CR, xxx. 757). He again differed from Luther in so far as he was inclined to regard the constitution of the New Testament as an eternal law given by God, and to regard church discipline as an order insti‑
l tuted by God for the conservation of the spiritual state (CR, 776 sqq., 867 sqq., 891 sqq.); while he carefully distinguished political from ecclesiastical dominion (CR, xxv. 1092 sqq.).
In Pietism (q.v.) the longing for the betterment of religious conditions led to a distinction between the kingdom of God and the official Church or Christian morality. Spener advocated the expectation of better times for the Church, interpreting this as a preparatory triumph of the
9. Pietism glorious kingdom of Christ; a time of
and the the expansion and awakening of the
Enlighten‑ Church, which was to begin with the ment on the destruction of Babylon (the Roman
	Kingdom.	Catholic Church); and the conversion
		of the Jews. The younger generation
of Pietists, like J. J. Moser, dated the beginning of
the kingdom from the movement of Spener, think
ing of the contrast between traditional and genuine
Christianity. Emancipation from dogmatics, a
deeper study of the Bible, and its historical inter
pretation led to the tenet that the Scriptures con
tain the records of a history of revelation and re
ligion passing through a series of developments
comprised under the general term " kingdom of
God," a theory represented especially by Bengel,
C. A. Crusius, and Johann Jakob Hess. The period
of the Enlightenment (q.v.) emphasized primarily
the active ethical side in the kingdom of God and its
analogy with a community of obedient subjects,
but did not overlook the religious side, since it was
only through God's government of the world that
the harmony between the sphere of morality and
that of nature was accomplished, or that the com
prehensive union of humanity was effected which
was necessary for the realization of the moral idea.
Owing to the indelible goodness of the heart, it was
held that there is no sharp distinction between the
history of natural humanity and the history of sal‑

Kinsdom of God	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	838
Kiago
vation, so that the kingdom of God progresses even outside Judaism and Christianity. Leibnitz interpreted the " kingdom of grace " as the dominion of God in the spirit‑world, while Semler understood it as the new spiritual reign of God in the Church, and Reinhard conceived it as an ethical brotherhood established by Jesus to include all peoples.
Kant, on the other hand, made morality entirely independent, even regeneration being an act of the individual. Morality leads, however, to a religious faith of reason in so far as the duty is felt to aim at a highest good. The power of morality is insuf‑
ficient to realize this; and it must, ro. Kant therefore, postulate a moral ruler of and the world, since a society must be es‑
Herder. tablished according to the laws of vir‑
tue for the protection of the individual against the evil principle which surrounds him. This ethical community, which can be realized only as a people of God under laws of virtue, Kant calls the kingdom of God on earth, and uses its idea as a test for the criticism and purification of the empirical Church. Herder considered the kingdom of God to be the development of humanity as it proceeds under the laws of nature or of the goodness, power, and wisdom of God, who furnishes the means and endowments; and he was the first consciously to combine the ethical and religious sense of Christianity with the Greek universal and free development of the entire personality.
The founder of the specific use of the concept of the kingdom of God in modern theology was Schleiermacher. The idea of the kingdom of God forms the basis of his teaching, governing his system both of doctrine and of ethics. The kingdom of God is the purpose and realization of redemption; and it is not only the highest purpose of ac‑
tion, but also the highest blessing r r. The (Christliche Sitte, Berlin, 1843, p. 78).
Theory of He conceives the kingdom of God after
Suhleier‑ the analogy of the relation between
masher. a ruling king and his obedient sub‑
jects, yet so that the king's will is the will of all who serve and live under him. The manner in which the rule of God (or the being of God) is exercised in man is consciousness of God, which is real only as motivating activity or, more specifically (since God is the supreme all‑embracing unity), as the love of all mankind (Glaubenslehre, Berlin, 1821‑22, §§ 90, 94). This consciousness of God raises man above the world, and through it is realized the further progress of the kingdom of God throughout the earth. Unlike Kant, Schleiermacher not only conceived moral activity as immediately religious, as having its motive in the consciousness of God; but he was also able to understand human activity as the working of the Divine, in virtue of his ethical fundamental concept of the highest good. By this he understood such a result of moral activity as both included this activity within itself and propagated it. Nevertheless, Schleiermacher's restriction of the blessedness arising from the consciousness of God to those filled with the love of all mankind was, at least in terminology, an ethical narrowing of the concept of the immanent kingdom of God. For Schleier‑
macher the realization of the kingdom of God was the work of Christ, in so far as he, through the strength and bliss of his consciousness of God, exercised a creative power of attraction which originated a common life ruled by the same impulse of divine consciousness; since before Christ there had never been so great a power of pure consciousness of God, and hence no society comprising all mankind.
In endeavoring to harmonize Christian tradition with the point of view of historical development, Schleiermacher saw, on the one hand, a course of evolution, first realized in Christ, and, on the other hand, he looked upon conditions before Christ as a universal life of sin, i.e., an impediment of human nature contrary to its destiny, and upon the work of Christ in founding the universal life of the kingdom of God as redemption. For both ra. Recon‑ points of view he presupposed the ciliation of original, or indelible, perfection of Conflicting man and the world. He thus shared
Views by the view of primitive Christianity, re‑
Schleier‑	garding a kingdom of evil opposed to
	masher.	the kingdom of God, even though he
		rejected the rule of a personal devil,
and replaced the Pauline view of "the flesh" and
Augustine's doctrine of original sin by that of uni
versal sin; but he contradicted himself by consider
ing sin a necessary step in development. The king
dom of God becomes real through redemption from
sin and evil. The consciousness of God, given by
Christ to the believer, is pure and blessed will di
rected toward the kingdom of God; but this con
tinual mpulse toward the kingdom of God becomes
real in the individual only in so far as the spirit of
the universal life founded by Christ becomes his
own impulse (Glaubenslehre, 1 121). This universal
life of the kingdom of God coincided for Schleier
masher with his concept of the Church, since for
him the existence of the Church was a matter of
faith in Christ, who alone can be sure that in a
world of sin and evil the empirical Church is a place
of goodness and salvation. His position here is
similar to that of Luther in so far as he too held
that the kingdom of God can not be tested by the
legal organization of the Church and does not coin
cide with the empirical Church. While there is a
wide divergence between the concept, both in primi
tive Christianity and later, that the immanent king
dom of God comes to pass through the miraculous
power of the Spirit proceeding from the exalted
Christ, and Schleiermacher's view that the personal
life of Christ on earth became the motivating power
of the universal spirit of the universal life, this di
vergence is based merely on a changed psychology.
On the other hand, there is an essential limitation
of Christian hope 19611 it is reduced to an expecta‑
tion of infinite organic progress, with a rejection of the eternal perfection of the individual and the mass. Schleiermacher marked, however, an important development not only in the doctrine of faith, but also in the doctrine of ethics, since the doctrine of faith developed for him into the ethical impulse to do all that is in our power for the realization of the
kingdom of God, while in the religious satisfaction granted by God is found a sufficient motive for mo‑

339	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Kinedom of God
		Bingo
rality. At the same time it becomes possible to
harmonize the divergent incentives to morality pre
sented in the New Testament, and to blend in the
concept of a single moral highest good the two pre
vious varieties of Christian ethics, the theory of
duty and the theory of virtue. It likewise obvi
ates the danger of quietism in case there is no end
to stimulate the will, and, finally, it affords a basis
of uniting early Christian and pre‑Christian ethics.
	Ritschl followed Schleiermacher, but deepened
his thoughts by a closer approach to the New Tes
tament and to Luther. He took his stand in the
historical life of the body of believers, which is as
sured that it is established through the revelation
		of the free grace of God in Christ which
13. Ritschl'a brings forgiveness of sins. Like Schlei
	Theory	ermacher, he united the recognition
	of the	of a moral development which cul
	gingdom. minates in Christ with the concept of
		sin, but to him sin was more than im
perfect development, it was the contradiction of
good, and its judgment as our own action and guilt
was not phenomenological, as it was with Schleier
macher, but inherent, and according to the judg
ment of God. The spiritual movement of believers
proceeds in two directions, in the specifically re
ligious function of the consciousness of reconcilia
tion with God, and in the moral function of activ
ity for the kingdom of God. This kingdom Ritschl
understood after the analogy of a people that heart
ily obeys its ruler; the will of God, however, he re
garded not as a sum of norms, but as a uniform
purpose. For both Schleiermacher and Ritschl,
the kingdom of God is the highest good, not only
as a problem to be solved progressively by the ac
tivity of all mankind, but also as a religious good,
as a gift and work of God, and as something that
makes life and blessedness. Although Ritschl was
rightly led by Kaftan to emphasize not only the
ditinely fixed purpose of the kingdom of God, but
also the divine blessings to be enjoyed, he justly
refused to speak with Kaftan of two sides of the
kingdom of God, of an ethical aide by which man
faces the world, and a mystical side by which he
retires from the world; for not only does the super
mundane kingdom of God in the New Testament
include the ethical side, but Kaftan's idea leads to
quietism.
	The ethical results of Schleiermacher's concept
of the kingdom of God were fully accepted by
Ritschl, and he was thus enabled to obviate a dual
ism between the moral requirements of holiness
and justice on the one hand, and love on the other,
by recognizing love, as directed toward the ends
of the kingdom of God, to be itself the moral will.
He likewise removed Luther's and Schleiermacher's
lack of clearness in defining the relation of the king
		dom of God to the Church by distin
	:4. The guishing between the religious, ethical,
	Kingdom and legal concepts of the Church. In
	of God	so far as both are regarded as the work
	and the	ing of God, the Church and the.king‑
	Church.	dom of God coincide; they are both
		the sum total of persons who have
been transposed by the Gospel of Christ into the
life of an ethically active faith, independently of
any legal organization. The Church has the special
duty of worship, acknowledgment, and education;
the kingdom of God that of the organization of hu
manity through love. The legal organization of
the Church is only a means for the solution of her
ethical problems. If systematic theology retains
the concept of the kingdom of God, it must always
be in objective continuity not only with theology
since Origen, but also with primitive Christianity
although its formulas must be amended by modern
historical knowledge. 	(J. GOT‑rscalcst.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A review of the subject is given in J. Weirs, Die Idee des Reichea Gottea in der Theologie, Giessen, 1901. Much of the literature under MESSIAH; PARABLES; and BIBLICAL THEOLOGY treats the subject (especially the discussions by Weiss, Holtamann, and Beyschlag) as do many of the treatises on the life of Christ. Consult further: Scharer, Geachichte, ii. 498‑558, Eng, tranal., IL, ii. 128 eqq.; F. Theremin, Lehre vom gtittlichen Reich, Berlin, 1823; K. Wittichen, Die Ides des Reichea GoUea, GSttingen, 1872; J. S. Candlish, The Kingdom of God Biblically and Historically Considered, Edinburgh, 1884; G. Wilson, The Kingdom of God . . According to the Inspired Records, Bloomington, III., 1888; A. B. Bruce. The Kingdom of Goal; or Christ'& Teachings according to the 3ynoptieal Gospels, Edinburgh, 1889; E. Iasel, Die Lehre vom Reich Gottea, Leyden, 1891; O. Schmoller, Die Lehre vom Reich Gottea, ib. 1891; E. Haupt, in TSK, Isv (1892); Hering, in Zeitachrift jilr Theolopie and Kirche. 1892; O. Holtzmann, Neuteatamentliche Zeitpeachichte, new ed., Ttibingen, 1908; G. Schnedermann, Jeau Verkiindigung and Lehre vom Reich GotEea, 2 pasta, Leipeic, 1893‑95; H. Holland, God's City and the Coming of the Kingdom, London, 1894; L. Tolatoi, The Kingdom of God is within you, New York, 1894, and often; L. Paul, Die VorateZlunper: vom Measiaa and vom Gotteareich bei den Synaptikern, Bonn, 1895; A. Titius, Jeeu Lehre vom Reiche Gottea, Freiburg, 1895; R. Belaney, Kingdom of God on Earth, London, 1898; Klopper, in ZWT, 1897; F. Krop, La Penace de Jeaua our le roynume de Dieu, Paris, 1897; J. Sch3ifer, Daa Reich Gottea im Licht der Parabeln, Mainz, 1897; R. Wegener, Ritachla Ides des Reichea Gottes, Leipaie, 1897; G. Dalmann, Die Worte Jeau, pp. 75‑113, Leipsic, 1898; A. Jiilieher, Die Gleichniareden Jeau, Vol. ii., Freiburg, 1899; W. Baldensperger, Dae Selbstbewuaataein Jeau, Strasburg, 1900; J. Weiss, Die Predigl Jeau vom Reich Gottea, Gottingen, 1900; W. Bousset. Die Religion des Judenthuma im neuteatamentlichen Zeitalter, pp. 199‑278, Berlin, 1903; P. Volz, Jiidische Eachatologie von Daniel bia Akiba, §§ 27, 42‑48, Tiibingen, 1903; P. Wernle, Die Reichpotkalw$nunp in den tilteaten chriatlichen DokumenEen and bei Jesus, ib. 1903; W. Bouaeet, Jeaua, pp. 7198, New York, 1908; J. BBhmer, Der reZipionapeachiclUliche RaAmen des Reichea Cottea, Leipaic, 1909.

BINGO, THOMAS HANSEN: Danish bishop and hymn‑writer; b, at Sla,ngerup (15 m. n.n.w. of Copenhagen) 1634; d. at Odense, island of Filnen, Oct. 14, 1703. He studied at the University of Copenhagen, being graduated in 1654, and for some time acted as tutor in private families. In 1661 he was appointed vicar to the pastor at Kirke Helsinge (50 m. s.w. of Copenhagen), and in 1668 he was ordained minister at his native town, where his poetic activity began. At first he essayed patriotic poems, but later devoted himself almost entirely to the writing of hymns, and in 1674 the first part of his Aandelige Sjunge Chor (" Spiritual Song Choir ") appeared; followed in 1681 by part ii. This work consists of a collection of beautiful hymns several of which are still popular in the Danish Church. In 1677 Kingo was appointed bishop of Zealand. Charged by the government with the compilation of a new hymn‑book, he edited (1699) the so‑called Kingo's Pealmebog which contains

Kings in	1	TIDE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	340
eighty‑five of his own compositions, and which is still used is various parts of Denmark and Norway. Kingo was especially renowned for his beautiful Easter hymns, in one of which he symbolizes the resurrection of Jesus by the " golden sun which breaks through the dark clouds." He was influential also in causing light and tuneful melodies to be adapted to the requirements of the Church.
(F. NIEI$ENt.)
Breuoanwrar: There is s biography by R. Peterson, Co‑
penhagen, 1887.
KINGS, BOOKS OF.
Contents and View‑point Historicity and Chronology
Date and 9ouraea (¢ 2.) 	The Text (§ 4).
	The two books which follow Samuel and precede
Chronicles in the English version were originally one
book, but were divided in the Septuagint and the
Vulgate; in Daniel Bomberg's Hebrew Bible the
division was adopted for the Hebrew. The books
divide into three parts. I Kings i.‑xi. contains the
account of David's death with Solomon's accession
and the story of his reign, including the account of
the building of the temple and of the internal and
external policies inaugurated by him; I Kings
		xii.‑II Kings xvii. contains the syn
c. Contents chronistic account of the two king
	and View‑ dome of Judah and Israel to the fall
	point. of the latter; II Kings xviii.‑xxv.
		continues the history of the southern
kingdom to the Babylonian exile. The first two
chapters of I Kings belong rather to the preceding
narrative beginning with II Sam. ix. and giving
the story of David's reign, and chap. iii. begins a
narrative different from that which precedes. The
form is neither that of a chronicle of external events
nor a political history, but rather an account based
on a religious conception of the relation of the people
to Yahweh and the connection between its unfaith
fulness and the destruction which befell both king
doms (II Kings xvii. 7 sqq.). That the promise to
the house of David (I Kings xi. 32, 36, 39) was
not to fail appears to have been confirmed in the
view of the author by the fact that Jehoiachin
in his exile was restored to honor, this being a
pledge that God would keep his promise to his
people. The keynote is struck in the mention of
Solomon's cult of the high places and the relation
of each king of Judah to this cult is specifically
noted, while throughout rune the relation of the
people to prophetic teachings, this last especially
characteristic of these books. The point of view of
the editor of the sources from which the book was
compiled is unmistakably that of the Deuterono
mist and preexilic prophecy; viz., that the cause of
the destruction of the kingdoms was the ever‑re
newed cult of the high places and the idolatry con
nected with it. Yet it is not to be maintained, with
Wellhausen, that the priestly view is excluded and
that there is no knowledge shown of the distinction
between Levites and priests or of the Mosaic taber
nacle (I King vii. 4) and that consequently the
chronicler's representation is to be set aside. Simi
larly the assertion that the Aaronic line of priests has
no mention either overlooks the Zadokite succession
which came in with the supersession of Abiathar
(I Kings ii.‑26‑27) and continued in the ZadokEleazar line till the exile, or attempts to nullify it by regarding that line as not Aaronic on the ground that I Sam. ii. 2'7 sqq. (asserted to be a prophecy after the event) predicted the extinction of the Aaronic line; but this prophecy affected only the house of Eli and not the entire priesthood (cf. II Sam. xv. 24 for the Zadokite‑Levite conception). The distinction between priest and Levite as made in Deut. xviii. 3, 6, is certainly preexilic.
The terminus a quo for the final redaction of the book is set by the mention of the restoration of Jehoiachin to honor (II Kings xxv. 27aqq.) in 561 B.C. But the original author must have worked before the exile about 600 B.C. under Jehoiakim, who is the latest king in connection with whom occurs the
usual Deuteronomic formula closing z. Date and the account of a reign. A second
Sources. editing is seen in the passage II Kings
xvii. 19‑21, still before the exile of Judah. From this second hand proceeded the synchronistic data given for the two kingdoms,materials not found in the sources employed by the first editors. Reference to these sources is very characteristic of the whole work. Thus there is note of the book of the acts of Solomon (L, xi. 41), fourteen references to the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah, and seventeen to the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. These have been supposed to be the official records of the respective kingdoms, but the frequent changes of dynasty in the northern kingdom make this supposition untenable. They must rather have been works which indeed employed official documents and sources but were freer handling of the materials than were official records. From such sources were obtained the statistical data such as the age of the king at accession, the length of his reign and the political situation. It is also debatable whether the editor had in mind two works as sources (for Israel and for Judah) or one iii two parts. Besides these sources others were employed, such as a prophetio‑historical narrative like that from which the Elijah‑Elisha portion is taken: also the piece II, xviii. 13‑xx. 19, repeated in Isa. xxxvi.‑xxxix., in which xvlll. 14‑16 is from a still different source (as is shown by the spelling of the name Hezekiah). This duplicated passage is probably original neither with Kings nor Isaiah. Similarly IL, xxiv. 18‑xxv. 30 is paralleled by Jer. Iii. but is not original with Jeremiah. The Septuagint refers in L, viii. 53 to a " book of the ode," possibly the book of Jasher (Josh. x. 13), the word " ode " coming in through a misreading by transposition of letters (shyr instead of yshr).
So far as the political relations are concerned, the historicity of these books is recognized. The especial point of attack in this matter has been the Elijah‑Elisha narratives, so rich in miracles paral‑
leled only in the events ascribed to 3. Histo‑ the times of Moses and Joshua. But

ricity and it is to be noted that the marvels at Chronology. the Carmel sacrifice, as in the desert
at the giving of the law through Moses, and again in Elijah's removal from earthly life without passing the gates of death, are no

841	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ms®Hooks of
		HiaB~a~Iip in Israel
more extraordinary than the work he was called to perform, midway between Moses and Christ, in winning a victory for the worship of Yahweh. The circumstances of the northern kingdom at the time were such as to correspond with the atmosphere of miracle in which this prophet lived. Difficulties are found also in the chronology of the books. The regnal periods of the kings are given in full years, a result of a round rather than an exact reckoning. The Talmud suggests that the reckoning was from Nisan to Nisan, after a method which appears in the New Testament in the account of the resurrection, which equates the parts of three days with three full days, and in Josephus. This method of reckoning appears definitely in II Kings xviii. 9‑10, where the siege of Samaria is given as lasting three years, though beginning in the seventh and ending in the ninth year of Hoshea. Similarly, while David's reign in Hebron is given in II Sam. v. 4‑5 as seven and a half years, in I Kings ii. 11 it is given as seven years. Other cases of disregard of portions of a year might be given, but not in a uniform and consistent manner, the consequence being that an exact chronology can not be obtained from these books. The totals are vitally affected, as when the reigns of the kings of Judah from Solomon to the destruction foot up to 260 years and of the kings of Israel to 241 years. A recognized means of correction is found in the Assyrian annals, and of the attempts to use this means especially noteworthy is that of Kamphausen, who requires only six changes in the data of Israelitic succession to reconcile the differences in Assyrian and Israelitic chronology. See TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OF.
The original text of the Biblical authors is no longer extant; the Masoretic text does not exactly reproduce this, nor does it agree with that which formed the base of the early versions. If reference is made to the extreme care
	4. The	exercised by the Masoretes in regard
	Text.	to the text they received, it must also
		be recalled that this care was not ex
ercised in the earliest times, as is proved by the
widely different texts sometimes found in parallel
passages. Thus in the parallels II Kings xviii. 13
xx. 19 and Isa. xxxvi‑xxxix. the Isaiah passage
affords fifteen examples of the scriptio plena, that in
Kings only three, as opposed to corresponding
scriptio defectiva in the other. Other changes are
due to glosses and marginal notes which copyists
have received into the text. The testimony of the
manuscripts of the Septuagint testify to changes
in the Hebrew; thus the Alexandrine codex is nearer
to the Masoretic text than is the Vatican, yet the
intent of the translators to be faithful is manifest
in that they reproduced in Greek letters Hebrew
words which they no longer understood. Moreover,
that the Greek translators had access to some of the
sources of the Hebrew is shown by additions not
found in the present Hebrew text. Care must be
exercised, however, not to overestimate the value of
the Septuagint for textual criticism, since the dif
ferences between extant representatives of this text
differ so widely. Of the fragments preserved in the
Hexapla of Origen the version of Aquila is a close
reproduction of the Palestinian text, that of Sym‑
machus is clear and elegant, that of Theodotion partakes of the character of a recension of the Septuagint on the basis of a text approximating the Masoretic. The Targum of the prophets affords little textual help, partaking as it does of the paraphrastic rather than of the literal and containing additions to the text. Where it can be used, however, it is the earliest witness to the Palestinian text on its mother soil. The Vulgate of Jerome has also considerable value since it testifies to the text of the end of the fourth Christian century. (W. VOI,cKt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The leading commentaries are: O. Thenius, Leipeic, 1873; K. C. W. F. Bahr, in Lange, Eng. tranal., New York, 1874; G. Rawlinaon, in Bible Commentary, London, 1874; C. F. Keil, Leipaic, 1878, Eng. tranal., Edinburgh, 1877; G. Hammond and G. Rawlinson, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vole., London, 1881‑89; A. Klostermann, Munich, 1887; J. R. Lumby, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1888; F. W. Farrar, in Expositor's Bible, 2 vols., London, 1893‑94; R. Kittel, GGttingen, 1900; W. E. Barnes, in Cambridge Bible, 1908. Special topics are treated in: A. Clemen, Die Wunderberichte fiber Elia and Elisa, Grimma, 1877; J. Meinhold, Die Jeeaiererzdhlungen xxxvi‑xxxix, GSttingen, 1897. On text‑criticism, B. Stade, in ZATW, iii.‑vi (1883,86), passim; A. Morgenetern, Die Scholien des Gregoriua Abulfarap . . . zum Buch der K6nige. Berlin, 1895; J. Berlinger, Die Peachitta zum 1. Buch der Konige, Berlin, 1897; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments, of the Book of Kings according to . . . Aquila, Cambridge, 1897; C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament vol. ii., New York, 1905 (valuable); W. D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings . . . in the Text of the Version of 1884, London, 1906. Consult also the principal works on Old Testament Introduction under BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION, and for chronology the works cited under ERA; TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OP.
	KINGSHIP IN ISRAEL: The Israelitic king
dom was later in origin than Israelitic nationality.
The latter began as a theocracy at Sinai under an
eldership which appeared sufficient for the demands
both of peace and war. The astonishment that
		Moses " founded no state " (Vatke)
	Hebrew	and the conclusion therefrom that the
	Ideals of	Pentateuchal legislation must have
	Kingship.	arisen later in a state already in ex
		istence proceed from a false view of
the Hebrew state. The bond of Hebrew nationality
was the covenant with Yahweh, which based legal
relations upon prophetic authority. A human
kingdom was superfluous since Yahweh was king
and leader in war (Ex. xv. 18, xiv. 14; Num. xxi.
14), with that leadership incarnated in Moses. But
the time came when no mighty and prophetically in
spired man like Moses or Joshua stood at the head of
the people, when the spiritual bond was not strong
enough to hold the scattered tribes together, when
even the Yahweh worship was endangered by the
disintegrating influences of Canaanitic heathenism.
In the days of the Judges the need was felt of a
central power to unify action, and this tendency
was exemplified in the history of Gideon (q.v.) and
Abimelech (Judges viii.‑ix.), though the results of
this premature attempt postponed for a long time
definite establishment of the kingdom. When Sam
uel became too old for the performance of his duties
and his sons proved unworthy, while the Philistines
were aggressive, the demand became clamorous
and Samuel yielded to the request of the people
to anoint a king. Wellhausen mistakenly regards
I Sam. ix. 1‑x. 16, xi. as the early account of the

Sinn of wine Israel
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
founding of the kingdom and chap. viii. as the postexilic view. But chap. viii. is entirely consonant with the person and character of Samuel (see SAMUEL; SAUL). It was not by chance that a man from the smallest tribe was chosen king; the will of Yahweh determined the selection and chap. viii. supplies the account, basing the selection on Saul's worth. A similar reason underlay the choice of David. In both cases consecration to the kingly office was by anointing (I Sam. x. 1, xvi. 13), as was customary among the neighboring peoples. This anointing was connected with religious usage and implied divine sanction. In David's case it was repeated when he was made king over Judah and again when he became king of Israel (II Sam. ii. 4, v. 3). Prophetic anointing is often mentioned, as in the cases of Absalom, Solomon, Jehoahaz, and Jehu (II Sam. xix. 10; I Kings i. 39; II Kings xi. 12, xxiii. 30). The rabbis regarded anointing as necessary only to the establishment of a new dynasty and thus explain omissions of anointing in other cases. A symbol of kingly power teas the scepter, in place of which Saul appears to have used the spear. From early times the crown also is in evidence (I Sam. i. 10), and the throne appears with Solomon (I Kings x. 18).
	The position of the king was from the first not
that of an Oriental despot with unlimited power.
The law of the kingdom (I Sam. x. 25; cf. Dent. xvii.
14‑20) was naturally not a mere embodiment of
popular law and custom, but arose out of the relig
ious situation of the Hebrews. The king was to be
an Israelite, was not to multiply wives or wealth or
		horses (as evidences of his glory).
Kingly Further he was to regard the torah, Duties and written and prophetic, as his guide. Privileges. In war he was the leader, and in peace the chief authority in justice. As judge he was to be humble in mind, giving access to those who sought relief; his responsibility to Yahweh was urged by the prophets. As Yahweh had made free choice of the king, so he might reject and displace him (I Sam. xiii. 13‑14; I Kings xi. 29 sqq.). The succession was hereditary, but the power of appointment of a successor was in the reigning king, with the mothers of the various princes exercising influence behind the throne. Often the succession was otherwise determined‑by the nobility, the priesthood, and indeed the people. The queen mother had a high and influential position from which, however, she might be deposed (I Kings xv. 13). In the northern kingdom also prophetic sanction was given to the kingship, as in the case of Jeroboam 1. and Jehu (qq.v.). But in general other forces, including that of usurpation, were at work in Israel (Hos. viii. 4). ' In the cult the king took a commanding position, offering sacrifices, praying, and blessing the people. But in sacrificing, it might be that the priest was the actual officiant; indeed in later times it may be said that the king yielded to the priest his priestly functions. A limitation of the kingly privileges doubtless came into play and is in view in the legislation of Ezekiel. It was his duty (according to Ezekiel) to care for the ordinary and festival offerings, and in preexilic times he might appoint and dismiss priests (I Kings
ii. 35), though he was in these matters not left to the exercise of arbitrary power.
The king was surrounded with councilors and ministers who came to bear the name of princes as inmates of the royal palace; in addition to these he had personal servants about him, who often misused their power. The number of the officers was
not set by law, but varied with the The Royal needs of the times; thus under David
Court and there were the general of the army, the
Revenues. captain of the guard, the recorder,
the chancellor, and the overseer of labor; under Solomon appeared an upper officer over the twelve prefects of the districts, and an officer in charge of the household (I Kings iv. 5‑6); with these went a large number of lesser officials of various grades and service, while later there came in eunuchs (perhaps the name of an office, I Kings xxii. 9, margin). The royal revenues were not at all times on the same basis, and I Sam. viii. 11 sqq. indicates possibilities of arbitrariness in the king's demands. Yet only profligate kings would override the rights of their subjects, as in the instance of Naboth, and in cases of aggression would usually have at least the semblance of‑right of action. Custom developed the perquisites of the king. Thus Amos vii. 1 indicates that to the king belonged the first cutting of the grass. The custom of making presents to the king is very early, and regularity developed it into tribute. Conquered peoples brought tribute (II Sam. viii. 2), as did those who placed themselves under the royal protection or did homage (II Sam. viii. 10; I Kings x. 25). Solomon put the Canaanites and even Israelites to forced labor. Of booty taken in war a considerable part was appropriated by the king, and the kings had usually their private estates. For the idealistic and prophetic development of the idea of the kingdom see ME$sIAH, ME$SIANIBM. C. VON ORELLI.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Oettli, Das K6nigsideal des Alten Testament, Greifswald, 1899; R. Smend, Aletestamentliche Religiom‑
geschichte, T(lbingen, 1899; the literature on the History cf
Israel under AHAB; later works cited under ARCHEOLOGY,
BIBLICAL; and for the idealistic view of the monarchy the
works under MESSIAH.
KINGSLEY, CHARLES: English clergyman and author; b. at Holne (20 m. s.w. of Exeter), Devonshire, June 12, 1819; d. at Eversley (26 m. n.e. of of Winchester), Hampshire, Jan. 23, 1835. He was a precocious child, fond of athletics and romantic in disposition; the scenery with which he was surrounded made a profound impression on his character. He received his education at Clifton, Helaton, King's College, London, and Magdalene College, Cambridge, where he studied fitfully and allowed himself to he distracted by manifold interests. He had at this time little taste for theology, but finally decided to take orders, and was ordained in July, 1842, to the curacy of Eversley. There his duties were practical rather than theoretical, for the parish was in a state of utter decay. In 1845 he received the honorary appointment of canon of Mid‑
dleham. His literary activities had already begun, and at London in 1848 appeared his drama The Saint's Tragedy, a play based on St. Elizabeth of Hungary, in which he voiced his disapproval of medieval asceticism, which, in his opinion, detracted

from the sanctity of marriage. He became interested, on the other hand, in " Christian socialism," and contributed numerous papers to aid the cause. To this same influence were due his first two novels, Alton Locke (1850) and Yeast (1851), the latter originally contributed to Fraser's Magazine. In 1851 he caused considerable excitement by his defense of " Christian socialism " in a sermon in a London church, and was forbidden to preach in the diocese, although the prohibition was soon withdrawn, especially as the working classes warmly championed him. He was by no means a revolutionist, however, but in later life inclined to the Tory side, the explanation of his interest in " Christian socialism " being his desire to mold popular trends by practical Christianity. His position naturally exposed him to frequent attack, and in 1851, after refuting the criticisms aimed at the alleged immorality of his Yeast, he sought to gain much‑needed rest by his first trip abroad, in which he visited the Rhine, thus laying the foundations for his Two Years Ago (1857). Meanwhile his pen had not been idle, and in 1853 appeared his Hypatia, a novel in which he attempted a covert attack on the asceticism of the High‑church party. The novel had an immense vogue, although it did not escape criticism and is not without serious faults of construction.
His wife's health now obliged Kingsley to spend the winter and spring at Torquay and Bideford, his studies of natural history at the former place giving him the foundation for his Glaucus (1855) and the latter for his great historical novel Westward Hol (1855). At Bideford, moreover; he formed a drawing class for young men in the same spirit of practicality with which he had lectured for a year on English literature at Queen's College in 1848. The unpopularity and prejudice against which Kingsley had thus far struggled were now ending. In 1859 he was appointed one of the queen's chaplains and in the following year received the professorship of modern history at Cambridge. Yet his tenure of office, which ended in his retirement in 1869, can scarcely be termed successful, for his mind was too versatile and too superficial for him to be a reliable historian. In 1864, moreover, he became involved in a controversy with John Henry Newman. In a review of a work by James Anthony Froude he accused the Roman Catholic clergy in general and Newman in particular of having but faint regard for truth for its own sake. Newman retorted, and upon Kingsley's replying with a pamphlet What, then, does Dr. Newman mean t his antagonist completely routed him with his famous Apologia pro vita sua (1864). About this time he wrote his Water Babies (1863) and a few years later his historical novel Hereward the Wake (1866), but his health was beginning to fail, and in 1864 he was obliged to make a trip to France, while in the following year he was likewise forced to take a vacation of three months on the Norfolk coast. After resigning his professorship at Cambridge he was for a time prominent in the Educational League and also acted as president of the section for education at the Social Science Congress at Bristol in Oct., 1869. In the same year he made a visit to the West Indies, embodying the result of his observations in his At
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Kingship in Israel
Siasolving
Last (1870). He now took up his residence at Chester, where he had been appointed canon, and founded a class in botany, his interests in science becoming more and more pronounced, so that he finally regarded Darwinism as in harmony with theology. He remained at Chester only three years, however, for in 1873 he, was appointed canon of Westminister. His enfeebled health again forced him to seek a change of scene, and in 1874 he made a tour of America, but returned to England with little benefit from his trip, dying on a visit to his old parish.
Charles Kingsley was an earnest and consistent advocate of what was somewhat derisively called " muscular Christianity," and his enthusiasm for practical work among the poor, like his interest in science, especially in its popular aspects, was unfeigned. He can scarcely be regarded, on the other hand, as a theologian, although he was throughout his life a firm adherent of the Broad‑church party, his opposition to the Tractarian movement being so pronounced as to lead Pusey and his colleagues in the High‑church wing to make a successful protest against conferring an Oxford degree on him. The inscription on his tomb in the churchyard at Eversley strikingly attests the affection of his parishioners: Amavimus, amamus, amabimus, "We loved, love, and shall love (him)." His chief theological works were his Twenty‑five Village Sermons (London, 1849); Sermons on National Subjects (2 vols., 1852‑54); Sermons for the Times (1855); The Good News of God (1859); Town and Country Sermons (1861); Sermons on the Pentateuch (1863); Daarid (four University sermons, 1867); The Water of Life and Other Sermons (1867); Discipline and other Sermons (1868); Westminster Sermons (1874); and the posthumous All Saints' Day and Other Sermons (1878).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief source is Charles Kingsley, His Letters and Memories of his Life, edited by his Wife, London, 1877. Consult further: J. H. Rigg, Modern Anglican Theology, with a Memoir of Canon Kingsley, ib. 1880; A Memoir is prefixed by T. Hughes to Alton Locke, ib. 1881; M. Kaufmann, Charles Kingsley, Christian Socialist and Social Reformer, ib. 1892; J. A. R. Marriott, Chart" Kingsley, Novelist, ib. 1892; E. Groth, Charles Kingsley ale Dichter and Sosialreformer, Leipsic, 1893; C. W. Stubbs, Charles Kingsley and the Christian Social Movement, London, 1899; DNB, xxxi. 175‑181.
KINSHIP, PRIMITIVE. See COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, b, ¢ 1.
KINSMAN, FREDERICK JOSEPH: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Delaware; b. at Warren, 0., Sept. 27, 1868. He was educated at Keble College, Oxford (B.A., 1894); master at St. Paul's School, Concord, N. H. (1895‑97); rector of St. Martin's, New Bedford, Mass. (1897‑1900); professor of ecclesiastical history in Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn. (1900‑03); and in the General Theological Seminary, New York City (1903‑08). In 1908 he was consecrated bishop of Delaware.
gIINSOLVING, GEORGE HERBERT: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Texas; b. at Liberty, Va., Apr. 28, 1849. He was educated at the University of Virginia and received his theological training at the Virginia Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1873. He was ordered deacon in

~k 1°g	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	344
1874 and priested in the following year. After being assistant at Christ Church, Baltimore, in 1874‑75, he was rector of St. Mark's, Baltimore (1875‑79), St. John's, Cincinnati, O. (1879‑91), and the Church of the Epiphany, Philadelphia (1891‑92). In 1892 he was consecrated bishop coadjutor of Texas, and in the following year, on the death of Bishop Alexander Gregg, became his successor.
KINSOLVING, LUCIEN LEE: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Southern Brazil; b. at Middleburg, Va., May 14, 1862. He studied at the University of Virginia and was graduated from the theological seminary at Alexandria, Va., in 1889. He was ordered deacon and ordained priest in the same year, and from 1889 to 1898 was a missionary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, while in 1899 he was consecrated missionary bishop of Southern Brazil.
KIP, WILLIAM INGRAHAM: Protestant Episcopal bishop of California; b. in New York City Oct. 3, 1811; d. in San Francisco Apr. 7, 1893. He was educated at Rutgers and Yale (B.A., 1831), the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia (1832‑33), and the General Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1835. He was ordered deacon in 1835 and priested in the same year. He was successively rector of St. Peter's, Morristown, N. J. (1835‑36), curate of Grace Church, New York City (1836‑37), and rector of St. Paul's, Albany, N. Y. (1837‑53). In 1853 he was consecrated first missionary bishop of California, and four years later, when California was made a full bishopric, became diocesan. He wrote: The History, Object, and Proper Observation of the Holy Season of Lent (New York, 1843); The Double Witness of the Church (1884); Christmas Aolidays at Rome (1845); Early Jesuit Missions in North America (1846); The Early Conflicts of Christianity (1850); The Catacombs of Rome (1854); The Unnoticed Things of Scripture (1868); New York in the Olden Time (1872); Historical Scenes in the old Jesuit Missions (1875); The Church of the Apostles (1877); and The Early Days of my Episcopate (1892); besides many addresses and episcopal charges.
KIPPIS, ANDREW: English non‑conformist; b. at Nottingham Mar. 28, 1725; d. in London Oct. 8, 1795. He was prepared for the Presbyterian ministry at Philip Doddridge's academy at Northampton, where he spent the years 1741‑46. He was pastor of dissenting congregations at Boston, Lincolnshire, 1746‑50; at Dorking, Surrey, 1750‑53; and at Westminster, London, 1753‑95. From 1767 till 1784 he was classical and philological tutor in the Coward Academy at Hoxton, and was afterward a tutor in the dissenting academy at Hackney. He early abandoned Calvinism for Socinianism, was associated with many charities, and was a voluminous writer. His reputation rests upon his unfinished edition of the Biographic Britannica, (5 vols. and part of Vol. vi., London, 1778‑95). Other works are: A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers (1772); Sermons on Practical Subjects (1791): and lives of Nathaniel Lardner and Philip Doddrldge for editions of their works.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Walter Wilson, Hist. and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches, iv. 103‑117, 402, London, 1814; DNB, xxi. 195‑197 (where references to other literature may be found); Julian, Hymnology, p. 625.
KIR, ker: A place‑name mentioned II Kings xvi. 9 ; Isa. xxii. 6; and Amos i. 5, ix. 7 as within the Assyrian region and as the dwelling‑place of an Aramaic people. Even the early translators did not know its location; the later translators followed J. D. Michaelis in placing it on the river still known as Kur and flowing into the Caspian. But the Assyrian kingdom never included this region. Schrader sought it in South Babylonia. The correct position is given by Winckler as the plain of Jatbur, between the Tigris and the mountains, and bordering on Elam, the land of the Karians mentioned by Arrian (III., viii. 5) near Sittakene. Winckler regards the Kir as a mistake for Kor. That Aramaic peoples were inhabitants of the region appears both from the Bible (II Kings xvi. 9), and from the inscriptions, since Tiglath‑Pileser transported Damascans thither. It seems probable that this was the original home of the Arameans, whither they were deported after the manner of Isa. xxxvii. 29. In Amos i. 5 and ix. 7 the word seems to be a later intrusion.
(A. JEREmcAs.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Winekler, Alttestamentliche Unter8uch‑
ungen, ii. 253 Bqq., Nachtrag, p. 378, Leipsic, 1892;
idem, Altorientalische Porschungen, pp. 178‑179, ib. 1894.
KIRCHER, kir'Her, ATHANASIUS: German Jesuit; b. at Geisa (30 m. n.e. of Fulda) May 2, 1602; d. in Rome Nov. 28, 1680. He joined the Society of Jesus at Mainz in 1618, and afterward became teacher of philosophy and mathematics at Wurzburg. On the invasion of the Swedes in 1631 he fled to Avignon, whence he repaired to Rome in 1635. For eight years he taught mathematics at the Collegium Romanum and founded in the college a museum that‑has preserved his name. He was a scholar of varied attainments and wrote numerous books on mathematics, physics, natural history, philosophy, philology, history, and archeology. While his writings are now antiquated, Kircher is important for his work as a pioneer, particularly in the field of Egyptian hieroglyphics. To be mentioned are: Prodromus Coptus sine lEqptiacus (Rome, 1636); (Edipus Xgyptiacus (3 vole., 16521655); China . . . illustrata (Amsterdam, 1667); and Latium (1671).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His autobiography is in A. Langenmantel, Pasciculus epiatolarum, A. Kircheri, pp. 65 sqq., Augsburg, 1684; A. and A. de Backer, Bibliothi~que des 9crivains de la societM de Jesus, Lidge, 1853‑61; KL, vii. 716717.
KIRCHHOFER, kirH'hof‑er, MELCHIOR: Swiss church historian; b. at Schaffhausen Jan. 3, 1775; d. at Stein (11 m. e.s.e. of Schaffhausen) Feb. 13, 1853. He studied theology and philosophy at Marburg 1794‑96, took orders in 1797, and held various country pastorates till 1808, when he became pastor at Stein, in the canton of Schaffhausen, and remained there till his death. In his works Kirchhofer combined a calm and objective manner of presentation with thoroughness and soundness of investigation. He wrote monographs on Sebastian Hofmeister (Zurich, 1808), Oswald Myconius (1813), Werner Steiner (1818), Berthold Haller (1828),

345	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	KiTk 1°ing
and Guillaume Farel (2 vols., 1831‑33; Eng. transl. London, 1837), and continued Hottinger's Helvetische Kirchengeschichte (ed. L. Wirz, 5 parts, 1808‑19). He also published the Schafhauserische Jahrbueher (Schaffhausen, 1819‑29), and Neujahrablatter fur die schafhauserische Jugend (18221843), which contain a history of Schaffhausen until the incorporation of the city into the Swiss Confederacy in 1501, besides some smaller pamphlets, tracts, and criticisms. (C. A. BAECHTOLD.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographical material is contained in the
funeral address of J. BSschenatein, Schaffhausen, 1853.
EIRCHMEYER, IcirH'mai"er, THOMAS (NAOGEORGUS) : Protestant theologian and religious dramatist; b. at Hubelschmeiss near Straubing (25 m. s.e. of Regensburg) c. 1508; d. probably at Wiesloch (8 m. s. of Heidelberg) Dec. 24, 1563. He was educated at Tabingen, though his name does not appear in the university lists, and received an excellent training in the humanities and took the master's degree. He embraced with passionate zeal the cause of the Reformation but at the same time was bold in maintaining his individual beliefs against the authority of the great Protestant theologians. He first appears as pastor of Sulza, in present Saxe‑Weimar, 1535. In 1537 he is described by Nicholas Medler of Naumburg as a thoughtful man, who did not hesitate to express his dissent from the authorities at Wittenberg, and was therefore " prone to all heresies and seditions." In 1541 he became pastor at Kahla. Before this, however, he had written his trilogy of dramas against the Roman church upon which his fame is founded: Pammachius (Wittenberg, 1538), Mercator (1540), and Incendia (1541). At Kahla the Wittenberg theologians refused to allow his commentary on the first epistle of John to be printed because in it. he taught that the elect, even when they sin against their own conscience, remain in a state of grace and in possession of the Holy Ghost. Melanchthon sought to gain him over from this opinion; and in 1544 Luther, Melanchthon, and Bugenhagen justified their condemnation of his work in a communication to the elector with whom Kirchmeyer stood in great favor. He accompanied the court to the diet of Speyer in 1544 and in the same year published the prohibited book with a dedication to Johann Ernst of Saxony. The followers of Luther thenceforward regarded Kirchmeyer as an opponent and after the death of the great Reformer new controversies arose as to his orthodoxy. In addition to the charge already brought against him he was accused of preaching the Zwinglian conception of the Lord's Supper. Impeached by Kasper Aquila of Saalfeld he was tried before the consistory of Weimar under the presidency of Duke Johann Wilhelm, and acquitted of the charge, but being ordered to explain himself on some points to his congregation he left Kahla and spent many years in wandering through Switzerland and South Germany.
Kirchmeyer's dramas contain little action and deal with personifications instead of real persons, after the fashion of the old Moralities, but they are marked by a spirit of bitter criticism of Roman
Catholic teachings and practises which naturally made them popular in Protestant circles. Besides the three plays already mentioned he wrote also three Biblical dramas, Hamanua (1543), Hieremias (1551) and Judas Iscariotes (1553), all translated into German. Of polemical works, the most celebrated is the Regnum Papisticum (Basil 7 1553), an unrestrained denunciation in verse of the Roman church [Eng. trans., The Popish Kingdome, London, 1570, rep. 1880]. Minor works are the Agriculturce sacrce libri. V. (1550), and the Satyrarum libri quinque (1555). He was also the author of many transladons from Greek into Latin, including Sophoclea, Isocrates, Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Synesius. In 1551 he published a summary of canon law which attained great popularity, owing to its impartial treatment of many controverted subjects; yet strangely enough it is this work that led the way to the Regnum papisticum. His independent spirit finds repeated expression in his Latin verse wherein he does not hesitate to sing the praises of men of the old faith, among them Erasmus, to whom he concedes much merit as a pioneer of the Reformation. (G. KAWERAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Theobald, in NKZ, 1906, pp. 764 sqq.; idem, Das Leben and iVirken des . . . Thomas Naogeorgus Leipsie, 1908; G. T. Strobel, Miscellaneen litterariachen Inhalte, iii. 107‑154, Nuremberg, 1780; J. J. I. von D611inger, Die Reformation, ii. 134 aqq., Regensburg, 1848; H. Holstein, Die Reformation im Spiepelbilde der dramatischen Litteratur des 16. Jahrhunderla, pp. 198 aqq., Halle, 1886; J. Janssen, Hist. of the German People, xii. 75‑92, London, 1907; ADB, xxui. 245 eqq.
KIRK, EDWARD NORRIS: American Congregationalist; b. in New York Aug. 14, 1802; d. in Boston Mar. 27, 1874. He was graduated at the College of New Jersey (Princeton) in 1820 and at the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1825, and traveled in the southern States as agent of the American Board 1826‑28. He was pastor of a Presbyterian church in Albany 1828‑37, secretary of the Foreign Evangelical Society 1839‑42, and pastor of the Mount Vernon Congregational Church in Boston 1842‑71. During the years 1837‑39 he traveled in Europe and preached for several months in Paris. He was a successful evangelist, one of the first members of the Evangelical Alliance, and a vigorous advocate of the evangelization of the Roman Catholic countries of Europe. His writings include: Memorial of Rev. John Chester (Albany, 1829); Sermons (New York, 1840); Lectures on Christ's Parables (1856); a second volume of Sermons (Boston, 1860); and Lectures on Revivals (ed. D. O. Mears, 1874).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. O. Mears, Life of Edward Norris Kirk,
Boston, 1877.
%Iltg, HARRIS ELLIOTT: Presbyterian; b. at Pulaski, Giles Co., Tenn., Oct. 12, 1872. He is a graduate of the academic and theological depart, menta of the Southwestern University, Clarksville, Tenn.; was pastor of Cottage Presbyterian Church, Nashville, Tenn., 1897‑99, of the First Presbyterian Church, Florence, Ala., 1899‑1901, and of Franklin Street Presbyterian Church, Baltimore, 1901‑09. In 1909 he was called to the chair of polemics in Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a " progressive conservative believing in the adaptation of the essential views of the conservative theology to

3KI=kland	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	348
Hiss of Peace
modern conditions in a sympathetic and construc
tive way." He has written a number of essays, and
	The Lost Book (Richmond, 1905).
		KIRKLAND, JOHN THORNTON: American Con
	gregationalist, son of Samuel Kirkland (q.v.); b.
	at Herkimer, N. Y., Aug. 17, 1770; d. in Boston
	Apr. 26, 1840. He studied at Phillips Academy
	(Andover), and at Harvard College (B.A., 1789),
	where, while preparing for the ministry, he was tutor
	in logic and metaphysics 1792‑94. He was pastor of
	the New South Church, Boston, 1794‑1810, and
	president of Harvard College 1810‑28. Under his
	vigorous administration three new buildings were
	erected and the course of study was greatly ex
	tended. He published several sermons, and a Life
	of Fisher Ames, printed in Ames' Works (Boston,
	1809).
	BIBLI00$APHl: A. E. Dunning, Congregationalists in Amer
		ica, pp. 293, 298, New York, 1894; National Cyciopmdia
		of American Biography, vi. 417, ib. 1898.
		KIRKLAND, SAMUEL: American missionary
	to the Iroquois Indians; b. at Norwich, Conn., Dec.
	1, 1741; d. at Clinton, N. Y., Feb. 28, 1808. He
	was graduated at the College of New Jersey (Prince
	ton) in 1765, and on his return from a visit to the
	Senecas in 1766 was ordained into the Congrega
	tional ministry and sent as missionary to the Six
	Nations. During the Revolution he served as a
	chaplain in the army. For persuading the Oneidas
	and Tuscaroras to remain neutral he was rewarded
	by Congress with a large grant of land in 1785.
	At the close of the war he resumed his missionary
	work. In 1791 he conducted a delegation of some
	forty warriors to Philadelphia to meet Congress
	and discuss methods of introducing civilization
	among the tribes; and in 1793 he founded the Ham
	ilton Oneida Academy (now Hamilton College)
	for the education of American and Indian youth.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. K. Lathrop, ill J. Spark, 1 jlirary Of
		American Biography, 10 vole., New York, 1848‑51; W.
		B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, i. 823‑830, ib.
		1889.
		KIRKPATRICK, ALEXANDER FRANCIS: Church
	of England; b. at Lewes (50 m. a. of London),
	Sussex, June 25, 1849. He studied at Trinity
	College, Cambridge (B.A., 1871), where he was
	elected fellow in 1871. He was ordered deacon in
	1874 and ordained priest in 1875. He was assist
	ant tutor in Trinity College 1871‑82 and junior proc
	tor 1881‑82, and from the latter year until 1903
	was regius professor of Hebrew and canon of Ely.
	Since 1903 he has been Lady Margaret professor of
	divinity and honorary canon of Ely. He was uni
	versity preacher in 1875 1878, 1882, 1889, 1897,
	and 1903, Cambridge Whitehall preacher in 1878
	1880, Lady Margaret preacher in 1882 and 1893,
	and Warburtonian lecturer at Lincoln's Inn in 1886
	1890. He was examining chaplain to the bishop
	of Winchester 1878‑90, the bishop of Rochester
	1891‑95, and again to the bishop of Winchester
	1895‑1903, and since 1903 has been examining
	chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury. He has
	also been master of Selwyn College, Cambridge,
	since 1898, and besides being the general editor of the
	Old Testament and Apocrypha for the Cambridge
	Bible , fm' S'ehools arid Colleges, for which series he
has prepared the volumes on I and II Samuel (2 vols., London, 1880,81) and the Psalms (3 vols., 1890‑1901), has written The Divine Library of the Old Testament (1891) and The Doctrine of the Prophets (Warburtonian lectures; 1892).
BIRKUS, WILLIAM: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Hull, England, May 9, 1830; d. in Brooklyn, July 10, 1907. He was educated at Lancashire Independent College, Manchester, and at the University of London (B.A., 1849). He then entered the Congregational ministry, and was assistant minister of Craven Chapel, . London, 1850‑52, minister of St. Thomas Square Chapel, Hackney, London, 1852‑68, and of Longsight Chapel, Manchester, 1868‑70. From 1870 until 1872 he was headmaster of Broughton High School, Manchester. In 1872 he was admitted to deacon's orders in the Church of England and became curate at Cheatham Hill, Manchester. In the same year he came to the United States, and, being ordained to the priesthood, was curate of Grace Church, New York City, from 1873 to 1875. He was then rector of Christ Church, Baltimore, Md., 1875‑76, and rector of St. Michael and Ail Angels in the same city 1876‑92. In 1892 he retired from active parochial work to devote himself to literature. Besides editing The American Literary Churchman (Baltimore) from 1881 to 1885 and writing two novels under the pseudonym of Florence Williamson, he published Christianity, Theoretical arid Practical (London, 1854); MiscellaEssays (2 vols., 1833‑69); Orthodoxy, Scripture, and Reason (1865); and Religion, a Revelation. and Rule of Life (New York, 1886).
gIRN, OTTO: German Protestant; b. at Heslach (a suburb of Stuttgart) Jan. 23, 1857. He studied at the theological seminaries of Maulbronn and Blaubeuren and at the University of Tfbingen (1875‑80; lie. theol., 1886; Ph.D., 1889), and after being lecturer at the theological seminary at Tiibingen 1881‑84, was deacon at Besigheim, WfIrttemberg, until 1889. In 1889 he became privat‑docent at the University of Basel, where he was appointed associate professor in 1890 and full professor in 1894. Since 1895 he has been professor of dogmatic theology at the University of Leipsic. He has written Ueber Wesen and Begrandung der religiosen Gewissheit (Basil, 1889); Schleiermacher and die Romantik (1895); Glaube and Geschiehte (Leipsie, 1900); Grundriss der evangelischen Dogmatik (1905); Grundriss der theologaschen Ethik (1906); and many addresses and sermons.

KIRWAN, WALTER BLAKE: Church of Ireland; b. of Roman Catholic parents at Gort (18 m. s.e. of Galway), County Galway, Ireland, in the year 1754; d. at Mount Pleasant, near Dublin, Oct. 27, 1805. He studied in the Jesuit College of Saint Omer, France; lived at Saint Croix (or Santa Cruz), Lesser Antilles, with a relative who was a large landed proprietor, but ill health caused his return to Europe. He entered the Franciscan order, studied in the College of St. Anthony of Padua, at Louvain ,
where he became instructor in natural and moral philosophy, and in that city was admitted to the
priesthood. From 1778 to 1785 he was chaplain

847	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	girklaad
		Siss of Peaoe
to the Neapolitan ambassador at the British court.
His eloquent sermons attracted attention, but,
shaken in his allegiance to the Roman Church in
1785, he went into retirement and two years later
declared himself a Protestant. On June 27 he
preached his first sermon as such in St. Peter's
Church, Dublin, and was henceforth identified with
the Church of Ireland. He never would, however,
say anything against his former coreligionists. In
1788 he became rector of St. Nicholas‑Without,
Dublin, and held this place till his death, from 1800
in connection with the deanship of Killala, County
Mayo. In 1798 he married and was survived by
his wife and four children. He had great pulpit
power, but iii chiefly remembered for his sermons in
behalf of charities, as he had remarkable ability
in inducing persons to give. Of the thirteen ser
mons which were published by his widow (London,
1814, 2d ed., 1816, reprinted Philadelphia, 1816)
eleven are charity sermons, and although the pres
ent reader can not give them their pristine attrac
tiveness, they are interesting and moving discourses
(one of them is reprinted in H. C. Fish's Master
pieces of Pulpit Eloquence, i. 581‑592). In the
British Museum are two volumes of his Latin theses,
one on Biblical chronology and the other on the
Decalogue (Louvain, 1775 and 1776).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A sketch of his life, probably by his widow,
	is prefaced to his Sermons as above. Consult also DNB,
	xaaii. 230.
	gIS, STEPHARUS (called Szegedinus from his
birthplace): Hungarian Reformer; b. at Szeged
(96 m. s.e. of Budapest) 1515; d. at Rdczkeve
(22 m. s.s.w. of Budapest) 1572. He studied at
Vienna and Cracow, and under Melanchthon at
Wittenberg 1543‑45. He served as school‑teacher
in his native land, suffering persecution for his faith
until Peter Petrovics, commander of Temesvar
under Queen Isabella and a Calvinist, took him
into favor and made him rector of his school (1548).
Political changes brought Temeavar under Ferdi
nand of Hapsburg, Petrovics was succeeded by a
Roman Catholic in 1552, and all Protestant pastors
and teachers were driven from the town. Kis
found refuge under Turkish dominion, but the ill
will of the Romanists followed him and, on their
complaint, he was kept imprisoned in chains for a
year and a half by a Turkish pasha until his friends
released him by a heavy ransom in 1563. Hence
forth he lived in quiet at Rdczkeve, acting as super
intendent of thirty‑five congregations under Turk
ish rule. He was the greatest scholar among the
Hungarian Reformers and his works made him
known in all Europe. They are: (1) Theologise
sincerae loci communes (Basel, 1585), preceded by
a sketch of his life by his scholar and successor at
Rdezkeve, Matthwus Skaricza, which is also an
important source for the history of the Reformation
in Hungary and contains a couplet by Paulus Turi,
another of the pupils of Kis, on Calvin's " Insti
tutes":
		Praeter apostolicas post Christi tempora ohartaa
		Huic peperere libro saecula nulls parem.
(cf. The Presbyterian and Reformed Rerriew, Apr.,
1899, p. 194). (2) Speculum pontificum Roma‑
norum (Basel, 1584; 5th ed., 1624; Germ. transl.,
1586); (3) Assertio vera de trinitate (Geneva, 1573,
edited by Beza); (4) Tabulae analyticae (Schaff
hausen, 1592). 	F. BALOGH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Life by Matthusus Skaricza was re‑
published, Basel, 1608, cf. Miscellanea Groeningana vi.
1, pp. 508‑559, 1762. A life in Hungarian, by Ladislaus
F51dvari, appeared at Budapest, 1899.
KISS OF PEACE: (Gk. philisma hagion, philema agapes, aspasmos, eirene; Lat. osculum sanctum, oseulum pads, salutatio, pax): An expression which occurs five times in the New Testament at the close of an apostolic message (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; II Cor: xiii. 12; I Thess. v. 26; I Pet. v. 14) in the exhortation " Salute one another with an holy kiss " or an equivalent expression. A congregational assembly before which the letters were read aloud is assumed, and a custom of the synagogue may be involved (cf. The Expositor, ix. 1894, p. 461). The import of the holy kiss is a general attestation of brotherly love on the ground of religious fellowship, and it is not to be considered an independent liturgical ceremony.
After the middle of the second century the kiss of peace has an established place in public worship and a definite connection with the Eucharist, in the transition from the prayers preceding and introducing that solemnity to the act of consecration. This place is assigned to it in Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria terms it " a mystery." The liturgical sources and liturgies of the Eastern Church attest the subsequent continuance of the practise in the same context. At the outset, moreover, this ordinance appears to have been frequently in force in the West. Only in Rome and North Africa, the kiss of peace occurred not before the consecration, but between consecration and communion, an arrangement, which, in course of time, became the prevailing one in the Latin Church (see MAss, II.). The modification is doubtless to be explained by an endeavor to associate the practise immediately with the eucharistic solemnity, toward which it is directed. For in this context the kiss of peace has its basis and significance under the words of the Lord, " First be reconciled with thy brother, etc." (Matt. v. 23 sqq.), wherein agreement or unity is accentuated. The ceremony was begun by the clergy among themselves, and the congregation followed. It is to be assumed that originally the separation of the sexes was duly observed; and to prevent disorder, this point was repeatedly and insistently emphasized in later times.
In Western Christendom the kiss of peace continued to be observed until the waning period of the Middle Ages, though it is an open question to what extent and in what particular forms. The East appears to have given up the general kiss of peace still earlier. In both divisions of Christendom there was substituted in its place the practise of kissing the altar, the sacred elements, or the stole by the clergy, and kissing the hand by both clergy and laity. It was only transiently that they followed, in the West, the precedent purporting to have been adopted by Bishop Walter of York (1250), of using the " kiss tablet " (osculatorium, pax), a metal, or, in some cases, marble disc exhibiting the cross or sacred

Klai
8enbsoh	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	948
figures. Relics or even the book of the Gospels were sometimes employed in the practise. At a later period the osculatorium was withheld from the laity and reserved exclusively for the clergy.
If not quite unrelated, still in only a very general relation to the holy kiss, is the kiss bestowed on neophytes, after the sacrament of baptism; on penitents when reinstated in full communion; on the dead; and on candidates for ordination.
VICTOR SCHULTZE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DB, iii. 5‑6; BB, iv. 4252‑54; Bingham,
	Originea, 7I., id. 10, xix. 17, IV., vi. 15, XII., iv. 5, XV.,
	iii. 3; E. Martbne, De antiquia ecclesiw ritibue, I., iii. 4
	5, Antwerp, 1736; A. J. Binterim, Denhwwardigkeiten,
	11, pp. 163, 492 iv. 3, p. 485, Mainz, 1825‑27• W. Palmer,
Antiquities of the English Ritual, vol. ii., London, 1845; DCA, ii. 902‑906.
KIST, NICOLAAS CHRISTIAN: Dutch theologian; b. at Bommel (25 m. e. of Dort) Apr. 11, 1793; d. at Leyden Dec. 21, 1859. After completing his theological education at Utrecht, he served for five years as pastor at Zoelen, but in 1823 was appointed professor of historical theology at Leyden, where he spent the remainder of his life. His chief works were De Christelijke Kerk op sarde (Haarlem, 1830); Nederlands bededagen en biddagsbrieven (2 vole., Leyden, 1848‑49); and Orationes quae eccleaiae reique Christianae spectant historiam quattuor (1853). He likewise collaborated with H. J. Roijaards in establishing and editing the Archief voor kerkelijke geschiedenis and its immediate continuations under similar names (22 vols., Leyden, and Schiedam, 1829‑54), and with W. Moll in founding and editing the Kerkhistarisch archief (4 vole., Amsterdam, 1855‑66). (C. SEPPt.)

KITCHIN, GEORGE WILLIAM: Church of England; b. at Naughton Rectory, Ipswich (23 m. s.e. of Bury St. Edmunds), Suffolk, Dec. 7, 1827. He studied at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1850; M.A., 1852), and was ordered deacon in 1852 and ordained priest in 1859. He was classical tutor of his college, censor and junior proctor, chaplain to the bishop of Chester (1871‑72), tutor of the crown prince of Denmark, censor of non‑collegiate students in the University of Oxford (1868‑83), and lecturer and tutor in history in Christ Church (1870‑‑83). In 1883 he became dean of Winchester, and in 1894 dean of Durham and warden of the University of Durham. He was select preacher at Oxford 18631864, Whitehall preacher 1866‑67, commissary to the bishop of Gibraltar 1874‑1904, and is an honorary fellow of King's College, London, and an honorary student of Christ Church. In theology he is a moderate liberal. His publications include: Bacon's Novum Organum (2 vols., Oxford, 1855); Bacon's Advancement of Learning (London, 1860); Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Library of Christ Church, Oxford (Oxford, 1867); A History of France (3 vole., 1873‑77); Life of Pope Pius 11. (1881); Winchester Cathedral Records (2 vols., Winchester, 1886); Documents Relating to the Foundation of the Chapter of Winchester, A.D. 1541‑1547 (London, 1889); Winchester (7890); Rolls of the Obedientarie8 of St. Swithin's Priory, A.D. 1809‑1534 (Winchester, 1895); The Manor of Marydown, Hampshire (1895); Edward Harold Browne, Bishop
of Winchester: A Memoir (London, 1895); and Ruskin in Oxford, and other Studies (1904).
KITTEL, RUDOLF: German Protestant; b. at Ehningen (15 m. s.w. of Stuttgart), Wurttemberg, Mar. 28, 1853. He studied at Tiibingen 1871‑76 (Ph.D., 1879), and, after being a pastor 1876‑79, was lecturer at Tiibingen 1879‑81. He was then professor in a gymnasium at Stuttgart until 1888, when he was appointed professor of Old‑Testament exegesis at the University of Breslau, where he was rector in 1896‑97. Since 1898 he has been professor of the same subject at Leipsic. He has translated
I	Judges and Samuel for E. F. Kautasch's Heilige Schrift des Allen Testaments (Freiburg, 1892); and the Psalms of Solomon for the same scholar's Apokryphen and Pseudepigraphen des Allen Testaments (Tiibingen, 1898); edited Chronicles for SBOT (New York, 1895); C. F. A. Dillmann's Handbuch der alttestamentlichen Theologie (Leipsie, 1895); the sixth edition of the same scholar's Kommentar zu Jesaja (1898); and Biblia Hebraica (in eollaboration with various other scholars; Leipsic, 1905‑07). He is likewise the editor of Saat auf Ho, frtung, and has written: Sittliche Fragen (Stuttgart, 1883); Geachichte der Hebrller (2 vole., Goths, 1888‑92; Eng. transl, by J. Taylor, H. W. Hogg, and E. B. Spiers, 2 vole., London, 1895); Aus dem Leben des Propheten Jesaia (Goths, 1894); Die Anfdnge der hebrkischen GeschichtaschretTncng im Allen Testament (Leipsic, 1896); commentaries on Kings and Chronicles (in W. Nowaek's Handkommenlar zum Allen Testament; Gottingen, 1900‑02); Die orierttalisehen Aua grabungen and die kltere biblische Geachichte (Leipsie, 1903); Der Babel‑Bi6elstreit and die O, fenbarungafrage (Leipsie, 1903); and Studien zur hebraischen Archdologie and Religionageschichte (1908), in Beitriiye zur Wissenschaft vom Alters Testament, which he edits.
KITTIM. See TABLE OF THE NATIONS.
KITTO, JOHN: English Biblical scholar; b. at Plymouth Dec. 4, 1804; d. at Cannstadt, Germany, Nov. 25, 1854. In his eleventh year he had to leave school to assist his father, a stonemason, and in 1817, while carrying slates up a high ladder, he suffered a fall that rendered him completely deaf for the rest of his life. Cut off from ordinary society by this infirmity he now devoted himself to study and resorted to various expedients for earning pennies to procure books. With the exception of a few months spent as apprentice to an ill‑natured Plymouth shoemaker, he was in the workhouse from Nov., 1819, till July, 1823. Friends then provided for his support and secured permission for him to use the public library, and in 1824 A. N. Groves (q.v.), a dentist at Exeter, took him as a pupil. In July, 1825, he entered the Missionary College at Islington to learn printing, and in June, 1827, he went to Malta as a printer in the employ of the Church Missionary Society. In Jan., 1829, he re‑
turned to England, end the f ellow~ng June Le
joined Groves' private mission party as tutor to Groves' children. The party reached Bagdad in December. In 1833 he returned to England, obtained employment with Charles Knight, then editor of the publications of the Society for the

349	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	XXiareabaoh
Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and wrote industriously for Knights' Penny Magazine and Penny Cyclopcedia. Through connections formed with London and Edinburgh publishers he was now enabled to follow his literary bent and make for himself an enviable reputation as a popular writer on Eastern and Biblical subjects. In 1844, though a layman, he was created D.D. by the University of Giessen; in 1845 he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries; and in 1850, in recognition of his " useful and meritorious literary works," a civil list pension of £100 per annum was conferred upon him. His last years were saddened by ill health and financial difficulties. When, in Feb., 1854, he was forced to stop work, generous friends contributed to his support and enabled him to spend the last three months of his life in Germany. The works for which Kitto is particularly remembered are: The Pictorial Bible (3 vols., London, 1835‑38); Cyclopcedia of Biblical Literature (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1843‑45), which he edited and largely wrote; and Daily Bible Illustrations (8' vols., 1849‑53). Other works deserving mention are: Pictorial History of Palestine (2 vols., London, 1841); and The Lost Senses (2 parts, 1845). He also founded and edited the Journal of Sacred Literature (London, 1848‑53).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographical matter is contained in The Lost Senses, ut sup. Consult: J. E. Ryland, Memoirs of John Kitto. . . with a critical Estimate of Dr. Kiuo'a Life and Writings by Nofeseor Eadie, Edinburgh, 1858; J. Eadie, Life of J. Kitto, ib. 1882; W. M. Thayer, From Poor‑House to Pulpit; the Triumphs of • . . John Kitto, Boston, 1859; DNB, xxxi. 233‑235.
gLARENBACH, kldr'en‑bdeH, ADOLF: German Reformer; b. at LiAtringhausen (17 m: s.e. of Diisseldorf), in the latter part of the fifteenth century; executed at Cologne Sept. 28, 1529. He was educated at Lennep, at Munster (where he came under the influence both of the Brethren of the Common Life‑see COMMON LIFE, BRETHREN OF THE‑and of the humanists), and at the Laurentian seminary in Cologne, over which presided Arnold of Tongem, later one of his judges. For a time after receiving his degree in 1517 nothing is known of him, but within a few years he was a teacher in a Latin school at Munster. He had already come to sympathize with the principles of the Reformation, perhaps through the influence of his mother, and he was obliged to leave the city on a charge of insulting the cross. In 1524 Klarenbach was associate rector at the municipal school of Wesel, a town strongly in favor of the new faith. There, though he had never taken orders, he seems to have assumed ecclesiastical functions, aided by a number of others who had become disaffected with Roman Catholic tenets. The hostility of the monks obliged him to leave Wesel for Osnabrfck after two years, and in his new home he taught Latin, in addition to giving Protestant lectures on certain books of the New Testament and the dialectics of Melanchthon. His activity roused the opposition of the cathedral chapter of Osnabriick, but he declined a call to Meldorp, feeling that his duty summoned him rather to Lennep, where he settled shortly after Easter, 1527. The attacks there made upon him evoked his chief literary work in 1527, in which he assailed the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church
and defended Protestant tenets. Expelled from
Lennep, Klarenbach turned to his old friend Johann
	i Klopreis, the ex‑par priest o il eric w o
	d already been cited before the spirituaJ court at
.ologne. Under Klarenbach's inspiration, however, ',Iopreis became so outspoken in his sentiments that he was again summoned to appear before the court and was imprisoned, while Klarenbach, who had accompanied him to the trial to give him encouragement, was likewise placed in confinement on Apr. 3, 1528. Klopreis succeeded in making his escape Jan. 1, 1529, but his comrade was denied all hope of freedom.
The problem before the Roman Catholics of Cologne was a serious one, for Protestantism was beginning to work its way insidiously into this stronghold of Roman Catholicism in Germany; the citizens were distrustful of the clergy, and the university was declining under Luther's influence. In view of the importance of Klarenbach in the Protestant movement and his audacity in invading the center of archiepiscopal power, it became doubly necessary to make a terrible example of him. His trial was a long one, since not only the ecclesiastical court, but also the civil court of Cologne and even the imperial supreme court at Speyer were concerned. The latter wished Klarenbach to be released on condition that he would bring no claim for damages, but the court of the Inquisition refused to agree, and on Mar. 4, the sentence of death was imposed. The execution took place on Sept. 28, the delay being due to the fact that the populace was displeased at the verdict and must first be pacified. During the course of the summer, however, the city was visited by a plague, so that the conviction spread that this was a divine retribution for mercy to heretics, and the execution accordingly became feasible, especially in view of the repeated failures of the efforts made to induce him to retract his teachings. The German Protestants regarded Klarenbach and Peter Fliesteden, a somewhat fanatical character of whom little is known, but who was imprisoned with Klarenbach and died with him, as the martyrs of the Lower Rhine, and in 1829 the third centennial of the execution was publicly celebrated and a monument was erected in his honor.
The exact relation of Klarenbach to the Reformation is somewhat uncertain, but it seems probable, on the whole, that he was Biblical rather than professedly Lutheran, although he had read the works of the Wittenberg reformer, approving portions of them and rejecting others. On the other hand, the circumstances of his trial led him to emphasize certain aspects of his beliefs and to pass over others more lightly. Noteworthy features of his defense were his frequent use of the term " brethren," an appellation rare with Luther, and his rigid avoidance of taking an oath, apparently due to the influence of the old Evangelical thought as exemplified by the Waldenses, Moravian Brethren, and the Anabaptists. [While he held that " there is no satisfaction for sin save the death of Christ alone," he yet insisted that " our good works are signs, witnesses and pledges of such faith in Christ." He rejected transubstantiation and consubstantiar

8lsrer
glopetook
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
850
tion alike, insisting that the elements in communion are " only external signs and nothing more." He defines baptism as " dipping into the water and drawing out again " and as inviting death to all fleshly lust and a putting on of a new man and the leading henceforth of a spiritual life. Cf. extracts in Rembert, pp. 134 sqq. A. H. N.J
(E. BRATKEt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Epiatola Johannl3 Romberch . . . in qua narratur . tragoedia . . . Adolphi Clarenbach, Cologne, 1530, ed. E. Bratke and A. Careted in Theologieclu Arbeiten sue dem rheinischen . . . Preferaerein, Freiburg, 1898; C. Krafft, Geachichte . . . Adolf Claren. bach and Peter Flieateden, Elberfeld, .1886; E. Densmer, Geechichte der Reformation am Niederrhein, Dilsseldorf, 1899; K. Rembert, Die "Wiedertaujer" in Herzogtum Jidich, pp. 114‑137 et passim, Berlin, 1899.
	gLARER, kldr'er, WALTER: Swiss Reformer;
b. at Hundwil, canton of Appenzell, 1499; d. there
1566. He attended the schools in St. Gall, Schaff
hausen, and Bern, and then spent four years in the
Stipendium regium at Paris, where he studied canon
law. He joined the Reformation at its very start,
and in 1522 became pastor in his native town. In
1531 he officiated at Herisau, in 1532 at Gossau.
During the following ten years he was preacher of
Urnasch, in the canton of Appenzell, and from
1543 to 1566 again in Hundwil. He took part in a
number of important conferences and disputations,
including the Disputation of Bern in 1528. In 1565
he wrote, from memory, a brief history of the Ref
ormation in Appenzell from 1521 to 1531 (ed. J. J.
Simler, from a German copy, the original being lost,
in Sammlung alter and neuer Urkunden, pp. 803‑840,
Zurich, 1759; reprinted by Heim from another
German copy in the Appenzell Year Book for
1873, pp. 86‑106). 	(EMIL EOLIt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Some data from autobiographic sources appeared, ed. Walser, in Appanzeller Chronik, 1740, pp. 390391; other material is scattered through the sources of the history of the Swiss Reformation.
KLAUS, BROTHER See FLUE, NIKOLAUs VON (DER).
KLEINERT, klainert, HUGO WILHELM PAUL: German Protestant; b. at Vielguth (near Bernstadt, 22 m. e. of Breslau), Silesia, Sept. 25, 1837. He studied at Breslau and Halle (Ph.D., 1857; lie. theol., Breslau, 1860), and was deacon and teacher of religion at the gymnasium of Oppeln 1861‑63, and teacher in the Friedrich‑Wilhelm gymnasium in Berlin 1863‑65. He was then inspector at the Domkandidatenstift, Berlin, 18651867, and preacher at St. Gertrude's in the same city 1867‑77. Meanwhile, in 1864, he had become privatdocent for Old‑Testament exegesis at the University of Berlin, where he was appointed associate professor of the same subject in 1868. Since 1877 he has been professor of Old‑Testament exegesis and practical theology. He was made a consistorial counselor in 1873 and in 1894 was created a supreme consistorial counselor. In theology he is Evangelical, although he belongs to the critical school. He has written Ueber das Buch Koheleth (Berlin, 1864); Augustin cared Goethe's Faust (1866); Schillers religiose Bedeutung (1866); the commentary on Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah in J. P. Lange's Btbelwerk (Bielefeld, 1869; Eng. tranal., New York, 1874); Untersuch‑
ungen zur alttestamentlichen Rechts‑ und Literaturgeschiehte (1872); Abriss der Einleitung zum Allen Testaments in Tabellenform (Berlin, 1878); Die revidierte Lutherbibel (Heidelberg, 1883); Zur christlichen Kultur and Kulturgeschichte (Berlin, 1889); Der preussische Agenden‑Entwurf (Goths, 1894); Selbatgesprache am Krankerh and Sterbelager (Berlin, 1896); Die Profeten Israela in. aoeialer Beziehung (Leipsie, 1905); Homiletik (1907); and Musik uud Religion, Gottesdienst and Volksfeier (1908).
gLEUKER, klei'ker, JOHANN FRIEDRICH: German Protestant apologete; b. at Osterode (41 m. s.s.e. of Hanover) Oct. 24, 1749; d. at Kiel May 31, 1827. He studied philosophy and theology at Gtittingen, where he distinguished himself by his restless energy and capacity for work. As private tutor at Buckeburg he formed a friendship with Herder, through whose influence he was appointed prorector at Lemgo. This post he exchanged for a gymnasial rectorship at 0snabriick in 1778. During the last twenty‑eight years of his life he was professor of theology at Kiel. He was a stanch adversary of the rationalism of the time and a prominent representative of a theosophicalBiblical supernaturalism on a historical basis. His theology was distinctly Christocentric. He regarded Christianity as the highest revelation of God, to teach man the nature of the highest good, the kingdom of God, and to enable him to participate in its realization. His numerous works attest not only his industry, but also his sound scholarship, espt‑cially in Oriental languages, patristic, and classical literature. They include: Menschlicher Versuch caber den Sohn Gottes and der Menschen (Leipsie, 1776); Johannes, Petrus and Paulus als Christologen betrachtet (Riga, 1785); Salomonische Denkwiirdigkeiten (1785); Neue Priifung and Erklarung der vorziiglichsten Beweise fur die Wahrheit des Christenthums (3 parts, 1787‑94); Ausfiihrliehe Untersuchung der Grande fur die Aechtheit and Glaubwiirdigkeit der schriftlichen Urkunden des Christenthums (5 parts, Leipsie, 1793‑99); and Grundriss einer Encyclopddie der Theologie (2 parts, Hamburg, 1800‑01).
(F. ARNOLD.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Ratjen, Johann Friedrich Kleuker and
Briefe an seine Freunde, Gtittingen, 1882; C. E. Carstens, Geechichte der theologiachen Pakultfit zu Kiel, 1875; Vol‑
behr, Pro,/eaaoren and Docenten der Chraatian‑Albrechts Univeraitdt zu Kiel, Kiel, 1887.
	gLIEFOTH, kli'f6th, THEODOR FRIEDRICH
DETHLOF: German Lutheran; b. at Kbrehow
near Wittenburg (17 m. s.w. of Schwerin), Mecklen
burg‑Schwerin, Jan. 18, 1810; d. at Schwerin Jan.
26, 1895. He was educated at the gymnasium of
Schwerin, and at the Universities of Berlin and Ros
		tock. In 1833 he was appointed in
	Life. structor of Duke William of Mecklen
		burg, and in 1837 accompanied Grand
Duke Frederick Francis as tutor to Dresden. He
became pastor at Ludwigslust in 1840, and super
intendent of Schwerin in 1844. Since 1835 he had
been the leading spirit in the ecclesiastical and
theological affairs of his state. With the abolish
ment of the old constitution of the estates in 1848

351	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Klarer
		glopstook
and the organization of a parliamentary government,
the rule of the Church by the State had become an
	impossibility. Thus there originated in 1850 a
superior ecclesiastical court with Kliefoth as chief
ecclesiastical councilor. In 1886 he became its
	president.	During the decades 1850‑70, he was
	actively engaged in ecclesiastical reforms. Being
convinced that the prosperity of the Church is prin
	cipally dependent upon the efficiency of the admin
istrators of the means of grace, he was intent upon
	filling the clergy with the spirit and doctrines of
the Lutheran Church. To this end the faculty of
	Rostock was reorganized with teachers of strictly
Lutheran tendency, the institution of church in
	spections by superintendents was again called into
life, abuses in the church service and in the admin
istration of ecclesiastical acts were abolished, and
the rationalistic spirit was removed from the pulpit.
	New formularies of liturgy on the basis of the old
	church orders were made, and the old treasures of
	Lutheran church music were embodied in a new book
	of melodies.
		Kliefoth laid down his conception of the Church
	and church polity in his Acht Biicher von der
	Kirche (vol. i., Schwerin, 1854). The first four
	books treat of the kingdom of God founding of
	the Church, of the means of grace, of the con
			gregation and its service, and of the
His Views Church and its order and government.
		of the	The last four books, which were to
	Church and treat of the development and comple
		Church	tion of the Church never appeared.
		Polity.	Kliefoth's peculiar conception was due
			chiefly to his occupation with the old
	Lutheran church orders. With great energy he
	emphasizes ‑the divine foundation of the Church
	through the acts of salvation of the triune God;
	its divine basis in the means of grace, which mediate
	and vouchsafe the continuous effect of Christ and
	his spirit; the divine institution of the office of
	the means of grace; and the necessity of the or
	ganization and incorporation of the Church in
	church order and church government. The Church
	is for him the empirical congregation of the called,
	and not merely the congregation of true believers;
	and for him Lutheranism is not merely a doctrine or
	dogmatical tendency, but a distinctive church body
	whose peculiar historical development is to be per
	petuated. He opposed the territorialism of state
	omnipotence, which denied the independence of
	the Church, the collegialism of modern represent
	ative church government, which originated in the
	Reformed Church and seemed to him to endanger
	the privilege and authority of the office of the means
	of grace; unionism, which threatened to absorb
	the Lutheran Church as such, or at least its confes
	sion; and the amalgamation. of Church and politics,
	with its tendency toward the establishment of a
	national German Evangelical Church. On the other
	hand he aimed at the restoration of the Lutheran
	state churches and the strengthening of Lutheran
	ism through a closer union. In this sense he Pepre
	sented the government of the Mecklenburg church
	at the Eisenach Conference after 1852; and in 1868
	he founded with others the Allgemeine evangelisch
	lutherische Konferenz.
	Kliefoth was one of the strongest men among the
churchmen and theologians of his day, and one of
the most effective preachers of the nineteenth
century. The political and ecclesiastical liberals
decried him as a dangerous reactionist, the unionists
hated his strict Lutheranism, the representatives
of pietistic subjectivism were offended by his so
clesiasticism, and popular sentiment disliked his
hierarchical tendencies. He was also the most no
table authority of his time on liturgies and the
old Lutheran church orders. His Liturgische Ab
handlungen (8 vols., Schwerin, 1854‑61, 2d. ed.,
1858‑69) is his most prominent work, the most pecu
liar expression of his spirit. Other important works
are: Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte (Ludwigs
lust, 1839); Theorie des Kultua der evangeliachen
Kirche (1844); Ueber Predigt and Katecheae in der
Vergangenheit and in der Gegenwart (in Meck
lenburgi8chea Kirchenblatt, ii. 1‑55, 169‑245,
Rostock, 1846); Die uralrrungliche Gotte8dienat
ordnung in den deutschen Kirchen lutherischen
Bekenntnissea (Rostock, 1847); Das Verhaltnis der
Landesherren ale lahaber der Kirchengewalt zu
ihren Kirchenbehdrden (Schwerin, 1861); Der preus
ti8che Staat and die Kirchen (1873); and Christhche
Eschatologie (Leipsic, 1886). He also wrote com
mentaries on Zechariah (Schwerin, 1859), Ezekiel
(2 parts, Rostock, 1864‑65), Daniel (Schwerin, 1868),
and Revelation (Leipsic, 1874). With Prof. O.
Mejer of Rostock he edited the KirchUche Zeitachrift
(Schwerin, 1854‑59), which, with A. W. Dieckhoff,
he continued as Theologieche Zeitschrift (1860‑64).
He published several collections of sermons, and
a great number of single and occasional sermons.
		(ERNST HAAC%.)
BIBLIOGRAPHT: Allpemeine evangeliach4utherische Kirchenzeitung 1883, no. 19, 1895, nos. 10‑15; L. von Hirschfeld, Friedrich Franz 11. . . and seine Vorgdnger, 2 vole., Leipsic, 1891; C. Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon, iv. 11‑13, ib. 1894.
KUNG, CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH: German Protestant; b. at Altdorf (11 m. s.w. of Stuttgart), Wurttemberg, Nov. 4, 1800; d. at Marbach (15 m. s. of Heilbronn), Wiirttemberg, Mar. 8, 1862. He studied at Tubingen and Berlin, became pastor at Waiblingen in 1826, professor of theology at Marburg in 1832, at Bonn in 1842, pastor at Ebersbach in 1849, and dean of Marbach in 1851. He was a pupil of Schleiermacher and Neander. In his writings, as in his lectures, he was instructive, sound, and winning, and showed himself a man of fine discrimination and independent judgment. He edited the sermons of the Franciscan Bertholdt (BerthoO des Franciscaners Predigten, Berlin, 1824), prepared for J. P., Lange's Bibelwerk the commentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians (Eng. transl., in Schaff's edition of Lange's Commentary (N. T., vol. vi., New York, 1868). He also published a number of treatises in TSK.
gLOPSTOCK, klep'stek, FRIEDRICH GOTTLIEB. Early Life and Studies (§ 1).
Studies at Leipsic. Earlier Poetic Work (§ 2). Life and Works after 1748 (¢ 3).
His Influence and Importance (§ 4).
Friedrich Gottlieb Klopetock, the great German religious poet, was born at Quedlinburg (31 m. s.w. of Magdeburg), Prussia, July 2, 1724; d. at Ham.

Klopstock
8loatermann
burg Mar. 14, 1803. He was descended from a family which for three generations had attained a fair measure of distinction in the law and the government service. When Friedrich was nine years old his father removed to Friedeburg in
i. Early the county of Mansfeld where the
Life and boy revealed even then that profound
	Studies.	love for nature which was to find ex
		pression in his poetry. At the age of
thirteen he returned to Quedlinburg and began
his studies at the gymnasium, with little en
thusiasm and success, however. A free scholarship
enabled him to enter, in 1739, the Schulpforte, the
ancient Schola Portensis founded by the Elector
Maurice of Saxony for the education of Protestant
youth. This was the time of the great struggle
between the classicists and the romanticists,
between Gottsched and Bodmer, and young
Klopstock fell easily under the sway of the
" revolutionary " ideas of the Swiss school. It
was in 1737 that Gottsched opened the conflict
by his attack on Milton's Paradise Lost and Bodmer
replied in the celebrated Yom Wunderbaren in der
Poesie (1740) which Klopstock took as his guide in
the study of the epic, going at the same time to
Homer and Vergil for his models. For a time he was
possessed with the desire of celebrating in epic form,
the deeds of Henry the Fowler, liberator of Germany
from the Hungarians, but it came to him after
many sleepless nights that the Messiah was the
worthiest subject for the pen of an epic writer, and
the youthful poet then entered upon his life's task
which was to take twenty‑five years in the comple
tion. He graduated from the Schulpforte in 1745,
delivering a valedictory address which must be re
garded as marking, with the work of Bodmer already
mentioned, the opening of a new era in the history
of German literature. Abandoning the standards
of the spiritless verse‑literature of the modern clas
sicists, Klopsiock sounded an appeal for a national
epic in the spirit of the great epics of the ancient
world. He called for a German epic literature with
out knowing that such a treasure of national
lore was in existence. At a time when Vergil
was generally set above Homer because the one
was "refined" and the other "rude" the youthful
Klopstock dared to reverse the order and to proclaim
the Greek singer as the prince of poets.
In the autumn of 1745 Klopstock began the study of theology at Jena; but his disgust was speedily aroused by the rudeness of student life there, and in the spring of the following year he removed to Leipsic. Before his departure, however, he had written the first three cantos of the
2. Studies Messias, in prose form. At Leipsic he
at Leipsic. came into intimate association with
	Earlier	Gartner, Andreas Cramer, A. Schlegel,
	Poetic	Rabener, Zacharia, Giseke, and Ebert,
	Work.	who, with others, formed a poetic
		circle whose productions were pub
lished in the Bremer Beitrage edited by Gartner.
Here in an atmosphere of culture and personal affec
tion, Klopstock began the composition of odes on
the Horatian mode. From the year 1747 date the
Lehrling der Griechen, Wingolf Die Kiinftig Geliebte,
and from the following year, Selmar and Selma, An
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ass
Ebert, An Giseke, Petrarca and Laura, and others. In 1746 he had selected the hexameter as the most suitable form for his epic, and after laboring for nearly two years on the recasting of his prose material into verse published the first three cantos of the Messias in the Bremer Beitrage in 1748. The effect produced on the popular mind was tremendous; in the national literature they opened a new line of development. Above the musical and empty verse jingle of the time the opening songs of the Messias towered incomparable, with their fervid religiosity and poetic fire cast in noble Homeric phrase forms. As Kleist said, so lofty and rich a style had been deemed impossible in Germany. Less enthusiastic natures were carried away by the exalted piety which now found expression in such full‑mouthed utterance. In spite of much that was personal in the Messias, much that was historically and critically unwarranted, no one could deny its author the gift of poetic, soulstirring, Christian inspiration.
In 1748 Klopstock left Leipsic and took up the post of tutor in the house of a relative at Langensalza, where his duties gave him ample leisure for the pursuit of his poetic works. At the same time he was at work on the fourth and fifth cantos of the Messias; happy, it may be presumed, in the
enjoyment of a vast popularity. Hos‑
e. Life and tile critics, however, were not wanting; Works the orthodox clergy assailed his " bold
	after 1748.	fictions," while the followers of Gott
		sched found fault with the technique
of the poem and the excessive sentimentality that
characterizes it in parts. In the spring of 1750
Klopstock returned to Quedlinburg, but went soon
after to Switzerland, where his Messias had achieved
its greatest triumph. He remained in Zurich till
the spring of 1751 when he went to Copenhagen
at the invitation of Frederick V. whose minister,
Bernstorff, was one of his warmest admirers.
The recipient of a liberal pension, he could
now devote himself to the completion of his great
poem. In 1754 he married Margareta Moller,
whom, three years earlier, he had met in Ham
burg, and had subsequently sung under the name
of Cidli, and with whom he lived happily till her
death in 1758. From this period date many odes
and the plays, Der Tod Adams (1757), Salomo (1764),
and Die Hermannsschlacht (1769), the latter reveal
ing his complete lack of the dramatic sense and all
contributing, by their unrestrained sentimentality,
to the deterioration of dramatic standards in Ger
many. Frederick V. died in 1766; Count Bernstorff
soon after fell from power, and, retiring in 1770 to
Hamburg, was followed by Klopstock who passed
the remainder of his life in that city with the excep
tion of the years 1774 and 1775, when the Margrave
Charles Frederick of Baden summoned him to Carls
ruhe. There, in spite of honors conferred upon him,
the poet found conditions little to his taste. It was
on his return to Hamburg that he met Goethe, but
the acquaintance then formed soon came to an end.
In 1774 there appeared Die Gelehrtenrepublik con
taining Klopstock's opinion on literary questions,
conditions, and personalities of the times as well as
his investigations in the history of the German

353	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8lopeemnc
$loeteraoana
language. This work fell far below expectations, as Goethe tells in the twelfth book of his Dichtung and Wahrheit. In 1779 there appeared the Fragments fiber Sprache and Dichtkunat and in the following year the definitive edition of the Messias. Klopstock's last years were passed in a leisurely activity, devoted to the composition of odes and the preparation of an edition of his collected works. The outbreak of the French Revolution aroused his enthusiasm and he was honored with the citizenship of the French Republic, but the excesses of the later revolutionists were learned with horror and anger. In 1791 he married Frau von Winthem (noe Dimpfri), a niece of his first wife. He had no children. Among his last productions are several epigrams directed against the Kantian philosophy.
It was Klopstock who, to quote Platen, gave new life to the German language and liberated it from the thraldom of the French. Poesy became
the beautiful and noble expression of 4. His In‑ the artist's soul finding full satisfaction
fluence and in the sincere formulation of the probImportance. lems that beset it. This has been the
main characteristic of German poetry since the time of Klopstock and only they have achieved and retained primacy who have remained faithful to it. Klopstock's joyous and enthusiastic nature found its most grateful expression in the national and sacred song. Whenever he wanders outside of these realms he falls beneath his own level. If the great period in German literature that followed him may be characterized as being marked by a successful assimilation of national poetic elements with foreign elements of ancient and modern times, Klopstock must be regarded as the one who ushered in this new era. The one quality that he possessed above his contemporaries was the element of Germanic patriotism which evinced itself in his life and thought. He is Germanic in the delight he takes in tales of heroic deeds and in nature, home, and love; Germanic above all in that passionate longing for salvation which is the great inheritance of the German people. His admiration of the heroic finds utterance in odes like Kaiser Heinrich, Mein Vaterland, Hermann and Thuanelda, Heinrich der Vogler, Die beiden Musen, Die Konigin Luise. His love of nature speaks in the Bardate, Ziirichersee, Friedxnsburg, Rheinwein, Das Rosenband, Die tote Clarissa. A mighty current of faith pulsates in such odes as An Gott, Dem Erloser, Der Erbarmer, Dab grosse Hallelujah, as well as in his magnificent hymn of the Resurrection. This confidence in the Savior reveals itself in the certain hope of a rising from the dead and of an eternal life, and Klopstock is the poet of the future life primarily. When Gervinus in his life characterises the Messias as " an unbroken succession of monstrous errors " he has overlooked this great fact. At the same time he has failed to recognize the essential weakness of the poem which consists in this, that an individual here attempts to create an epic where the necessary conditions and presuppositions are absent. A national epic can arise only on the basis of a common national life and the poet in this case becomes only the mouthpiece as is the case with the Heliand. A " poetic VI.‑23
invention " such as Klopstock resorts to in his creation of a Christian mythology is fatal to the epic story from the very beginning, since the true epic poet finds his activity not in creation but in narration of traditional facts; as far as diction is concerned it must be the simple language of the people. Judged by these standards, the Messias as an epic is a failure. But on the other hand it must not be denied the merit of having disseminated throughout the European world, this joyous message of salvation free from all dogmatic and credal restrictions. Klopstock's most unsuccessful attempt was his recasting of the old hymns of the Church which, in their utter lack of sympathy for an objective world and a consciousness of nationality, proved ungrateful material for his talents. On the other hand what he excelled in was his knowledge of classical antiquity and especially of the poetry of the Greeks.
	His works first appeared in Leipsic, 7 vols.,1798
1810, but not in complete form till 1844‑45, 11
vols.; his correspondence appeared in 3 vols. at
Stuttgart, 1839‑40. There are numerous editions of
all or part of his works; e.g. Oden (Stuttgart, 1889;
Eng. transl., London, 1848). Of Messiaa, on which
his fame rests, an Eng. transl. appeared in 4 vols.
at Hamburg, 1821‑22. 	(A. FREYBE.)
B113LIGGRAPHY: C. F. Cramer, Klopatock, 2 vole., Hamburg,
1777‑78; idem, Klopatock, Er; and fiber ihn, 5 vole„ ib., 1780‑92; J. M. H. Daring, Klopstocks Leben, Weimar, 1825; J. W. L&bell, Die Entwickelung der deutachen Poeaie vor Klopstock's erstem Auftreten bis su Goethes Tod, 3 vole., Brunswick, 1856‑‑65; R. Hamel, Klopstockstudien Rostoek, 1879‑80; K. Heinemann, Klopstocks Leben and Werke, Bielefeld, 1890; F. Muncker, Klopstock, Geschiate seines Lebens and seiner Schriften, 2 vole., Stuttgart, 19W; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 625‑626.
gLOSTERMAIM, AUGUST HEINRICH: German Protestant; b. at Steinhude (15 m. w.n.w. of Hanover) May 16, 1837. He studied in Erlangen and Berlin 1855‑58, and was assistant pastor in Bilckeburg until 1864. From 1864 to 1868 he was tutor and privat‑docent at G6ttingen, and since 1868 has been professor of Old‑Testament exegesis in Kiel. He has written: Vindicte Lucante (G6ttingen, 1866); Das Markusevangelium reach eeinem Quellenwerte fur die evangelische Geschichte (1867); Untersuchung zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Goths, 1868); Korrekturen zur bisherigen Erklarung des Rdmerbriefes (1881); Die Gemutsstimmungen der Christen in R6mer v. i‑ii (Kiel, 1881); Ueber deutsche Art bei Martin Luther (1884); Die Gottesfurcht als Hauptstiick der Weisheit (1885); Die Bucher Samuelm and der Konige ausgelegt (NSrdlingen, 1887); Zur Theorie der Mlischen Weissagung urtd zur Charakteristik des Hebraerbriefes (1889); Der Pentateuch, Beitrdge zu aeinem Verstandnis and seiner Entstehungsgeschichte (Leipsie, 1893); Deuterojesaia, hebrdisch urtd deutsch (Munich, 1893); Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis zur Restauration unter Esra and Nehemid (1896); Ein diplomatischer Bnefweehsel aus dem zu~eiten jahrtausend vor Christo (Kiel, 1898); Deuterorwmium and Grdg6s (1900); and Schulwesen im alten Israel, (Leipsic, 1908).

KLOSTERMANN, kles'ter‑man, ERICH: German Protestant; b. at Kiel Feb. 14, 1870. Hg

Kaeuoker
Knapp	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	864
studied at the academy of Neuchatel and the universities of Leipsic, Kiel, Berlin, and Erlangen (Ph.D., Kiel, 1892). In 1901 he became privat‑docent for New‑Testament exegesis and early Christian literature in Kiel, where he was appointed full professor in 1905. He has written De libri Coheleth versione Alexandrina (Kiel, 1892); Griechische Exzerpte aus Homilien des Origenes (Leipsie, 1894); Analekta zur Septuaginta, Hexapla and Patristik (1895); Die Schriften des Origenes and Hieronymus Brief an Paula (Berlin, 1897); Ueberlieferung der Jeremiashomilie des Origenes (Leipsic, 1897); Eusebius' Schrift arepi ri6v romK6v oropfirwv rCiv iv ry deig ypaolj (1902); Reste des Petrusevangeliums, der Petrusapokalypse and des Kerugma Petri (Bonn, 1903); Ueber des Didymus von Alexandrien In epistolas canonicas enarratio (Leipsic, 1905) ; and commentary on Mark (Tiibingen, 1907; in collaboration with H. Greasmann).

KNAPP, ALBERT: The most distinguished German writer of spiritual songs in the first half of the nineteenth century; b. at Tiibingen July 25, 1798; d. at Stuttgart June 18, 1864. He was the son of a councilor of the superior court in Tiibingen, and his boyhood was spent in the poetic and inspiring atmosphere of the Black Forest. He entered the seminary of Maulbronn in 1814, and from 1816 to 1820 studied at the Evangelical theological seminary in Tubingen, where he imbibed more poetry than theology and found the pranks of student life more to his taste than the supernaturalism of the time. In 1820 he was sent to Feuerbach as vicar, and later to Gaisberg, both villages near Stuttgart. In Gaisberg he met Ludwig Hofacker (q.v.) and under his influence Knapp's life became more serious and his convictions more Evangelical. In 1825 he was appointed deacon in Sulz‑on‑the‑Neckar and in 1831 in Kirchheim, at the special request of Duchess Henrietta of Wiirttemberg. In 1836 he became deacon at the Hospitalkirche in Stuttgart, then archdeacon at the Stiftskirche, and in 1845 pastor of St. Leonardskirche. He declined the office of rural dean and was not active in the Christian and charitable associations of the town, preferring to confine himself to parochial duties, by which he won many personal friends and the love of his congregation.
Knapp's character was eminently broad, strong, and natural, his motto being Homo sum, nil humani a me alienum puto. His mind was open to everything noble and sublime in art and nature. But this susceptibility was kept within the limits of a spiritual orthodoxy, and he attacked every philosophy and theology which attempted to shake or undermine the fundamentals of Christian truth, which was for him also the absolutely beautiful. He Liras averse to all extremes, to those of orthodoxy as much as to the negative tendencies of the theologians, nor had he any sympathy with the onesided views of sect. His standpoint was that of a pure Evangelical Christianity and a moderate confessionalism. He was not as powerful a preacher as Ludwig Hofacker, but his sermons are distinguished by a varied wealth and depth of thought expressed in vigorous language. His addresses to
his fellow preachers at ministerial conferences were no less remarkable.
Knapp was an original poet and hymn‑writer and his claim to permanent fame rests upon his gift for spiritual poetry. His collections of poemsChristliche Gediehte (2 vols., Basel, 1829); Neuere Gediehte (2 vols., 1834); Christenlieder (Stuttgart, 1841), a collection of hymns including forty‑eight original; Neueste Folge (1843); Auswahl (1854, 1868); Herbstbliiten (1859)‑reveal his fertility, though some of them lack final finish. Nature and its glories furnish him inexhaustible material and inspiration, but he also treats facts of history and powerful personalities. In his Christoterpe, a Christian almanac and year‑book, which he edited from 1833 to 1853, he celebrates poets like Goethe and Schiller, warriors like Napoleon, musicians like Bach, Handel, Mozart, and Beethoven, German heroes like the Hohenstauffens, classical antiquity, and modern history. He aimed to unite in his poems "transient nature and the fleeting life of man, and, raising itself above them both, the Word of God in its eternal youth." As far back as the twenties he conceived the idea of offering to the Christian public an Evangelischer Liederschatz fiir Kirche and Haus. From more than 80,000 hymns he selected 3,590 and published them at Stuttgart in 1837. He considered some changes of the text necessary, especially the removal of harsh expressions and grammatical faults; but he went further and took the liberty of " putting shallow and feeble expressions into a more vigorous, Biblical language and of filling up apparent gaps by new strophes and of freely reproducing whole songs." In single cases he sueceeded brilliantly, but on the whole he had to confess in the second edition (1850) that he had been frequently guided too strongly by his subjective feelings. Even in this revised edition he did not properly reproduce the original, as he was still guided by the principle that the old hymns should be adapted to modern taste. The same may be said of the third edition (1865). The work received bitter criticism from G. C. H. Stip in his Hymnologische Reisebriefe (Berlin, 1852) and from Philipp Wackernagel in the Kirchentag at Bremen in the same year. A collection of Knapp's prose works appeared under the title Gesammelte prosaische Schriften (2 parts,. Stuttgart, 1875). It consists chiefly of biographies of men like Ludwig Hofacker, Dann. Flatt, Eberhard WOrner, Hedinger, Zinzendorf, and others. Here the poet perceived many traits of character and motives of life which would be lost to the ordinary eye.
(RICHARD LAUxMANNt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Lebenebild, begun by himself and fin‑
ished by his son, J. Knapp, appeared Stuttgart, 1867. Brief sketches are by K. Gerok, ib. 1879, and 0. Brussan, Hamburg, 1902; Julian, Hymnology, pp. 627‑628.
KNAPP, kndp, GEORG CHRISTIAN: German Protestant; b. at Glaucha, Halle, Sept. 17, 1753; d. at Halle Oct. 14, 1825. He was the son of the pietist Johann Georg Knapp, and was one of the last exponents of Pietism in Halle. After studying at the universities of Halle and Gottingen he became extraordinary professor of theology at Halle in 1777
and full professor in 1782. In 1785 he assumed,

355	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Knapp
Knencker
with A. H. Niemeyer, the direction of the Franeke foundations, comprising the orphan‑house, the Latin school, and the Bible and Missionary Institute. In spite of failing health he administered his laborious offices for more than four decades with great fidelity and success. Though diffident and reserved, Knapp was a popular teacher, and his lectures on the Old and New Testaments, as well as on Christian doctrine, were largely attended. When Tholuck visited him toward the close of his life, he produced a bundle of letters from former students, remarking, " Here is my comfort, in the letters of those in whom the scattered seed first began to spring up during their professional experiences." As a writer Knapp turned mainly to exegesis. His principal works are a translation of the Psalms, with notes (Halle, 1776; 3d ed., 1789); an excellent edition of the New Testament (1797; 5th ed., 1840); and the collection of treatises, Scripta, varii argumenti maximam partem exegetici atque historici (2 vols., 1805; 2d ed., 1824). Posthumous were Vorlesungen fiber die Christliche Glaubenslehre (ed. K. Thilo, 2 parts, 1827; Eng. transl., Lectures on Christian Theology, 2 vols., New York, 18311833); and BiblischeGlaubenslehre vornehmlich zum Praktischen Gebrauch (ed. E. F. Guerike, Halle, 1840); and Beitrdge zur Lebensgeschichte August Gottlieb Spangenbergs (ed. O. Frick, 1884). Mention may be made of two popular anonymous tracts, Was soll ich than, dass ich selig werdeP (1806); and Anleitung zu einem gottseligen Leben (1811). In collaboration with I. L. Schulze and A. H. Niemeyer he edited the review, Frankens Stiftungen (3 vols., Halle, 1792‑96). II. this he published, among other things, Spener's Leben, Verdienste and Streitigkeiten (vol. i., pp. 79‑114); Speners and Frankens Klagen fiber die Mdngel der Religionslehrer (vol. ii., pp. 3384, 161‑220); and Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen (vol. ii., pp. 305333). Knapp collaborated in the Beschreibung des Halleschen Waisenhauses (Halle, 1799), and also edited Missionsberichte (Halle, 1799‑1824).
(GEORG MOLLER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. Tschackert, in ADB, xvi. 266‑267; H.
Holtzmann and R. Zopffel, Lexikon ftir Theologie and
Kirchenwesen p. 600. Brunswick, 1888; F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, iii. 1910‑11, Paris, 1903.

KNEELAND, ABNER: American editor and deistic writer; b. at Gardner, Mass., Apr. 6, 1774; d. at Farmington, Ia., Aug. 27, 1844. He was first a Baptist, then a Universalist minister, but ultimately bcame a deist. After editing universalist periodicals in Philadelphia and New York, he went to Boston and founded there in 1831 the Investigator. For views expressed in this paper he was tried for blasphemy before the supreme court at Boston in 1836 and sentenced to imprisonment for a short time. His works include: The New Testament in Greek and English (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1822); Lectures on the Doctrine of Universal Salvation (1824); and A Review of the Evidences of Christianity (New York, 1829).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The trial is reviewed in his own Review of the Trial, Conviction and Final Imprisonment . . . of A. Kneeland, Boston. 1838; C. G. Greene, Read and Judge, ib. 1834; S. D. Parker, Report of the Arguments of the
Attorney . . . at the Trials of A., Kneeland, ib. 1834; Cosmopolite, Review of the Prosecution against A. Kneeland, ib. 1853.
KNEELING. See WORSHIP.
	KNEELING CONTROVERSY IN BAVARIA: An
incident of Bavarian ecclesiastical politics under the
ministry of Karl von Abel between 1838 and 1845.
King Ludwig 1. (1825‑48), an arbitrary ruler, par
ticularly in the later years of his reign, longed for
the restoration of the old glory of the Roman Church,
and appointed Abel, an outspoken Roman Catholic
reactionary, minister for the interior. As such he
aimed blow after blow at the Protestants. On
Aug. 14, 1838, an order of the war department re
quired all soldiers, regardless of confession, to kneel
in the mass and likewise if they happened to be
on guard duty when the host was carried by in the
Corpus Christi procession. Numerous petitions
for the revocation of the order were sent to the su
preme consistory and the council of state, but proved
fruitless, Abel persuading the king that plots of the
liberal opposition were concealed in all Protestant
complaints. The consistory remained silent till 1843,
but then, incited by the increasing arrogance of
Abel and the determined resistance of the Protes
tants, they represented that the act required of the
latter was for them a sin. An attempt was made to
annul the order by legislative action but failed.
Even J. J. I. von Dollinger defended it, claiming that
kneeling was, for the Protestant soldier, merely a
motion of the body having nothing to do with
faith and conscience, and a vehement literary con
troversy was carried on between G. C. A. von
Harless (q.v.) and other Protestants and Roman
Catholic theologians, The first modification of the
offensive order exempted Protestant soldiers frpm
attending Roman Catholic services, and in Dec.,
1848, its more objectionable requirements were
annulled by the personal intervention of the king,
who finally listened to other counselors than Abel
and learned the true import of the opposition and
its serious character. Abel's administration was
overthrown in 1847. The entire movement bene
fited the Protestant Church more than it ad
vanced the Roman. 	(E. DORIC)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Dorn, in Beatrdge zur bayerischen Kir• chengeschichte, v., parts 1‑2, Erlangen, 1899; K. Fuchs, Annalen der Protestantischen Kirche in . . . Bayern, Munich, 1839; G. Eilers, Betrachtungen and urtheile des . . . E. L. von Asters . fiber die . . Parteibewegulgen unaeres Jahrhunderts, Saarbrueken, 1859; G. Thomasius, Doe Wiedererwachen des evangelischen Lebene in der 1utheri8chen Kirche Bayerns, Erlangen, 1867.
KNEUCKER, kneik'er, JOHANN JAKOB: German Protestant; b. at Tauberbischofsheim (19 m. s.w. of Wurzburg) Feb. 12, 1840. He studied in Heidelberg, 1861‑65 where he became privatdocent in 1873. In 1880 he was appointed associate professor of Old‑Testament exegesis and Semitic languages in Heidelberg. He was also engaged in
pastoral work from 1865 to 1904, holding the pastorate of Eppelheim, near Heidelberg, for the last twenty‑one years of this period. In theology he belongs to the critical school, and besides editing F. Hitzig s Vorlesungen fiber btblische Theologie

and messianische Weissagungen des Allen Testaments (Carlsruhe, 1880), has written Siloah, Quell, Teich

Knigh
and Tal in Jerusalem (Heidelberg, 1873); Das Buch Baruch (Leipsie, 1879); Die Anfdnge des rdmiachen Christentuma (Karlsruhe, 1881); Unr glaube oder Glaube ? (Heidelberg, 1895); and Die Gleichberechtigung des kirchlichen In'beralismus trait der kirchlichen Rechtgldubigkeit im Lichte des babliachen Christentums, der reformatorischen Grundsdtze and des badiachen Bekenntnisstandes (1898).
KNIGHT, ALBION WILLIAMSON: Protestant Episcopal bishop; b. at White Springs, Fla., Aug. 24, 1859. He studied at the University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn., but on account of illness took no degree. In 1881 he was ordered deacon, was ordained priest in 1883, and, after being a missionary in southern Florida 1881‑83, held parishes at Palatka, Fla., 1884‑86, and Jacksonville, Fla., 1886‑93. He was dean of the ‑cathedral at Atlanta, Ga., 18931904, and was consecrated bishop of Cuba in 1904.
KNIGHT, GEORGE THOMSON: Universalist‑, b. at Windham, Me., Oct. 29, 1850. He was educated at Tufts College (B.A,, 1872; M.A., 1875) and at the Tufts Divinity School (B.D., 1875), and has taught in the latter institution since 1875, as instructor in rhetoric and church history 1875,83, as professor of church history 1883‑1901, and as professor of Christian theology since 1901. He is also secretary and librarian of the Universalist Historical Society. He has published: The Goodness of God (Boston, 1904); and The Praise of Hypocrisy (Chicago, 1906).
KNIGHT, WILLIAM ALLEN: Congregationalist; b. at Milton, Miss., Oct. 20, 1863. He studied at Adalbert College, Western Reserve University, Hiram College, Hiram, O. (B.A., 1889), Oberlin Theological Seminary, from which he was graduated in 1900, and Harvard University (1903‑05). He was associate pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Cleveland, O., 1891‑94, and became pastor of the First Congregational Church, Saginaw Mich., in 1894, of the Central Congregational Church, Fall River, Mass., in 1897, and of the Brighton Congregational Church, Boston, in 1902. In theology he belongs to the liberal school, and has written: The Song of our Syrian Guest (Boston, 1903); The Love Watch (1904); Saint Abigail of the Pines (1905); The Tryst by the Sea (1905); and Signs in the Christmas Fire (1908).
	BNIPPERDOLLIPG (gNIPPERDOLLINCg),
BERNT: German Anabaptist; born in Munster;
executed there Jan. 23, 1536. He came of a re
spected family and was himself a merchant; he
became involved in the riot of 1527 at Munster and
was imprisoned by the bishop, but by a fine secured
his release. He adopted the faith of the Anabap
tists, sheltered some of the leaders in his house, and
was after the victory of the faction made burger. Rzeister. He aided in the placing of John of Ley‑
den at the head of affairs at Munster (see MONSTER, ANABAPTISTS IN), and became sword‑bearer and then governor; but when the city was retaken, he was captured and put to death.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the literature under MONSTER, ANA‑
BAPTISTS :N.
gNIPSTRO, knfp'stro, JOHANNES: German theologian and one of the founders of the Protes‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tant church in Pomerania; b. at Sandau (49 m. n.n.e. of Magdeburg) May 1, 1497; d. at Wolgast (33 m. s.e. of Stralsund) Oct. 4, 1556. Little is known regarding his early life, but in 1516 he went from a Franciscan cloister in Silesia to a Minorite convent at Frankfort‑on‑the‑Oder, probably for the prosecution of his studies there. A legend dating from the end of the seventeenth century describes Knipatro as meeting and overcoming the celebrated Tetzel in a public debate on indulgences in Jan., 1518, but earlier sources contain nothing to support this tradition. It is more correct to say that Knipstro embraced the teachings of Luther at an early age, and that about the year 1521 he began to preach the new doctrines publicly at Pyritz, whither he had been transferred in the hope of counteracting his heretical tendencies. Erasmus of Manteuffel, bishop of Cammin, ordered the arrest of Knipstro, who succeeded in making his escape to Stettin and was a preacher in Stralsund in Nov., 1525. There he remained till 1531, taking an important part in the organization of the church system and acting as a zealous supporter of the Lutheran doctrine against the principles of Zwinglianism which found favor among some of his colleagues. After two years' sojourn in Greifawald Knipstro returned to Stralsund, where he rose to a position of eminence, and continually endeavored to impress conservative Lutheranism on the religious life of the city. He represented Stralsund in the important religious assembly of the Hansa towns which met at Hamburg in 1535, and subsequently became court preacher to Duke Philip of PomeraniaWolgast. When the country was divided into the three sees of Wolgast, Stettin, and Stolp, Knipstro was appointed general superintendent of the first diocese, displaying in the performance of his office an active zeal for the improvement of discipline and the moral uplifting of the clergy. From 1539 to 1541 he was professor of theology at the new University of Greifswald, and though he held no academic degree, he continued uninterruptedly to fill this position after 1543, resigning his pastorate in Wolgast. In 1552, however, he left Greifswald and returned to his parish. Together with Paul von Rode, he drew up, in 1542, a new constitution for the church which was adopted by the provincial srynods. Toward the Interim Knipstro maintained an attitude of politic compromise in deference to the wishes of Duke Philip, who nominally accepted it for his dominions and made his peace with the emperor. In the Osiandrian controversy which broke out soon after, Knipstro, as an opponent of Osiander, entered into controversy with Petrus Artopbus of Stettin, and published, in accordance with the instructions of the synod, his Antwort der Theologen and Pastoren in Pommern auf die Confession A. Osiandri (Wittenberg, 1552). The dispute lasted several years and resulted in the deposition of Artop6us.
Of far greater importance was the contest which Knipstro carried on against Johann Freder over the question of ordination, a controversy in which political and doctrinal interests were closely intermingled. Freder, who was a brother‑in‑law of Justus Jonas, had been summoned from a tutorial position to the post of preacher in the Hamburg

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
cathedral in 1540, but had not been inducted with
the laying on of hands on account of the opposition
of the Roman Catholic canons. In 1547 he be
came superintendent at Stralsund and accordingly
exercised the powers of examination and ordination
over the city clergy. Knipstro now demanded that
Freder should receive ordination at his hands, an act
which would have been an official recognition of the
	authority of the general superintendency of Wol
	gast over Stralsund. The authorities of Stralsund
forbade Freder to submit to such ordination, and
	in 1549 the dispute was interrupted for a time by
	the dismissal of Freder on account of his opposi
	tion to the Interim. In 1549 Freder became pro
	fessor of theology at Greifawald, and in 1550 super
	intendent at Riigen, then part of the ecclesiastical
	province of the Danish bishop of Roeskilde, who
had the power of confirmation.	To nullify this
	authority Knipatro introduced Freder into office at
	Riigen without waiting for the confirmation of
	Bishop Palladius of Roeskilde, who now required
	Freder to appear in Copenhagen. Philip, however,
	forbade him to make the journey, whereupon Knip
	stro entered into a sharp controversy with Freder,
	denying the power of ordination to one who had
	not himself been ordained. Freder in reply denied
	that the imposition of hands constituted an essential
	part of ordination, and appealed to the Wittenberg
	theologians, who declared, through Melanchthon
	and Bugenhagen, that the custom of imposition as a
	praiseworthy practise was derived from old apos
	tolic times and that it should not be abandoned,
	although one might be considered duly ordained
	who had not observed it. In 1551 Freder, was or
	dained by Palladius in Denmark, and though he
	was deprived of his professorship at Greifswald he
	still remained superintendent at Riigen and in 1553
	came to an agreement with Knipstro. The contest,
	however, was speedily renewed, and as Freder as
	sumed a radical position in defiance of a decision of
	the synod of Greifswald, he was compelled to leave
	Riigen and became superintendent at Wismar.
	Knipstro, who had thus vindicated the authority
	of the ruling powers against that of a foreign bishop,
	continued in the active exercise of his duties for
the remainder of his life. 	(G. KAwERAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Runge (d. 1595), Brevia designatio, partly printed in 3. G. L. Kosegarten, De academia pomerana pp 28 eqq:, Greifswald, 1839; J. F. Mayer, Spnodologia Pomeransca, Ib. 1703; F. Bahlow, Johannes Knspstro Halle, 1898. Consult also: O. Fock, RiipenachPommersche Geschichten, i•. 217 sqq., Leipsie, 1868; G. Rietschel, Luther and die Ordination, pp. 90 sqq., Wittenberg, 1889.
KNOBEL, AUGUST WILHELM: German Protestant exegete; b. at Tzschecheln near Sorau (55 m. s.s.e. of Frankfort_on‑the‑Oder), Lower Lusatia, Aug. 7, 1807; d. at Giessen May 25, 1863. He studied at the gymnasium of Sorau and at the University of Breslau (Ph.D., 1831 ; Th.D., 1838), where he became privat‑docent in 1831 and professor extraordinary of theology in 1835. His Propheliemus der Hebrder (2 vols., Breslau, 1837) secured him a professorship in theology at Giessen in 1839. At Giessen he lectured exclusively on the Old Testament. His lectures were of great value from the linguistic, historical, and archeological side, though
the decidedly rationalistic bent of his mind prevented him from thoroughly appreciating the poetical and theological value of the Old Testament. His works are distinguished by sober‑mindedness and discretion, by sound linguistic and historical views, and by a comprehensive knowledge of Oriental antiquity. With the exception of the abovementioned work and V olkertafel der Genesis (Giessen, 1850), he published exclusively exegetical works; viz., commentaries on Isaiah (Leipsic, 1843; 3d ed. 1861), which involved him in a controversy with Ewald, and occasioned him to write his Ezegetisches Vademeeum fur Herrn Ewald in Tiibingen (Giessen, 1844); Genesis (Leipsic, 1852; 2d ed. 1860); Exodus and Leviticus (1857); and Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (1861). They all appeared in L. Hirzel's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alter Testament, and with the contributions of Otto Thenius and Ernst Bertheau, form the most valuable part of that collection. Knobel also wrote a commentary on Ecclesiastes (Leipsic, 1836). (0. ZScgLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. E. 8criba, Biopraphisch‑literttriechtt Lexikon, ii. 387, Darmstadt, 1843; C. Meusel, Kirchliehes Handlexikon, iv. 23, Leipsie, 1894; ADB, xvi. 300‑304.
KNOEPFLER, knup'fler, ALOIS: German Ro‑
man Catholic; b. at Schomburg Aug. 29, 1847. He studied in Tilbingen (Ph. D., 1873) and at the theological seminary at Rottenburg, and after being a lecturer at the Wilhehnstift, Tiibingen, 1876‑80, was teacher at the Realschule at Schramberg and professor in the Lyceum of Passau from 1880 to 1886. Since 1886 he has been professor of church history in the University of Munich, of which he was rector in 1893‑94. Besides editing the fifth and sixth volumes of the second edition of C. J. von Hefele's Conciliengeschichte (Freiburg, 1886‑90) and Verof'entlichungen aus deco kirchengeschichtlichen Seminar Mfnchen (Munich, 1899 sqq.), to which he has contributed editions of Walafried Strabo's Lt'ber de ezordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum (Munich, 1890) and Rabanus Maurus' De inatitur bone clericorum labri tres (1900)1 he has writt44
Mhbeloegung an Dayern unter Albrecht V. (Munich, 1891); Wert and Bedeudung des Studiums der Kirchengeschichte (1893); Lehrbuch der Kircheregeschichte (Freiburg, 1895); Johann Adam Moller
(Munich, 1896); and Das Vaterunser im Geiste der Kirchenvater in Wort and Bild (in collaboration with L. Glbtzle; Freiburg, 1898).
KNOKE, kno'ke, KARL: German Lutheran; b. at Schmedenstedt (near Peine, 13 m. n.w. of Brunswick) Oct. 15, 1841. He studied in GSttingen and Erlangen, and was private tutor (1865‑67), principal of a school at Walsrode (1867‑69), teacher in the normal school at Alfeld (1869‑75), and principal of a similar institution at Wunstorf, near Hanover (187582). Since 1882 he has been professor of practical theology in Gtittingen. In
1904 he was made abbot of Bur&ldt, and af~
a consistorial councilor. He is the founder of the Evangelical Lutheran Association in the province of Hanover, and has written: Zur Methodik der

biblischen Geschichte, i. (Hanover, 1875); Der Christ ured die politische GePrdge der Zeit (1876);

Das erste Triennium des Schullehrerseminars zu

Knollya
Knowledge, Theological	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	358
Wunstorf (1877); Ueber Kateehismustenterricht (1886); Praktiseh‑theologischer Kommentar xu den Pastoralbriefen des Apostels Paulus (2 vols., Gottingen, 1887‑89); Grundriss der praktischen Theologie (1889); Grundriss der Padagogik and ihre Geschichte seit dem Zeitalter des Humanismus (Berlin, 1894); Zur Geschichte der biblischen Figur‑ISpruchBiIeher (Goths, 1899); and Ausgabe des lutherischen Enchiridions bis zu Luthers Tode (Stuttgart, 1903). He also edited the fourth edition of J. J. van Oosterzee's Pastoralbriefe and der Brief an Philemon (Bielefeld, 1894), and editions of T. Mancinus' Die Passion Christi (GUtingen, 1898) and Luther's smaller catechism (Halle, 1904).

gNOLLYS, nolz, HANSERD: English Particular Baptist; b. at Cawkwell (20 m. e.n.e. of Lincoln), Lincolnshire, c. 1599; d. in London Sept. 19, 1691. He studied at Cambridge, took orders in 1629, and became vicar of Humberstone, Lincolnshire, but resigned his living in 1636, became a separatist and renounced his orders. The same year he was arrested on a warrant from the High Commission Court and imprisoned at Boston, Lincolnshire. Escaping through the connivance of his keeper he fled to New England early in 1638, and later in that year founded a church at Dover, N. H., over which he presided till his return to England in 1641. It is not known when, or where, he was baptized into the Baptist faith; but in 1645 he was ordained pastor of a Baptist congregation that he had gathered in London. He held several offices under Cromwell's government, and preached to large audiences without interference till the Restoration (1660). After an enforced absence of some three years in Germany he resumed his pastorate in London and preached there almost up to the day of his death. In 1670 he was arrested and imprisoned under the second Conventicle Act (q. v.), but was soon discharged. In 1689 he took a leading part in the movement to unite the Baptists. He wrote several books, including: The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion (London, 1646); The Rudiments of the Hebrew Grammar in English (1648); Grammaticoe Latinte, Grwca et Hebraicte Compendium (1665); and his autobiography to the year 1672 (1692), which was completed by W. Kiffin. The Hanserd Knollys Society was organized in London in 1845 to republish early Baptist writings; it was dissolved after ten volumes had been issued.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, xxxi. 279‑281 gives a list of the scattering sources and accounts.

gNOPKEN, knep'ken (gNOP, KNOPPE), ANDREAS, AND THE REFORMATION IN RIGA: Andreas Knopken, the Reformer of Riga, was born, probably in a village near Kustrin (17 m. n.e. of Frankfort), possibly in 1493, and he died at Riga Feb. 18, 1539. In 1511 he was a student at Frankfort‑on‑the‑Oder, and shortly afterward went to Riga. Becoming discontented with his environment, he devoted himself anew to study, and accordingly went to Treptow, where, under the leadership of Bugenhagen, he soon acquired such proficiency in the Bible that he was appointed assistant to his teacher at the school in the same city. The teachers were under the influence of Lutheranism, and the
new movement thus spread among the monks and clergy, and prepared the way for the Reformation among the laity. The measures taken by Erasmus Manteuffel, afterward bishop of Kammin, resulted in the closing of the school, but Knopken had already returned to Riga, together with a number of Livonian scholars, in 1521.
Even before his coming, however, the works of Luther were eagerly read in Livonia, and in ground which had been thus prepared Knopken, introduced by a letter of Melanchthon, actively implanted his propaganda. The number of his adherents increased continually, and to confirm them in their faith he lectured on the Epistle to the Romans (Wittenberg, 1524), laying his chief stress on the presentation of Evangelical doctrines, and especially on the cardinal dogma of justification, the position being that of the writings of Luther and Melanchthon between 1519 and 1521. He likewise polemized sharply against the Roman Catholic Church. To check this Protestant propaganda, Jasper Linde, archbishop of Riga, urged the grand master Plettenberg to take repressive measures against the Evangelicals, but the request was refused, and the grand master advised a disputation instead. The debate accordingly took place in the choir of St. Peter's on June 19, 1522, and was adjudged to be a victory for Knopken. Under such circumstances it became easy for the authorities to declare their allegiance to the Reformation, and after a letter addressed to the archbishop with a request for a reform of the Church and the appointment of Evangelical teachers had proved fruitless, the municipal council, aided by the elders of both gilds, elected Knopken archdeacon of St. Peter's, where he delivered his inaugural sermon Oct. 23, 1522. The protection of the authorities enabled him to officiate without fear of molestation, and he soon received assistants in his personal friend Joachim MSller and in Sylvester Tegetmeier. The denunciatory speeches of the latter, however, led to grave excesses on the part of the Protestants, and, though they were checked for a time, they broke out again in 1524. In this time of riot Tegetmeier had no part, for soon after the first commotion he had changed his course, and had so won the confidence of the authorities that he was soon invited to. become the pastor of St. James, entering upon his uties there on the first Sunday in Advent, 1522. The number of Evangelical preachers in Riga steadily increased, while the efforts of the archbishop to induce the German government to suppress the movement were unsuccessful, and served only to incite the citizens of Riga to greater hostility. They refused allegiance to Linde's successor, Johann Blankenfeld, and the grand master was obliged, in accordance with the terms of his agreement with the Lutherans, to give them his protection. The archbishop was suspected of coquetting with the Russians and was arrested by the grand master, but regained his freedom by an ostensible submission and hastened to Livonia to complain to the emperor. He died on the way, however, and his successor, Thomas Sehbning, desiring to regain his archiepiscopal rights and estates, granted the Lutherans their privileges and freedom.

Sao	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	?Knollys
Knowledge, Theological
In 1530 Knopken and Johann Briessmann (q. v.), who had been called from K6nigaberg three years previously, prepared a church order for Riga, basing it primarily on the Konigsberg articles of 1525 and closely following Luther's Formula missce. After the separation of the community from Roman Catholic control, the council took charge of the administration of ecclesiastical affairs, electing and calling pastors in cooperation with the gilds, and providing for the maintenance of the clergy, the churches, and the schools. Two members of the council, with the mayor as a "superintendent," formed a sort of consistory for the administration of external affairs after 1532, but the internal control remained in the hands of the chief clergy. The congregations were represented by their elders in the election of pastors and in the administration of the funds for the church and the poor. By the time of Knopken's death, the Reformation had been carried through in Riga, and in 1554 Evangelical preaching was officially proclaimed free from restrictions in all Livonia.
(F. H6RBCHELMANNt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Horschelmann, Andreas Knopken, der
Reformator Rigas, Leipsic, 1896; T. Schiemann, Die Reformation AZhLivlanda, Hamburg, 1885.
KNOWLEDGE, THEOLOGICAL, PRINCIPLE OF.
Christ the Source of Theological Knowledge (§ 1). Knowledge a Progression (§ 2). The Biblical Christ (§ 3). Summary (§ 4).
In the early Protestant theology the entire Scripture was the basis of theological knowledge;
in modern theology the historic Christ r. Christ is regarded as the only source of the Source knowledge of God and things divine. of Theo‑ It is admitted that God makes himself logical known by inner workings in the spirit,
Knowledge. but it is claimed that real, that is,
clear, certain, and general knowledge flows only from that medium through which the subjective experiences of Christians are conveyed, from the Christ of tradition. Nature and extraChristian history are considered as sources which, without Christ, are ambiguous and enigmatical. Even the practical reason can give only a religion of morality, and not a sin‑forgiving grace.
If it be asked what is there in Christ that gives knowledge of God and things divine, the answer must be, his faith in them and his communion with God, his self‑consciousness and his moral character as it influences the world. The primitive Christian tradition concerning the words of Jesus and His deeds, by which His inmost being is made known, is dominated by faith in the infinite value of his death, in his resurrection and exaltation to lordship over the world, and in his return to earth. Moreover, inasmuch as the inner life of Jesus, his spirit, i.e., his faith and moral character, became to a certain extent the common spirit of the congregation of his disciples during their intercourse with him, the primitive Christian knowledge of God himself, of divine things, and of moral relationship must to some extent be.regarded, in general, as the influence of the earthly Christ. The Holy Spirit, who spoke and speaks out of the oral and written
preaching of the primitive Christians, can not be regarded as a new and second principle of the knowledge of God. For if we, like them, by no means conceive our religious and moral knowledge as a mere after‑effect of the earthly Christ, we nevertheless do regard it as an effect of Christ himselfof the exalted Christ. "The historic Christ, the only principle of divine knowledge," means for us also the Christ who manifests himself from heaven as the risen one, thus converting a Saul, and now delaying his return. The Lutheran view, that inspirations are bound to external media, from which the real knowledge flows, is true also of primitive Christianity: the matters of common knowledge proceed from the pneumatic manifestations of the exalted Christ and from the tradition of the pneumatic life of the earthly Christ. We may abide by the interpretation of John xvi. 12‑15, which declares that the Spirit only glorifies the sole exegete of God (John i. 18) by teaching how he may be more and more perfectly known.
But did the human race have a finished knowledge of its Redeemer by the time the apostles died?
There was no want of great men after a. Knowl‑ this, who were able, under the influence edge a of new historic manifestations, to Progression. discover here and there some unhewn stones in the Evangelical tradition; Athanasius, Augustine, Luther may be named. Though they have not in the least surpassed the apostolic knowledge of Christ, they none the less have deepened the understanding of the apostles and their knowledge of him. The effects of the impersonal spirit of Jesus, of the spirit, originating from him, in the first primitive Christian Church as a whole, and of the spiritual factors at work in several individual cases in the days of primitive Christianity, unfold themselves in the whole history of the Church. The progress of secular science does not embarrass Jesus himself, who wished to be neither a naturalist nor a historian. We ought to permit ourselves no‑ doubt concerning the fact, that it is not simply from a development within the Church that we have learned to separate the temporary husks from the divine, infallible spirit of Christ. If we believe that the living Christ dominates the whole history of thought, we can say that he interprets himself, the earthly Jesus, by means also of events and advances in knowledge that take place out of the sphere of church history; he spoke not only through the destruction of Jeru‑

salem, but also through the destruction of the ancient conception of the world. The field in which Jesus sowed his word was time, his time, the future
times. His spirit was not of time but of eternity; his word a germ which makes its full content and its peculiar character known only in the course of the historical development. Christ in the inmost content of his spiritual being was more than he could manifest (Sehleiermaeher, Der chrisdiche Glaube, § 93, 2). It is only in the entire course of the historical development of the Church that he can be understood in his entirety.
That the apostolic beginning of the process, which bore its fruit in the establishment of the Church and in the New Testament, has for this

Knoowledge, Theological	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	360
purpose a unique worth, goes without saying. The
understanding of Christ made known in the New
Testament	bears so unique a relation to the
	unique working of the exalted Christ,
3. The that it is well, by means of the term,
Biblical	the "Biblical" Christ, to express the
	Christ	difference in intensity between his re
		vealing activity In the apostolic age
and that of the later periods. This term will differ
entiate the unique beginning of the post‑terrestrial
revealing activity of Christ from the later acts of
revelation, and combine the former with his earthly
work. This Biblical Christ is for us the historical
Christ, the only principle for the knowledge of
God. But the term "Biblical" Christ is not to
denote that everything in primitive Christianity,
everything apostolic, belongs to the eternal; not
even all that is meant to glorify Christ. By this
conception we merely wish " to suggest how impor
tant for all posterity, provided we believe at all in a
real revelation of our God in our Lord, is the knowl
edge of Christ which the first witnesses had and
which he himself as the Lord of the Spirit called
forth in them " (Hiring). But if nevertheless we
differentiate in the primitive Christian conception
of Christ the elements taken from the notions of the
day and an eternal germ which grew out of the
spirit of Christ, we must inquire what is to be
recognized as such. Will the simple answer suffice:
all taken from the history of that time is unessen
tial, and only that which is unanimously received,
which has developed from the spirit of Christ, is
the essential, that is, that which truly reveals the
eternal?
But, just as the answer, that the essential is the unanimously received, is for several reasons unsatisfactory, so also is the assertion that everything taken from the history of the time is unessential. Does the denial of an independent newness in the case of all the New‑Testament views conditioned by the history of the time mean also the sacrifice of their value as revelations? For example, is the thought that Jesus had a personal preexistence condemned merely because it is conditioned by a Jewish formula? Baldensperger has declared that even for Jesus himself it was a formula that explained his own personality, which he experienced as a wondrous mystery. In this, too, consists his originality, to speak with Wellhausen, that he perceived the true and eternal in the mass of chaotic rubbish, rejected the incidental, the caricatured, the dead elements, and in the lens of his individuality gathered together that which has eternal worth, the human‑divine. But may not such a gathering have been also the pneumatic achievement of the spirit of a Paul, or of primitive Christianity as a whole? In this way, e.g., the whole primitive Christian angelology could be stamped as revelation. Scientific theology will no longer raise question about that. But not only that which the earthly Jesus himself gathered as eternally valid out of the mass of New‑Testament factors that are historically conditioned is to be received as imperishable, but also that which, without contradicting the spirit of Jesus has, under the pneumatic manifestations of the Exalted one, undergone a new development
out of that gathered by him. Thus, e.g., we judge the thought of Paul's faith concerning the incarnation of Christ Jesus as an ethical act of self‑denying love, by virtue of which he " entirely emerges from the bounds of Jewish speculations about the Messiah " (Pfleiderer), without antagonizing the humble spirit of Jesus. On the other hand, it is impossible to construe the whole angelology common to primitive Christianity as a development of Jesus' belief concerning angels, which was, compared with that, meager and super‑Jewish.
	When we place restrictions. upon the principle,
" only that in the New Testament has value as a
revelation which is not conditioned by the his
		tory of the time," we have, in the
	4. Sum‑ last analysis, to look back to the
	mary.	earthly from the exalted Christ who
		glorified himself in primitive Chris
tianity. The two taken together make the Biblical,
the historical Christ, the only principle for the knowl
edge of God and things divine. We conclude, then,
that this is the pneumatic life of the earthly Christ
and that which has logically unfolded itself there
from in the primitive Christians under the influence
of the pneumatic manifestations of the exalted
Christ. This presupposes that the pneumatic life
of the earthly Christ can be ascertained from the
Evangelical tradition, in order that by this touch
stone the primitive Christian preaching may be
tested as to its consistency. In declaring that such
testing is necessary one declares, by this very fact,
that the earthly Jesus is the real foundation of the
knowledge of God‑but his resurrection must also
be added‑this alone, not also the proofs of it, viz.,
the appearances of the risen one, which belong to the
exalted Christ. In Rom. i. 3‑4, we find that which
is fundamental in the principle of theological knowl
edge, by which both the Old Testament, mentioned
in v. 2, as well as the preaching even of a Paul
(v. 1, 5) must be tested; he is indeed, by virtue
of an act of revelation by the Risen One, his greatest
apostle, and yet no absolutely infallible lawgiver
in matters of faith. 	KARL THIEME.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Ritschl, Theologie and M4taphysik, Bonn, 1887; J. Kaftan, in Zeitachrift Air Theolopie and Kirche, i (1891), 479‑549; M. Kahler, Die Wissenschaft der ehriatlichen Lehre, pp. 11 sqq., Leipsie, 1893; idem, Der aopenannte historische Jesus and der geschichaiche biblische Chriatua, ib. 1896; M. Reischle, Der Glaube an isms Christus and die geschichtliche Erforschunp seines Lebew, Leipsic, 1893; idem, Der Streit fiber die Begriindung des Glaubens auf den " geschichtlichen " Jesus Chrittus, in Zeitachrift fur Theolopie and Kirche, vii (1897). 171264; O. Ritsehl, in Zeitschrift fiir Theolopie and Kirche, iii (1893), 371‑426; W. Hermann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott, Stuttgart, 1896; P. Kolbing, Die heilipe Schrift als oberste Norm der christlichen Glaubenserkenntnis, Gnadau, 1896; G. Eeke, Die theolopische Schule Albrecht Ritsdls and die evanpelische Kirche der Gepenwart, Berlin, 1897.

KNOWLEDGE, THEORY OF RELIGIOUS. See TRUTH, TRUTHFULNESS, I.
gNOWLING, ncling, RICHARD JOHN: Church of England; b. at Devonport (2 m. w.n.w. of Plymouth), Devonshire, Sept. 16, 1851. He studied at Balliol College, Oxford (B.A., 1874), and was ordered deacon in 1875 and ordained priest in 1876. He was classical master in Abingdon Grammar

361	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Knowledge, Theologioal
		Knox
School 1874‑76, and curate of Wellington, Somer
set, 1876‑78 and of St. Martin‑in‑the‑Fields,
London, 1878,84. He was then called to King's
College, London, where he was successively cen
sor and lecturer (1884‑90), vice‑principal (1890
1897), and professor of New‑Testament exegesis
(1894‑1905). Since 1905 he has been canon of
Durham and professor of divinity in Durham Uni
versity, and fellow of King's College. He was
examining chaplain to the archbishop of Canter
bury and the bishop of Exeter 1903‑05 and ex
aminer in the University of London 1905‑06, be
sides being select preacher at Cambridge in 1895
and Boyle Lecturer in 1903‑05. His theological
position is conservative. He has written The Wit
ness of the Epistles, a Study in modern Criticism
(London, 1892); Acts of the Apostles in The Ex
positor's Greek Testament (1901); Our Lord's Virgin
Birth and the Criticism of To‑day (1903); The
Epistle of St. James (1904); The Testimony of St.
Paul to Christ (Boyle Lectures for 1903‑05; 1905);
and Literary Criticism and the New Testament
(1907).
	KNOW‑NOTHING MOVEMENT: A popular
movement which had considerable influence in the
United States in the middle of the nineteenth cen
tury, partly political, partly inspired by a not un
natural nervousness in view of the experience of
all European countries with the meddling of the
Roman Catholic Church in national politics and the
fact that there was no official deliverance to show
that it would not do the same in the United States.
It was based on the theory that the republic would
be in danger unless the Roman Catholic Church
were held in check and foreign‑born citizens,
especially Roman Catholics, excluded from all
share in the government. As the successor of
various " native American " movements which had
nursed similar beliefs even in colonial times, the
Know‑Nothing party (so called from the injunction
laid upon its members to profess utter ignorance of
even the existence of any such organization) was
formally organized in 1852, when political condi
tions favored the launching of a new party which
should attract the dissatisfied elements of the older
ones. It was begun as a local organization in New
York City, and at first aimed at local and munici
pal victories. As stated in its ritual after a na
tional council had been formed, its objects were
among other things " to resist the insidious policy
of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influ
ence against our republican institutions in all law
ful ways " and " to place in all offices of honor,
trust, or profit in the gift of the people or by
appointment none but native‑born Protestant citi
zens." These and other uncompromising declara
tions were for the initiated; a statement of princi
ples was drawn up for the general public which
professed to aim at " no interference with religious
faith or worship and no test or oaths for office."
After several successes in municipal elections, in
1854 the party sent forty representatives to Con
gress and elected a governor and legislature in
Massachusetts. In the following year they carried
the elections in nine States, and elected the gov
ernors of New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode
Island, while in the next Congress there were seventy‑five Know‑Nothing members elected as such. The inflammatory talk of the promoters of the movement produced its natural results. Riotous mobs assembled in various New England cities, and Roman Catholic churches were set on fire there and in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio. At least twenty persons were killed in Know‑Nothing riots in Louisville, and attempts were made to assassinate Archbishop Bedini, nuncio in Brazil, who had been commissioned to examine various ecclesiastical matters on his passage through the United States. In 1856 the party held a national convention and nominated Millard Fillmore for president. The northern delegates, however, seceded from the convention on failing to secure a definite antislavery declaration, and Fillmore secured only the eight electoral votes of Maryland. From this time Know‑Nothingism as a political movement may be said to have collapsed, although in 1860 Bell and Everett, candidates of the " Constitutional Union," received thirty‑nine electoral votes largely through the support of Know‑Nothing elements which had refused to merge in either of the two great parties. With the outbreak of the Civil War an opportunity was afforded to American citizens of foreign birth and Roman Catholic religion to demonstrate their loyalty to the land of their adoption; and the fact that no less than 150,000 men of Irish birth enlisted in the Union army proved that the laity of that church were not scheming against the government. The general decay of religious intolerance tended in the same direction‑although in comparatively recent years, especially from 1891 to 1897, the " American Protective Association " has attracted some attention as representing substantially the same principles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. B. Whitney, Defence of American Policy, New York, 1856 (by an advocate); J. Kehoe, Life and Writings of Archbishop Hughes, ib. 1865; J. L. Spalding, Life of Archbishop Spalding, Baltimore, 1872; T. V. Cooper and H. T. Fenton, American Policies, Chicago, 1884 (containing the ritual); J. B. McMaster, The Riotous Career of the Know‑Nothings, in With the Fathers, New York, 1896; L. F. Schmeckebier, Mist. of Ae Knou4oAang Party in Maryland, Baltimore, 1899; J. A. Woodburn, Political Parties, New York, 1903; T. J. Jenkins, in Catholic World, Ivii (1893), 511‑522; and the works on the history of the period.
KNOX, nex, EDMUND ARBUTHNOTT: Church of England, bishop of Manchester; b. at Bangalore, India, Dec. 6, 1847. He studied at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1869), and was ordered deacon in 1870 and ordained priest in 1872. From 1868 to 1885 he was fellow of Merton College, Oxford, where he was tutor from 1875 to 1885 and chaplain from 1879 to 1885, besides being curate of Holy Trinity, Oxford, from 1870 to 1874 and vicar of St. John the Baptist, in the same city, from 1874 to 1879. He was rector of Kibworth‑Beauchamp from 1884 to 1891 and also of Smeeton‑Westerby, Leicestershire, in 1887‑881 and was then vicar of hston‑juxta• Birmingham from 1891 to 1894, being likewise examining chaplain to the bishop of Worcester from 1892 to 1894. In 1894 he wets consecrated suffragan bishop of Coventry, being at the same time both rector of St. Philip's, Birmingham, and archdeacon
of Birmingham from 1894 to 1903.From 1892

Knox
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
882
to 1903 he was surrogate of the diocese of Worcester, and was appointed honorary canon of Worcester in 1892. In 1903 he was translated to the diocese of Manchester. He has written Pastors and Teachers (London, 1902).
KNOX, GEORGE WILLIAM: Presbyterian; b. at Rome, N. Y., Aug. 11, 1853. He was graduated at Hamilton College in 1874 and Auburn Theological Seminary in 1877. He then engaged in missionary work in Japan, and was professor of homiletics in Union Theological Seminary, Tokyo, 1881‑93 and of philosophy and ethics in the Imperial University of Japan in 1886. In 1893 he returned to the United States and was pastor of the Presbyterian church at Rye, N. Y., 1894‑99. He was lecturer on apologetics in Union Theological Seminary, New York City, 1897‑99, and since 1899 has been professor of philosophy and history of religion in the same institution. He was vice‑president of the Asiatic Society of Japan 1891‑92, Nathaniel Taylor lecturer at Yale in 1903; also lecturer on the history of religion in 1905‑06. In addition to works in Japa, nese he has written: The Christian Point of View (in collaboration with F. Brown and A. C. McGiffert (New York, 1902); Direct and Fundamental Proofs of the Christian Religion (1903); Japanese Life in Town and Country (1904); The Spirit of the Orient (1906); and The Development of Religion in Japan (1906).
gN0%.
JOHN.
Earlier Life (¢ 1). Conversion to Protestantism (§ 2). Ministry at St. Andrews (§ 3). Confinement in the French Galleys (§ 4). Ministry in England, 1549‑54 (§ 5). On the Continent, 1554‑59 (§ 6). Organization of the Church in Scotland (§ 7). Knox and Queen Mary (§ 8). Ministry in Edinburgh and Private Life (§ 9). Personal Appearance and Manner (§ 10). Testimonies to his Character (§ 11).
	Neither the place nor the date of the birth of
John Knox, the great Scotch Reformer, is settled
beyond dispute; but the weightiest considerations
favor Giffordgate, a suburb of the town of Hadding
ton (16 m. e. of Edinburgh) as the place and 1513 or
1514 as the year (cf. H. Cowan, John Knox, pp. 22
25, 45‑i18). He died at Edinburgh Nov. 24, 1572.
His father was William Knox, of fair, though not dis
		tinguished., descent, who fought at
	r. Earlier Flodden, and had his home in the
	Life. county of Haddington. His mother's
		name was Sinclair. He received the ele
ments of a liberal education in Haddington, which
early possessed an excellent grammar‑school‑one
of those schools originally monastic and due to the
public spirit which, at least as regards education,
animated the Scottish Church even antecedently to
the Reformation. Thence he proceeded either to the
University of Glasgow, where the name " John
Knox " occurs among the incorporati in 1522, or to
St. Andrews, where he is stated by Beza to have
studied under the celebrated John Major (q.v.), a
native, like Knox, of East Lothian and one of the
greatest scholars of his time. Major was at Glasgow
in 1522 and at St. Andrews in 1531. How long
Knox remained at college is uncertain. He certainly
never made any pretense to be such a scholar as his contemporaries George Buchanan and Alesius; nor is there evidence that he even graduated. That he was a fair Latinist, and accustomed to study, appears from the fact, which seems to be well attested, of his familiarity with the writings of Augustine and Jerome. He acquired the Greek and Hebrew languages at a later period, as his writings indicate. He was ordained to the priesthood at some date prior to 1540, when his status as a priest is first mentioned. It appears from evidence adduced by Laing (in his ed. of the Works of Knox), that in 1543 Knox had not yet divested himself of Roman orders; at any rate, in his character as a priest, he signed a notarial instrument dated Mar. 27 of that year, the original of which is still to be found in the charter‑room at Tyninghame Castle. Up to this time, however, he seems to have employed himself in private tuition, rather than in parochial duties; and, at the moment when he last signed his name as a priest, he was probably already engaged in the office‑which he held for several years‑of tutor in the family of Hugh Douglas of Longniddry, in East Lothian, with the further charge of the son of a neighboring gentleman, John Cockburn of Ormiston. Both of these lairds, like Knox himself, had even at this time a leaning to the new doctrines.
Knox first publicly professed the Protestant faith about the end of 1545. His mind had in all probability been directed to that faith for some
z. Conver‑ time before the change was avowed. sion to According to Calderwood, Thomas
Protestant‑ Guillaume, a native of East Lothian, ism. of the order of Blackfriars and for a short time chaplain to the Regent Arran in 1543, was the first " to give Mr. Knox a taste of the truth." Beza attributes his original change of opinion to the study in early manhood, as already stated, of Augustine and Jerome. But the immediate instrument, probably, of his actual conversion was the learned and amiable George Wishart (q.v.) who, after a period of banishment, returned to his native country in 1544, to perish, within two years, at the stake, as the last and most illustrious of the victims of Cardinal Beaton. Among other places where he Rreached the Reformed doctrines Wishart had come to East Lothian in Dec., 1545, and there made Knox's acquaintance. The attachment which the latter formed for the person as well as for the doctrine of Wishart, must be described as of the nature of a youthful enthusiasm. Knox followed the Reformer everywhere, and constituted himself his body‑guard, bearing, it is said, a two‑edged sword, that he might be prepared to defend him against the cardinal's emissaries, who were known to be seeking Wishart's life. And, on the night of the latter's apprehension, Knox was hardly restrained from sharing his captivity, and consequently, in all probability, his fate. The words of Wishart's remonstrance are well known: " Nay, return to your bairns [pupils]. One is sufficient for a sacrifice."
Knox was first called to the Protestant ministry at St. Andrews, which was throughout his life intimately associated with the Reformer's career.

gg$	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Xnoz
insisted upon as terms of communion. Thus the
use of the prayer‑book was not enforced, neither
was kneeling at the communion. Episcopal govern
ment was of course acknowledged; but Knox held
his commission, as a Reformed preacher, directly
from the privy council, and was virtually inde
	pendent of diocesan jurisdiction. Moreover, he
seems to have had no strong objection to episcopacy
	itself, although he disapproved of " your proud
	prelates' great dominions and charge, impossible by
one man to be discharged;" and on this, along with
	other grounds, he declined the bishopric of Rochester
	in 1552. The offices he held in the Church of Eng
	land are briefly indicated in the History, which says,
" He was first appointed preacher to Berwick, then
	to Newcastle; and last he was called to London
	and to the southern parts of England, where he
	remained till the death of Edward VI" (Works,
	i., p. 280). From other sources it appears that in
	1551 he was appointed one of the six chaplains in
	ordinary to the king; and in this capacity there was
	submitted to him, and, after revisal, he joined the
	other chaplains in sanctioning, The Articles con
	cerning an Uniformity in Religion of 1552, which
	became the basis of the Thirty‑nine Articles (q. v.)
	of the Church of England.
		From England, after the death of Edward, Knox
	proceeded to the continent, traveling for a time
	from place to place in some uncertainty. In Sept.
	1554, while living at Geneva, he accepted in accord
			ance with Calvin's counsel a call to
		6. On the the English Church at Frankfort.
n	Continent, Here controversies in connection with
,	x554‑gg. vestments, ceremonies, and the use of
be‑ I	the English prayer‑book met him, and,
notwithstanding the great moderation which he
showed from first to last, led, in Mar., 1555, to his
sresignation of his charge (cf. his treatise, A Brief
of I Narrative of the Troubles which Arose at Frankfurt,
reprinted in Laing's edition of his works). He
returned to Geneva, where he was invited to be
come minister of the refugee English congregation.
his In August, however, he was induced to set out for
vex Scotland, where he remained for nine months
ill	preaching Evangelical doctrine in various parts of
the country, and persuading those who favored the Reformation to cease from attendance at mass, and
to join with himself in the celebration of the Lord's Supper according to a Reformed ritual. In May, 1556, he was cited to appear before the hierarchy in Edinburgh, and he boldly responded to the sum‑
mons; but the bishops found it expedient not t0
y I proceed with the trial. In July an urgent call from
his congregation at Geneva, along, probably, with
e	the desire to prevent the renewal of persecution in
Scotland, caused him to resume his Genevan
ministry. His marriage to Marjorie Bowes, daughter
eof Richard Bowes, captain of Norham Castle, had
er meanwhile taken place, and his wife along with her
bemother accompanied him to Geneva, where they
le arrived in September The church in which he
ofpreached there (called the Pglise de Notre Dame la
sNeuve) had been granted, at Calvin's solicitation,
if	for the use of the English and Italian congregations
by the municipal authorities. Knox's life in Geneva
0 1 was no, idle one. To preaching and clerical work
There appears to have been no regular ordination. Of course, he had been already ordained as a priest in the Church of Rome.
g. Ministry But imposition of hands and other at St. forms were not regarded by Knox as Andrews. of more than secondary importance. A graphic account of the whole proceedings connected with his call to the ministry, together with a report of the first sermon he delivered in St. Andrews, will be found in his History of the Reformation..
At this time he was residing in the castle of St. Andrews. After Beaton's death, this stronghold became a place of refuge for many of the
4. Confine‑ Protestants. Along with his pupils, went in the sons of the lairds of Longniddry
the French and Ormiston, already mentioned, Galleys. Knox passed there some comparatively peaceful months. His repose was rudely interrupted by the investiture and capitulation of the castle in the end of July, 1547, succeeded, as regarded Knox and some of the rest of the refugees, by confinement in the French galleys. He spent nineteen months as a galley‑slave, amid hardships and miseries which are said to have permanently injured his health. " How long I continued prisoner," he said at St. Andrews, in 1559, " what torments I sustained in the galleys, and what were the sobs of my heart, is now no time to recite." He adds, however, that he always continued to hope for a return to his native country. In the History (vol, i., p. 228), the same confidence
of a return is referred to as never having forsake
him; and he gives a curious testimony to the fact
by mentioning how, on one occasion, " lying
twixt Dundee and St. Andrews, the second time that the galleys returned to Scotland, the said John
[Knox] being so extremely sick that few hoped hi
life, Maister [afterwards Sir] James [Balfour, one
his fellow prisoners] willed him to look to the land, and asked if he knew it. Who answered, ` Yea, I know it well; for I see the steeple of that place
where God first in public opened my mouth to glory; and I am fully persuaded, how weak soe
I now appear, that I shall not depart this life, t
that my tongue shall glorify his godly name in the same place."'
On his release, which took place early in 1549, through the intervention, apparently, of the English government, Knox found that, in the existing state of the country, he could be of little use in his beloved Scotland. For nearly ten years, accord‑
ingly, he submitted to voluntary exile, like man
of the worthiest of his countrymen in those troub‑
lous times. All these years, however, he devote d
himself to ministerial labors in connection with the Reformed Church. His first sphere of duty was
provided for him in England, for th
5. Ministry space of about five years as a minist
is England, of the English Church. It is to
i5¢g‑Sq.	remembered that, during the who
	reign of Edward VI., the Church
England was in a transition state; some of it
moat marked peculiarities (to which Knox himse
and others in Scotland and abroad afterward ob‑
jected) were then in abeyance, or at least n t

Knoi
8Little
of an exacting kind he added a large correspondence; and he was constantly engaged in literary work. His publications at Geneva included his First Blast against the Monstrous Regiment [Rule] of Women; and his long and elaborate treatise on predestination (published 1560) was composed in Geneva. With the exception of some months spent at Dieppe (1557‑58) when he was contemplating a return to Scotland, he continued to officiate in Geneva (while deeply interested in his native land and in constant communication with the reform party there) till Jan., 1559, when he finally left for home.
He arrived in Edinburgh May 2, 1559. The time was a critical one. During his absence the reform party had become more numerous, more self‑reliant and aggressive, and better consolidated. The queen dowager, Mary of Lorraine, acting as regent for her daughter, the young Mary, queen of
Organ‑ Scots, then in France, had become ization of more desirous to crush the Protestants the Church and determined to use force. Civil in Scotland. war was imminent, but each side shrank from the first step. Knox at once became the leader of the Reformers. He preached against "idolatry" with the greatest boldness, and with the result that what he calls the " rascal multitude " began the " purging " of churches and the destruction of monasteries. Politics and religion were closely intertwined; the Reformers were struggling to keep Scotland free from the yoke of France, and did not hesitate to seek the help of England. Knox negotiated with the English government to secure its support, and he approved of the declaration of the lords of his party in Oct., 1559, suspending their allegiance to the regent: The death of the latter in June, 1560, opened the way to a cessation of hostilities and an agreement leaving the settlement of ecclesiastical questions to the Scottish estates. The doctrine, worship, and government of the Roman Church were overthrown by the parliament of 1560 and Protestantism was established as the national religion. Knox, assisted by five other ministers, formulated the confession of faith adopted at this time (see SCOTCH CONFESSION OF FAITH) and drew up the constitution of the new Church‑the First Book of Discipline (see the section on the Church of Scotland in the article PREsBYTERIANB).
Queen Mary returqed to Scotland in Aug., 1561, thoroughly predisposed against Knox; while he and the other Reformers looked upon her with anxiety and suspicion. Fundamental differences of character and training made a keen encoun‑
& Knox ter between the two inevitable. Five and Queen personal interviews between Knox and
	Mary.	the queen are recorded (each at Mary's
		invitation). He found her no mean
opponent in argument, and had to acknowledge
the acuteness of her mind, if he could not commend
the qualities of her heart. His attitude for the
most part was unyielding alld repelling, his lan
guage and manner harsh and uncourtierlike. In
his preaching and other public utterances he was
sometimes even violent. It must be remembered,
however, that the momentous issues at stake re‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
quired a plain‑spoken prophet, not a smoothtongued courtier. Still it might have been wiser as well as more Christlike for Knox, at the outset of their intercourse, to seek to win rather than repel. Perhaps the Reformer feared Mary's wellknown power of fascination and steeled himself against it. Later his heart became wholly hardened toward the adulterous accomplice, as be believed, of her husband's murderer.
Knox's life from the time of his return to Scotland in 1559 is a part of the history of his country and its full story is to be sought in the histories of Scotland. Only details which have a more personal interest can be noted here. When the Reformed religion was formally ratified by law in Scotland in 1560 he was appointed minister of the Church of St. Giles, then the great parish church of Edinburgh. He was at this time in the fulness of his powers, as is manifest abundantly in the style of his History of the Reformation‑‑a work 9. Ministry which appears to have been begun
in Edin‑ about 1559, and completed in the course burgh and of the next six or seven years. The
Private History, if sometimes rough and even
	Life.	coarse in language, and not always
		commendable in temper and spirit, is
written with a force and vigor not surpassed by
any of his other writings‑of all which it may be
said, that, whatever their faults, they are works of
true genius, and well worthy in their character,
upon the whole, of the great leader and statesman
who wrote them. At the very beginning of his
labors as minister of Edinburgh, he had the mis
fortune to lose his much‑loved and helpful young
wife, whom Calvin described as suavissima. She
left two sons, one of whom, Nathanael, died at Cam
bridge in 1580; the other, Eleazer, became vicar of
Clacton Magna in the archdeaconry of Colchester
and died in 1591. In 1564 Knox made a second
marriage, which was greatly talked of at the time
because the bride was remotely connected with the
royal family and still more because she was a maiden
of seventeen while Knox was three times as old. The
young lady was Margaret Stewart, daughter of An
drew, Lord Stewart of Ochiltree. She bore Knox
three daughters, of whom the youngest, Elizabeth,
became the wife of the famous John Welsh, minister
of Ayr. At this time the Reformer lived a very
laborious life. He was much engrossed with the
public affairs of the national Church, and at the
same time devoted to his work as a parish minister,
to say nothing of his continual, and perhaps, in his
position, unavoidable controversies, more or less per
sonal, with the ecclesiastical and political factions
of the day, which he regarded as his country's en
emies. He was, however, not without social and
family enjoyments. A fair stipend of four hundred
marks Scots, equal to about forty‑four pounds of
English money of that day, enabled him to exercise
hospitality and to advance money to a friend in
need. He had a good house, which was provided
and kept in repair by the municipality. His home,
during the greater part of his ministry in Edin
burgh, stood on the site now occupied by the City
Council Chambers. Another house in Edinburgh,
still preserved with little change and known since

S86	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	KnoKnoxx‑Little
the eighteenth century at latest as " John Knox's house," may have been occupied by him toward the close of his life. With all his severity, there must have been much sympathy in ‑a‑man who was repeatedly invited to reconcile the sundered, husband with wife, friend with friend. He lived in kindly relations with his neighbors, many of whom, in every rank, were among his intimate friends, and he was not indisposed to mirth and humor, of which, as of other traits of his character, his writings furnish abundant evidence.
An interesting description of Knox's appearance, and especially of his style as a preacher, in his later years, is furnished in the Diary of James Melville (published by the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1829, pp. 26, 33). Melville was at the time
a student in St. Andrews, and the pe‑
so. Per‑ riod he refers to is the year 1571, when
sonal Ap‑ Knox, for his personal security, had,
pearance not for the first time in his life, taken
	and	refuge in that city. " Of all the bene
Manner. fits I had that year," writes Melville,
" was the coming of that most notable prophet and apostle of our nation, Mr. John Knox, to St. Andrews, who, by the faction of the queen occupying the castle and town of Edinburgh, was compelled to remove therefrom, with a number of the best, and chose to come to St. Andrews. .
Mr. Knox would sometimes come in, and repose him in our college‑yard, and call us scholars unto him, and bless us, and exhort us to know God and his work in our country, and stand by the good cause; to use our time well, and learn thi; good instructions, and follow the good example, of our masters. .
He was very weak. I saw him every day of his doctrine go hulie and fear [slowly and warily], with a furring of martriks about his neck, a staff in the one hand, and good godly Richard Ballantyne, his servant, holding up the other oxter [arm‑pit], from the abbey to the parish church; and by the said Richard and another servant lifted up to the pulpit, where he behoved to lean at his first entry; but ere he had done with his sermon, he was so active and vigorous that he was like to ding that pulpit 111 blads and flee out of it." A Latin epistle sent by Sir Peter Young to Beza in 1579, contains a description of the Reformer's personal appearance in later years. His stature was " a little under middle height "; his " limbs were graceful "; his head " of moderate size "; his face " longish,,; his nose " beyond the average length "; his forehead "rather narrow"; his brows "standing out like a ridge "; his cheeks " somewhat full " as well as " ruddy "; his mouth " large "; his " complexion darkish "; his eyes dark blue (or bluish grey) and his glance " keen "; his beard " black, with white hairs intermingled " and a " span and a half long." In his countenance, which was " grave and severe," " a certain graciousness was united with natural dignity and majesty."
John Knox died as he had lived‑full of faithl but always ready for conflict. He found a devoted nurse in his young wife; and all the noblest and best men of Scotland hung about his house for tidings of the progress of his malady, in the vain hope of his being longer spared. His servant,
Richard Ballantyne, after detailing the incidents of his last hours, says of him: " Of this manner departit this man of God, the lycht of Scotland,
the comfort of the Kirke within the ii. Testi‑ same, the mirrour of Godliness, and monies patrone and exemple to all trew minto His isteris, in puritie of lyfe, soundness
Character. in doctrine, and in bauldness in re‑
proving of wicketness, and one that caired not the favore of men (how great soever they were) to reprove thair abuses and synes . . . . What dexteritie in teiching, bauldness in reproving, and hatred of wickedness was in him, my ignorant dulness is not able to declair." A higher testimony to the worth of a man not without faults was pronounced at his grave in the churchyard of St. Giles by the Earl of Mortoun, the regent of Scotland, in the presence of an immense concourse, who had followed the body to its last resting‑place: "Here lyeth a man who in his life never feared the face of man, who hath been often threatened with dagge and dagger, but yet hath ended his dayes in peace and honour."
W. LEEt, revised by HENRY COWAN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Works of Knox are beet consulted in the excellent edition by David Laing, printed for the Bannatyne Club, 6 vols., Edinburgh, 1864, which includes the principal sources for a biography, viz., his History of the Reformation, his correspondence, and other historical matter, such as Smeaton's account of his last illness and death. Other sources are: the Memorials of Transactions in Scotland by Richard Bannatyne and the Memoirs of J. Melville, both published for the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh. Of modern lives the first was that by T. MCCrie, new ed. with additions by A. Crichton, London, 1889. Other biographies or discussions of phases of the life are: by F. Brandes, Elberfeld, 1862; P. Lorimer, J. Knox and the Church of England, London, 1875; T. Carlyle, Heroes and Hero Worship, Essay iv., ib. 1884; W. M. Taylor, New York, 1885; R. W. Gosse, London, 1888; R. L. Stevenson, in Familiar Studies of Men and Books, ib. 1888; P. H. Brown, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1895; J. C. Carrick, John Knox and his Land, Glasgow, 1902; R. Mulot, John Knox, 1606‑78, Halle, 1904; J. Stalker, John Knox, his Ideals and Ideas, London, 1904; H. Cowan, New York, 1905; J. Glasse, New York, 1905; A. T. Innes, Edinburgh, 1905; A. Lang, John Knox and the Reformation, London, 1905; D. MacMillan, London, 1905; C. Martin,
La Gen~ae den doc4rilWd (k f QA'n AIR, POI[0, 1g,

rci,' Chicago, 1908; DNB, xxxi. 308‑328.
CCh‑stian Ch;	sated Men of'the
rook, Cincinnati 1907; W. Walker, Or

Besides this the various works on the Reformation of Scotland discuss the subject.
KNOX‑LITTLE, WILLIAM JOHN: Church of England; b. at Stewartstown (12 m. n. of Armagh), County Tyrone, Ireland, Dec. 1, 1839. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1862), and was ordered deacon in 1863 and ordained priest in the following year. He was curate of Christ Church, Lancaster (1863‑64), assistant master of Sherborne School (1865‑70), curate of Turweston, Bucks (1870‑74), and of St. Thomas, Regent Street, London (1874‑75), and rector of St. Alban's, Cheetwood, Manchester (1875,85), and vicar of Hoar Cross, Burton‑on‑Trent (1885‑1907). He has also been canon of Worcester since 1881 pr~lll
for chapter in CoriVoeation of Canterbury) since
1888, and subdean of Worcester since 1902. He has written: The Three Hours' Agony of Our Blea8ed

Redeemer (Manchester, 1877); Sermons preached far the most Part in Manchester (London, 1880); Characteristics and Motives of the Christian Life (1880);

$otaon
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
The Mystery of the Passion of Our Most Holy Redeemer (1881); The Witness of the Passion of Our Most Holy Redeemer (1884); The Hopes and Decisions of the Passion of Our Most Holy Redeemer (1886); The Broken Vow: A Story of Here and Hereafter (1887); The Child of Staferton; A Chapter from a Family Chronicle (1888); The Light of Life (sermons; 1889); Sunlight and Shadow in the Christian Life (sermons; 1889); The Christian Home, its Foundation and Duties (1891); The Journey of Life (sermons; 1892); Sketches in Sunshine and Storm (1892); Labour and Sorrow (sermons; 1894); The Waif from the Waves: A Story of three Lives (1894); Treasury of Meditation (1896); St. Francis of Assisi, his Times, Life, and Work (1897); The Perfect Life (sermons; 1898); Sketches and Studies in South Africa (1899); David the Hero King of Israel (1903); and The Conflict of Ideals within the Church of England (1905).
KNUDTZON, knut'zen, JOERGEN ALEXANDER: Norwegian Orientalist; b. at Trondhjem (240 m. n. of Christiania) Sept. 9, 1854. He studied at the universities of Christiania (Ph.D., 1889), Berlin, and Leipsic (studying in Germany from 1885 to 1887). He studied theology primarily at the request of Prof. C. P. Caspari of Christiania, who intended to have Knudtzon as his successor, but the latter, after completing his training in Germany and delivering a course of lectures for a term at Christiania, was regarded not sufficiently conservative. He accordingly withdrew from theology in favor of Assyriology, holding that theology " as a science must be historical and critical"; and was lecturer in Assyriology at the University of Christiania, 1894‑1907 ; and since 1907 professor of Semitic languages there. He has written Om det saakaldte perfektum og imperfektum i hebraisk (Christiania., 1889); Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott fur Staat and konigliches Haus aus der Zeit Asarhaddons and Asurbanipals (2 vols., Leipsic, 1893); Die zwei Arzawa‑Braefe, die dltesten Urkunden in indogermanischer Sprache (in collaboration with S. Bugge and A. Torp; 1902); and Die El‑Amarna Tafeln in Umschrift and Uebersetzung (1907).
KOCH, koa, ANTON: German Roman Catholic; b. at Pfronatetten (near Munsingen, 23 m. w. of Ulm), Wurttemburg, Apr. 19, 1859. He studied at the University of Tubingen and the seminary of Rottenburg, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1884. He was stationed at Schonberg, near Ellwangen, for two years, and from 1886 to 1889 was lecturer at the Wilhelmstift, Tiibingen. In 1889‑91 he was privat‑docent in Tiibingen, and then teacher of religion at a gymnasium in Stuttgart for three years. In 1894 he was recalled to Tiibingen as associate professor of moral and pastoral theology, and since 1896 has been professor of the same subjects there. He has written Der heilige Faustus, Bischof von Riez (Stuttgart, 1895), and Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie (Freiburg, 1905).
KOEBERLE, kift'ber‑16, JUSTUS ADOLF: German Lutheran; b. at Memmingen (33 m. s.e. of Ulm) June 27, 1871; d. at Rostock Feb. 7, 1908. He studied in Halle, Berlin, and Erlangen from 1889 to 1893, and after four years of pastoral work in
see
Munich became a lecturer in the University of Erlangen in 1898, privat‑docent in 1899, and in 1904 professor of Old‑Testament exegesis and Oriental philology. In theology he was an adherent of the Erlangen school. He wrote: De Elohistae Pentateuchi prioris gut' vocatur ethica (Erlangen, 1896); Die Tempelsdnger im. Alten Testament (1899); Natur and Geist nach der Auffassung des Alten Testaments (Munich, 1901); Die Motive des Glaubens an die Gebetserhorung im Alten Testament (Leipsic, 1901); Die geistige Kultur der semitischen Volker (1901); Babylonische Kultur and biblische Religion (Munich, 1903); Siinde and Gnade im religiosen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum (1905); Das Ratsel des Leidens, eine Einfiihrung in das Buch Hiob (Berlin, 1905); and Zum Kampfe um das Alte Testament (Wismar, 1906; 2d ed., with title Die alttestamentliche Ofenbarung, 1908) ; Der Prophet Jeremia. Sein Leben and Wirken (Calve, 1908) ; and has been since 1907 one of the editors of Theologie der Gegenwart.
KOEGEL, krVgl, THEODOR JOHANNES RUDOLF: German Protestant; b. at Birnbaum (44 m. w.n.w. of Posen), Prussia, Feb. 18, 1829; d. in Berlin June 2, 1896. He attended the gymnasium at Halle, and afterward studied philosophy and theology at the universities of Halle and Berlin. He became intimate with Tholuck, was his amanuensis, and later accompanied him on a journey to France and Spain. He was a gymnasial teacher in Dresden 1852‑54, pastor in charge at Nakel, near Bromberg, 1854‑57, and pastor of the German Evangelical congregation at The Hague 1857‑63. Early in 1863 he was called to Berlin as court. preacher, and in 1873 was appointed first court preacher, general superintendent of the Kurmark, and ephorus of the Cathedral Probationers' Foundation.
K6gel was distinguished particularly as a preacher, and also for his part in ecclesiastical affairs. His sermons are true to the text, but they invariably bear a definite stamp of their own. Their wealth of content is conveyed in a concise, sharply pointed style; and the copious illustrations from history and human life are vividly presented in terms exceedingly brief and plastic. His sermons bear the impress of a powerful moral earnestness, psychological acumen, and dis^riminating taste. Esthetic and poetical endowment becomes distinctly subservient to the art of preaching. K6gel exercised a considerable influence over the internal and external development of the Prussian State Church in the decade after 1870. Two of his characteristic traits are conspicuous in this connection: first, his unconditional championship of the Union; second, his sharp opposition to the Protestant Association. In conformity to this last was his antagonism toward Emil Herrmann's synodical constitution plans, which seemed to him to jeopardize the integrity of the confessional standard of doctrine. These antagonisms became especially acute on occasion of the extraordinary general synod of 1875, and led to the founding of the Positive Union party under Kbgel's leadership. The final consequence was that in 1878 K6gel was called to the superior ecclesiastical council, from which soon afterward President Herrmann with‑

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
drew. In the course of the years 1892‑94 he retired from his offices on account of infirmity. His sermons form the bulk of his writings. Of these he published numerous collections, including: Der erste Brief Petri (Mainz, 1863); Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt (Berlin, 1869); Daa Vaterunser (1873); Aus derv Vorhof ins Heiligthum (2 vols., Bremen, 1875‑76); Der Brief Pauli do die Romer (1876); Waeh auf, du Stadt Jerusalem (1882); Das Evangelium Johannis (2 parts, 1892‑93); and Gelaut and Geleit durchs Kirchenjahr (2 parts, 1895‑96). Other works are: Reden and Anspraehen (1887); Ethisches and Aesthetisches. Vortrdge and Betrachtungen (1888); and Gedichte (1891). With W. Baur and E. Frommel he edited the year‑book Neue Chrastoterpe (Bremen, 1880 sqq.).
GEORG RIETSCHEL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. K&gel, Rudolf K6gel, rein Werden and Wirken, 3 vols., Berlin, 1899‑1904; Chriatlide Welt, 1897. pp. 258 sqq. (on K6gel as a poet).
KOEHLER, kth'ler, (PHILIPP) AUGUST: German Protestant Biblical scholar; b. at Schmalenberg (50 m. s.s.w. of Heidelberg), in the Rhenish Palatinate, Feb. 8, 1835; d. at Erlangen Feb. 17, 1897. He began his education at the gymnasium of Zweibriicken, and then studied theology at Bonn, Erlangen, and Utrecht. In 1857 he established himself as privat‑docent at Erlangen, and in 1862 became professor extraordinary for Old‑Testament exegesis. In 1864 he was called as ordinary professor to Jena, in 1866 to Bonn, and in 1868 back to Erlangen as successor of Delitzsch. Here he labored for twenty‑nine years, becoming one of the most influential members of the theological faculty. His endowments fitted him for testing the views of others, rather than to enter new paths of investigation. His theological tendency was influenced chiefly by Delitzsch and Hofmann. Like them, he emphasized throughout his life the importance of Old‑Testament history as a history of salvation preparatory to Christianity. His first comprehensive work was exegetical Die nachexilischen Propheten erklart: part i., Die Weissagung Haggais (Erlangen, 1860); part ii., Die Weissagung Saeharjas (1861); part iii., Die Weissagung Saeharjas (1863); part iv., Die Weissagung Male‑his (1865). But the most important work is his Lehrbuch der Bibli3ChenGe8ehiehte Alten Testaments (2 parts, in sections, Erlangen, 1875‑85, Leipsic, 1889‑93). It was not a history of the people of Israel that he undertook to write, but only an account of what the Old Testament itself tells about the origin and history of its people, with a detailed examination of the Old‑Testament sources by the aid of the modern scientific apparatus. He freely admits the existence of different accounts of single events and whole periods of Israelitic history, as, for instance the Jahvistic and Elohistic sources in the Pentateuch, his aim being to show from the Old Testament what finally developed in the Post‑exilic time as the common view of the Old‑Testament community in regard to its history on the basis of the differing accounts. He made a distinction between the secular and theological content in Biblical history. From the use which Jesus made of the Old Testament he inferred that it was to be considered as
8nudtzon
Koenig
God's instruction to his congregation concerning his
former revelations.	The books of the Bible, he
states, originated in the same way as other books.
The historians of the Old Testament never show
that in the composition of their works they had
not the same freedom or independence of judg
ment as other historians. But if those books in
	spite of that fact have been regarded by Jesus and
	the apostles as the word of God to his congregation,
	the Christian congregation has a sure test that
	there is to be found in them the most faithful repre
	sentation of the deeds and revelations of God. On
	the other hand, the Old Testament does not pretend
	to be a Gpd‑given document concerning the knowl
	edge of the things of the natural life, as, for instance,
	of the primitive history of man and the secular his
	tory of Israel, but only a God‑given document con
	cerning the knowledge of tile revelations of God in
	so far as they reflect themselves in the consciousness
	of Israel as the congregation of God. Of other
	works may be mentioned, Die niederlandisehe re
	formierte Kirche (Erlangen, 1856); De pronunci
	atione ac vi sacrosancti tetragrammatis rll;i4 (1866);
	and Ueber Berichtigung der Lutherischen Bibeliiber
setung (1886). 	(ERNST SELLIN.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: NKZ, viii (1897), 273‑297.
KOEHLER, WALTER ERICH: German Lutheran; b. at Elberfeld (16 m. e.n.e. of Dtisseldorf), Dec. 27, 1870. He studied in Halle, Heidelberg (Ph.D., 1895), Strasburg, Bonn, and Tiibingen (lie. theol., 1898), and in 1900 became privat‑docent for church history at Giessen, associate professor of the same subject in 1904; and professor of church history at Zurich, 1909. In theology he belongs to the critical school. He has written: Die katholischen Kirchen den Morgenlandes (Darmstadt, 1896); Luther and die Kirchengeschichte, i. (Erlangen, 1900); Reformation and Ketzerproxess (Tubingen, 1901); Dokumente zum Ablassstreit von 1517 (1902); Die Entstehung den problems Staat and Kirche (1903); Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther (1904), Die Anfange den Pietismus in Giessen 1689‑1695 (Giessen, 1907); besides preparing a Kritische Ausgabe von Luthers fanfundneunzig Thesen mit Gegenschriften (Leipsic, 1903).
KOENIG, ko'nig, ARTHUR: German Roman Catholic; b. at Neisse (46 m. s.s.e. of Breslau) June 4, 1843. He studied at the University of Breslau 1861‑66 and at the theological seminary

in the salve City 1$6H7, and atA§ O14ainel to the
priesthood in 1867. He was instructor in religion at the gymnasium of Gross Glogau 1867‑fib, going thence in a similar capacity to the Realschule at

Neisse. In 1882 he was appointed professor of dogmatic theology at the University of Breslau,
exchanging this position in 1898 for the professorshiP of pastoral theology. He has written: Die Echtheit der Apostelgeschichte (Breslau, 1867); Da, Zeugn'is der Natur fur Gotten Dasein (Freiburg, 1870); Lehrbuch fitr den kwhodischen Religionsunterri6cht in den oberen Klassen der Gymnasien and

Rea1achulen (1879); Handbuch fur den katholiachen Regagaou.ndnteaieh in den
mittleren Klassen der Gymnasrkeund~eaIechulen (1880); Schopfung and Gotteserkenntnis (1885); Der kdtholische Prier

Koenig
$ohlbruegge
1600 Jahren (Breslau, 1890); Ofeium des heiligen Rosenkranzes (1891); Lebensbilder and Charakterziige aus der Kirchengeschichte (Glatz, 1890); Ein Blatt aus der Geschichte des schlesischen Schulwesens (Breslau, 1903); and Aus dem Kampfe um den Gottesglauben (1904).
KOENIG, FRIEDRICH EDUARD: German Protestant; b. at Reichenbach (56 m. s. of Leipaic), Saxony, Nov. 15, 1846. He studied in Leipsic (Ph.D., 1874), where he became privat‑docent in 1879 and associate professor of Old‑Testament exegesis in 1885. In 1888 he went to Rostock as full professor of the same subject, and since 1900 has occupied a similar position at the University of Bonn. In theology he is one of the leading adherents of the conservative school. His writings include: Gedanke, Laut and Akzent als die drei Faktoren der Sprachbildung (Weimar, 1874); Neue Studien fiber Schrift, Aussprache and generelle Formenlehre des Aethiopischen (Leipsie, 1877); De eriticae sacrae argumento a linguae legtbus repetito (1879); Historisch‑kritisches Lehrgebaude der hebraischen Sprache (3 vols., 1881‑97) ; Der O, fenbarungsbegrif des Allen Testaments (2 vols., 1882); Die Hauptprobleme der altisraelitischen Religionsgeschichte (1884; Eng. tmnsl. by A. J. Campbell, The Religious History of Israel, Edinburgh, 1885); Falsche Extreme in der nouren Kritik des Allen Testaments (Leipsie, 1895); Der Glaubensact der Christen nach Begri f and Fundament untersucht (Erlangen, 1891); The Exiles' Book of Consolation contained in Isaiah xl.‑lxvi. (Edinburgh, 1899); Die Originalitat des neulich entdeckten hebrdischen Siraehtextes (Freiburg, 1899); Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die biblische Literatur (Leipsie, 1900); Neueste Prinzipien der alttestamentlichen Kritik (Berlin, 1902); Bibel and Babel (1902; Eng. transl. by K. T. Pilter, Bible and Babylon, London, 1905); Die Bibeb‑Babel‑Frage and die wissenschaftliche Methode (1904); and Prophetenideal, Judentum and Christentum (1906); Hebrtiische Grammatik (Leipsie, 1908); Talmud and Neues Testament (Gross‑Liehterfelde, 1908) ; and Geschichte des Reiches Gottes bis auf Jesus Christus (Brunswick, 1908).

KOENIG, kv'nig, SAMUEL: Swiss Pietist; b. at Gerzensee (9 m. s.s.e. of Bern), 1670; d. at Bern May 31, 1750. He studied theology at Bern and Zurich, and after passing the examination for entrance into the Bernese ministry set out on a tour of Holland, England, and Germany. In England the mystical writings of Jane Lead (q.v.) exercised an extraordinary influence over him. Returning to Bern in 1693, he became preacher at the Church of the Holy Ghost and gained approval by his sermons, in which, from a desire of popularity, he espoused the cause of orthodoxy against the younger school of Pietists, including GiAdin, Christian Lutz, and others. Personal association with the leaders of Pietism, however, won him over to their side, and with the same vehemence with which he had assailed them he now turned against the orthodox cause, thus arousing tremendous excitement in the religious world of Bern. K6nig speedily ingrafted in the Pietistic teachings chiliastic and separatist tendencies which enabled the clergy to bring the
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
	Pietist leaders before the courts on the charge of
	heresy. The trial began in 1698 and continued till
	the spring of the following year, the Pietiats being
	accused of disseminating heretical teachings, viola
	ting the ordinances and discipline of the Church,
	and disturbing the public peace. They defended
	themselves with great skill, and their arraignment
	of the orthodox system might have influenced any
	but the moat stubborn of opponents. The verdict,
	however, had been determined beforehand, and
	Konig, as the moat obnoxious critic, of the existing
	system, was degraded from his clerical office and
	banished. Though the outcome of the trial was a
	severe blow to the Pietiats, it wrought harm to the
	Church, since the severity of the sentence intensified
	the separatist tendency among the members of the
	sect, and it was only the labors of the younger Lutz
	that prevented a complete rupture with the Church.
	K6nig wandered through Germany for many years,
	until in 1711 he was appointed French preacher to
	the count of Isenburg at Budingen. Unceasing
	yearning for home and the conviction that he had
	been unjustly treated made his long exile an unhappy
	one, and his antiorthodox writings increased in acer
	bity. Gradually, however, he withdrew from the
	field of theology, and successfully devoted himself
I	to studies in Oriental languages and mathematics.
	In 1730 he was permitted to return to Bern, and the
	government created for him an associate professor
	ship in languages and mathematics at the Univer
	sity, where his inability to maintain discipline still
	further embittered him. His renewed activity in
	Pietist propaganda exposed him to censure, but he es
	caped punishment in view of his age. The last years
	of his life were darkened by the banishment of his
	two sons, who were found guilty of taking part in
	the conspiracy of Hentzi against the aristocratic
	city government. Of KSnig's works the most note
	worthy is his Etymologieon helleno‑hebraicum (Frank
	fort, 1722), in which he sought to derive the Greek
	language from Semitic sources,' while his Theolo
	gisches Prognoatikon vom Untergang des tiirkischen
	Reichs (Biidingen, 1717) is characteristic of his doc
	trinal bias. 	(W. HADORN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Trechsel, Samuel K6nig and der Pietia mua in Bern, Bern, 1852; A. Rfteehl, (iuchichte des Pietiamua, pp. 408 eqq., Bonn, 1888; Hsdorn, in KirchenJreund, 1898, and 1899, pp. 194 eqq.
gOESTLIN, kOst'lin, HEINRICH ADOLF: German Lutheran; b. at Tiibingen Sept. 4, 1846; d. in Cannstadt (4 m. n.e. of Stuttgart) June 5, 1907. He studied at the seminary of Schonthal (1860‑64) and the University of Tubingen (1864‑68), after which he was vicar in Weilheim, near Tiibingen (18681869), private tutor to the family of Baron von Wachter, ambassador of Wurttemberg,, at Paris (1869‑70), chaplain of the Second Wiirttemberg Field‑Brigade in the Franco‑Prussian war (18701871), tutor at the theological seminary at Tilbingen (1871‑73), and deacon at Sulz‑on‑the‑Neckar (1873‑74). He then held pastorates at Maulbronn (1875‑78), Friedrichshafen (1878‑81), and Stuttgart (1881‑83). From 1883 to 1891 he was professor of theology at the seminary for preachers at Friedberg, Hesse, and from 1891 to 1895 was supreme consistorial councilor and superintendent

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hoenlg
8ohlbruegge
	of the province of Starkenburg. In 1895 he became
	privy ecclesiastical councilor and was appointed
	professor of theology in Giessen. He retired from
	active life in 1901, and resided at Darmstadt (1901
	1904) and Cannatadt (after 1904). In 1883‑85 he
was a member of the committee for the preparation
	of a new hymnal for Hesse, and in 190M4 Wag
	engaged in preparing the Hessian Kirchenbuch, the
	Hessian Gemeindegebetbueh, and similar works. In
	theology he held that "the object of all theology is
	to understand the person and message of Jesus
	Christ as the Savior of mankind, all creeds being
	but an approximate expression of the life and sal
	vation in him." Besides editing the Monatsschrif t
	fiir Pastaraltheologie at Berlin since 1904, he wrote
	Aus ernsten Tagen, Feldpredigten (Stuttgart, 1871);
	Kandidatenfahrten (Tubingen, 1875); Geschichte der
	Musik (1875); Friedrich Silcher and Carl Maria von
	Weber (Stuttgart 1877); Die Tonkunst, Einfiihrung
	in die Aestheti$ der Musik (1878); Die Musik als
	christliche Volksmacht (1878); Josephine Lang
	(Leipsie,1881); 1'Mher als der Vater des evangelischen
	Kirchengesangs (1882); Der Begrif des geistlichen
	Amts (Ludwigsburg, 1885); Im Felde (Darmstadt,
	1886); Geschichte des christlichen Gottesdiemts
	(Tiibingen, 1887); Die Lehre von der Seelsorge nach
	evangelischen Grunds4tzen (Berlin, 1895); and Pre
	digten and Reden (Giessen, 1901).
KOESTLIN, JULIUS'THEODOR: German Protestant; b. at Stuttgart May 17, 1826; d. at Halle May 12, 1902. He was educated at the universities of Tilbingen (1844‑48) and Berlin (18491850), and in 1850 became lecturer in the theologi‑
cal seminary at Tilbingen. Five years later he was appointed associate professor of theology at Gottingen, whence he was called in 1860 to Breslau as full professor of the same subject. From 1870 until 1896, when he retired from active life, he was professor of New‑Testament exegesis at Halle. In 1849 he visited Scotland, where he studied Presbyterianism, later introducing certain Presbyterian features into German consistorial government. Among his numerous writings, special mention may be made of his: Die schottische Kirche, ihr inneres Leben ‑and ihr Verhdltnis zum Stoat (Goths, 1852); Luthers Lehre von der Kirehe ($tuttgart, 1853); Der Glaube, sein Wesen, Grand and Gegen, stand (Goths, 1859); Luthers Theologie in ihrer geachichtlichen Entwicklung and ihrem inneren Zusammenhange (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1863; Eng. transl., from the second German edition, Theology of Luther in its Historical Development and Inner Harmony. 2 vols., Philadelphia., 1897); Martin Luther, aein Leben and seine Schriften (2 vols., Elberfeld, 1875); Luthers Leben (Leipsic, 1882; Eng. tranal., London, 1883); Martin Luther der Reformator, Festschrift (Halls, 1883; Eng. transl., London, 1883); Auto‑
biograPhie (Danzig, 1891); Die Bq'undung umerer
aittlich‑religi6sen Ueberzeugungen (Berlin, 1893);
Religion and Reich Gotten, Abhandlungen xur Dog _
,Religion and Ethik (Goths, 1894); Der Gkiube and
seine Bedeutung fur Erkenntnjs, Leben and Kirche
(Berlin, 1895); and Christliche Ethik (IBgg)
congregation at Elberfeld; b, at Amsterdam Aug. 15, 1803; d. at Elberfeld (16 m. e. of Diisseldorf), Rhenish Prussia, Mar. 5, 1875. He was brought up as a Lutheran, and after attending the Latin school and the Athenaeum became assistant preacher to the Lutheran congregation at Amsterdam. He soon perceived that there was little left of Luther's spirit in the Lutheran Church of Holland, and his sermons on the radical corruption of human nature aroused the opposition of his rationalistic colleagues and resulted in his being deposed. After living in retirement for several years he became a convert to the Reformed faith; but the Reformed Church, fearing the disturbance of its peace, refused him admission. In 1833, while traveling for his health through the Rhine region, he accepted a call to Elberfeld, where his energetic personality, the peculiarity of his doctrinal system and the profound earnestness of his sermons made a deep impression. Already Gottfried Daniel Krummacher (q.v.) had aroused many earnest believers, and Kohlbrugge was eagerly demanded to continue his work; but the Prussian government, considering him a dangerous enemy of the plan of tll>Itlllg the Lutheran and Reformed churches, forbade him the pulpit. For a number of years Kohlbriigge lived in retirement at Utrecht, interpreting the Scriptures every Sunday to some friends. Meanwhile the act of union had produced a great fermentation in the Rhine region, especially among the Reformed congregations. In Elberfeld a rupture occurred in the Reformed church, and in 1847 the dissenters elected Kohlbriigge as their pastor, and constituted themselves as the "Dutch Reformed " congregation. This body, which was recognized by royal patent of 1847, considered itself a member of the Dutch State Church and adopted the Confessio Belgica and the Heidelberg catechism. It still exists secluded from all outside movements of Christianity with a strict church order, legal church discipline, and wellorganiaed Ghalltlm
The peculiarity of Kohlbriigge consists less in an actual deviation from the doctrine and confessions of the Reformed Church than in a one‑sided conception of certain doctrinal points. In his effort to oppose to Pietism the objectivity and self‑glory of grace, he did not emphasize strongly enough sanctification and renovation of the heart. His sermons, which constitute the bulk of his works, spread far
beyond the borders of his congregation. Of his writings may be mentioned: Das siebente Kapitel des Briefes Pauli are die Romer (Elberfeld, 1839; Eng. transl., London, 1$54); Betrachtung fiber dc, crate Kapitel des Evangeliums reach Matthkua (1844); Das

alts Testament nacTt aeinem wahren Sinne gewurdigt aus den Schrlften der Evangetisten and ~~d
(IS4s>; schrift~.34 Nam,i1

B2k2nnwsses.	n9 den christlichen
(1$55; En • . " Ich glaube an den heiligen Geist "
	g transl., Scriptural Elucidation a
f the A~ °n t~ Christian Faith: 1 Believe in the Holy

Bhoke in8daa ' D~ A~ due' Presbyter (1856); and crate KaPitel des eraten Bathes Samuelis
(1868)• His numerous collections of hi,; sermons include: Sieben Predigten fiber ,,Sackarja iii.
KOHLBRBEGGE, k81'br~g‑gebut HERMAPN (EI[~rfeld, 1848); Sieben Predigten ube,.

den Pro.
FRIEDRICH: Founder of the	ch‑Ii;eform~pheten Jo (1849); Acht P.redigten iiAerVL‑24	Evangelium

Kohler
Rol Nidre	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	370
Johannis (1849); Predigten fiber die erste Epistel des
Apostels Petrus (1855; Eng. tranal., 1856); Zwanzig
Predigten im Jahre 18.¢6 gehalten (Halle, 1857); and
Apostelgeschichte. Cap. 2‑10. in ,t'6 Predigten (Elber
feld, 1874). Some of these sermons have appeared
in English under the title Miscellaneous Sermons
(London, 1855). 	(H. CALAMINUB.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Zur Erinnerung an Hermann Prwdrwh Kohlbrikgge, Elberfeld, 1875; Rine Erinnerung an H. F. Kohlbriigge, WeilandPastor der niederldadische‑reformirten Kirchen, Hagen, 1882; A. Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, i. 593 sqq., Bonn, 1880.
KOHLER, CHRISTIAN and HIERONYMUS:
Swiss fanatics and impostors, founders of the sect of the Brugglers. Christian was born in 1710 and Hieronymus in 1714 at Briigglen near Rtiggisberg (9 m. s. of Bern), Switzerland, in a region dominated by the influence of sectaries, prophetesses, and mystics. From their father the two brothers inherited a reputation for hydromancy, and soon discovered how to turn their knowledge to material profit, revealing at the same time a certain degree of native talent and a cunning and ambition which became an important factor in gaining a following. They had received no regular education, one being a day‑laborer and the other a wagoner, had married at an early age, and were conspicuous for their moral delinquencies. In 1745 a remarkable movement, traceable to the influence of pietistic separatism, broke out in Brugglen and its vicinity, when children began to pray and to preach to their elders. Among these inspired children were the offspring of the Kohler brothers, and from them the fanatic spirit passed to their parents, who now experienced visions and dreams, and related to their neighbors the wonderful revelations vouchsafed them during periods of ecstasy. It has been supposed that in the beginning the two men were subjects of self‑deception, but it is not impossible that their ecstatic visions were deliberate mendacities. They made use of the plentiful apocalyptic literature of the time for all their revelations with regard to the millennium and the antichrist, while they shared with all separatists an irreconcilable hatred for the Church. Their sole innovation was their audacious impersonation of the Trinity, a claim in which they were assisted by a woman of evil repute named Elizabeth Kissling. Christian Kohler proclaimed himself the temple of the Father, Hieronymus that of the son, and the Kissling woman that of the Holy Ghost. The success of their imposture evidently turned their heads, for they made no attempt to preserve any consistency of deception, but announced themselves at various times as the two witnesses of the Apocalypse, as the servants of Christ and his representatives, and as the successors to the throne of God. The Kissling woman was not only the incarnation of the Holy Ghost, but also the woman of the Apocalypse who was to give birth to the Saviour. At the same time they continued to practise divination and answered questions concerning the condition of the dead, being able to speak with authority since Christian Kohler was in constant communication with heaven. In case the departed soul was declared by them to be in hell, they professed themselves able to absolve it, and thus
profited by an active trade in indulgences. In 1750, after they had pursued their practises for more than five years, they were arrested and banished from the canton for six years. They frequently returned in secret, however, and renewed their prophecies until a price was set upon their heads. Hieronymus was seized Oct. 8, 1752, and executed Jan. 16, 1753; Elizabeth Kisaling was imprisoned; and Christian, after incarceration, professed himself ready to abandon his beliefs. His subsequent fate is unknown. Most of the Bragglers were quite ignorant of the vicious character of their prophets and abjured their heresies, but some remained faithful to the " murdered Messiah," and awaited his speedy return. The sect disappeared, but about fifty years later the Antonians renewed many of their dootrines and practises (see ANTONIANs, 2).
(W. HADORN.)
BIRwOGHAPHY: J. R. Kyburz, Das entdeckte Geheimnie der Bosheit in der Briiggleraekte, 2 vols., Zurich, 1753; L. Meister, Helvetische Szenen der neueren Schwarmerei and Intoleranz, pp. 161 sqq., ib. 1785; J. R. Schlegel, Kirchengesehichte des 18. Jahrhunderts, IL, ii. 1062 sqq., 3 vols., Heilbronn, 1784‑96; K. R. Hagenbach, Hist. of the Church in the 18th and 19th Centuries, 2 vols., New York, 1869; Hadorn, in Theologische Zeitachrift aus der Schweiz, 1900, part iv.
KOHLER, KAUFMANN: German‑American rabbi; b. at Furth (5 m. n.w. of Nuremberg), Germany, May 10, 1848. He studied at the rabbinical schools of Hassfurt, H6chberg, Mainz, Altona, and Frankfort, and at the universities of Munich, Berlin, Leipsic, and Erlangen (Ph.D., 1868). In 1869 he came to the United States and was rabbi of Congregation Beth‑El in Detroit until 1871. He then became rabbi of Sinai Congregar tion, Chicago, where he introduced Sunday lectures into the service of the American synagogue. In 1879 he was chosen rabbi of Temple Beth‑El, New York City. In 1903 he was made honorary minister of that synagogue for life, that he might accept the proffered presidency of Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, O. He is one of the leaders of Reformed Judaism in the United States. He edited the weekly Sabbath Visitor 188182 and the weekly Jewish Reformer in 1886, and was editor of the departments of theology and philosophy of the Jewish Encyclopedia. He has edited David Einhorn's ausgewdhlte Predigten and Reden (New York, 1880) and has written: Der Segen Jakob's (Berlin, 1867); Die Bibel and die Todesstrafe (Leipsie, 1868); Das hohe Lied iibersetzt and kritisch neu bearbeitet (New York, 1878); Backwards or Forwards: Lectures on Reformed Judaism (1885); The Ethical Basis of Judaism (1887); Church and Synagogue in their Mutual Relations (Chicago, 1889); and A Guide to Instruction in Judaism (New York, 1898).
KOLB, FRANZ: Reformer; b. at Intzlingen, near L6rrach (28 m. s.s.w. of Freiburg), Baden, 1465; d. at Bern Nov. 10, 1535. In 1491 he entered the University of Basel, where humanism was well represented; in 1497 he became master and teacher in St. Martin's school, but in 1502 he retired to a Carthusian monastery in Swabia. Zwingli was probably his successor in Basel. In 1504 Kolb went to Freiburg as cantor and preacher and afterward was active for some time in the neighboring

371	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Kohler
Rol Nidre
Murten. In 1507 he became rector of the schools in
Freiburg. In the same year he went to Italy as
field‑chaplain with Swiss mercenaries in the service
of Emperor Maximilian. In 1509 he left Freiburg
and went to Bern as cathedral preacher. He was
a stern moralist and arraigned the people for their
vices. With less success he attacked the demorali
zing mercenary traffic, and because of these attacks
was forced to leave Bern in 1512 and again retired
to a Carthusian monastery, this time at Nuremberg.
He preached the Reformation in Nuremberg, but
was persecuted in 1522 and fled. On the recommen
dation of Luther, apparently, he received the post
of preacher from Count George II. of Wertheim.
Here he was active in the reform of the church ser
vice, but inclined toward the doctrinal conceptions
of Zwingli with whom he soon afterward came in
personal contact at Zurich. On this account in 1525
he lost the confidence of his protector and returned
to Nuremberg, where the Reformation in the mean
time had achieved its full victory. Kolb was sus
pected, however, of sympathizing with the teach
ings of sectaries like Denk and Munzer, who at that
time were active in Nuremberg, and although cleared
of this suspicion, he applied in 1526 to Zwingli for
a position, and in the following year became the
assistant of Berthold Haller in Bern. With Haller
he took the most prominent part in the great dispu
tation of 1528 which achieved the victory of the
Gospel in Bern (see BERN, DISPUTATION OF).
Kolb's Wertheimer Ratschlag (1524) gives his views;
and some of his letters are in the Luther and the
Zwingli correspondence. 	(E. BLSacat.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Eissenloffel, Franz Kolb, Zell, n. d.; s. Fischer, Reformation and Di&putdion in Bern, Bern, 1828.
gOLDE, THEODOR (FRIEDRICH HERMANN):
German Lutheran; b. at Friedland (26 m. s.e. of K6nigsberg), Upper Silesia, May, 6 1850. He studied in Breslau (1869‑70) and Leipsic (1871‑72; Ph. D., Halle, 1874; lie. theol., Marburg, 1876), and in 1876 became privat‑docent for church history in Marburg, where he was appointed associate professor in 1879. Since 1881 he has been full professor of church history at Erlangen. He has written: Der Kanzler Briick and seine Bedeutung fur die Entwicklung der Reformation (Goths, 1874); Luthers Stellung zu Konzil and Kirche bis zum Wormser Reichstag (Giitersloh, 1876); Die deutsche Augustiner‑Congregation and Johann von Staupitz (Goths, 1879); Friedrich der Weise and die Anfdnge der Reformation (Erlangen, 1881); Analecta Lutherana (Goths, 1883); Luther and der Reichstag zu Worms (Halle, 1883); Martin Luther, eine Biographie (2 vols., Gotha, 1884‑93); Die Heilsarmee.nach eigener Anschauung and nach ihren Schriften (Erlangen, 1885); Der Methodismus and seine Bekdmpfung (1886); Beitrdge zur Reformationsgeschichte (Leipsie, 1888); Die Loci communes Philipp Melanchthons (1890); Luthers Selbstmord: eine Geschichtsliige P. Majunkes beleuchtet (1890); Ueber Grenzen des historischen Erkennens (1890); Die kirehlichen Bsiiderschaften and das religiose Leben im modernen Katholizismus (Erlangen, 1895); Andreas Althamer der Humanist and Reformator (1896); Die Ausburger Confession lateiuasch and deutach kurz erldutert
(Goths, 1896); Das religi6se Leben in Erfurt beim Ausgange des Mittelalters (Halle, 1898); Dr. Johann Teuschbein and der erste Reformationsvemuch in Rothenburg ob der Tauber (Leipsie, 1901); Edward Irving (1903); Das bayerische Religionsedikt vom 10. Jan. 1803 (Erlangen, 1903); Der Staatsgedanke der Reformation and die romische Kirche (Leipsie, 1903); P. Denife, seine Beschimpfung Luthers and der evangelisehen Kirche (1904); Der Katholizismus and das zwanzigste Jahrhundert (1905); Die Anfange einer katholischen Gemeinde in Erlangen (Erlangen, 1906); Die alleste Redaktion der Augsburger Konfession mit Melanchthons Einleitung (Gutersloh, 1906) ; and Historische Einleitung in die symbolischen Bilcher der Evangleisch‑lutherischen Kirche (1907). He has also edited the Beitrdge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte (Erlangen since 1895).

gOL NIDRE, kel nf'dr6 ("All vows"): The name given to the evening service taking place in the synagogue before the beginning of the Day of Atonement, derived from the opening words. The service is opened by the formula Kol nidre which runs as follows: "All vows, renunciations, bans, konams and [other] cognomens [with which vows may be designated] and kinuse and oaths, which we vow and swear and ban and bind upon our souls, from this day of atonement until the [next] day of atonement which shall come for our welfare‑we repent them all; they shall be solved, remitted, abolished, be void and null, without power and without validity. May our vows be no vows, and our oaths be no oaths." Then cantor and congregations recite together Num. xv. 26. The cantor closes with an offering of thanks in that God has kept alive his praying people.
This ceremony has caused many accusations against the Jews, especially one concerning the untrustworthiness of an oath by a Jew. ' It is to be noted, however, that in this formula there is no allusion to oaths sworn to others, but only to obligations which one imposes upon himself. Because the Oriental, through his emotional temperament, is easily moved to make unconsidered vows, the Talmudists declared vows unmeritorious and even sinful, and some vows were declared initially invalid; others could be solved if repentance was expressed. Besides that, a general absolution of future vows was allowed by a solemn declaration on New Year's Day. In post‑Talmudic times this usage was changed so that the declaration was to be made on the first evening of the day of atonement by the whole congregation and with reference to the past, not to the future.
Kol nidre is first mentioned in the time of the Geonim (589‑1034 A.D.) It was only slowly that the formula was recognized and expanded. Even in the twelfth century and later it was rejected by men like Jehuda Hadassi (c. 1148); Isaac ben Sheshet of Saragossa (d. c. 1406); Jacob Landau (flourished c. 1480 in Italy) in a collection of ritualistic decrees called Agur; and Mordecai ben Abraham Jaffe (d. Mar. 7, 1612), rabbi in Poland and in Prague. Kol nidre was abolished in Mecklenburg‑Schwerin in May, 1844, in Hanover at the end of the sixties, and still later in Magdeburg. There was substituted

Korea	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	3'72
either a German hymn or a new Hebrew prayer; but the majority of " orthodox " congregations, in Germany, Austria‑Hungary and other countries, adhered to the early formula.
An important change in the formula was made by MeIr ben Samuel (d. after 1135). Up to his time the solution of the vows of the past year had been pronounced, but he allowed the vows of the year just begun to be declared invalid. This restitution of the original idea was widely adopted, especially in the German ritual. See also OATH; and Vows.
(H. L. STRACg.)

B113LIOGRAPHY: J. A. Eisenmenger, Entdecktea Judenthum, part ii., chap 9, Konigsberg 1711; M. Philipson, Ueber die Verbesaerunp des Judeneida, Neuatrelits, 1797; Z. Frankel, Die Bidealeiatung der Juden, Dresden, 1840; L. Zunz, Geeammette Schriften, ii. 241‑264, Berlin, 1876; L. Low, Geaammelte Schriften, iii. 359‑366, $zegedin, 1893. Consult also Lehmann, in Der laraelit, 1863, nos. 25, 38.
KOMANDER, k6mdn'der (DORFMANN), JOHANN: Reformer of the canton of Grisons; b. at Maienfeld (12 m. n. of Chur); d. at Chur early in 1557. He studied at Basel with Zwingli in 15021503, was settled as pastor in Chur as early as 1523, and was active there till his death. Though the Reformation had made considerable progress in the vicinity of Chur Komander met with violent opposition at first, but Zwingli's influence induced the authorities of the town to protect him. Forty other preachers joined his cause. The papal party, however, found in 1525 a peculiar ally in the Anabaptists. Theodor Schlegel, the clever abbot of St. Lucius in Chur, secretly favored the Anabaptists, and then at the federal diet in 1525 accused Komander and his friends as the instigators of their heresy. Komander calmly and courageously requested the council to let him justify his faith from Holy Scripture. A religious colloquy was ordered at Ilanz on Jan. 7,' 1526, for which Komander prepared eighteen theses on the basis of Zwingli's theses for the first disputation of Zurich. The colloquy lasted two days, but only the first thesis on the authority of the Bible was discussed, all further efforts being frustrated by the intrigues of Schlegel. On the whole, the result of the colloquy was favorable to the Reformation; the authority of Homander increased, and seven other clergymen of Grisons joined his cause. But under pressure from the Roman strongholds in the confederation, and to free certain respected Evangelical citizens of the Valtellina (q. v.) who had been captured by Roman noblemen, the federal diet, assembled in 1526 at Chur, resolved to maintain the old usages in regard to public worship, although preaching was to remain free. Soon after the issue of this decree, some Evangelical preachers were banished for refusing to restore the mass and images. Nevertheless, Komander ventured to expound the Evangelical doctrine of the Lord's Supper at Easter, 1526 and it was administered according to Evangelical rite in 1527. Soon afterward the odious decree was revoked, and freedom of choice between the two conflicting religions was permitted. An Artikeliirief, favorable to the Evangelicals, was issued June 25, 1526. It gave the congregations the right to choose their own pastors, restricted the rights of patronage of
the cathedral chapter, and forbade the election of a bishop without the consent of the federal diet. Irritated by these decisions, the bishop and Schlegel entered into treasonable relations with the Medici; but the conspiracy was discovered, the bishop was exiled, and Schlegel was beheaded in 1529.
After the outward security of the Reformation had been achieved, Komander busied himself with its internal development. Zwingli gave him an excellent assistant in Nicolaus Baling. Komander learned Hebrew, and studied so diligently that he injured his eyesight. From his correspondence with Zwingli, it is evident that he had many disagreeable encounters with the Anabaptists. He was a genuine disciple of Zwingli, and was always in close relation with his friends at Zurich. In agreement with Bullinger, he proposed at the federal diet of 1536 a firmer organization of the Church. This idea was realized in 1537 by the institution of a synod. The catechism of Grisons is Komander's work, and he took a prominent part in the composition of the Con,fessio Rhaetica, which was chiefly directed against Antitrinitarian heresies. In the latter years of his life he devoted his efforts to the development of the high school at Chur, founded in 1539, which soon began to flourish under Johannes Pontisella and Simon Lemnius. Komander's last public appearance was in a fiery discourse delivered before the federal diet in 1556 against the sending of a submissive embassy to the pope.
(B. RIGGENBACHt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources and treatment of Komander
are best sought in the literature cited under ZWINGLr, e.g.,
Zwingli s Opera, vols. vii.‑viii.; R. $taehelin, Huldreich
Zuangli, 2 vols., Basel 1895‑97; $. M. Jackson, Huldreich
Zuringli, New York, 1903 (consult Index " Comander ");
and the literature under REFORMATION In the section on
Switzerland. Consult: U. Campell, Hiat. Raetica, ed.
P. Planner, 2 vole., Basel, 1886‑90; F. Trechsel Die
prnteatantiachen Antitrinitarier, vol. ii., Heidelberg, 1844;
H. G. Sulzberger, Geachichte der Reformation im Kanton
Graubanden, Chur, 1880; Schaff, Christian Church, vii.
138‑140 Bullingera Korreapondenz in Quellen zur Schwei
zer Geachichte vol. xxiii„ Basel, 1904 E. Bl&sch, Ge
achichte der achweizeriach‑refarmierten Kirche, i. 55 eqq.,
176 sqq., Bern. 1898. For the colloquy at Ilanz, cf.
J. C. Ftisali, Beilriipe zur Kirchen.. and Reformationage
achichte i. 337‑382, Zurich 1741; U. Campell, ut cup., ii.
287‑308; Hofmeiatera Akten tun Relipionageaprttch in llanz, Chur, 1904.
g00LHAAS, kol'hda, KASPAR 7ANSZOON: Dutch Protestant; b. at Cologne Jan. 24, 1536; d. at Amsterdam Jan. 15 1615. After a few years of study at Cologne and Dilsseldorf, he joined the Car‑
thusians at Coblenz, but in 1560 entered the Protestant ministry at Marbach, and in 1566 became pastor at Deventer, Holland. When the city fell into the hands of the Spaniards he fled to Germany, but returned to Holland in 1573 and became pastor at Leyden in 1574. At the founding of the university there he delivered the opening address. In a quarrel between the government and the consistory he defended the rights of the government in ecclesiastical affairs. In his opinion the Church assumed too many rights and curtailed freedom of thought.

The ministers of the classic of South Holland now forbade him to preach. As his views on predestina‑

tion differed from those of the stricter Calvinists an accusation was presented against him at, the Synoa

373	1	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Homwader
			Korea
of Middelburg in 1581, and in 1582 he was excom
municated at the Synod of Haarlem, though this ex
communication was soon annulled. On account of
the continued opposition of the clergy he finally
withdrew from the Church and earned his living as a
distiller. He was a follower of Luther, rather than
of Calvin. For his opposition to the restrictions
placed upon the Church by ecclesiastical formu
laries he must be regarded as a forerunner of Ar
minius and the Remonatrants. (H. C. ROGGEt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. C. Rogge, Caspar Janazoon Coolhaea, de
	voorlooper van Arminius en der Remonatranten, 2 vols.,
	Amsterdam, 1856‑58.
	KOPP, GEORG: German cardinal; b. at Du
derstadt (15 m. e. of Gottingen) July 27, 1837. He
studied at the Gymnasium of Hildesheim, and after
being a telegrapher in the service of the Hanoverian
government (1856‑58) studied theology at the epis
copal seminary in Hildesheim (1858‑61). In 1862 he
was ordained to the priesthood, and was then vicar
of a school at Henneckenrode and curate at Detfurt
until 1865, when he became assistant to the vicar
general at Hildesheim. In 1870 he was created
apostolic prothonotary, and in 1872 became a mem
ber of the chapter of the cathedral at Hildesheim and
vicar‑general of the diocese. In 1881 he was con
secrated bishop of Fulda, and in 1887 became prince
bishop of Breslau. In 1893 he was created cardinal
priest of Santa Agnese fuori le Mum. He was a
member of the Prussian house of deputies in 1884
1886, and since 1886 has been a member of the
upper house. He is a domestic prelate of the pope.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Der Papal, die Repierunp, and die Verwa?t
	unp der heiligen Kirche in Rom, pp. 185, 187‑188, Munich,
	1904.
	%ORAH, ko'rd, KORAHITES: Names which
appear in three connections in the Old Testament:
(1) As an Edomitic stock or clan (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14,
16, 18; I Chron. i. 35); (2) as a family (or city) be
longing to the descendants of Caleb, reckoned as
Judahites (I Chron. ii. 43 and perhaps I Chron. xii. 6);
(3) most frequently as descendants of Levi, belong
ing to the family of Kohath in the genealogies of Ex.
vi. 21, 24; I Chron. vi. 22, ix. 15, xxvi. 1. Num. xxvi.
58 departs from the usual division of the Levi
stock into three branches and makes the Korahite
family one of five. Num. xvi.‑xvii. deals with the
Kohathite Korah in connection with the rebellion of
Dathan and Abiram; the Chronicler makes the
Korahites doorkeepers of the sanctuary (I Chron. ix.
19, 26, 31). The Korahites appear also in the super
scriptions of Ps. xlii., xliv.‑xlix., lxxxiv., ixxxv.,
lxxxvii., lxxxviii.
	Of special importance is the passage Num. xvi.
xvii., formerly thought to be a unit, but shown by
Kuenen to be composed of three narratives woven
together and differing in their representations. J
makes Dathan and Abiram the opponents of the
leadership of Moses, P makes Komh the representa
tive of the laity against Moses and Aaron who stand
for the priesthood, while the third element regards
Korah as a non‑priestly Levite who champions the
cause of the Levites against the exclusive priestly
claims of the Aaronites. Evidently the Komh of
these chapters is the Korah of (3) above (cf. Num.
xxvi. 11); P must have regarded Korah as a Levite,
and the editor evidently had a pragmatic aim in combining the narratives. Difficulties arise regarding the historicity of the P narrative, though traditional material is employed. Two Korahs‑(2) and (3) above‑may have been confused in the combination, but from all passages cited above no secure history of the family can be deduced.
In clearer but not altogether consistent form is the Levitical relationship of the Korahitic Levites set forth in Chronicles and in the priest code. The former (I., ix. 19) regards the Korahites as doorkeepers of the sanctuary; the latter gives them more minute and particular temple service (Num. iii. 31). In the older parts of Ezra‑Nehemiah the singers and doorkeepers are not reckoned to the Levites but are a special division. The Sons of Korah of the inscriptions of the Psalms appear in Chronicles as doorkeepers, not as singers. Yet in II Chron. xx. 19 the Kohathites and Korahites appear as singers, and I Chron. vi. 18 sqq. makes Heman to be of Kohathite stock, while I Chron. ix. 33 closes the preceding list of Levites with the words "and these are the singers." Thus the line between doorkeepers and singers is not sharply drawn by the Chronicler, and the title of the Psalms cited, " for the Sons of Korah," does not find satisfactory support in Chronicles and appears to be based on some variant system. It is hardly probable, however, that a new gild of singers was organized in times after the Chronicles to which the name " sons of Korah " was given; possibly this designation was a collective term embracing the doorkeepers and the singers and was used in the Greek period, to which Ps. xliv. belongs.
(F. BUHL.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: w. von Baudisain, Geachichte dea alttestamentlichen Prieetertuma, Leipsic, 1889; A. Kuenen, ThT, xii (1878), 139 sqq.; B. w. Bacon, Triple Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 190 sqq., Hartford, 1894; J. KSberle, Die Tempeladnper im A. T., pp. 182 eqq., Erlangen, 1899; J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford‑Battersby, Composition of the Hexateuch, ii. 212 aqq., London, 1902; Smith, OTJC, pp. 204 eqq.; Driver, Introduction, pp. 59‑61; DB, iii. 11‑12; EB, ii. 2686‑88; JE, vii. 556‑567; and, in general, literature on the Hexateuch.
KORAN. See MOHAMMED, MOHAMMEDANISM. KOREA. I. The Land and People. Ir. Missions.
Extent, Climate, Resources Roman Catholic Missions
(§ 1).
Government and Recent
History (§ 2).
U 1).
Protestant Missions (§ 2).
Results (§ 3).
I. The Land and People: Korea comprises the peninsula lying between Japan and Chinese Asia. The name by which the country was known to its inhabitants when first opened by treaty to foreign entrance was Cho‑sen, " Morning‑calm," later changed to Tai‑han. The term Korea comes from Korai Korye, or Koryu, the name of the strongest of three kingdoms which existed in the country in the tenth century. From the fact that foreigners were until toward the end of the nineteenth century not allowed to enter or reside in the land, Korea became poetically known as the " Hermit Nation." The peninsula, runs approximately north and south, having the Sea of Japan on the east, the Strait of Korea on the south, the Yellow Sea on the west, while Russian and Chinese territory bound it on the north. If the dictionary definition of an island be

Bores
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
accepted, Korea would more probably be termed an island, for the small lake situated on the slopes of "the ever white mountain" in the
i. Extent, north is the source of two rivers, the
Climate, Tumen, which empties into the Sea of
Resources. Japan, and the Yaloo which finds its way into the Yellow Sea, the northern boundary being therefore entirely of water, making of Korea a body of land entirely surrounded by water. The length of the country from north to south is about 700 miles, and it has an area variously estimated as between 80,000 and 92,000 square miles, approximately that of the States of New York and Pennsylvania combined, with a population estimated at about twelve millions. A chain of mountains running from north to south divides, when about three‑fourths of the length of the peninsula has been traversed, into two ranges which run along the whole eastern coast and are the sources of many rapid, turbulent streams pouring into the Sea of Japan, and of several less rapid but larger rivers which, flowing placidly through the plains to the west coast, make of Korea a fertile country, producing all kinds of cereals, though rice is the staple product and the main article of diet. The climate is not unlike that of the Eastern States; for although the capital, Seoul, is as far south as Richmond, Va., the cold ocean current that flows down between Japan and Korea very much modifies the climate of the peninsula. With the exception of some six weeks of rain, during what is commonly known as the rainy season, the climate is, in the main, dry and healthful, warm in summer, and quite cold in winter, with of course the varying degrees that come from an extreme length north to south of about 1,000 miles. The mineral deposits in Korea are large and varied, silver, tin, lead and copper being found in paying quantities, and still larger deposits of gold and coal have been found. It is not, however, the El Dorado that some have claimed it to be. The people are inferior neither mentally nor physically to other Orientals. A people which has preserved its ancient civilization and so long succeeded in maintaining itself as a hermit nation might be expected to show peculiar and excellent qualities, and these have appeared and have been emphasized especially among the converts to Christianity.
Korea is a limited monarchy of the paternal type, with a written constitution limiting the power of the monarch and in a manner guiding the administration of the government. During a considerable period Korea was tributary to China, but this position as a tribute‑paying country in no way affected its independence in internal government.
2. Govern‑ The United States recognized this in‑
ment and dependence when it made its treaty
	Recent	with Korea in 1882. The question of
	History.	independence was, however, constantly
		arising, and was a matter of no little
controversy until the close of the China‑Japan war,
when, by the treaty of peace, the independence of
Korea became a recognized fact. Japan at this
time gained the aseendency in the little peninsula;
but she failed to use her power wisely and soon
lost all influence, and Russian predominance be‑
374
came a fact. At the opening of the JapanRussian war, a treaty of alliance between Japan and Korea was signed, by which, in payment for the privilege. of being permitted freely to transport her troops across Korean territory, Japan guaranteed in perpetuity to maintain the independence of Korea, and the dignity of the reigning family. However, immediately after the close of this war, after the treaty of Portsmouth, Japan assumed an entirely different attitude toward Korea, and, taking the place of a conqueror rather than an ally, has attempted to maintain this position ever since. A forced treaty of protection was nominally passed by the cabinet and put into effect, since the foreign powers by their withdrawal of the legations acknowledged their willingness to yield to Japan's request. The emperor protested against this, and having in 1907 sent an embassy to The Hague in order to bring the matter to the attention of the civilized powers, Japan compelled the abdication of the emperor, had his eldest son put on the throne, and his youngest son proclaimed crown prince. At the present time, while there is nominally an emperor in Korea, the government is administered by a Japanese "resident" at Seoul, with a large force of Japanese constabulary and soldiery, and " underresidents " at a number of prominent points, though Japan still nominally maintains that Korea is independent.
II. Missions: The missionaries on their first arrival declared the people irreligious because they found a scarcity of temples and shrines, and even such temples as they had were not crowded by devotees as in some neighboring lands. They soon found that the people would announce that those things were good enough for women and children, but that the educated of the land seemed to have no faith in any one of their ancient religions, Shamanism, Buddhism, or Confucianism. Shamanism had the strongest hold, but even this was losing its grip upon the people. The natural conclusion that they were irreligious has been revised upon a closer acquaintance. Their religious instincts, coupled with their own power of reasoning, have led the people to reject successively, in large measure, all their ancient faiths, and as a result there is presented before the world a people ready and waiting for the truth. Given such a people, Christianity might be expected speedily to take root and flourish, and such has been the history of the Christian faith.
Roman Catholicism early reached Korea. Although at the time of the Hideyoshi invasion, 15921597, Roman Catholic Christians and some priests followed in the wake of the Japanese army, at this time there appears no trace of any definite results, or in fact of any real attempt at the propagation of Christianity. In 1777, however, the attention of a young Korean was drawn toward some Roman Catholic books, and, securing a position in the embassy to China, he attempted to find out more about the faith, and returning in 1782 to the capital, was soon actively engaged in propagating the new religion. The vital truths as presented by these Christians soon took hold upon the Korean people, and the history of early Roman Catholicism

376	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Korea
in the hermit nation is almost like a romance. It was not, however, allowed to progress freely, and at the close of that century, as well as at different
times during the first half of the nine‑
s. Roman teenth century, persecution broke out
Catholic and threatened the life of the infant Missions. church. Many of the Koreans, how‑
ever, remained firm, and, despite all persecutions and opposition, the progress was steady and constant. The latest of these severe persecutions occurred in 1866. Many attempts had been made from the very beginning of this work to introduce French priests, but this failed until 1835, after which in various guises and by various means, from time to time they entered Korea. Many of them suffered martyrdom, a notably large number met death in 1866. Roman Catholicism, however, did not give the Bible. It gave very little enlightenment outside of a few catechisms, and did not seem to lend itself to education and the general uplift of the people. There are still, however, in Korea a large number of Romdn Catholics, and their figures total up to approximately 40,000.
Protestant Christianity made several attempts to enter the land. Notable was the effort of the intrepid pioneer, Gutzlaff, who landed from native boats on Korean soil, and sold copies of Scriptures and tracts in the Spanish language as early as 1832.
Missionaries in China were also quite
2. Prot‑ concerned about their near neighbor,
	estant	Korea, and the Rev. Dr. Thompson, of
Missions. the London Mission School, was at his
own earnest request permitted to make the attempt. He had learned the language, and just as he was ready to leave he was offered free passage if he would act as interpreter on the ill‑fated ship "Sherman," and while there is no definite data to prove it, it is generally conceded that he was, with the others, massacred by the Koreans when the ship stranded in Pyeng‑Yang. The treaty made by Japan with Korea in 1876, followed by the first treaty with a western power, that with the United States, made by Admiral (then Commodore) Shufeldt, of the United States Navy, opened Korea at last to the residence of missionaries. In the spring of 1884, J. W. Heron, M.D., of Tennessee was commissioned as the first missionary from a Protestant Church to the hermit nation. In June of the same year, the same board also appointed Rev. H. G. Underwood. Dr. H. N. Allen, stationed in Shanghai at the time, was transferred. to Korea, and he, reaching Seoul with his family in the fall of 1884, became the first resident Protestant missionary. Just prior to Dr. Allen's arrival, however, Rev. R. S. McClay, D.D., of the Methodist Church, had been commissioned by his board to visit Korea, and make arrangements for the establishment of a mission in Seoul. He was warmly welcomed by the authorities, and was invited to establish medical and educational institutions in the country. Reporting this to his board they at once took action, and appointed the Rev. H. G. Appenzeller, and Wm. B. Scranton, M.D., while the Women's Foreign Missionary Society of the same church appointed Mrs. M. F. Scranton as their representative. Thus it may be seen that these two churches began their mission work in Korea at
practically the same time, and to a large extent upon these same missions has devolved the bulk of the work during the past years. Very early in the history of the work, the missionaries were led to adopt what might be thought quite stringent rules, looking toward self‑support. The many principles underlying these rules were: (1) to develop church missionary work only so fast as the natives were able to take care of it; (2) to plan church architecture along native lines; (3) to insist that the natives erect their own churches; (4) that native Evangelists be employed only so far as the natives were able to pay for them, and that the responsibility for the salvation of their neighbors be placed upon the native Christians.
Not only was Korea opened politically by the treaties that had been made, but in a marvelous way the missionaries seemed from the beginning to have entrance to the hearts of the people, and although there was no small amount of initiatory
work to be undertaken, a literature to 3. Results. be prepared, the Bible to be translated, etc., yet from opening of work results in the way of conversions have been manifest. Although the first missionary, a physician, did not arrive until the summer of 1884, and the first clerical missionary in 1885, yet the first convert was baptized in July, 1886, and before the close of 1887 there were two regularly organized churches in Korea. Steadily the work has been going forward at increasing speed, gathering momentum as it advanced, until for some years past the speed at which the advance has been made has far exceeded the ability of the missionaries to keep up with it. The latest reports concerning the work for all denominations show considerably over 1,000 native churches with more than 120,000 Christians, and these Christians maintain, almost wholly at their own expense, over 500 schools for the education of the sons of the church. Students of the times believe that if the opportunities presented in Korea are met, this will be the first of modern eastern nations to become Christian.
	The churches working there at the present time
are the American Presbyterian North, the Amer
ican Presbyterian Church South, The Methodist
Episcopal, the Southern Methodist, the Canadian
Presbyterian, the Australian Presbyterian, and the
Church of England. As each of the Presbyterian
churches has opened up work, it has united with
the other Presbyterian forces and from the very be
ginning, ecclesiastically, these churches have been
one. This oneness was crystallized in September,
1907, by the organization of the Presbyterians
in Korea for their work there under authority de
rived from the four general assemblies. The two
Methodist churches also work in harmony, and
while at the present time ecclesiastically they are
not yet united, it is expected that union will take
place. There are those who are hoping for a still
greater union, that of Methodists with Presbyte
rians, whereby the unity of the Church of Christ
may be practically demonstrated to the people of
Korea. 	H. G. UNDERWOOD.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best work for a historical eurvey and at the same time for a view of the people and their one‑

8oreshan Roolesia
Rosters
tome is W. E. Griffis, Corea the Hermit Nation, 8th ed., New York, 1907. Perhaps the best view of the Korean is given in J. S. Gale's Vanguard, ib. 1904; cf. the same author's Korean Sketches, Edinburgh, 1898. Consult further: P. Lowell, Chosbn, The Land of Morning Calm, Boston, 1885; W. R. Carles, Life in Cores, London, 1888; G. W. Gilmore, Korea from its Capital, Philadelphia, 1892; D. L. Gifford, Everyday Life in Korea, New York, 1898; A. Hamilton, Korea, ib. 1904; Mrs. L. H. Underwood, Fifteen Years among the Topknots, ib. 1904; With Tommy Tompkins in Korea, ib. 1905; H. B. Hulbert, Hist. of Korea, 2 vole., London, 1906; idem, The Passing of Korea, New York, 1908 (strongly antagonistic to Japan), with which should be compared G. T. Ladd, In Korea with Marquis Ito, ib. 1908 (with strong bias in favor of Japan, deeply antagonistic if not unfair to Korea); G. H. Jones, Korea, Land, People, and Customs, Cincinnati, 1907; H. G. Underwood, The Call of Korea, New York, 1908; F. A. McKenzie, The Tragedy of Korea, London, 1908.
gORESHAN ECCLESIA, KORESHAN UNITY. See CoMMuNIsM, II., 4.
gORNTHAL.
A Center of Pietism (§ 1).	Doctrine, Government (§ 3).
Foundation of the commu‑	The First Pastorate (§ 4).
	nity (§ 2). 	Subsequent History (§ 5).
	Kornthal, a small village near Stuttgart, is note
worthy as the center of Wurttemberg Pietism. In
W tirttemberg the Pietistic movement, though in
spired by Spener and Francke, had retained its in
		dividuality, thanks to its nonpolemic
i. A Center and popular character and the greater
	of learning of its theological representa
	Pietism. tives. It also far outlived its Halle
		counterpart, reaching its acme in the
second half of the eighteenth century. It arose
under the influence of Johann Michael Hahn (q.v.)
who renewed the speculations of Jakob Boehme
(q.v.) and gave the Pietistic laity a higher sense of
their religious independence. This feeling was
increased both by their union with the Christen
tumsgesellschaft (q.v.) in Basel and by the rise of a
school of Biblical supernaturalism. If the latter
factor was a distinct weakening of the strict adher
ence to the Bible taught. by J. A. Bengel (q.v.), a
further impulse toward decay was given by the
rationalizing policy of Frederick I. His oppressive
measures, including a rather rationalistic agenda
in 1809 and the denial of the right of congregations
to refuse unpleasing pastors in 1810, roused an an
tagonism among the Pietists which was augmented
not only by the Swabian tendency to cling to tradi
tional views, but also by their acceptance of Bengel's
chiliastic theories, which prophesied the coming of
the Millennium in 1836. Partly following the ex
ample of the Harmonists (see COMMUNISM, II., 6),
thousands of Pietists emigrated to southern Russia,
their exodus being aided by the repeal of the emi
gration‑laws by William I. on Frederick's death.
William sought to stay such emigration, and on Feb.
14, 1817, issued directions to all civil authorities
urging them to dissuade would‑be emigrants from
carrying out their intentions. In reply, the burgo
master of Leonberg, Gottlieb Wilhelm Hoffmann,
suggested to the king that as the emigrants sought
only religious freedom, they would readily remain
if they were permitted to establish congregations
which, although independent of the ecclesiastical
authorities, would not be essentially severed from
the Lutheran Church, whose doctrines they held.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
This response of Hoffmann, himself a leader both in pietism and in political affairs, led the king to request him (Apr. 1) to draw up a scheme for the creation of such congregations; and the burgomaster accordingly formulated a plan (Apr. 14) avowedly based on the Moravian model.
On Sept. 8, 1818, a royal decree permitted the formation of a religious community, and on Jan. 12, 1819, Kornthal was purchased, the oratory of the community being dedicated Nov. 7,
z. Founds‑ 1819. In all these transactions Hofftion of the mann acted in concert with other Commu‑ Pietistic leaders, particularly with nity. Hahn, who was chosen leader of the new community, but died immediately after the purchase of Kornthal. Yet the very presence of such a man implied that the early purpose of the community was widened, and it was no longer its sole intent to protect Lutheranism from the rationalizing influence of ecclesiastical authorities, but to form a body of the truly converted‑the keynote of Pietism from its beginning. A certain opposition to the Church developed, partly because a layman was at the head of the new organization, partly because of an ascetic and legalistic tendency in Hahn, combined with the belief in the immediate Second Advent, for which preparation could rightly be made only by gathering together the faithful. Nor was a degree of separatism displeasing to Hoffmann, who throughout his life regarded the Church as an obstacle to all progress of the kingdom of God. Under Moravian influence, he sought especially to make the community a model in industrial undertakings and to render it influential over the people through educational institutions.
	To show the harmony of the new body with the
established Church, the Augsburg Confession was
		formally adopted, though the rejection
3. Doc‑ of the secus doceretes was omitted, and a trine, special paragraph was drawn up ex‑
Govern‑ pressing abhorrence of all religious meat. intolerance. While, however, the community was not subject to the consi,tory, but only to the minister of public worship, its adherence to the old ecclesiastical books was not emphasized as clearly as might have been expected. Yet even this was in entire conformity with its Pietistic basis, with its ideal of an apostolic life and the realization of the Sermon on the Mount. This is shown by the program prepared by Hahn in 1817, with its insistence on ecclesiastical discipline, particularly in admission of and exclusion from the community. These latter featured however, involved both legal and ethical problems, the former arising primarily from the economic principles of the community, and the latter from the possible contingency of the breaking up of families because of variance in religious views. On the other hand, they were readily relieved from the obligation to military service or to take oath. The community was empowered to call a regular clergyman who should also inspect schools etc., and should, in this capacity, be subject to the State Church, though the community was to appoint teachers and choose religious. textbooks for the schools. A specifically Pietistic trait was the requirement that laymen should have the

377	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	8oreshan Ecclesia
fosters
right to edify the community, except in the regular religious services. The discipline extended even to clothing, food, and reading; but the basis of it all was chiliasm, seen even in the flimsy construction of the houses, so soon was the Second Advent expected. A third motive in the establishment of the community, besides the desire to escape rationalism and to create a pure congregation, was the foundation, again borrowed from the Moravians, of a missionary institute and a printing‑press. The latter, like Hoffmann's plans for the community's industrial enterprise, came to naught; the former, on the other hand, by the erection of one of the first refuges for destitute children, was a first step in home missions.
The first pastor of the community of Kornthal was Friedrich formerly at Winzerhausen, a chiliast, who was called in 1819. Hoffmann, however, still remained the civil head. In these
4. The early years the basal principles of the First community were still strong. Its
	Pastorate.	foundation had called forth a flood of
		pamphlets, and evoked not only the
wrath of the rationalists, but the suspicions of the
supernaturalists‑the natural result being to in
crease the enthusiasm of the members of the commu
nity and their friends. The settlement became a sort
of place of pilgrimage both for other Pietists and
for earnest Christians, as well as for mere curiosity
seekers. Yet, despite this mass of religious en
thusiasts, there were no manifestations of fanaticism,
owing to the governing genius of Hoffmann. He
was now endeavoring to establish a second colony,
but meanwhile the opposition of the government
had increased. King William, however, mindful of
the economic advantages of such communities, and
desiring to transform a marshy district of Upper
Swabia into fertile land by the industry of the Piet
ists, offered them this region. Hoffmann did not
dare to reject it, and in 1824 the community of
Wilhelmsdorf was founded in the midst of Roman
Catholic Upper Swabia. It was a heavy burden for
the parent colony, and was joined only by the poorest
members, who went not as a privilege, but as a sac
rifice. Wilhelmsdorf struggled on, however, until
1852, when it formally separated from Kornthal,
though it is still exempt from the consistory.
After Friedrich's death in 1827 there was an interim until 1833, when Kapff was called as his successor. The fact that he be‑
g. Subse‑ longed to the State Church minimized
quent	the antagonism between the commu‑
	History.	nity and the Church. Non‑members
		were admitted to confirmation and the
Lord's Supper; and as the remembrance of their
earlier grievances against the State Church faded
away, the danger of religious extravagance vanished
under Kapff's guidance, while the quiet course of
1836, the year set by Bengel for the Second Advent,
dampened chiliastic hopes. On the other hand,
between 1831 and 1848, the decay of rationalism was
replaced by the warmth of Pietism within the‑State
Church, to which Von Kapff himself returned in 1843.
The reason for the existence of the community thus
became somewhat questionable, and since 1848 its
religious significance has in a great measure vanished.
Nevertheless, the third pastor, J. H. Staudt, who
presided over the community from 1843 to 1882,
was able not only to preserve Kornthal's individual
ity, but also to make it a center for Pietists and even
for wider circles. At the same time, he kept the
community from adopting schemes at variance with
its original purpose. Between his successor, how
ever, and a portion of the community a conflict arose,
which was settled only by the aid of the consistory.
The position of the community has become more
difficult as a result of recent legislation. The laws
of Nov. 1, 1867, granting unrestricted domicile, of
July 3, 1869, on the civil equality of confessions,
and of June 16,1885, on membership in communities,
have abrogated its privilege to prohibit undesirable
elements from citizenship. The result, as in the
analogous case of the State Church, has been the
strengthening of the moral power of the commu
nity; and in 1892 both Kornthal and Wilhelmsdorf
passed a sanctioned agenda empowering them to
preserve the character of their membership by ex
clusively ecclesiastical regulations. The present
significance of the community, which now numbers
about 1,200, is essentially that of a refuge for those
who, wearied of struggle, long for a peaceful and
spiritual atmosphere. 	(C. KOLB.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. C. Kapff, Die warttemberpischen Bradergemeinden Kornthal and Wilhelmsdorf, Kornthal, 1839; C. Palmer, Gemeinschaften and Sekten Wilrttembergs, ed. Jetter, Tiibingen, 1877; H. Schmidt, Die innere Mission in Wiirttemberg, pp. 52 sqq., Hamburg, 1879; further literature in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xi. 38‑39.
gORTHOLT, CHRISTIAN: German Lutheran; b. at Borg, on the island of Femern or Fehmarn (in the Baltic Sea), Holstein, Jan. 15, 1632; d. at Kiel Mar. 31 (Apr. 1), 1694. He studied at the universities of Rostock, Jena, Leipsic and Wittenberg, became professor of Greek at Rostock in 1662 and professor of theology and prochancellor at the newly founded University of Kiel in 1666. He owed his fame not so much to his church history published after his death (Historia ecclesiastica Novi Teatamenti, Leipsic, 1697), as to some excellent monographs, for instance, on the first persecutions of the Christians (De persecutionibus ecclesia primitiva sub imperatoribus ethnieis, Jena, 1660, Kiel, 1689) and on the literary opponents of Christianity (Paganus obtrectator, site de ealumniis gentilium, libK iii, Kiel, 1698). He was also one of the first Protestant theologians who undertook to refute Baronius (Disquisitiones Anti‑Baroniance, 1700). He was in harmony with the Pietists, and was the personal friend of Spener and Francke.
(PAUL TBCHACKERT.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Gedachtnisrede, by his son‑in‑law Lindemann, is in H. Pipping, Memorice eheoloporum cedotis, pp. 57 sqq., Leipsic, 1705.
ROSTERS, WILLEM HENDRIX: Dutch theologian and Old‑Testament scholar; b. at Enschede (78 m. e. of Utrecht) Oct. 3, 1843; d. at Leyden Dec. 19, 1897. He was the son of Dr. Jan Kosters, a physician of some repute; received his preliminary education in the schools of his native town; entered the University of Leyden as a student in theology in 1861, ending his course in 1868 and taking his doctorate with a dissertation on Deuter‑

Kottwitz
Krafft
onomy compared with Genesis and Exodus; while there he was greatly influenced by Kuenen, whose successor he later became. He assumed the pastorate at Rockanye 1874, at Heenobet 1874, at Barendrecht 1877, at Neede 1880, and at Deventer 1883; in 1892 he succeeded Kuenen as professor at Leyden. In his pastorate he made himself greatly beloved by his interest in the poor and the sick, while at the same time he was an excellent preacher, applying to his work the results of a wide reading. In his chair as a university teacher he was happy and successful, delivering at his inauguration an address on Het godsdienstig Karakter van Israels Historiografie (Leyden, 1892). Notwithstanding the engrossing character of his duties in preparing his lectures, he collaborated in the editing , of the Thedogische Tijdschrift, contributing much of his own work to its columns: he was the author also of Het Herstel van Israel in het perzische Tijdvak (Leyden, 1893) ; the views advanced in this book are embodied in the volume on Ezra‑Nehemiah in the Century Bible (London 1909). The views for which he was most noted are that the " return " which appears in the account of Ezra and Nehemiah never really took place; that the temple was built not by returning exiles but by the Jews who were on the spot and had never gone into exile; and that the reform of Ezra followed and not preceded that of Nehemiah‑in the last point following Van Hoonacktr of Louvain and other scholars. These positions have been accepted in the main by a considerable number of Old‑Testament scholars, though not by the majority. T. WiTTON DAMES.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Oor, Levenabericht van Willem Hendrik
Koatera, Leyden, 1898.
KOTTWITZ, ket'wits, HANS ERNST, BARON VON: Philanthropist; b. in Tschepplau, near Glogau (55 m. n.w. of Breslau), Silesia, Sept. 2 (or 1), 1757; d. at Berlin May 13, 1843. The facts of his life have to be gathered from a few letters and the biographies of others, and events before he settled at Berlin in 1807 and became a public personality are veiled in obscurity. He received his education in an institution of Breslau. Later he came to the court of Frederick II. as page. About this time he had a quarrel with his parents and decided to emigrate, but an order of the sovereign, issued at the instigation of his father, compelled him to stay. After the death of his father in 1777, Hans Ernst, as his only surviving son, was probably charged with the administration of his estate. Of the following thirty years nothing is known except his marriage, his entrance into the order of the freemasons, his conversion, the beginnings of his philanthropic work in Silesia, various travels, and perhaps also his divorce. The unfortunate outcome of his marriage was probably occasioned by his liberality in the cause of philanthropy, which sometimes seems to have bordered on imprudence, especially from the practical standpoint of his wife. It is not known in what relation Kottwitz stood to the Unity of Brethren (Moravians), but it is certain that he attained peace of soul and his religious convictions by contact with this sect; Bishop Spangenberg especially influenced him deeply, according to his own statement. His relations with the freema‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
378
sons date probably from the time before his conversion, and it was undoubtedly their philanthropic efforts that attracted him.
	Kottwitz took Exodus vi. 9 as the basis of his
life‑work, being of the opinion that misery of the
body depresses the human spirit, and that the
tears of earthly pain must be dried before the
realization of spiritual needs can come to the poor
and unhappy. For this purpose he undertook ex
tensive travels over several states of Germany such
as Silesia, the mark of Brandenburg, Sleswick,
Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Pomerania, and founded
factories in Silesia after his own ideals and an in
stitution for voluntary occupation in opposition
to the compulsory work of the houses of correction
at Berlin. Both kinds of institutions were based
on the principle of self‑help and self‑respect. Kott
witz intended to discourage begging and at the
same time remove poverty by providing remunerar
tive labor. The poor working men in Silesia were
mostly weavers. He distributed material among
them, paid for their work generously and sold their
productions, often with great sacrifices of his own
fortune. In 1807 he removed to Berlin, just at a
time when there was great misery among the work
ing classes on account of the war with Napoleon.
Here he founded institutions similar to those in
Silesia and in addition provided free lodgings for
whole families of working men. When a family by
diligence and thrift had lifted itself out of its miser
able conditions, it made way for another family.
The children of these working men were provided
with their own teachers, and every evening there
was held a common service, consisting of song,
reading of Scripture, and extempore prayer, which
was conducted by Kottwitz himself or by one of
his teachers. The maintenance of these institu
tions must have devoured immense sums of his
private fortune, and it was only at a later time that
the king contributed an annual sum of 3,000 thalers
for the care of 120 old and invalid persons. The
whole colony numbered 600. In 1823 the financial
circumstances of Kottwitz compelled him to hand
his foundations over to the city, but he became a
member in the directorate and was allowed to keep
his residence among his people. While his work
on the whole failed, his intercourse with his friends
and his care for individual souls remained of last
ing value. In Berlin he became the acknowledged
leader of the Pietists, and his colony their principal
place of meeting. The circle of his friends included
old and young, lawyers, army officers, and theo
logians, among them Janicke, Neander, Strauss,
Hengstenberg, Tholuck, Stier, Rothe, Wichern, and
others. 	(F. BOSSE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Hitter, Erinnerungen aua dem Leben des . Barons Von Kottwitz, Berlin, 1857; J. L. Jacobi,
Erinnerungen an den Baron E, von Kottvritz, Halle, 1882;
W. Baur, in Neue Chrialoterpe, 1883; ADB, xvi. 785‑772.
KRABBE, krdb'be, OTTO KARSTEN: German Lutheran; b, at Hamburg Dec. 27, 1806; d, at Rostock Nov. 14, 1873. He studied theology at Bonn, Berlin, and G6ttingen, attending also lectures on philology, philosophy, and history. At Bonn he was influenced by Nitzsch, Sack, and Lucke; at Berlin he was in personal intercourse

879	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Nottwitz
		Krafft
	with Schleiermacher and especially Neander. In
	1833 he was called to the Johanneum at Ham
	burg as professor of Biblical philology and philoso
	phy, and in 1840 he became professor of theology
at Rostock, where he remained until the end of his
	life. He lectured chiefly on systematic and prac
	tical theology. He was also elected preacher of the
	university and leader of the homiletical seminar,
	in 1844 a member of the theological board of exam
	iners, and in 1851 a member of the consistory. He
	took a very active part in the affairs of the univer
	sity, being elected six times its rector. His life
	work tended throughout toward the practical side
	of religious and churchly life. He made it his chief
	task to combat rationalism in the theological faculty,
	and in the State Church of Mecklenburg; and he
was especially in harmony with Kliefoth's efforts
	(see KLIEFOTH, THEODOR FRIEDRICH DETHLoF) for
	the reassertion of the Lutheran confession and the
	Lutheran church order. His most important dog
	matic work is Die Lehre von der 8unde and vom
	Tode in ihrer Beziehung zu einander and zu der
	Auferstehung Christi (Hamburg, 1836). According
to Krabbe, Schleiermacher with his doctrine of the
	activity of the redemption of Christ had firmly
	founded an essential basis of Christian conviction,
	but because he ignored the essence and importance
	of sin, he had not penetrated to an adequate under
	standing of atonement and redemption. Krabbe
	developed on the basis of the Old and New Testa
	ment the Biblical doctrines of the original condi
	tion, of the fall and its consequences, emphasizing
	the fact of the resurrection of Christ in its central
	importance. Other works are: Vorlesungen caber
	das Leben Jesu (1839); Die evangelische Landes
	kirche Preussens and ihre ofentlichen Recht8verhdlt
	nisse (Rostock, 1849); August Neander (Hamburg,
	1852); Die Universitat Rostock im 15. and 16. Jahr
	hundert (Rostock, 1854); Aus dem kirchlichen and
	ausserkirchlichen Leben Rostocks. Zur Geschichte
	Wallenateins and des dreissigjahrigen Krieges (Ber
	lin, 1863); Heinrich MWler and seine Zed (Rostock,
	1866); David Chytraeus (1870);	Wider die gegen
	wartige Riehtung des Staatslebens im Verhkltnis zur
	Kirche (1873).	(K. SCHMIDT.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Allgemeine evangelisch‑lutheriache Kirchen
		zeitung, 1874, pp. 99 sqq.; Evangelische Kirchenzeitung,
		1874, pp. 209 eqq.
		KRAFFT, ADAM: Early German Protestant;
	b. at Fulda 1493; d. at Marburg Sept 9, 1558. He
	studied at Erfurt (B.A., 1512; M.A., 1519), preached
	for a time at Fulda, and afterward went to Hers
	feld. He then became court‑preacher to Philip the
	Magnanimous, of Hesse, who made him superin
	tendent at Marburg in 1526, and professor of the
	ology in 1527. He took a prominent part in all
	important measures for establishing Protestantism
	in Hesse, and as the head of the Reformation in
	Hesse exerted a large influence on the history of
	the country.	CARL MIRBT.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. W. 8trieder, Hessische Gelehrtengeechichte,
		ii. 373‑383, Cassel, 1782; F. W. Hassencamp, Hessische
		Kirchengeschichte, i. 76 sqq., Frankfort, 1864.
		KRAFFT, JOHANN (CRATO	VON CRAFFT
	HEIM): German physician and advocate of
	Protestantism; b. at Breslau Nov. 22, 1519; d.
there Oct. 19, 1585. In 1534 he entered the Uni
versity of Wittenberg, where he lived six years on
terms of intimate friendship with Luther and Me
lanchthon. At the instance of the former he studied
medicine at Leipsic and at Padua. After his re
turn to Germany he was appointed physician in
ordinary to his native town (1550), in 1560 to the
Emperor Ferdinand I., and then successively to
Maximilian II. and Rudolf JI. He utilized the
great confidence which he enjoyed under Emperor
Maximilian for the advancement of Protestantism,
continually frustrating the attempts of Bishop
Hoseus and of the Jesuits to lure Maximilian to the
side of the opponents of Protestantism. He was an
advocate of the milder Melanchthonian tendency
of German Protestantism, and opposed the stricter
Lutherans under Flacius. After the overthrow of
Melanchthonianism in 1574 his opponents suc
ceeded in breaking his influence with the court. In
1581 he retired to his estate, Riickerts, near Reinerz,
in the county of Glatz, but in 1583 he returned to
Breslau, where he exercised a decisive influence upon
the confessional change at the court of Liegnitz,
Brieg, and Ohlau. 	(PAUL TBCHACKERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Consilia et epistolo; medicinales, ed. L. Scholz, appeared in 7 vole., Frankfort, 1671. His life was written by A. G. E. T. Henschel, Breslau, 1853. Consult further J. F. A. Gillet, Crnto von Craf0eim and seine Freunde, 2 vols., Frankfort, 1860.
	KRAFFT, JOHANN CHRISTIAN GOTTLOB
LUDWIG: German Reformed minister; b. at
Duisburg (15 m. n. of Dfisseldorf) Dec. 12, 1784;
d. at Erlangen May 15, 1845. He was educated at
Duisburg, and then was for five years a private
tutor in Frankfort. In 1808 he was appointed
pastor of the Reformed congregation at Weeze,
near Cloves, and in 1817 of that at Erlangen, where
in the following year he became professor of the
ology in the university. For some years after his
marriage (1811) his mind was filled with doubts re
garding the great truths of the Gospel, but study
opened his eyes, and at the time of his appointment
to the pastorate at Erlangen he had become a firm
Biblical supernaturalist. His conviction that Holy
Scripture from beginning to end is the work of the
Holy Spirit became thenceforth the basis of his
theology. Exegesis and apologetics became his
life‑work, and his chief aim was to educate theo
logians thoroughly grounded in the Bible. During
his professorship at Erlangen he lectured to large
audiences on pastoral theology, dogmatics, New
Testament exegesis, and the history of missions,
being the first German professor to discuss the last
named topic. Though he was not an exceptionally
eloquent preacher, his energy and earnest faith did
much to make Krafft an important factor in the
revivification of the Lutheran Church of Bavaria
at a period when the influence of ultra‑rationalism
had caused its decline. He published a treatise,
De servo et libero arbitrio (Nuremberg, 1818), seven
sermons on Isa. Iiii., and four on I Cor. i. 30. His
Chronologm and Harmonie der vier Evangelien was
published after his death by Dr. Burger (Erlangen,
1848). 	(K. GOEBELt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Thomasius, Das Wiedererwnchen des evangelischen Lebens in der lutherischen Kirche Bayerns, pp. 171 sqq., Erlangen, 1867.

Srsuth
Krafft	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	380
KRAFFT, KARL JOHANN FRIEDERICH WILHELM: German Reformed, brother of Wilhelm Ludwig Krafft; b. at Cologne Nov. 25, 1814; d. at Elberfeld Mar. 15, 1898. He was educated at the. universities of Erlangen, Berlin, and Bonn (18321837), after which he was ;nstructor in religion at the gymnasium at Bonn. He then held brief pastorates at Flamersheim‑Grossbiillesheim near Bonn and at the Reformed Church at Huckeswagen near Lennep. In 1844, however, after a tour of Italy, he accepted a call to Diisseldorf. Here he distinguished himself as an Evangelical preacher, resisted all revolutionary tendencies in the critical years 1848‑49, labored earnestly in behalf of both home and foreign missions, taught religion for five years at the Realschule of Dusseldorf, conducted the local school for girls, founded a Protestant hospital, and even found time to take part in the general inspection of churches outside the Rhein province and to engage in literary labors. In 1856 he accepted a call to the newly founded fifth pastorate of the Reformed community at Elberfeld. Except for his field service as chaplain in 1866 and 1870‑71, his service here remained unbroken until his retirement on account of ill‑health in 1886. Kmfft's chief interest lay in the domain of the New Testament, in which he held firmly to the doctrine of inspiration, and of the church history of the Rhein province. His writings comprise: Briefe and Dokumente aus der Zeit der Reformation (in collaboration with W. L. Krafft; Elberfeld, 1876); Rvckblick auf die synodale Geschichte des bergischen Landes (1878); Geschichte der beiden Mkrtyrer der evangelischen Kirche, Clarenbach and Fliesteden (1886); and Lebensbild des Kaufmanns Daniel
Hermann (1895). 	(F. SIEFFERT.)
	KRAFFT, WILHELM LUDWIG: German Re
formed, brother of the preceding; b. at Cologne
Sept. 8, 1821; d. at Bonn Mar. 11, 1898. He was
educated at the universities of Bonn (1839‑41) and
Berlin (1841‑43), and in 1844 he made a tour of
Greece, Egypt, Nubia, Arabia, Sinai, and Palestine.
After further study in Rome he became privat
docent in the Lutheran theological faculty at Bonn
in 1846, extraordinary professor in 1850, and full
professor in 1859. Here he lectured on the geog
raphy of Palestine, and later on church history.
In 1863 he was made a member of the theological
examining board at Munster and later was ap
pointed to the Coblenz consistory. In 1894 he re
signed from the consistory, and shortly before his
death was relieved from the obligation to lecture.
Besides minor contributions he published: Die
Topographie Jerusalems (Bonn, 1846); Die Kirchen
geschichte der germanischen Volker (Berlin, 1854), of
which only the first part of the first volume ap
peared; Briefe and Dokumente aus der Zeit der Re
formation (Elberfeld, 1876); and Die deutsche Bibel
vor Luther (Bonn, 1883). 	(F. SIEFFERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bonner Zeitung, Jan. 10, 1897.
gRANICH, krH'nill, ANTON: German Roman Catholic; b. at Sdssenberg (near Heilsberg, 41 m. s.e. of Konigsberg), East Prussia, Aug. 20, 1852. He studied at the Lyceum of Braunsberg (18751878) and the University of Wiirzburg (D.D., 1881),
and after being literal at the Seleeta at Wormditt (1882‑84) was curate at Elbing (1884‑88). He was then sub‑director of the seminary for priests at Braunaberg from 1888 to 1891, became privatdocent at the lyceum of the same city in 1889, associate professor of dogmatic theology and auxiliary theological sciences in 1892, and professor of the same subjects in 1894. He has written: Der heilige Basilius in seiner Stellung zum Filioque (Braunsberg, 1882); Ueber die Empfdnglichkeit der men8chlichen Natur fiir die Giiter der aernaturlichen Ordnung nach der Lehre des heiligen Augustinus and des heiligen Thomas von Aquin (Paderborn, 1892); Die Asketik in ihrer dogmatischen Grundlage bei Basilius dem Grossen (1896); Ecclesia quibus de causis per se ipsa sit motivum credibilitatis et divince sute legationis testimonium (Braunsberg, 1898); Kirche and Kirchspiel Reichenberg (1903); and Qua vi ac ratione Clemens Alexandrinus ethnicos ad religionem christianam adducere studuerit (1903).

KRANTZ, krdntz, ALBERT: Historian of the fifteenth century; b. at Hamburg c. 1445 or somewhat earlier; d. there Dec. 7, 1517. He was matriculated at Rostock 1463, continued his studies at Cologne, at first being interested in law and then turning to theology and history. After extensive journeys, during which he gathered from different libraries material later utilized in his works on history, he seems to have been appointed professor at the University of Rostock, of which in 1482 be became rector and in 1486 dean of the philosophical faculty. In the same year he was appointed also syndic of the town of Liibeck. He seems to have lived at that time in Liibeck, and it is not certain whether he continued to be active at Rostock. In 1493 he became first lector of theology at the cathedral of Hamburg, and after 1500 he seems to have held also the position of syndic of Hamburg. In 1508 he became dean of the cathedral chapter and twice, in 1508 and 1514, held strict church visitations in his diocese, urging the removal of abuses and a stricter obedience to the laws of the church. In theology Krantz took the standpoint of the older Catholicism, but in some of his views reveals the beginnings of the modern spirit. He approved of Luther's vehement opposition against the abuse of indulgences, but considered the removal of them an undertaking beyond the powers of a monk. A few days before his death, as he lay on his bed, Luther's theses were brought and read to him. He then ejaculated: "Brother, brother, go to thy cell and say `God be merciful to me."' From the lectures of Krantz to the clergy of Hamburg Bertold Moller edited Spirantissimum opusculum in ofcium misse (1506). Krantz edited also Ordo missalis secundum ritum ecclesix Hamburgensis (Strasburg, 1509), but his chief fame rests upon his historical works; he has been called a second Adam of Bremen, although others have reproached him with partizanship and plagiarism; but his writings show great diligence and the method employed in them marks essential progress in historical literature. Their titles are Wandalia seu de Wandalorum vera origine, variis gentibus, . . migrationibtts (Cologne, 1518); Saxonia. De Saxon‑

ggl	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Kram
Krauth
icce gentia vetusta origine, longinquis expeditionibus . . . et bellis (1520); Hystoria von den alten Hussen zu Behemen in Kaiser Sigmunds Zeiten (n. p., 1523); Chronica regnorum aquilonarum Danice, Sueciee et Norvagicv (Strasburg, Germ., 1545, Lat., 1546); Metropolis seu historic de ecclesiis sub Carolo Magno in Saxonia (Basle, 1548). These works still possess value for the church history of north Europe and of northwestern Germany; they were continually reprinted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, though the Roman Catholic Church put them on the index.
(CARL BERTHEAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: N. Wilkens, Leben des beriihmten Dod. Alberti Crantzii, Hamburg, 1722; Zeitaehrift des Vereins fur hamburgiscke Geschichte, iii (1851), 395‑413 (by C. Monekeberg), x (1899), 386‑484 (by E. Schafer); U. Krabbe, Die Universitttt Rostock, i. 224‑236, Rostock, 1854; R. Lange, in Hansiache Geschichtablatter, v (1885), 63‑100; J. Moller, in Cimbria literata, iii. 378‑392; L. Dane, in Historisk Tidskrift, IT., iv. 187 sqq., v. 225; ADB, avii. 43‑44.
gRAPF, JOHANN LUDWIG: Pioneer missionary; b. at Derendigen, near Tfibingen, Jan. 11, 1810; d. at Kornthal (5 m. n.w. of Stuttgart) Nov. 26, 1881. He studied at the Latin school at Tiibingen, at the school of the Basel Mission, and at the University of Tiibingen; after a short experience as vicar and teacher, he was sent in 1838 to join the Abyssinian mission of the Church Missionary Society, but the attempt there was rendered abortive through hostile Roman Catholic influence. In 1839 he went to Shoa, south of Abyssinia, and won the confidence and protection of the king of that region, but in 1842 Roman Catholic interference again interrupted his work. In 1844 he established himself in Mohammedan territory at Mombasa (see AFRICA, II., British East Africa Protectorate), where he occupied himself in missionary labors, in the study of the languages, the compilation of dictionaries, and in the work of Bible translation. In consequence of surveys of the territories carried out in frequent missionary journeys, the mission work in East Africa was systematically planned. In 1855 he returned to Kornthal, where, except for two journeys to Africa, on special missions, he carried on his lexicographical work and that of translating the Bible into the languages of Eastern Africa.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Von W. Claus, Johann Ludwig Krapf, Basel, 1882.
KRAUS, FRANZ KAVER: Roman Catholic; b. at Treves Sept. 18, 1840; d. at San Remo (26 m. n.e. of Nice), Italy, Dec. 28, 1890. He studied at Treves, and at the universities of Freiburg and Bonn, and after residing for a time in Paris, was appointed to a benefice at Pfalzel, near Treves, in 1865. In 1872 he was appointed associate professor of the history of art in the University of Strasburg, whence he was called, in 1878, to Freiburg, as professor of church history. In 1904 the Kraus‑Gesellschaft was founded in his honor at Munich to promote the deepening of the Christian life and to further harmony between Roman Catholics and Protestalxts. Among Kraus's numerous publications mention may be made of his Beitrage zu Trierschen Archdologie and Geschichte (Treves,
1868); Die christliche Kunst in ihren friihesten Anr fdngen (Leipsie, 1872); Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte fur Studierende (4 vols., Treves, 1872‑76); Roma sotteranea; die romischen Katakomben (Freiburg, 1873); Kunst and Altertum in Elsass‑Lotharingen (4 vols., Strasburg, 1876‑92); Charakterbilder sus der christl"en Kirchengeschichte (Treves, 1879); Synchronistische Tabellen zur christlichen Kunstgeschichte (Freiburg, 1880); Realenzyklopddie der christlichen Alterhimer (2 vols., 1882,86); Die Miniaturen des Codex Egbedi in der Stadtbibliothek zu Trier (Freiburg, 1884); Die Wandgemklde der S. Georgskirche zu Obemell atf der Insel Reiehenau (1884); Die Miniaturen der Manease'schen Inederhandschrift (Strasburg, 1887); Die Kunstdenkmaler des Grossherzogtums Baden (in collaboration with J. Durm and E. Wagner; 6 vols., Freiburg, 1887‑1904); Die christlichen laschrcften der Rheinlander (2 vols., 1890‑94); Die Wandgema1de von St. Angelo in Formic (Berlin, 1893); Geschichte der christlichen Kunst (2 vols., Freiburg, 18951908); Essays (2 vols., Berlin, 1896‑1901); Dante, sein Leben and sein Werk, sewn Verhaltnis zur Kunst and zur Politik (1897); Die Wandgemalde der St. Sylvesterkapelle zu Goldbach am Bodensee (Munich, 1902); and Cavour, die Erhebung lW$em jm Mtbnzehrden Jahrhundert (Mainz, 1902).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. Braig, Zur Erinnerung an Franz Xaver Kraus, Freiburg, 1902 (contains complete~list of his writings); E. Hauviller, Franz Xaver Kraus: Lebenebild Gus der Zeit des Reformkatholizismus, Colmar, 1904.
KRAUSS, SAMUEL: Hungarian Jewish scholar; b. at Ukk, county of Zala, Feb. 18, 1866. He studied at the rabbinical seminary at Budapest and the university of the same city (1884‑89), then in Berlin, taking the degree of Ph.D. at Giessen in 1893 and receiving the rabbinical diploma from the seminary at Budapest in 1894. In 1894 he became professor of Hebrew at the rabbinical seminary at Budapest, and in 1906 professor at the similar institution in Vienna. He was the managing editor of the Hungarian translation of the Bible made by him in collaboration with W. Bacher and J. Btfnbczi. In theology he is a progressive eonorvative. Besides a Hungarian translation of the Talmudic tractate Derekh Erez (Budapest, 1895), he has prepared a Hebrew commentary on Isaiah (Zhitomir, 1904) and written Rendszeres Zsid6 Vallds es Erkolcstan (a manual of systematic instruction in the Jewish religion; Budapest, 1895); Griechische and lateiniache Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch and Targum (2 vols., Berlin 1898‑99); David Katy mann, Biographie (1901); Das Leben Jesu naeh jiidiwhen Quellen (1902); and Bad and Badewesen im Talmud (Frankfort, 1908).
gRAUTH, CHARLES. PORTERFIELD: One of the most prominent theologians of the English Lutheran Church in America; b. in Martinsburg, Va., Mar. 17, 1823; d. in Philadelphia Jan. 2, 1883. At the age of ten he came to Gettyliburgl where h1B father, tile Rev. Charles Philip Krauth, was president of Pennsylvania college and afterward professor in the theological seminary of the General Synod. He was graduated from Pennsylvania College in 1839 and in 1841, having finished his theological course in the seminary, he took charge of a mission

grauth
1[raedener
station at Canton, a suburb of Baltimore. From 1842 to 1855 he served congregations in Baltimore, Martinsburg, and Winchester, Va. On account of the sickness of his wife he spent the winter of 18521853 in the West Indies, and temporarily supplied the pulpit of the Dutch Reformed Church in St. Thomas. In 1855 he took charge of the First English Lutheran Church in Pittsburg, and in 1859 of St. Mark's Church, Philadelphia. After a short pastorate at St. Mark's he became editor of The Lutheran, which he made a powerful weapon against the so‑called " American Lutheranism " then in vogue in the General Synod of the Lutheran Church in America. When the ministerium of Pennsylvania, in its conflict with the General Synod, resolved to establish its own theological seminary at Philadelphia, Dr. Krauth, as a matter of course, was called to the chair of systematic theology. At the formal opening of the new seminary and the installation of its first faculty (Oct. 4, 1864), he, the youngest of the faculty, delivered the inaugural address defining its theological and churchly position. A new field of activity was opened, when the first steps were taken toward the organization of the General Council (see LUTHERANS). While up to this time Dr. Krauth's literary work had been preeminently of a polemical character, the task was now to lay a strong foundation on which a general Lutheran body could be organized in the unity of the faith of the fathers. He composed the Fundamental Articles of Faith and Church Polity, adopted at the Reading Convention in 1866, as the basis for the constitution of the " General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America.." He was also the author of the Constitution for Congregations, finally adopted by the General Council in 1880. When the question on the principles of church fellowship became burning in the General Council, he wrote a series of fourteen scholarly articles on this subject in The Lutheran (1875‑76), which were afterward summed up in 106 theses on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship, written by order of the General Council (1877). These articles and theses may be said to represent the height of his fully matured convictions on this perplexing and delicate subject. He takes the strictly confessional position that pulpit and altar fellowship means church fellowship and that all syncretism and unionism in the pulpit and at the altar are to be rejected on principle. For ten years Dr. Krauth was president of the Council, until his failing health forbade his attendance on the conventions of that body.
Dr. Krauth's eminent gifts and comprehensive scholarship were readily appreciated beyond the limits of his own church. Soon after he became professor in the theological seminary he was elected a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1868 he was appointed professor of mental and moral philosophy in that institution. In 1873 he was made vice‑provost, and during a long vacancy performed all the duties of the provost. In 1881, in addition to his other duties, he undertook the department of history at the University of Pennsylvania. He was a member of the American Committe for the Revision of the English Version of
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
382
the Bible, and was assigned to the Old‑Testament company. His literary activity covers the field of philosophy as well as that of theology. Among his more important publications may be mentioned: An English translation of Tholuck's commentary on the Gospel of St. John (Philadelphia, 1859); a new edition of W. Fleming's Vocabulary of Philosophy (1860; in enlarged form 1875); an English translation of the Augsburg Confession, with introduction and annotations (1868); The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (1872), his principal work, in which he collected the most valuable of his essays and treatises; and a new edition of Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge, with introduction and annotations (1874). At the request of the ministerium of Pennsylvania he had undertaken an extended English biography of Martin Luther for the Luther jubilee of 1883, but did not live to complete this work. A. SPAETH.
. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Spaeth, Charles Porterfield Krauth, vol.
	i., New York, 1898; B. M. schmucker, in Lutheran Church
	Review, July, 1883; American Church History Series, iv.
416 sqq., et passim, New York, 1893.
gRAWUTZCKY, kra‑wuts'kf, ADAM: German Roman Catholic; b. at Neustadt (59 m. s.e. of Breslau), Upper Silesia, Mar. 2, 1842; d. in Breslau in Jan., 1907. He studied in Breslau (1860‑62), Tiibingen (1863‑64), and Munich (1864; D.D.,1865), and at the seminary for priests at Breslau (1864‑65). He was ordained to the priesthood in 1865, and after being curate at Kanth and Breslau, became subdirector of the seminary and privat‑docent in the University of Breslau in 1868. In 1885 he was appointed associate professor of moral theology at Breslau, and professor in 1888. He wrote Zdhlung and Ordnung der heiligen Sakramente in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Breslau, 1865); De visione beatiftca in Benedicti XII. constitutionem " Benedictus Deus " (1868); Petrinische Studien (2 parts, 1872‑73); Des Bellarmin kleiner Katechismus mit Kommentar (1873); and Einleitung in das Studium der katholisehen Moraltheologie (1890).
KULL (CRELL), NIKOLAU Saxon
man and religious reformer; b. in Leipsic c. 1550; beheaded at Dresden Oct. 9, 1601. He was the son of the jurist Wolfgang Krell, and studied at the Royal School at Grimma and at the University of Leipsic (B.A., 1572; M.A., 1575), concluding his education with a journey to Switzerland and France. It was here, no doubt, that he obtained the degree of doctor of law. He soon achieved great renown at Leipsic as a university instructor, as well as a practical jurist. In 1580 he was appointed aulic councilor by Elector Augustus, and in 1581 he was delegated as counselor and preceptor to Prince Christian. , When the latter assumed the government in 1586 he pursued a policy which materially diverged from that of his father. Whereas heretofore public officers and the clergy were required to subscribe the Formula, of Concord, this practise now fell away. The higher clergy who had continued loyal to the Formula of Concord were supplanted by men with Philippist views; and when Court Preacher Mirus objected, he was put under custody at KSnigstein. This attack on Lutheran orthodoxy in the interest of Crypto‑Calvinism was

383	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Krauth
		Krnedener
attributed to Doctor Krell, who had been appointed
privy councilor in 1586, and chancellor in 1589. In
fact Krell wrote to John Casimir, " I'll get even
with the parsons in short order; they must dance
as I pipe." Moreover, a new catechism was pre
pared by the Dresden court preachers Steinbach
and Salmuth; by the latter, too, an edition of the
Bible was set afoot, with Calvinistic elucidations.
A great uprising occurred when the form of exor
cism was stricken out of the order of baptism. A
butcher in Dresden, cleaver in hand, compelled the
baptism of his child in the earlier manner; at Wit
tenberg the new superintendent's house was stormed
and scenes of turbulence ensued on every side.
Krell, nevertheless, believed himself sure of com
	plete triumph. The territorial estates, nobles and
	public officers feared some prejudice to their vested
rights.	The elector had retrenched the official
power of the former court positions and given
Chancellor Krell almost unlimited power. Besides,
there was dissatisfaction with the foreign policy.
	Henry of Navarre was supported with troops and
funds in violation of a promise given by the elec
tor in 1588; and the discontent was enhanced when
the campaign of 1591 totally miscarried. But the
sudden death of Christian Oct. 5, 1591, put an end
to Krell's activity. Even before the burial of his
patron, he was thrown into prison at Kbnigstein,
where he languished for ten years. Under the re
	gency of Frederick William of Saxe‑Weimar, a zeal
ous Lutheran, all public officers and clergymen were
	again pledged to the articles of faith as expressed
	in the Formula of Concord. Although the estates
	interceded for Krell in a measure, the judicial suit
	against him was protracted year after year. There
were manifold articles of complaint lodged against
	him. The Meissen Commissioner's Diet of Feb. 1,
	1600, advanced four charges: seduction of the elec
	tor to Calvinism, instigation to the French cam
	paign, alienation of the emperor, and civil division.
	The court of appeal at Prague condemned him to
	execution by the sword. The sword with which
	the sentence was executed is still preserved. It
bears the inscription Cave, Calviniane.
	GEORG MUELLER.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: An extensive list of literature is given in
	Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xi. 85. Consult: M. Ritter, Deutsche
	Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation, i. 644‑645,
	ii. 44‑61, Stuttgart, 1889‑95; ideln, in ADB, xvii. 116
	122; A. V. Richard, Der kurfiirstliche adcheische Kanzler
	. Nicolaue Krell, Dresden, 1859; F. Brandes, Der
	Kanzler Krell, Leipsic, 1873; F. von Bezold, Briefs des
	Pfalzgrafen Johann Casimir, ii. 419, Munich, 1884; G.
	Droysen, Das Zeitalter des dreissigibhripen Kriegm, pp.
	364‑375, Berlin, 1888; J. Janssen, Geschichte des deutwhen
	Volkes, vols. v.‑viii. passim, Freiburg, 1893‑94, Eng.
	transl., St. Louis, 1896‑1905; G. Kawerau, Reformation
	and Gegenreformation pp. 267, 274‑276, Berlin, 1899;
	B. Bohnenstadt, Dae Prozeesverfahren gegen den kur8dche
	ischen Kanzler N. Krell, Halle, 1901; Moeller, Christian
	Church, iii. 297‑298; Camtmidge Modern History, iii. 711,
713,_ New York, 1905.
	KRIEG, krfg, KORNEEL: German Roman Cath
	olic; b. at Weisenbach (20 m. s. of Carlsruhe),
Sept. 14, 1839.	He studied in Freiburg and Bonn
	(Ph.D., Heidelberg, 1876; D.D., Freiburg, 1879),
	and in 1880 became privat‑docent in the former
	institution, where he was promoted to his present
	position of full professor of Biblical encyclopedia,
pastoral theology, and Biblical introduction in 1883. He has written: Grundriss der r6mischen Altertiimer (Altbreisaeh, 1872); Monotheismus der 0fenbarung and das Heidentum (Mainz, 1880); Die theologischen Sehriften des Boethius (Cologne, 1884); Die liturgischen Bestrebungen im karolingischen Zeitalter (Freiburg, 1889); Lehrbuch der Ptidagogik (Paderborn, 1893); Das Buch von den heiligen vierzehrt Nothelfern (Freiburg, 1895); Farstabt Martin Gerbert von Sankt Blasien (1896); F. G. Wanker, ein Theologe der Uebergangszeit (1896); Encyclopddie der theologischen Wissensehaften (1900); WissereschQ,ft der Seelenleitung, eine Pastoraltheologie, i. (1905); and Wissenachaft des kirchlichen Katechumenates (1907).
KROPATSCHECK, kr6‑pdt'schek, FRIEDRICH: German Protestant; b. at Wismar (18 m. n. of Schwerin), Mecklenburg‑Schwerin, Jan. 25, 1875. He studied in Basel, Berlin, and Greifswald (Ph.D., 1898), and from 1899 to 1901 was inspector of the theological Studienhaus at Greifswald. During this period he was privat‑docent at the university of the same city, where he became associate professor of systematic theology and New‑Testament exegesis in 1902; since 1904 he has held a similar position in Breslau. He has edited the Btblische Zeit‑ urtd Streitfragen since 1904, and has written Johannes D6lsch aus Feldkirch (Greifawald, 1898); Occam and Luther (Giitersloh, 1900); and Die Schriftprinxip der lutherischen Kirche, i. (Leipsie, 1904).
KROTEL, kr6o'o'tel, GOTTLOB FREDERICK: Lutheran; b. at Ilsfeld (25 m. e. of Carlsruhe), Germany, Feb. 4, 1826; d. in New York City May 17, 1907. He emigrated to the United States in childhood and was educated at the University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 1846). He then studied theology and was licensed to preach in 1848 by the Evangelical Lutheran ministerium of Pennsylvania, holding pastorates at Passyunk, Philadelphia, Pa. (1848‑49), Lebanon, Pa. (1849‑53), Lancaster, Pa. (1853‑61), Philadelphia (1861‑‑68), Holy Trinity, New York City (1868‑95), and the Church of the Advent in the same city (1896‑1907). He was also professor in the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, in 1864‑68, and president of the General Council, of which he was one of the founders, in 1869‑70 and 1888‑93. He was editor of Der lutherische Herold from 1872 to 1875 and one of the editors of The Lutheran, the official organ of the General Council, from 1881 to 1883 and edi‑
tor‑in‑chief from 1895 till his death. In Addition
to translating C. F. Ledderhose's Life of Melanchthon (Philadelphia, 1854) and J. G. W. Uhlhorn's Luther and the Swiss (1876), he wrote Who are the Blessed? Meditations on the Beatitudes (Philadelphia, 1855) and Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism (1863; in collaboration with W. J. Mann). BIBLIOGRAPHY: In Memoriam Rev. G. F. Krotel, privately printed, New York, 1908.

KRUEDENER, krei'de‑ner", BARBARA JULIANA VON: Russian mystic; b. at Riga Nov. 11, 1764; d. at Karasubazar (70 m. n.e. of Sebastopol) Dec. 25, 1824. She was the daughter of

gxnedener
grammscoher
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Otto Hermann von Vietinghoff, a Russian imperial privy councilor and a man of rationalistic views and a leading freemason, and of his wife Anna Ulrica, a strict Lutheran. After a fashionable education, she was married to Baron von Krddener Sept. 23, 1782, who was then first Russian minister at the court of Courland. The marriage proved unhappy, since the husband was conscientious and retiring, while the wife was restless, given to coquetry and to the enjoyment of fashionable society in various capitals. At Paris she formed a liaison with a young officer which she refused to terminate at her husband's demand, and would not return to her home even during her husband's last illness, his death occurring June 14, 1802. Meanwhile she published a graceful novel, Vadi!rie, ou lettres de Gustave de Linar h Ernest de G. (issued anonymously, 2 vols., Paris, 1804; a reissue, ib. 1878).
During a sojourn at Riga in the summer of 1804, Juliana experienced conversion, an experience which nothing in her past life seemed to make probable. From this time forth, as her utterances attested, an unwholesome, nervous " religiosity " came to be the dominant element in her character, and, through its extravagance, reflects a cloudy mysticism like that of the enthusiasms of the Chiliasts of Baden, Alsace, and W urttemberg, with whom she cultivated relations of intimacy. Borne along by the charm of a seductive, and yet, amid all its aberrations, always distinguished personality, Baroness Kriidener contrived to bring singular effects to pass. But even the sympathetic side of her nature, which impelled her to numberless benefactions to the poor and sick, came gradually to lose its purity in the atmosphere surrounding her. What especially contributed to lead her astray and to impair her esteem was her association with the Wurttemberg " prophetess " Marie Gottliebin Kummer (familiarly styled Die Kummerin). From the close of 1808, the baroness and her new companions traveled about in the Wurttemberg districts, holding conventicles; but in the summer of 1809, she was expelled, while Kummer was put in ward.
Meanwhile, the apocalyptic elation of the enthusiasts had become powerfully enhanced by the political and military events of that era. In Napoleon they beheld Apollyon (Abaddon, Rev. ix. 11); Alexander of Russia seemed to them the deliverer. And as the baroness learned that Pietistic influences were felt by the czar, her plan was laid. At Heilbronn, accordingly, in June 1815, she so thoroughly succeeded, in an audience lasting several hours, in beguiling this mobile potentate with her personal views that he became a constant " guest " at her Bible classes in Heidelberg and Paris. She fostered in him the thoughts the material sequel of which was the treaty later known as the Holy Alliance, concluded between the czar of Russia, the emperor of Austria, and the king of Prussia, Sept. 26, 1815. Before long, however, Alexander turned away from his new friend, whose persisting association with Kummer and other unsalutary elements rendered him distrustful; to this was added his displeasure on account of her indiscreet utterances regarding the Holy Alliance.
That episode marks the climax in the life of
384
Baroness Kriidener. In the years 1816‑18, at
tended usually by an ample retinue, she traversed
northerly Switzerland and southern Baden, win
ning souls, in her manner, for the kingdom of heaven,
and lavishly dispensing among the poor and suffer
ing the money constantly supplied by her infatuated
adorers. She fell under a particularly demoralizing
influence in the person of the Post‑Secretary Keller
from Brunswick, who hailed her as Deborah, Esther,
Judith, and even as that woman of the Apocalypse
(xii. 1) who should bear the Messiah; or as Mary's
" vicaress," who should engender the New Church.
Indeed, miraculous powers were claimed by the
baroness herself. She was finally expelled from
Switzerland and the South German States, and (in
1818) returned to her home. That she and her
companions remained unmolested there was owing
to the grace of the Czar Alexander. She conducted
classes for Biblical study at Mitau, Riga, and on
her estate Kosse, near Werro. But when once again
she played the political prophetess, and acclaimed
Alexander as future liberator of the Greeks, the
Czar wrote to her in his own hand, enjoining her to
silence under pain of his disfavor. By invitation
of Princess Alexander Galitzin she journeyed to the
Crimea in 1824, both to improve her health and
to labor among the Pietists of that region, and there
fell ill and died. 	G. KRtGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The earlier literature (cf. for it HauckHerzog, RE, xi. 146‑147) is entirely superseded by E. Muhlenbeck, LEtude sur les origines de la Sainte‑Alliance. Avec un portrait du Mme. de Krudener, Paris, 1888.

KRUEGER, krei'ger, HERMANN GUSTAV EDUARD: German Protestant; b. at Bremen June 29, 1862. He studied in Heidelberg (188183), Jena (188384; Ph.D., 1884), Giessen (188485; lic. theol., 1886), and Gottingen (1885‑‑86). In 1886 he became privat‑docent for theology in Giessen, where he was appointed associate professor of the same subject in 1889. Since 1891 he has been full professor at Giessen, aild in 1902‑03 was rector of the university. He is primarily a student of patristics and the history of dogma, and belongs to no denomination. Since 1888 he has been a collaborator on the Theologischer Jahresbericht, of which he has been joint editor since 1895, first with H. Holzmann (1895‑1901) and later with W. Kbhler (since 1901). He has likewise edited the Sammlung ausgewahlter Quellenschriften zur Kirchen‑ and Dogmengeschichte, to which he contributed Justins Apologieen (Freiburg, 1891) and Augustin de c¢techizandis rudabus (1893). He also translated J. Reville's La Religion d Rome sous les Sevkres (Leipsic, 1888) and edited the second and third volumes of K. von Hase's Kirchengeschichte auf der Grundlage akademischer Vorlesungen (1890‑92) He has written: Monophysitische Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhange mit der Reichspolitik (Jena, 1884); Lucifer von Calaris and das Schisms. der Luciferiarter (Leipsie, 1886); Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur in den ‑ten drei Jahrhunderten (Freiburg, 1895; Eng. transl. by C. R. Gillet, History of Early Christian Literature, New York, 1897); Waa heisst and zu. welchem Ende studiert man Dogmenyeschichte f (1895); Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments (1896); Das Dogma vom Neuen Testament

$86	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Snnedeaer
8rnnamacher
(Giessen, 1896); Die neueren Bemuhungen um Wiedervereinigung der christliehen Kirchen (Freiburg, 1897); Petrus Canisius in Geschiehte and Legende (Giessen, 1897); Die neuen Funde auf deco Gebiet der dltesten Kirchengeschichte (1898); Die sogenannte Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor (Leipsie, 1899); Kritik and Ueberlieferung auf dem Gebiet der Erforschung des Urchristentums (Giessen, 1903); Philipp der Grossmiitige als Politiker (1904); Das Dogma von der Dreieinigkeit and Gottmenschheit (Tubingen, 1905); Philipp Melanchthon, eine Charakterskizze (Halle, 1906) ; and Das Papstthum (Tiibingen,1907; Eng. transl., The Papacy; its Idea and its Exponents, New York, 1909).

KRUMMACHER, krum'mda"er : The name of four distinguished Reformed preachers of Germany.
1. Friedrich Adolf Krummacher was born at Tecklenburg (22 m. n.n.e. of Munster) July 13, 1767; d. at Bremen Apr. 4, 1845. He attended the Latin school of his native town and in 1786 became a student of theology at the small Reformed College of Lingen. Dissatisfied with the conditions there, he removed to Halle, where he attended, among others, the lectures of Knapp and Bahrdt. After the completion of his studies, he spent one year as schoolmaster in Bremen. In 1790 he was appointed associate rector of the gymnasium at Hamm. In 1793 he assumed the rectorship of the gymnasium in Mors, on the left bank of the Rhine, in spite of the menace of war. In 1800 he was called to the professorship of theology and rhetoric at Duisburg. His theology, though tinged by the influences of the period, was marked by a piety and a reverence for Scriptural Christianity which made him a valuable counterpoise to the rationalism of his colleague Grimm. The pressure of Napoleonic autocracy had a paralyzing effect upon the University of Duisburg, and it declined still more after the town carne under the rule of the newly established grand duchy of Berg; the French government did not even pay the salaries of the professors, and after Krummacher's brother‑inlaw M&ller had left the institution in 1805, he was glad to exchange his position in 1807 for that of a country pastor at Kettwig in the romantic valley of the Ruhr, where he soon won the confidence of the Westphalian peasants. In 1812 Duke Alexis Frederick Christian of Anhalt‑Bernburg appointed him general superintendent, councilor of the consistory, and chief preacher at Bernburg. In 1820 he declined a call to the University of Bonn as professor of theology. In 1821 the Evangelical Union was introduced in Bernburg under his guidance. From 1824 to 1843, when, owing to old age, he resigned his position, he was pastor of the Church of St. Ansgar in Bremen, where he acquired great popularity, though he could not compete with his colleague DrUeke as a preacher.
Krummacher possessed a contemplative esthetic, and poetic nature, a genial disposition with a tender heart, a dignified earnestness, and a child‑like simplicity. He was well trained in philology and theology, and his education was very comprehensive. He exerted much influence upon his contempomries, not only as professor and preacher, but also as VL‑?5
poet and prose writer. During the Duisburg period
he published Hymnus an die Liebe (Wesel, 1801),
followed by Parabeln (Duisburg, 1809; Eng. trans].,
Parables, London, 1824 and often), which acquired
a permanent place in German literature, and a
treatise, then very popular, Ueber den Geist and die
Form der evangelischen Geschichte in historischer and
	asthetischer Hinsicht (Leipsic, 1805). In his rural
solitude at Kettwig he wrote, beside essays and
	criticisms in magazines, Die Kinderwelt (Duisburg,
	1809), a favorite book of Queen Louise; Das Fest
	Wehlein, eine Schrift furs Volk (1809‑18); Apologen
and Paramythien (1809);	and Bibelkatechismus
	(1810). While at Bernburg he published the pa
	triotic poem Der Eroberer (1814); the Biblical
	drama Johannes (Leipsic, 1815); and the anony
	mous polemical treatise Apoatolisches Sendschretben
	an die Christengemeinden von dem was Noth thut
	zur Kirchenverbemerung (1815), called forth by the
	institution of the so‑called liturgical commission in
	Berlin. Then followed: Leiden, Sterben and AX/'er
	stehung unsers Herrn Jesu Christi, twelve pictures
	after Goltzius with preface and text (Berlin, 1817);
	Paragraphen zur heiligen Geschichte (1818); Fiirst
	Woljgang zu Anhalt, eine Reformationapredigt (Des
	sau, 1820), Briefwechsel zwischen Asmus and seinem
	Vetter (Duisburg, 1820), a polemical treatise, di
	rected against Voss; Die freie evangelische Kirche,
ein Friedensgruss (1821);	Bilder and Bildehen
	(Essen, 1823); Katechismus der christliehen Lehre
	(1823); and Die christliehe Volksschule im Bunde
	mit der Kirche (1825). To the Bremen period be
	long: Katechismus der christliehen Lehre naeh deco
	Bekenntnis der evangelischen Kirche (1825); St.
	Ansgar (Bremen, 1828); Das Tdubchen (Essen,
	1828); Der Hauptmann Cornelius, sermons on Acts
	x (Bremen, 1829; Eng. transl., Cornelius the Centu
	rion, Edinburgh, 1839); Die 0eschichte des Reiehs
	Gottes naeh der heiligen Schrift (Essen, 1831‑45);
	Leben des heiligen Johannes (1833). Krmamaeher
	was a most faithful contributor to the Bremer Kirch
	enbote edited by Mallet. The first parts of the Fest
	biichlein, the juvenile writings, and the catechism
	were received with special favor and went into
numerous editions. 	(H. MALLETt.)
2. Gottfried Daniel Krummacher, brother of Friedrich Adolf, was born at Tecklenburg (22 m. n.n.e. of Munster) Apr. 1, 1774; d. at Elberfeld (24 m. n.e. of Cologne) Jan. 30, 1837. Even as a boy he gave evidence of a peculiar and dreamy nature. At the University of Duisburg he came under the influence of its rector Franz Arnold Hasenkamp (q.v.), and of Professor M6ller, which preserved him from being carried away by the rationalism of Grimm. After the completion of his studies he went to his brother Friedrich Adolf at Hamm where he taught and preached; then he became private tutor in Soest and in 1796 in Mrs, where his brother now was. Thence he was called as preacher to the neighboring town of Baerl, in 1801 to Wulfrath near Elberfeld, and in 1816 to Elberfeld itself. He exerted a wide influence by the whole‑hearted sincerity of his character, evidenced in his preaching; but owing to his peculiar education he possessed some rugged and harsh traits. In his theology he followed the Dutch school of

Krumma,oher 8nehnoel
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Cocceius and Lampe, but at the same time, especially in the beginning of his activity in Elberfeld, taught absolute predestination with all possible harshness according to the articles of the Synod of Dort. Unlike Lampe, Krummacher attracted only the elect while he repelled the unconverted. In spite of the apparent dryness and stiffness of his sermons, he attracted his hearers by the irresistible power of his conviction, and by the depth and fervor of his Christian experience which he owed chiefly to writings like those of Madame Guyon, Bunyan, Bogatzky, and Tersteegen. From an exegetical standpoint his sermons are open to criticism for their arbitrary Biblical interpretation. Krummacher's appearance at Elberfeld, just at the time of the religious awakening, produced a revival which caused a sensation in the whole country. Carried away by his success, he did not shrink from the very extremes of the doctrine of predestination, and the offensive conduct of his adherents necessitated the interference of the ecclesiastical authorities. Krummacher tried to modify his doctrine and manners, but some of his followers adhered strictly to the principles of predestination, and after his death and that of his nephew joined the Dutch Reformed congregation of Dr. Kohlbriigge in Elberfeld.
Krummacher published a number of sermons: Reformationspredigten (Elberfeld, 1817), Beitrag zur Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist evangelisch I (1828), Jakobs Kampf and Sieg (1829; Eng. trawl., Jacob Wrestling with the Angel, London, 1838), Die evangelische Lehre von der Rechtfertigung (1831), Die Wanderungen Israels durch die Waste naeh Kanaan, in Beziehung auf die innere Fiihrung der Gldubigen beleuchtet (1834; Eng. trawl., Israel's Wanderings in the Wilderness, 2 vols., London, 1837), Die hoheprie8terliche Segenaformel (1834), Wahrheit zur Gottseligkeit, oder Hauspostille (1834), Gute Botschaft (1838). Tagliches Manna fur Pilger durch die Wiiste was published posthumously by his friends (1843). He also published a translation of Calvin's commentary on Philippians (Diisselthal, 1836).
(M. GOBELt.)
3. Friedrich Wilhelm Krummacher, elder son of Friedrich Adolf, was born at Mors (17 m. n.n.e. of Diiaseldorf) Jan. 28, 1796; d. at Potsdam Dec. 10, 1868. He studied at the high‑schools of Duisburg and Bernburg, and then studied theology in Halle and Jena. In 1819 he became assistant preacher of the Reformed corigregation in Frankfort. In 1823 he was appointed preacher at Ruhrort, in 1825 at Gemarke (Barmen). In 1834 he went to Elberfeld as colleague of his uncle Gottfried Daniel. A sermon preached by him on Gal. i. 8, 9 in 1840 at the Church of St. Ansgar in Bremen (translated into English under the title Paul not a Man to Suit the Taste of our Age, London, 1841), occasioned the " Bremen Controversy," which extended over several years and called forth numerous treatises. In 1847 he became preacher at Trinity Church in Berlin, and in 1853 court preacher at Potsdam. His style is sometimes too picturesque and addicted to the use of foreign words; but his homiletic power is undeniable. As he successfully opposed rationalism with all the resources of wit, genius, and
faith, and tried to restore the old beliefs, so, with Tholuck and Claus Harms, he was influential in throwing overboard the mechanical mode of preaching which followed Reinhardt.
The most important of F. W. Krummacher's numerous works was Elias der Thisbiter (Elberfeld, 1826; Eng. trawl., Elijah the Tishbite, London, 1836; a classic). Other works were: Salomo and Sulamith (1828; Eng. trawl., SolomonandShulamite, London, 1838); Blicke ins Reich der Gnade (1828; Eng. trawl., A Glance into the Kingdom of Grace, 1837); Kirchliche Lehrstimmen (1832; Eng. trawl., The Church's Voice of Instruction, 1839); Der Prophet Elisa (1837; Eng. trawl., Elisha, 1838); Der scheinheilige Rationalismus (1841); Weg zum Heil (1842); TheologischeReplik(1846); DasAdventsbuch (Leipsie, 1847); Die Sabbathsgloeke (12 parts, 18511858); Das Passionsbuch (1854; Eng. trawl., The Suffering Saviour, Edinburgh, 1856); Des Christen Wallfahrt nach der himmlischen Heimath (Berlin, 1858); Immanuel Friedrich Sander (1860); Christus lebt; tin Oster‑ and Pfingstbuch (1862; Eng. trawl., The Risen. Redeemer, 1863) ; David, der Konig von Israel (1867; Eng. trawl., 1867); and an autobiography (Berlin, 1869; Eng. trawl., 1869). (R. KSGELt.)
	4. Emil Wilhelm Krummacher, younger son of
Friedrich Adolf, was born at Mors (17 m. n.n.e.
of Diisseldorf) May 7, 1798; d. at Bonn Jan. 15,
1886. From 1841 to 1876 he was preacher in Duis
burg. Like his father and brother he published a
number of devotional works, which, however, did
not attain the same importance as theirs. Among
them are: Hirtenruf zur lebendigen Quelle des Heils
(Elberfeld, 1830); Das Dogma von der Gnadenwahl
(Duisburg, 1856); and Gideon, der Richter Israels
(Elberfeld, 1861). 	(H. MALLETt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. A. W. Moller, F. A. Krummacher and seine Freunde, 2 vols., Bremen, 1849; ADB, avii. 240‑243.
2. E. W. Krummaeher, Gottfried Daniel Krummachere
Laben, Elberfeld, 1838; A. W. , M6ller, ut sup.; ADB,
.vii. 246‑247;
3. Friedrich Wilhelm Krummaeher, Selbatbiopraphis,
Berlin, 1869; Eng. tranel., Autobiography, Edinburgh, 1869;
A. Nebe, ZurGeachichtederPredipt, Wiesbaden, 1979; DNB,
.vii. 243‑246.
KUEBEL, ku'bel, ROBERT: German Protestant; b. at Kirchheim‑enter‑Teck (15 m. s.e. of Stuttgart) Feb. 12, 1838; d. at Tubingen Dec. 4, 1894. He studied theology at Tubingen, 1856‑$0, and, on completing his studies, became instructor of Hebrew in the Seminary of Blaubeuren. In 1865 he became repetent at the theological seminary in Tiibingen, in 1867 deacon in Balingen, in 1870 professor and director in the preachers' seminary at Herborn, and in 1874 city pastor, religious instructor, and school inspector at Ellwangen. In 1879 he succeeded J. T. Beck as professor of Christian dogmatics and ethics at Tiibingen. His theological position was essentially that of Beck. Indeed, he was the last academic representative of that peculiarly Swabian Biblical realism which was founded by Bengel and revised by Beck.
In the center of Kuebel's theology stands the conception of the kingdom of God. This exists in heaven, and has been revealed to man through the appearance of Christ. Christ belongs essentially to the other world and brings us the state of justifi‑

387	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Krunmuhsr
$uehaoel
cation. Great emphasis is laid upon the authority
of Scripture, though its infallibility is restricted to
that which Christ and the apostles established by
the authority of their teachings. Regeneration is
not accomplished without the faith of the person
to be baptized. The baptism of children produces
a Christian disposition, but not regeneration. The
main task of the Christian is self‑training for the
	kingdom of God: but since God is also the lord of
the earth, faithful fulfilment of our earthly calling
serves as preparation for eternal destiny. Chris
tian virtue is similarity to Christ. Kuebel distin
	guishes sharply between the secular state and the
	kingdom of God. The life of the people can be
Christianized neither through a Christian state nor
	through a church of the people (Volkskirche). The
test of the true Church is its membership of real
	believers. The majority of church members are
	catechumens who stand in the vestibule of the true
	Church. He reproaches the modern Church be
cause it strives to be a world power, in contrast to
	the world‑renouncing spirit of Christianity in earlier
	times. Modern Christianity preaches the recon
	ciliation of Christianity and culture, while the mod
	ern view of the world is irreconcilable with the Bib
	lical view. In the Evangelizing spirit and in the
	craze for forming religious associations he sees an
	infringement upon family life. He holds that the
	worldly spirit of modern Christianity must sooner
	or later disperse the Church and produce a more
	compact union of true believers. The hope of a
	millennium in the sense of a material kingdom of
	Christ is to be rejected; it is the duty of the Chris
	tian in this world to remain faithful to the Lord in
	patience and to long for the future; for Christianity
	can never make heaven out of earth. His principal
	works are: Bibelkunde (2 parts, Stuttgart, 1870);
	Das christliche Lehrsystem, nach der hedigen Schrift
dargestellt (1874); Katechetik (Barmen,	1877);
	Ueber den Unterschied der positiven and der liberalen
	Richtung in der modernen Theologie (N6rdlingen,
	1881); Christliche Bedenken fiber modernrchristliches
	Wesen von eanem Sorgvollen (1888); Exegetisch
	homiletisches Handbuch zum Evangelium des Mat
	thdus (2 parts, 1889); and the posthumous Christ
	liche Ethik (1896). He also wrote commentaries on
	Galatians, Philippians, the Pastoral Epistles, and
	James for Grau's Bibelwerk (2 vols., Bielefeld, 1876
	1S80), and commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles,
	Hebrews, and Revelation for Strack and ZBck
	ler's Kurzgefagster Kommentar (9 vols., Nbrdlingen,
1886‑94). 	(KARL vON BURKt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Robert Kiibel, nach eigenen Aufzeichnungen geschildert. Stuttgart, 1895; Burk, in NKZ, vol. vi. 1895. KUECHENER, kii'Hen‑er, HERMANN: German mystic. He is known only through his trial for heresy at W0rzburg in 1342. The trial ended with his recantation, but, as his sincerity was doubted, he was detained in prison for some time. His confessions before the court show that he was an adherent of the then widely prevalent quietistio‑pantheistic mysticism (see FREE SPIRIT BRETHREN OF THE). By a mystical absorption into the absolute divine being he imagined that he transformed himself into God. He became impervious to all senseimpressions, fancied that he was soaring high above
the earth, and that he could walk across the Rhine without wetting his feet. In this " deized " state, the person of Christ, the hierarchy, dogmas and precepts of the Church, and even moral laws, lost all significance for him. HERatAN HAUPT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Monumenta Boica, xl. 415‑421, Munich, 1870; H. Haupt, Die religideen Sekten in Franken vor der Reformation, pp. 6 sqq., Wiirzburg, 1882.
KUEHL, kiil, ERNST RICHARD THEODOR:
German Protestant; b. at Visbuhr (near Kbslin, 100 m. w. of Danzig) Apr. 29, 1861. He studied in Berlin (1878‑82; Ph.D., Halle, 1882), and, after a year in Italy (1882,83), was inspector of the Sedlnitzkysches Johannaeum in Breslau 1883,87. In 1887 he became associate professor of New‑Testament exegesis in Breslau, and in 1893 went to Marburg as full professor of the same subject. Since 1895 he has been professor of New‑Testament exegesis at K6nigsberg. He has written: Die Massorah and die Septuaginta im Jeremia (Halle, 1882); Die Gemeindeordung in den Pastoralbriefen (Berlin, 1885); Die Briefe Petri and Judd (in H. A. W. Meyer's Kritisch‑exegetischer Handkommentur fiber dag Neue Testament, Gbttingen, 1887); Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi (Berlin, 1890); Zur paulinischen Theodicee (1897); Rechtfertigung auf Grund des Glaubens and Gericht nach den Werken bei Paulus (K6nigsberg, 1904); Ueber 11 Kor. v. 1‑10, ein Beitrag zum Hellenismua bei Paulus (1904); Stellung des Jakobu8briefes zum alttestw menllichen Gesetz and zur paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre (1905); Erlduterrule Umschret7ntng der paulinischen Briefe unter Beibehaltung der Braef'orm, i. (1905); and Das Selbstbewusatsein Jesu (1908).
KUEHNOEL, kith'neil (KUINOL, KUINOELIUS), CHRISTIAN GOTTLIEB: German Protestant; b. at Leipsic Jan. 2, 1768; d. at Giessen Oct. 23, 1841. He was educated at the Thomas School in Leipsic, and at the University of Leipsic (Ph.D., 1787), where in 1788 he established himself as privatdocent for philosophy and philology. In his lectures, as well as in his publications, he occupied himself equally with Old‑ and New‑Testament exegesis and with the exposition of Greek and Roman classics. In 1790 he became professor extraordinary of philosophy at Leipsic; in 1799 he was called to Giessen, where he remained until his death. In 1809 he became ordinary professor in the theological faculty there. His lectures suffered from philological dryness, but he exercised a sound and stimulating influence upon many of his hearers, in a scientific as well as practical direction, and his writings, in spite of their disagreeable diffuseness and pedantry were in high authority and acquired fame even beyond the borders of Germany. He wrote translations of Hosea (Leipsic, 1789), of the Messianic propheeieB (1792), alld of the Psalms (1799), with brief German notes; Geschichte des j4disehen Volks von Abraham bis auf Jerusalem, Zerstorung (1791); a Latin commentary on Hosea (1792); Obsertwiones ad N&Mm Testamentum ex libris apocryphis Veteris Testamenti (1794); Peri,copm evangelicm (2 vols., 1796‑97); and Specimen observationum in Psalmos (in Commentcttfones the_ ologicw (vol. iv., 1798). Of higher value are his commentaries on the New Testament, especially

8uenen Kurtz
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
his Commentaraus in libros Novi Testamenti historicos (4 vols., 1807‑18), and the Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebrseos (1831). He wrote also a number of works on classical philology.
(0. ZSCKLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. W. Justi and J. M. Hartmann, Heeaiaehe Denkwilrdigkeiten, iv. 2, pp. 435 sqq., Marburg, 1805' H. E. Seriba, Biographisch‑liter&riaches Lexikon, i 199200, ii. 419, Darmstadt, 1831‑43; ADB, xvii. 354‑357.
gUENEN, kil'nen, ABRAHAM: Dutch theologian and Biblical scholar; b. at Haarlem Sept. 16, 1828; d. at Leyden Dec. 10, 1891. He studied at the gymnasium in Haarlem and the University of Leyden and at the latter institution attracted the attention of his teachers, particularly of the Orientalist Juynboll and of the theologian Scholten. In 1851, by editing passages of the Samaritan Pentateuch and of the Arabic version of Abu Said, he gained his doctorate and also an assistant‑curatorship in the University of Leyden; he also became assistant professor of the Semitic languages, and, in 1855, professor ‑of theology. He lectured on introduction to the Old Testament, on the history and religion of Israel, on the branches of NewTestament studies which were especially in his charge, on propaedeutics and methodology, and, from 1860, also on ethics. As a member of the theological faculty until 1877 it was his duty to preach regularly at the academic services. Tiele says that the sermons thus delivered were uttered with warmth but without emotion, and that while the convincing logic of Kuenen's exposition appealed to the intelligence of his hearers, the philosophical repose of the man did not attract the multitude. Kuenen was neither a brilliant speaker nor a popular orator, but he was an excellent teacher and a convincing lecturer, possessing the gift of clear communication of ideas. His style was simple, but warm and impressive when a question of principle was involved. He sought to convince not by showy rhetoric but by a wealth of illustration, keen criticism and convincing argumentation. The variety of subjects taught by him is sufficient proof of his versatility. In a new partition of the branches of instruction among the professors, Kuenen retained the department of the Old Testament.
Kuenen was one of the founders and editors of the Theologische Tijdschrift, was president of the Teyler Stichting, secretary of the Haagsche Genootschap tot Verdediging van den Christelijken Godsdienst, and president of the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenachappen at Amsterdam. In the struggle between orthodoxy and the liberal movement, he was a leader of the modern school. In his De religione Christiana per continues theologise commutatismes sibi conslanti et incolumi he combated the orthodoxy which demanded belief in the contravention of natural law. On the other hand, he often preached moderation to the more ardent advocates of liberalism. Industrious from his youth, Kuenen was endowed with a remarkable memory, so that the volume, variety, and exactness of his learning were phenomenal. He was not a discoverer of truth, but was a scholar of great acumen, a critic of the first rank, whose im‑
ssa
portance can be explained by the combination of a pure character with a high intelligence. His personality was revealed both in his great modesty and in his stern devotion to duty, which led him to accept from opponents as well as from sympathetic fellow workers whatever he recognized as truth. In his writings he aimed to present simply the facts as he believed he had found them, while his readers were left to draw the conclusions.
Kuenen's most noteworthy production is his His‑
torisch‑Kritisch Onderzoek naar het onstaand en de
verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds (3
vole., Leyden, 1861‑65; Eng. transl. of part,
Historico‑critical Inquiry into the Origin and
Composition of the Hexateueh, London, 1886),
an exhaustive study of the sources for the
history of the people and religion of Israel pre
served in the Old Testament. In this he adopts
the hypothesis of Graf that the priest code is of
later date than the other Pentateuchal documents,
and defends and illustrates it with a wealth of
learning and quiet moderation, and with great
sobriety of judgment. He also contributed much
of value to the knowledge of the structure of He
brew poetry. Of less value is Kuenen's other
principal work, De Gsxlsdienst tot den ondergang
van den Joodsehen staat (2 vole., Haarlem, 1869
1370; Eng. transl., Religion of Israel to the Fall of
the Jewish State, London, 1873‑75), which, in its
sympathy with the recoil from a one‑sided super
naturalism, fails to take account of the divine fac
tor in history; e.g., when merely natural evolution
is discerned in prophecy. This comes out espe
cially in De Profeten en de profetie onder Israel (2
vole., Leyden, 1875; Eng, transl., Prophets and
Prophecy in Israel, London, 1877). Another valu
able contribution is Kuenen's Hibbert Lectures
on National Religions and Universal Religions
(London, 1882), which appeared also in Dutch,
German, and French. He rendered great ser
vice by his collaboration with H. Oort and I.
Hooykaas in the translation of the Old Testament
from the Hebrew into Dutch in De Bijbel voor Jon
gelieden (8 vole., The Hague, 1871‑78, new ed.,
1900, Eng. transl. Bible for Learners, 6 vole.,
1873‑79), and in Kinderbijbel (2 vole., 1887‑88;
cf. E. Kautzsch in TSK, lxxiv., 1901, pp. 670
681). He wrote also: Het goed recht der modernen
(Leyden, 1866); Friedrich Schleiermacher in de
akademisehe godsdienstoefening (1868); and Les
Origines du texte masorethique de l'Ancien Testa
ment (Paris, 1875), while his contributions to peri
odicals were exceedingly numerous and weighty,
especially those to Nieuw en Oud and to the The
ologische Tijdschrift. 	A. KAMPHAUrSEN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A complete list of Kuenen's works is given in Geaammelte Abhandlunpen Kuenena, ed. K. Budde, pp. 501‑b1 1, Freiburg, 1894. For his life consult the sketches by P. H. Wickateed, in JQR, v (1892), 571‑605; C. H Toy, in New World, i (1892), 84‑88; C. P. Tiele, in the " Year Book of the Amsterdam Academy of Sciences " for 1892; H. Oort, in ThT, 1892, pp. 113‑118, and in De Gida, 1892; W. C. van Manen, in Proteatantiache Kirdunzeitung, 1892, Passim; A. Rwille, in Mannen van beteekenia, vol. xxi.. Haarlem, 1890. A valuable list of review articles is indicated in Richardson, Encyclopaedia, p. 806.
gUENSTLE, kiinat'le, KARL: Roman Catholic; b. at Schutterwald (near Offenburg, 17 m. s.s.w.

389	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	guenen
guru
of Carlsruhe) Baden, Oct. 8, 1859. He studied in Freiburg and Wi1mburg, was curate at Meesburg (1884‑86) and Rastatt (1886‑88), and studied for two years in Italy. In 1895 he became privat‑docent in Freiburg, associate professor of patristics in 1896, and honorary professor of the same subject in 1903. He has written: Ueber den ‑Lnbellus precum des raustinus and Marcellinus (Freiburg, 1890); Hagiographische Studien fiber die Passio Felicitatis cum septem filiis (Paderborn, 1894); Eine Bibliothek der Symbole und theologi8chen Traktaten zur Bekdmpfung des Priscillianismua and westgothischen Arianismus aus dem sechsten Jahrhundert (Mainz, 1900); Die Pfarrkirche St. Peter and Paul in Reichenau‑Niederxell and ihre neuentdeckten Wandgemkdde (in collaboration with K. Bayerle; Freiburg, 1901); Das Comma Joanneum auf seine Herkunft untersucht (1905); Antipriscilliana, dogmengesehichtliche Forschungen and Texte (1905); and Pie Legende der 3 Lebenden and der 3 Toten and der Totentanz (1908).
KULTURKAMPF. See ULTRAMONTANIBM.
KUNZE, kun'ze, JOHANNES WILHELM: German Protestant; b. at Dittmannadorf, near Meissen, Saxony, Aug. 31, 1865. He studied in Leipsic and Erlangen, and taught at the seminary in Annaberg 1888‑89 and at the Wettiner Gymnasium, Dresden, 1889‑92. Then until 1903 he was assistant university preacher at Leipsic, where he became privat‑docent in 1894 and associate professor of the history of dogma in 1899. In 1903 he was appointed professor of systematic theology in the Evangelical theological faculty in Vienna, and in 1905 became professor of systematic and practical theology in Greifswald. He has written Marcus Eremita, ein newer Zeuge fiir das alichristliche TaWbekenntnis (Leipsie, 1895); Das nicdnischkonstantinopolitanisehe Symbol (1898); Glaubensregel, heilige Schrift and Taufbekenntnis ,(1899); Christoph Ernst Luthardt, ein Lebens‑ and Charakterbild (1903); Die mrdge Gottheit Jesu Christi (1904) ; and Die Uebergabe der Evangelium beim Taufunterricht (1908). Kunze is one of the editors of Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus (1905 sqq.).
KUNZE, JOHN CHRISTOPHER: Lutheran; b. at Artern (30 m. w.s.w. of Halle), Prussian Saxony, Aug. 4, 1744; d. in New York July 24, 1807. He received his classical training in the gymnasia at Rossleben and Merseburg, and studied theology at the University of Leipsic. After teaching a few years he came to Philadelphia in 1770 as associate pastor of the Lutheran congregation there. He remained in this work till 1784, maintaining during a part of this time a theological seminary and also serving as professor of oriental languages and literature at the University of Pennsylvania
178084. From 1784 till his death he was pastor of the Lutheran congregation in New York, and was also professor of oriental languages and literature at Columbia 1784‑.87 and again 1792‑99. He was an early advocate of the necessity of English education for German youth, and it was largely through his influence that English was introduced ipto the pulpits of German churches in America.
He edited A Hymn and Prayer Book for . . . Lutheran Churches (New York, 1795), the first English Lutheran hymn‑book published in the United States.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. E. Norton, Four American Universities, New York, 1895; Appleton's Cyclopaatia of American
Biography, iii. 578, ib. 1898.
KURTZ, k7lrtz, JOHANN HEINRICH: German exegete and church historian; b. at Montjoie (16 m. s.s.e. of Aachen), Rhenish Prussia, Dec. 13, 1809; d. at Marburg Apr. 26, 1890. He attended the Latin school of Montjoie (1821‑23) and the gymnasia of Dortmund (1825‑27) and Soest (18271830), studied theology at Halle (1830‑31) and Bonn (1831‑33), became teacher of religion at the gymnasium of Mitau in 1835, and professor of church history at Dorpat in 1849. In 1859 he became professor of Old‑Testament exegesis, and continued as such until 1870 when he was pensioned. From 1855 to 1866 he was dean of the theological faculty. In 1871 he settled at Marburg, where he spent the rest of his life in literary labors.
His first book was Die Astronamie and die Bibel. Versuch einer Darstellung der bihlischen Ko&mologie, Bowie einer Erlduterung and Bestdtigung derselben aus den Resultaten and Ansichten der newen Astronomic (Mitau, 1842); in later editions the material of this work was considerably enlarged and the title was changed to Bibel and Astronomie, nebst Zugaben verwandten Inhalts. Eine Darstellung der biblischen Kosmologie and ihrer Bexiehung zu den Naturciissenschaften (5th ed., Berlin, 1865; Eng. transl., The Bible and Astronomy, Philadelphia, 1857). The work is characterized by a certain theosophical type of thought and shows the great interest which Kurtz took in the results of natural science. He tried to prove the central position of the earth in the history of the universe and show how the universe is connected with, and subordinate to, the progress and completion of man's salvation. In the same year appeared Das Mosaische Opfer, ein Beitrag zur Symbolik des Mosaischen Kultus. The same topic was treated by Kurtz in theological periodicals and culminated in Der alttestamentliche Opferkultus each seiner gesetzlichen Begrandung and Anwendung (Mitau, 1862; Eng. transl., Sacrifuial Worship of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1863). Another work on the Old Testament was the Lehrbuck. der heiligen Geschichte, ein Wegweiser zum Verstdndnis des gottliehen Heilsplans (Konigsbqi 1843; 19th ed., Leipsic, 1906; Eng. transl., Manual of Sacred History, Philadelphia, 1855). From this Lehrbuch proceeded Biblische Gesrhichte der heiligen Sehrift nacherz40 and fur das Verstandnis der unteren Klassen in Gymnasien and h6heren Biirgerschuten erldutert (Berlin, 1847; 51st ed., Breslau, 1901; Eng. transl., Bible History, Edinburgh, 1867), the work that made the name of the author most widely known. It is used even in the missionary schools of India. From the same Lehrbuch proceeded also the principal work of Kurtz in the field of the Old Testament, his Geschichte des alien Bundes (vol. i. Berlin, 1848, 3d. ed., 1864; vol. ii., 1855, 2d ed., 1858; Eng. transl., History of the Old Covenant, with annotations by A. Edersheim, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1860), which extends, however, only to the death of Moses. The work had been preceded by

Suyper
Labadie
investigations on the Pentateuch such as Beitrage zur Verteidigung and Begrandung der Einheit des Pentatevchs (Knnigaberg, 1844) and Die Einheit der Genesis (Berlin, 1846). Later Kurtz changed his opinion and, like Delitzsch, distinguished different sources in the Pentateuch, but considered all as belonging to the time of Moses. The historical reality of the account in the Pentateuch and its character of revelation are the fundamental presuppositions of his work. The Lehrbuch der heiligen Geschichte had been followed in 1844 by Christliche Religionslehre (15th ed., Leipsic, 1902), which, like the former work, was destined for use in secondary schools. In 1849 appeared the Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte fur Studierende (14th ed., by N. Bonwetsch and P. Tschackert, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1906; Eng. tmnsl., Church History, 3 vols., London and New York, 1889‑90) and in 1852 the Leitfaden, since the third ed. (1856) called the Abriss der Kirchengeschichte (16th ed., Leipsic, 1906). Kurtzs works on church history are distinguished by his peculiar gift of clearly arranging and condensing his material and making prominent the most characteristic features in popular and vigorous language. (N. BONWETSCH.)
KUYPER, ABRAHAM: Dutch Protestant; b. at Maaesluis (10 m. w. of Rotterdam) Oct. 29, 1837. He studied in Leyden, and was pastor at Beeat (1863‑68), Utrecht (1868‑70), and Amsterdam (1870‑74). In 1874 he became a figure in the political life of Holland, being a member of the States‑General for Gonda from that year until 1877. In 1894 he was again returned to the same body for Sleidrecht, and in 1901 became prime minister. In 1880 he founded at Amsterdam the Free University, where he has since been professor, lecturing on various topics as occasion requires. In theology he is a strict orthodox Calvinist, and as such founded the Reformed Free Church in 1886. He has lectured extensively in the United States, and in 1898 was L. P. Stone lecturer at Princeton Theological Seminary. Besides editing the Standaard (a daily newspaper) since 1872 and the Heroin (weekly) since 1878, he has written many works, including: Eenvtrrmigheid, de vloeck
LABADIE, 18"bti"df', JEAN DE, LABADISTS: The founder of a Dutch quietistic sect and his adherents. De Labadie, also called Jean de la Badie, was born at Bourg (15 m. n. of Bordeaux) Feb. 13, 1610; d. at Altona Feb. 13, 1674. He studied in the Jesuit school of Bordeaux, and against the wishes of his friends connected himself with the order, although he never became a professed member. After 1626 he devoted himself to philosophy and theology, as well as to the Vulgate and the writings of St. Augustine, developing a mystical and Augustinian trend. He was ordained in 1635, but four years later was released from his vows as a Jesuit at his own request on the plea of ill health. He then began to preach with much success as a
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
390
van het moderne leven (Amsterdam, 1869); Het modernismz, een Fats Morgana op christelijk gebied (1871); Tractaat van de refornxcctie der kerken (1883); Het werk van den Heiligen Geest (3 parts, 1888,89; Eng. transl., New York, 1900); E voto dordraceno Toelichting op den Heidelbergschen Catechismus (4 parts, 1892‑95); and Calvinism (Stone lectures, 1899). He also edited Johannes a Lasco's complete works (2 vole., Amsterdam, 1866); Kerkeraadsprotocollen der hollandsche gemeente to London, 16691671 (Utrecht, 1870); and F. du Jon's Opuscula theologica. selects (Amsterdam, 1882). Portions of his Encyclopaedic der heilige Godgeleerdheid (3 vols., Anr sterdam, 1894) have been translated into English under the title, Encycloptedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles (London and New York, 1898).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. H. Jordan, Comparative Religion, pp. 434‑‑435, New York, 1905; W. H. de S. Lohman, m Presbyterian and Reformed Review, ix (1898), 581 eqq.; C. A. Mason, in Outlook, lxx (1902), 333 eqq.
	KYDONES, kai‑d5'nfz, DEMETRIOS: Greek
theologian; flourished between 1330 and 1400,
chiefly at Thessalonica and Constantinople. He
was acquainted with many famous men, including
Barlaam, Gregorios, Palamas, Nicephoros, Gregoras,
Joseph Bryennios, and the Emperor John Canta
cuzenus. He understood Latin, and in ecclesias
tical questions of the day inclined toward Rome,
favoring the union and opposing the Hesychasts.
In this spirit he wrote " On the Procession of the
Holy Ghost " and " On the blasphemous Dogmas
of Gregory Palamas," the latter one of the most
important works in the Hesychastic controversy.
Kydones also polemized against Mohammedanism,
and made a Greek translation of the Confutatio
Alcorani Muhamectici of Richardus Florentinus.
He was likewise able to prepare Greek versions of
considerable portions of such Latin theologians as
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, was the author
of a treatise " On Contempt of Death," and cer
tain other theological addressee are ascribed to
him. His works, so far as edited, are collected in
MPG, C11V. 	(PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIHLIOI)awPH.Y: Fabricius‑Harlee, Bibliotheca Groaca, u. 398‑405; Krumbacher, Geachichte, pp. 101, 487‑488.
KYRIE ELEISON. See LITURCiICB, III.
secular priest in his native town, as well as in Paris, Amiens (where he was made canon and teacher of theology in 1640), and Abbeville. [He regarded himself as divinely inspired; cf. DEclaration de la foi, p. 84; Hisforisch verhael Lebens Labadisten Schewingh, p. 109.] He became attracted to the doctrines of the Reformation through his studies of the Scriptures, but was protected against the anger of the monks and priests by Cardinal Richelieu, only in 1645 to be expelled from Amiens by Mazarin as a disturber of the peace [a modification of a sentence to life imprisonment, obtained through an appeal from the assembly of the clergy of France, then in session; Traitk de la Sol de Chretienne.J He went later to the Car‑

891	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	ILK=
uvper
meHte hermitage at Graville in enforced retirement, where he read the " Institutes " of Calvin, with which he came into thorough agreement in doctrine, though still in sympathy with the practise of the Roman Catholic Church. [The change in his attitude he expressed in the words, " This is the last time Rome shall persecute me in her Communion. Up to the present I have endeavored to help and to heal her, remaining within her jurisdiction; but now it is full time for me to renounce her and to testify against her." Cf. G. D. J. Schotel, Anna Maria van Schurman, p. 160, Leyden, 1853.] The ceaseless opposition of the Jesuits, who had now become his bitter foes, and his knowledge of the life of the Reformed congregations first led him formally to declare his allegiance to the Reformed Church at Montauban in 1650. He now sought to be a reformer of the Reformed, finding his opportunity first as a preacher and later as professor of theology at Montauban. In 1657 he was expelled from Montauban and took refuge in Orange, but was forced to leave when that city was taken by Louis XIV. in 1659. He then started for London to become pastor of the Reformed French congregation there, but was so strongly urged, on the way, to remain at Geneva as preacher that he accepted, and worked there successfully for a revival in religion and morals alike. He gathered about himself a circle of disciples, including Pierre Yvon (1646‑1707), Pierre Dulignon (d. 1679), Franpois Menuret (d. 1670), Theodor Untereyk (d. 1693), and Friedrich Spanheim (d. 1701). His reputation and his writings on asceticism, meditation, and contemplation were spread throughout Holland, chiefly by the agency of Gottschalk van Schurman, and attracted the attention of earnest Christians at Utrecht like G. Voetius, J. van Lodenatein, and Anna Maria van Schurman (q.v.), whb came to look upon Labadie as a possible reformer of the Dutch Reformed Church, which had degenerated into crass worldliness. After a short stay at Utrecht, where some of the prominent theologians denounced him as an irresponsible visionary, he was invited to Middleburg in 1666 as preacher to the Walloon Reformed congregation. His pastorate at Middelburg was at first successful, and while there he published his knit sur la prophdie (Amsterdam, 1668) and his Manuel de pw (1669).
Gradually, however, Labadie's caprice and selfwill restricted his ministrations to a small circle of ardent followers, which developed into a separatistic sect. He refused to subscribe to the Belgic Confession, considering it unbiblical in many articles, and he declined to follow the Reformed liturgy, preferring extempore prayers. The breach widened, and in 1668 Labadie publicly refused to submit to the judgment of the synod and was suspended. Nevertheless he celebrated the communion before tho regular service, and was socordingly deposed and forbidden to remain in Middelburg. Retiring with his followers to the neighboring town of Veer, he sought to gather there and at Amsterdam a congregation of the truly regenerate. Few of importance joined them, however, excepting Anna Maria van Schurman and Conrad
van Benningen. Despite this, their services were attended by such numbers that their meetings were prohibited by the authorities in 1670, whereupon the community of some fifty persons, with five pastors and preachers, were invited by the Palgravine Elizabeth (see ELIZABETH, ALBERTINE) to settle at Herford. Their presence raised serious opposition there, and in 1672 they retired to Altona.
Shortly after the death of Labadie, his followers, now numbering 162, returned to Holland, alarmed at the war which had broken out between Denmark and Sweden, and settled in the neighborhood of the castle of Waltha or Thetinga near Wiewert in western Frisia.
Many hundreds of Labadie's converts remained in the Reformed Church as an Evangelical element. Here their communism was further developed. In the Labadist communities all dressed in the most simple fashion without adornment, and ate together at three tables, for the leaders, the brethren, and the guests respectively. Each family had a separate dwelling, but was obliged to leave the doors open in token of the community of goods. The colony supported itself chiefly by weaving, soap‑boiling, and the working of iron. The government was aristocratic and hierarchic, while the distinctive doctrines were the immediate efficacy of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of the elect, the Church restricted to the regenerate, and chiliasm. The sacraments were allowed only to the regenerate, so that infant baptism was barely tolerated and communion was rare. The marriage of the regenerate was regarded as holy, the children being considered as belonging not to the parents but to the Lord, so that they were brought up in the community. On the other hand, the marriage of unbelievers was rejected as sinful. The first and most necessary virtue was obedience. Worship was extremely simple, and was led partly in French and partly in Dutch by the " speakers." The observance of Sunday was lax. During the acme of their prosperity in 1680 the Labadists were invited by Cornelis van Sommelsdyk, governor of Surinam, to send colonists to his dominions. They gladly responded, but in 1688 their plantation, which they had named Providence, had to be abandoned when the governor was murdered by his soldiers. A second attempt at colonization was made at Bohemia Manor, Cecil Co., Md., in 1684, after Jasper Dankers and Peter Sluyter, agents of the Labadists, had visited America. in 167 9. The Maryland colony survived until a few years after Sluyter's death (1722), but was gradually absorbed in the surround‑
s	ing population. [This was the first communistic settlement in the New World (see COMMLTNIsM, II., § 1). The principal industries were sheep raising and tobacco culture. The peaceful existence of the community was due to the religious toleration practised in Maryland.] In 1692 the communistic
system of the parent house was abandoned and
each member lost a fourth of his investment. From
this blow the Labadists never recovered. By 1703
the community at Wiewert had dwindled from be
tween three and four hundred to thirty, and in
1732 the last " speaker " died and the society was
finally dissolved.
(G. FReNat.)

Labaram
Lacordaire
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The earlier literature is given in J. G. Welch, Bibliotheca theolopuca selecta, ii. 48‑56, Jena, 17571765. Among the sources (collected in the Library of the Peabody Institute, Baltimore, Md.) are: Dlclaration de J. de L'Abadie, . . . eontenant lee raisons qui font. obligt h quitter la communion de 1Wlise romaine, Montauban, 1650; also his D€claration . a quiff' la
munion de 1'eplise r~formee, Geneva, 1666; Histoire curieuse
de la vie, de la conduite, et des vraia sentiments du Sr. Jean
de Labadie, The Hague, 1670 (this volume contains also
the Modesto REJutation copile de deua lettres qui si douient
joindre h l'histoire, etc.); A. M. van Schurman, Opuscula,
Reims, 1667; idem, Eukleria, Latin Altona, 1673, Dutch
Amsterdam, 1684. Consult further: M. Goebel, Ge
achichte des christlichen Lebens, ii. 181‑273, Coblentz,
1852 (exists also in French); H. van Berkum, De Labadie
en de Labadistene, Sneek, 1851; F. Sjoerds, Beknopt Le
vensbericht van . . . J. de Labadie, Gorinchem, 1860;
H. Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismue der reformierten Kirehe,
pp. 241‑374, Leyden, 1879; A. R.itsehl, Geschichte des
Pielismus, i. 194‑268, Bonn, 1880; J. H. Kurtz, Lehr
buch der Kirchenpeschichte, ii. 166, 7‑8, Leipsic, 1890;
M. Bajorath, in TSK, 1893, pp. 125‑166; B. B. James,
The Labadiat Colony in Maryland, Baltimore, 1899; Von
Schubert, in Schri ften des Vereina fir schleewig‑holsteinieche
Kirchenpeschichte, iii. part 2, Kiel, 1904; Lichtenberger,
ESR, vu. 63(L‑632; Journal of Jasper Dankere and Peter
Sluyter, ed. Long, in Memoirs of Long Island Historical
Society, vol. i., 1867.
LABARUM. See JEsus CHRIST, MONOGRAM OF; CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS SONS, I., § 4.

LABBE, ld"bb', PHILIPPE: French Jesuit, one of the most famous and prolific authors of his order in the seventeenth century; b. at Bourges July 10, 1607; d. at Paris Mar. 25, 1667. For a few years he taught philosophy and theology in his native city and elsewhere, but he was soon called by his superiors to Paris, where he devoted the remainder of his life to investigation and authorship. Of his writings, which number almost eighty, the most important was his Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta (18 vols., Paris, 1662‑72; reprinted by N. Coletus, 23 vols., Venice, 1728‑32), the last ten volumes being edited after Labbe's death by the Jesuit Gabriel Cossart (d. 1674). Introductory to this collection Labbe had already written Gallix synodorum conciliorumque brevie et ‑accurata historia (Paris, 1646) and Histm'ica rynopais conciliorum nationalium, provinr eialium, ditece8aneorum, cum vitis epistolisque Romanorum pordtficum (1661). Other works were devoted to chronology: Concordia chronologica (4 vole., Paris, 1656) and Abrege chronologique de l'hisLoire a=& et profane de tous lea ages et de tous lea aibcles (4 vole.; 1663‑66); martyrology: Hagiologiurn Franco‑Gaddim excerptum ex antiquo martyrologio aandw abbatim Sandi Laurentii Bituricensis (1643); Byzantine history: Michtelis Glycw annaka (the first edition of this historian, 1660); French history: M4langea curieux de plusieurs sujda rares pour aervir h 1'histoire de la France ecclesiastique et glolitique (1650); the history of literature: Bibliothegas bibliothecarum (1664); and the Jansenist controversy: Triumphus catholicle veritatis adversua novatores, give Jansenius damnatus (1651) and BZliotheca antijansenicana (1654).
(O. Z6CKLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. G. Michaud, Biographic universelle, xxii. 256‑258, 45 vols., Paris, 1843‑65; A. and A. de Backer, Biblioth6que des 4crivaine de la eocietg de Jesus, ii. 549‑562, 3 vole., Li6ge, 1869‑76; H. Hurter, Nomen‑
clatorliterarius, ii. 201‑210, Innsbruck, 1881; KL, vii.
392
1281‑1282. On the Concilia consult: Hefele, Concilienpeschickte, i. 76 eqq., Eng. transl., I. 69 sqq.; H. Quentin, Jean Dominique Mansi, of lea grandee collections conciliaires, Paris, 1900.

LABOURE, ld"bur', GUILLAUME MARIE JOSEPH: Cardinal; b. at Achiet‑le‑Petit (11 m. s. of Arras) Oct. 27, 1841; d. at Rennes 1906. He studied at the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, and became professor and superior at the Petit S6minaire of Arras. He was then vicar‑general of Arras, in 1885 was consecrated bishop of Mans, and in 1893 was enthroned archbishop of Rennes. In 1897 he was created cardinal priest of Santa Maria, e San Francesco al Foro Romano.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Der Papat, die Repierung and die Verwaltung der heilipen Kirche in Rom, Munich, 1904.

LACHMANN, 1dH'mdn, CARL CONRAD FRIEDRICH WILHELM: Gern*n philologist; b. at Brunswick Mar. 4, 1793; d. in Berlin Mar. 13, 1851. He studied classical and Germanic philology in Leipsic and G6ttingen, became privatdocent at Gottingen 1815, at Berlin 1816, professor of philology at Konigsberg 1818, and at Berlin 1825. He was one of the founders of modern textual criticism, made the restoration of texts the special object of his studies, and edited many Latin and old German works. His editions of Propertius (Leipsic, 1816), Catullus (Berlin, 1829), Tibulius (1829), and Lucretius (1850) are famous. His excellent editions of the New‑Testament text (1831; large ed., with the Vulgate, 2 vols., 1842‑50) attempt to restore that current in the Eastern Church in the fourth century. Through his Betrachtungen fiber Homer's Rias (1847), in which he sought to show that the Iliad is made up of a number of independent lays he exerted a considerable influence on modern Homeric criticism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Hertz, Karl •Lachmann, Berlin, 1851; P. Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, pp. 254256, New York, 1883; Scrivener, Introduction, n. 231235 et passim (a review of his work on the N. T.).

LACHMANN, 1fiH'mdn (LACHAMANN), JOHANN: German Reformer; b. at Heilbronn c. 1491; d. there 1538. He was a son of Bernhard Lachamann, a celebrated bell‑founder, entered the University of Heidelberg in 1505, became baccalatlreus 1507, magister and assistant in master's examinations 1508, and baccalaureus juris 1509 (Dr. jur., 1521). In 1514 he became vicar of the parish of his native town, which belonged to the cathedral chapter at W0rzburg, and at the close of 1520 he succeeded his friend Johannes Kr6ner of Scherding as city preacher. Luther's ideas early found a fertile soil at Heilbronn. Even Kr&ner is reported to have preached that more importance rested in diligently hearing the word of God than in the mass. Through Lachmann's influence the old Church continued to lose ground. In 1524 the concubinage of priests was forbidden, and the mariolatry of the Carmelites was vigorously assailed. In 1525 the barefoot friars were enjoined to preach the Gospel and then they were forbidden to preach at all. The citizens requested communion in both forms, which request the bishop refused Mar. 9, 1525. The Evangelicals' leader was

898	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Labarum
Laoordaire
Lachmann, whom GStz von Berlichingen entreated to serve as his pastor's colleague at Neckarzimmern on occasion of a disputation with an overbearing barefoot friar.
In the Peasants' War Lachmann proved his Evangelical moderation, his courage, and his patriotism. In a written appeal (Apr. 5, 1525), he fearlessly admonished the insurgent peasants to obey the sovereign authority and return home. When the peasants entered the town (Apr. 18) the council turned to Lachmann, who induced the peasant leaders to moderate their demands, and also to renounce Heilbronn's cooperation, thus preserving his native place from grievous injuries. While the reaction fancied that it held the stakes of a game already won, Lachmann carried the council step by step, demanding the appointment of an Evangelical preacher, more frequent preaching, inauguration of the Evangelical communion, suppression of the numerous holidays, strict moral discipline, and Evangelical care of the poor. In 1526 he even dared to enter into wedlock with the daughter of the burgomaster, dreading neither the bishop's jurisdiction nor the revilementa of the old school of believers. He earnestly grappled with irregularities in public worship and in moral matters, and prompted the young schoolmaster Kaspar Greter (q.v.) to undertake the religious instruction of youth. Communion was observed according to the Evangelical rite for the first time on Apr. 28, 1528; and in 1529 the German rite of baptism was also introduced.
At the Diet of Speyer in 1529, Heilbronn joined the Protestants, and also adopted the ScJlwabach Articles, with the exception of the seventeenth, but, at Lachmann's advice, in common with Hall, Nuremberg, and Brandenburg‑Ansbach declined to enter the Schmalkald League. For the diet at Augsburg, Lachmann prepared a memorial intended to give the emperor a clear view of the Reformation and of the state of the Church in Heilbronn (Cf. ZKG, xxv., 1904, pp. 318‑328, 480‑474). The emperor was to see that the pastor remained unprejudiced in his pastoral rights, notwithstanding that Lachmann, together with the deacons, followed the regular Lutheran form of public worship, communion, and baptism, with daily preaching on weekdays. Congregational singing in German alternated with the Latin singing by the school choir. After both councils and the entire citizenship had pledged themselves to fidelity toward their native town, the diet's decision was rejected, Dec. 8, 1531, and the R0f017ll&tion was approved by the whole congregation. Thereupon all priests, cloisters, and the commander of the Teutonic Order were summoned to accept the Reformation. The priests complied; the cloister churches and that of the Teutonic Order were closed, on refusing their support of the Reformation. Anew Evangelical liturgy was introduced Aug. 22, 1532. To relieve Lachmann from overwork the council resolved to call a second preacher and tried unsuccessfully to secure Erhard Schnepf. On May 20, 1533, hienrad Molther (q.v.) of Augsburg was called; and in 1536, Lachmann's faithful colleague, Johann Beraich, was appointed pastor.
Lachmann, an ardent follower of Luther and an intimate friend of Johann Brenz, had taken part, with perfect conviction, in the Syngramma Suevicum (1525); and, with Brenz and Schnepf, he had constantly upheld Luther's aims. There was no need of Melanchthon's warning him on June 3, 1530, against Zwingli (CR, ii. 30). In 1532 when Butzer was reassuring his adherents in Kraichgnu and gaining new ones, Lachmann, with Brenz, assembled the friends of Luther at Heilbronn.
	Lachmann early sacrificed his strength to his
fidelity in office. He was a finely cultivated, hu
mane, and spirited man, of inflexible courage, holy
zeal against everything evil and vulgar, and glow
ing love of country. 	G. BOBaEnT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Jager, Mitthei.lungen zur achwttbiachen
and frankiachen Reformationsgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1828:
H. Titot, Kirehenpeechichtliche BeitrSpe fiber Stadt and
06eramt Heilbronn, Heilbronn, 1882; T. Preasel, Anecdotes
Bretttiana, iii, 184‑185, Tiibingen, 1888; F. Diirr, Heil
bronner Chronik, Heilbronn, 1895; Beechreibunp des
Oberamta Heilbronn, 2 vole., Stuttgart, 1901‑03; MoRV
menfa Germanise paedagogica, vol. xxii.. Berlin, 1903;
ADB, xvii. 489; Duncker, in ZKG, xxv. 308‑328; J.
Lachmann a1a Patriot im Bauernkrieg ttsch aeinen Briefen,
in Wfirttemb. Jahrbiicher, 1908, pp. 44‑78. Letters from blelanchthon to Lachmann are in CR, 182, 871.
LACORDAIRE, ld"c8r"dar', JEAN‑BAPTISTE HENRI: French preacher and theological writer; b. at Recey‑aur‑Ource (135 m. s.e. of Paris), department of Cote d'Or, Mar. 12, 1802; d. at Soreze (14 m. s.w. of Caatres), department of Tarn, Nov. 21, 1861. He was educated at Dijon, where as a law‑student he came under the influence of Rousseau's writings and was a pronounced deist. Beginning to practise his profession in Paris in 1822, he was stirred by Lamennais' Essai sur l'iycdifference, and within two years was convinced that Christianity was the indispensable basis of modern social life. He entered the seminary of Saint‑Sulpice in 1824, was ordained priest in 1827, declined the position of auditor of the Rotes at Rome with the idea of devoting himself to preaching, and began as almoner of the Convent of the Visitation in Paris and also, a little later, at the College Royal Henri IV., where his impatience with the old‑fashioned Gallicanism of the university body became more and more excited. With Lamennais and Montalembert, enthusiastic over the prospect of freedom offered by the revolution of 1830, he opened a school without seeking the sanction of the privileged state university. It was closed by the police and its projectors were fined; and almost at the same time their newspaper L'Avenir was condemned by the pope. Lacordaire went to Rome and submitted unconditionally. On his return to Paris, he took up the defense of the Church's doctrine in a course of public addressee or con&ertcea, which were enthusiastically listened to by great crowds and set forth the Ultramontane view of history in its most dazzling form. He now conceived the idea of bringing back the Dominican order, banished since the Revolution, to France. With this end in view, he visited Rome again in 1838, and early in the next year published his MEmoire Pour le retabliasement en France de Z'ordre des Freres Precheura. With two other Frenchmen, be entered the order on

Lactantius	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	394
Apr. 9, and after a novitiate at Santa Maria sopra Minerva, returned to France, where he continued to command the greatest popularity as a preacher. After the revolution of 1848, he was elected to the National Assembly, but resigned his seat on being censured by his superiors for a profession of republican principles, abandoning also the publication of his newspaper L'Ere nouvelle. In 1850 he went yo Rome to defend the cause of the archbishop of Paris, who had condemned the reactionary newspaper L' Univers. At the same time France was constituted a separate province of the Dominican order, wibh Lacordaire for provincial. After the coup d'etat of 1851 he left Paris, and preached there but once more, in 1853, after which the government insisted on his absenting himself from the capital. He delivered a course of conferences at Toulouse in 1854, and then devoted himself to education, first at Oullin and then at Sor&e, where he remained until his death, with the exception of a visit to Paris for his reception into the Academy. His complete works were published in Paris, 9 vols., 1872‑73; his sermons and addresses in 4 vols., 1886‑88; and three different collections of letters in 1863, 1864, and 1886. [The following have appeared in English translation: four volumes of Conferences delivered in NBtre Dame in Paris (London, 1851‑72); Life: Conferences Delivered at Toulouse (1873); St. Mary Magdalen (1880); Life of St. Dominic (1883); Thoughts and Teachings of Lacordaire, selections (Dublin, 1892).]
(C. PFENDER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists of Lacordaire's works and a long list of notices of his life are given in the British Museum Catalogue. Among the many accounts of his life the best are by J. T. Foisset, Paris, 1874; F. Beslay, Paris, 1862; A. Guillemin, Tours, 1862; C. F. R. de Montalembert, Paris, 1862, Eng. tranal., London, 1878; Dora Greenwell, Edinburgh, 1867; B. Chocarne, Paris, 1873, Eng. transl., London, 1878; H. L. Farrer (H. L. Lear), ib., 1887; A. de Broglie, Paris, 1895; Abbe du Hamel, Abbeville, 1896.
LACTANTIUS, lac‑tan'shias.
I. Life.
II. Works. The De Divinia Institufonibua (§ 1). Lost works (§ 2). Doubtful works (§ 3).
I. Life: The most frequently reprinted of the Latin Fathers, Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, was probably of African birth, though he was long thought to have been an Italian. Very little is known of his life. Jerome asserts (De vir. ill., lxxx.) that he was a pupil of Arnobius, called by Diocletian to Nicomedia as a teacher of rhetoric, and forced to become a writer by lack of scholars; and he is said to have been in his old age the teacher in Gaul of Crispus, the son of Constantine. His having studied under Arnobius is, however, doubtful; and it is impossible to determine the date of his birth or whether he was of Christian or pagan parentage. Since Diocletian took up his permanent residence at Nicomedia in 285, the call of Lactantius thither was probably not much later than that date; and it is evident from the De divinis institutionibus (I., i. 8) that he was still holding his office there at the beginning of the persecution of Diocletian (Feb. 23, 303). If he was a
Christian at that time, he must have lost the opportunity to teach in that year, and then presumably he took up his literary activity. But there is no certain evidence as to the date of his conversion to Christianity or as to his fortunes in the persecution, assuming that he was then a Christian. The facts which he describes as an eyewitness lead to the conclusion that he was still in Bithynia in 305, and probably longer. His sojourn in Gaul as the teacher of Crispus (b. 307) was probably before 317. If the De mortibus persecutorum was written by him, and in Bithynia (see below, § 3), he was there as late as 313.
II. Works: In the above‑cited passage Jerome names twelve works of Lactantius, of which seven are wholly or almost wholly lost. Of those still extant, the De opificio Dei is a small treatise addressed to a former pupil named Demetrianus, a wealthy man in danger of deserting his philosophical principles for a life of pleasure. The main purpose of the treatise is to determine the relation between soul and body. Lactantius shows that God has given reason to man as a protection, and justifies the arrangements of providence by a detailed description of the structure of the human body, concluding with an exposition of the nature of the soul, and referring to a treatise still to be written against the pagan philosophers, obviously the Inr stitutiones. As to the date of the work, it has been customary to draw conclusions from I., i. 7 and xx. 1, which would place it after the beginning of the persecution; but the passages quoted do not justify even such an approximate decision as this.
The principal work of Lactantius is the De divini8 institutionibus, in seven books. The first, De falsa religione, combats polytheism as the basis of all errors, the unity of God being proved philosophically from the concept of a Su‑
i. The De preme Being and historically from the Divinis testimony of poets and philosophers. Institu‑ In the second book, De origine erroris,
	tionibus.	Lactantius endeavors to show that the
		demons are the source of error. The
third, De falsa sapientia, shows the weakness of
philosophy, pretending to unattainable knowledge
and divided into numerous conflicting sects; while
the fourth, De vera sapientia et religiope, draws a
contrasting picture of Christianity. The three re
maining books discuss fundamental ethical con
ceptions (v.), the proper form of rendering worship
to God (vi.), and immortality (vii.). The same
difficulty exists as in the case of the De opifwio
about the determination of the date; but it is a
tenable hypothesis that the outbreak of the per
secution, covering a period of at least two years,
lies between the composition of the first four books
and that of the fifth; according to which theory
the author found leisure to continue his work only
when he had left the headquarters of the anti
Christian movement. From such passages as V.,
xi. 15 and VI., xvii. 6 it follows that these books
were written not earlier than 305 or later than the
toleration edict of Galerius in 311. The Epitome,
or abbreviated form of the Institutiones, was known
to Jerome, and generally, until 1712, only in a mu
tilated form from which about one‑third was miss‑

395	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lactantius
ing at the beginning. In the year named it was published by C. M. Pfaff in full from a manuscript discovered by Maffei at Turin. It is addressed to a frater Pentadius, possibly Lactantius' own brother, and offers not so much a selection as a complete recasting in briefer form of the large work, made, according to the preface, long afterward.
The De ira Dei treats a question suggested in the InBtitutiones (II., xvii. 5)‑whether a personal affection like anger may properly be ascribed to God. According to it, Christian theology presupposes a God who is the ruler of the world, and whom we must reverence and fear. Without the fear of God, man would fall a prey to his desires, and if God looked upon this without anger he would be permitting sin. The date can not be more closely fixed than by its references to the Inr stitutiones; Brandt places it in 308, but it was more probably written after the cessation of the persecution, and thus at least as late as 311 or 312.
Of the lost works of Lactantius, outside of a few fragments, nothing is known beyond the titles given by Jerome. Completely lost are the Symposium,
the Grammaticus, the two books adz. Lost dressed to Asclepiades, and the met‑
Works. rical description of Lactantius' journey
from Africa. to Nicomedia, in which he followed a wide‑spread literary fashion of his time. A few fragments remain of the three collections of letters mentioned by Jerome, which seem to have been rather small treatises on various subjects in epistolary form than letters in the modern sense. Damasus complains (Epist. ad Hieronymum, in Jerome, Epist., xxxv. 1) that they are long and tedious, insufficiently representative of Christian doctrine, and written too much in the tone of a pedagogue.
To the works whose authenticity is doubtful belongs the treatise which has been known since 1679 from a single manuscript where it bears the title L. Cacilii liber ad Donatum confessorem de
mortibus persecutorum. Its purpose is 3. Doubt‑ to show that the persecutors of Chris‑
ful Works. tianity have been visited by special
divine judgments. The author is apparently well informed as to the facts he narrates, though obviously inspired by bitter hatred of the persecutors and disposed to give credence to any current gossip that suited his purpose. The book was written before the outbreak of the Licinian persecution in 321, and, since the death of Diocletian (Dec. 3, 316) is mentioned in it, not earlier than 317. The authorship has been questioned almost ever since its first publication‑in recent times most vigorously by Brandt; but conclusive grounds for denying the Lactantian authorship have not yet been presented. The following facts have weight in the discussion: the style shows both resemblances to and differences from that of Lactantius, and is thus inconclusive; tradition, from Jerome down, is favorable to Lactantius; the author evidently was in Nicomedia during the persecution, and states the facts fairly, though making his own selection of them; he was evidently a man of position, from the way in which he gives important people as his authorities. The hypothesis of
a literary forgery presents too many difficulties, while there is nothing in the known facts of Laotantius' life which militates against the acceptance of his authorship, since the date of his leaving Nicomedia is unsettled. The poem De ave phamice is a version of the old Phenix legend, written by a Christian, as is shown in the conclusion, where the Phenix comes to symbolize Christ in his resurrection. There are resemblances in diction between this and the prose works of Lactantius, who is known (see above, § 2) to have written verses; and since the manuscripts ascribe it definitely to him, there is no reason for doubting this attribution, in spite of the fact that Jerome does not include it in his list. Two other poems sometimes attributed to Lactantius are now known not to be his:' that entitled De resurrectione or De pascha is by Venantius Fortunatus (see FoRTuNATus), and of the De passione Domini, first published in the Aldine edition of 1515, no manuscript has yet been found, so that it may possibly be a Renaissance forgery.
All the works of Lactantius bear the marks of his rhetorical profession. They are pleasant reading, and successfully imitate the best classical models in style, showing a wide range of historical and antiquarian knowledge and frequently citing the classical poets and philosophers. These endowments, however, which won for Lactantius from Pico della Mirandola the title of the Christian Cicero, are less valued to‑day than those of such technically inferior authors as Tertullian and Augustine. As a theologian he has small importance. Becoming, as it seems, a Christian only in his mature years, he never fully penetrated the deeper religious spirit of his new faith. In Brandt's edition the index of his quotations from classical authors fills twenty‑four pages, against four for those from the Scriptures; and of the latter most are given on Cyprian's authority. His main theological content is summed up in the belief in God as the Creator of the world and in the power of the new law given by Christ, the following of which frees men from sin and its penalty. He was not touched by the Christological controversy, and his eschatology is a reproduction of the old millenarian teaching. In a word, Lactantius does not belong to the really great men of the early Church; but with all his superficiality he stands out as an attractive personality, followed as a leader by a great many in his own and later ages.
(ERWIN PREUSCHEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Literature on the subject is to be found in
ANF, Bibliography, pp. 7781; Kriiger, History, pp.
307‑317; Potthast, Wepweaser, p. 703; J. M. Baldwin,
Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1 p. 325.
New York, 1905. The Opera of Lactantius have been
frequently printed, eighty‑six editions being known
1461‑1739. Among the best issues are those by O. F.
Fritzsche, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1842‑44 in MPL, vi.‑vii.,
and in CSEL, xix., xxvii., parts 1‑2, Vienna, 1890‑97.
Eng. transl. with introductory notice is in ANF, vii.
1‑328. Accounts of the life, so far as known, are usually
found in the prolegomena to the editions of the Opera.
Consult: R. Pichon, Loctt<W, j'S~9 1903 (an ltnmriant
contribution to the subject); P. Bertold, Prolegomena zu Lactantiua, Metten, 1861; S. Brandt, Ueber das Leben des
Lactantius, Vienna, 1890; C. E. Freppel, Commodian, Arnobiua Lactantius, aris, 1893; A. Mancini, in Studi atorici, ii (1893), 444 sqq,
On his writings and phases of his work consult: B.

Lactioinia
Lagarde
Mountain, Summary of the Writing, of Lactantiua, London, 1839; C. Leuillier, Ptudea our Lactance apologiate, Caen, 1846; C. F. Jacob, Lactance conaider~ comme apologiate, Strasburg, 1848; E. Overlach, Die Theologie des Lactantius, Schwerin, 1858; T. Maller, Qumtionea LactantianQ<, GSttingen, 1875; M. E. Heinig, Die Ethik des Lactantiua, Grimtna, 1887; A. Ebert, Allgemeine qeschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters, i. 72 sqq., Leipsic, 1889; F. Marbach, Die Psychologie des Lactantiua, Halle , 1889; J. Belser, in TQ, Ixxiv (1892), 246‑293, 439‑464; P. G. Frotscher, Der Apologet Lactantiua in seinem Verhdltni8 zur griechischen Philosophie, Leipsic, 1895; Ceillier, Auteura sacr€s, ii. 494‑521; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 955‑958; Harnack, Dogma, i.‑v. passim; DCB, iii. 613‑617; and in general, works on the church history of the third and fourth centuries and on the history of doctrine.
LACTICINIA: Literally " milk foods," i.e. articles of food which are the product of an animal, as distinguished from its flesh, such as milk butter, lard, cheese, and eggs. At an early period it became customary to abstain on fasting‑days, especially in Lent, not only from meat, but from other foods. The Synod of Laodicea (between 343 and 381) restricted the food taken during Lent to xerophagy,, or bread, herbs, salt and water, this being confirmed by the Trullan Council of 692, which expressly forbade eggs and cheese, and punished violation by the deposition of priests and the excommunication of laymen. In the Greek Church, especially in the Russian branch, abstinence from the lacticinia begins with the end of " cheeseweek," which extends from Sexagesima to Quinquagesima.
In the West the custom of abstinence from the lacticinia on fasting‑days developed at an early date, although the rule was not as rigid as in the East. It was recommended from Rome, however, in the sixth or seventh century, and was confirmed by synods after the ninth century, which subsequently forbade the eating of the lacticinia. Thomas Aquinas states that this abstinence was customary in his time, and it was finally established by Alexander VII. on Mar. 18, 1666. From Lent the prohibition of lacticinia extended to other fastdays, as is shown by papal dispensations for the dioceses of Cologne and Treves (1344), and for the landgravate of Meissen (1485). Dispensations were also granted for the eating of lacticinia in Lent, particularly in the North, and the power of such dispensation is now generally placed in the hands of the bishops at their quinquennial faculties, the exact extent to which lacticinia may be eaten being determined annually by a papal induct.
(P. HINSCHIUSt.)
LACY, JOHN. See FRENCH PROPHFTS.
LADD, GEORGE TRUMBULL: Congregationalist; b. at Painesville, O., Jan. 19, 1842. He was graduated at Western Reserve College in 1864 and at Andover Theological Seminary in 1869. After acting as supply at Edinburg, O., 1869‑71, he was pastor of Spring Street Congregational Church, Milwaukee, Wis., 1871‑79, professor of mental and moral philosophy in Bowdoin College 1879‑81, and from 1881 to 1906 held a corresponding chair at Yale. In 1879‑81 he lectured on church polity and systematic theology at Andover Theological Seminary, and in 1895‑96 had charge of the grad‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
398
uate seminar in ethics at Harvard, where he has lectured repeatedly. He alas also lectured in Japan (1892, 1899, 1906), and in India (as Haskell lecturer of the University of Chicago, 1899‑1900). He has written: Principles of Church Polity (New York, 1882); The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture (2 vols., 1884); Elements of Physiological Psychology (1887); What is the Bible f (1888) Introduction to Philosophy (1889); Outlines of Physiological Psychology (1890); Philosophy of Mind (1891); Primer of Psychology (1894); Psychology, Descriptive and Explanatory (1894); Philosophy o/' Knowledge (1897); Outlines of Descriptive Psychology (1898); Essays on the Higher Education (1899); A Theory of Reality (1899); Philosophy of Conduct (1902); Philosophy of Religion (2 vols., 1905); and In Korea with Marquis Ito (1908). He has also translated several works of R. H. Lotze, including Outlines of the Philosophy of Religion (Boston, 1885).

LAEMMER, HUGO: German Roman Catholic; b. at Allenstein S65 m. s. of K6nigsberg), East Prussia, Jan. 25, 1835. In his early life a Lutheran, he was educated at the universities of Konigsberg, Leipsic (Ph.D., 1854), and Berlin (lie. theol., 1856). In 1857 he became privat‑docent in Berlin and in 1857‑58 studied in Italy. He was received into the Roman Catholic Church at Braunsberg in 1858, immediately entered the theological seminary there, and in 1859 was ordained to the priesthood, after which he continued his studies at Rome for two years, being appointed missionarius apostolicus in 1861. Returning to Germany, he was subdireofor of the Seminary at Braunsberg for two years, and then consultor to the Congregation of the Propaganda in Rome for a year. In 1864 he was appointed professor of moral theology at Braunsberg, and later in the same year, despite the protests of the Protestant faculty, became professor of dogmatic theology in the Roman Catholic faculty of the University of Breslau. Shortly afterward, he was created consistorial counselor, prosynodal examiner, and episcopal penitentiary. He was made an honorary member of the Doktorencollegium of the theological faculty of the University of Vienna in 1865, and in 1882 was. created a prothonotary prelate. He is also a privy counselor and is now professor of church history and canon law in Breslau and a canon of Breslau. In addition to editing Anselm's Cur Deus Homo (Berlin, 1857); the " Ecclesiastical History " of Eusebius (2 vols., Schaffhausen, 1859‑62); and Scriptorum Grtecite orthodoxy bibliotheca selecta, i. (Freiburg, 1864), he has written: Clementis Alexandrini de logo doctrina (Berlin, 1855) Papst Nikolaus der Erste and die byzantinische Staatskirche seiner Zeit (1857); De theologia romano‑calholica, quce reformatorum aetate viguit, antetridentina (1857); Die vortridentinischkatholische Theologie des Reformations‑Zeitalters aus den Quellen dargestellt (a translation of the preceding work, 1858); Analecta Romans, kirchengeschichtliche Forschungen in romischen Bibliotheken and Archiven (Schaffhausen, 1861); Misericordias Domini (an autobiography, Freiburg, 1861); Monumenta Vaticana historiam . ecclesiasticam saculi sexti decimi illustrantia (1861); Zur Kirchenge‑

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Lag rde4a
schiehte des sechzehnten and siebzehnten Jahrhurderts (1863); De Leonis Allatii eodicibus qui Romm in bibliotheca Vallicellana asservantur (1864); In deereta concilii Ruthenorum Zamoscwnsis animadversiones theologico‑canoniae (1865); Colestis urbs Jerusalem (1866); Meletematum Romanorum mantissa (1876); De martyrologio Romano (1878); Irtstitutionen des katholischen Kirchenrechts (1886); and De Cmsaris Baronii literarum commercio (1903).

L&TARE SUNDAY: The fourth Sunday in Lent, so called from the first word of the introit of the mass, ketare, " rejoice "; it is also called Dominica de roses, because the day selected by the pope for the blessing of the Golden Rose (q.v.).

LAGARDE, 1a"gard', PAUL ANTON DE: German Orientalist; b. at Berlin Nov. 2, 1827; d. at Gdttingen Dec. 22, 1891. His family name was B6tticher, for which in 1854 he substituted Lagarde, the name of a grand‑aunt who had part in his early education. He studied at Berlin 1844‑46, and at Halle 1846‑47, again at Berlin 1847‑49; became privet‑docent at Halle 1851; traveled in the interest of philosophical studies to London and Paris 1852‑53; passed the next year at Halle; taught school at Berlin 1854‑66; under a grant from the king spent two and a half years in work upon the Septuagint; was called as professor of oriental languages to Gottingen in succession to Ewald 1869, and labored there till his death.
Judgments of Lagarde have varied greatly. His nature was undoubtedly erratic, and hardships and misunderstandings embittered his life. He has been characterized as a prophet, who raised his voice against abuses in Church and State, education and worship, society and culture. It did not disturb him in the least that his voice was often that of one crying in the wilderness. He was also a poet, and several of his compositions have found place in popular collections. His political activity may be dismissed with the mere mention, though it was by no means least characteristic. But whatever may be thought of his activity in other fields, his importance in the world of scholarship is unquestionable. His knowledge of Oriental languages was monumental; he was master of Arabic, Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Hebrew, Persian, Syriac, and other Eastern tongues, and thus was enabled to do work in comparative linguistics which almost no other has been fitted to carry out. This profound erudition he gave to the service of the Old and the New Testament and to patristics, using it in the careful editing of texts, which he carried through with a thoroughness producing intense satisfaction among scholars and causing great regret that his life could not have been spared to complete some of the works which he only commenced. This is especially true of his labors upon the text of the Septuagint (Librorum Veteris Testament' canonicorum, Pays i., Greece, Gottingen, 1883). He left his property to the Royal Society of Gbttingen. A supplementary fund has been raised to his memory, devoted to the edition of works belonging to the culture of the Middle Ages, ecclesiastical texts and scholastic writings, and Semitic literature. Through the mediation of Paul
Haupt his library was bought by the University of
the City of New York.
Lagarde's literary activities were immense. R. J. H. Gottheil has published an incomplete bibliography (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 1892, pp. cexi.cexxix.), which includes 297 publications. Almost all of Lagarde's works were published. at his own expense. Among those which he edited or wrote the following are noteworthy: HorwAramaicor (Berlin, 1847); Rudimenta mythologim Semitica supplementa lex%cd Aramaici (1848); Arica (Halle, 1851); EPiastolm Novi Testamenti Coptiee (1852); Didascalia apostolorum Syriace (Leipsic, 1854); Zur Urgeschichte der Armenier (1854); Reliquim juris ecdesiastici antiquissimm Syriace, Grace (2 parts, 1856). Analecta Syriaca, appendix Arabiea (2 parts, 1858); Hippolyti Romani qum feruntur omnia Grow (1858); Titi Bostreni contra Manichmoe libri quatuor Syriace (Berlin, 1859); Titi Bostreni qua ex opere contra Manidamoa in Codice Hamburgensi servata aunt Grace; aecedunt lulii Romani epiatulm et Gregorii Thaumaturgi Kara iaepos ,riovta (1859); Geoponicon in aernwnem Syriacum versorum qua eupersunt (Leipsie, 1860); Clemendia Romani reeognitiones Syrrace (1861); Libri Veteria Testamenti apoQyphi Syriace (1861); Cony stitutionea apoatolorum Grace (1862); Anmerkungen zur griechisdhen Uebersetzung der Proverbien (1863); Die vier Evangelien cue der Wiener Handachavft herauegegeben (1864); Clementina (1865); Gesammelte Abhandlungen (1866); Der Pentateuch Koptieeh (1867); Materialen zur Geschiehte and Kritik des Pentateuch (1867); Genesis Greece (1868); Hieronymi qumationee Hebraica• in libro Genesis (1868); Bei‑
trage zur baktrischen Lexicopraphie (1868); Onomaatica sacra (Gbttingen, 1872); Prophetess Chaldaice (Leipsie, 1872); Hagiographa Chaldaice (1872); Psalterium juxta Hebrmoe Hieronymi (1874); Pealmi 1‑y9 Arabice in ueum echolarum (1875); Pealterii vereio Memphitdca (Gbttingen, 1875); Paalterium, Job, Proverbia Arabice (1876); Amaenische Studien (1878); Symmicta (2 vols., 1877‑80); Semitica (2 parts, 1878‑79); Deutsche Schriften (1878; 4th complete ed., with portrait, 1903); Printer miesorum libri duo (1879); Orientalia (2 parts, 1879‑80); Aua dem deutechen Gelehrtenleben (1880); Veteris Testamenti ab Origene recensiti fragments spud Syros eervata quinque (1880); Die lateinisdten Uebereetzungen des Ignatius (1882); Ankundigung einer neuen Auegabe der griechischen Uebersetzung des A. T. (1882); Librorum Veterie Teetamenti canonicorum, pare i., Greece (1883); ludm Harizii macamm Hebraiee (1883); Petri Hiepani (Pedro de Alcala) de lingua Arabica libri duo (1883); Perrische Studien (1884); Mittheilungen (4 vols., 1884‑91); Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der lateinischen Uebersetzungen des A. T. (1885); Die revidierte Lutherbibel des halleschen Waieenhauses, beeprochen (1885); Catenm in esangelia XgyPtiacm qum eupereunt (1886); Erinnerungen an Friedrich Ruckert (1886); Neu‑Grroechiachus aus Klein.Asien (1886); Juden and Indogermanen (1887); Purim; ein Beitrag zur Geachichte der Religion (1887); Agathangelue and die Akten Gregory von Armenien, neu herauegegeben (1887); G. Bruno, Opere italiane, rietampate do P. de La‑
garde (2 vols., 1888); Uebersicht fiber die im Aramdiachen, Arabiachen, and Hebrdiechen ilbliche Bildung der Nomina (1889); Ueber einige Berliner Theologen and was von ihnen
zu lernen ist (1890); Alt" and Neues fiber dye Weihnachtsfest (1891); Septuagenta‑Studien (2 parts, 1891‑92); Bibliothecm Syriacm (1892). A collected edition of his Ge‑
dichte was issued by his wife (GSttingen, 1897).
E. NESTLE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Autobiographic material is found in his
Mitteilungen, iii. 34 sqq.; Symmicta, i. 227‑232; in his
edition of the OIEd 0, T„ pp, 542_W. besides the
bibliography of Gottheil, ut sup., $. R. Driver noticed several of Lagarde's works in the Contemporary Review, March 1889. Nestle has in hand a complete bibliography of Lagarde's writings. The one biography of note is by his wife, Anna de Lagarde, Paul de Lagarde; Erinnerung_ en aus aeinem Leben fur die Freunde Gottingen, 1894. The oration at the burial, by U. von Wilamowitz‑Mblleildorf, is reproduced in the latter's Reden and Vortrdge, pp, 90‑96, 117, Berlin, 1901; a memorial oration by J. Wellhausen is in Giittinger Gelehrte Nachrichten, 1894, pp. 49 sqq. Later sketches are: E. Wolff, Paul de Lagarde, Kiel, 1892; K. Albrecht, Paul de Lagarde, Berlin, 1901; E. Plat zhoff‑Lejeune, Paul de Lagarde, ib. 1903. Magazine articles are; A. Neubauer, in Athenmum, Jan. 9,

Lainez
Lamaism
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
1892; G. F. Moore, in Andover Review, Feb. 1892; W. Muss‑Arnolt, in Christian Intelligencer, March 2, 1892; further literature of this kind is indicated in Richardson, Encyclopaedia, p. 609.
LAINEZ, lai‑neth' (LAYNEZ), IAGO (DIEGO): Spanish Jesuit; b. at Almazan (95 m. n.e. of Madrid), Castile, 1512; d. at Rome Jan. 19, 1565. After graduating at the University of Alcala. he went to Paris in 1533, joined Ignatius Loyola there, and was one of the six young men who, with Ignatius, took the vows of the society in the church of Montmartre Aug. 15, 1534. For many years he preached in Italian cities in the interest of the new movement, was provincial for Italy 1552‑54, and on the death of Ignatius, in 1556, he became the head of the society as vicar‑general. In 1558 he was elected general. During the eight years of his shrewd leadership he greatly extended the work and influence of the society. As the most prominent papal theologian at the Council of Trent he exercised a direct influence on the history of the Roman Church by his defense of papal infallibility, and of papal views in general. So important a factor was he in the council that frequently, when he was prevented by illness from attending, the sitting was postponed till he could be present. In 1561 he took a leading part in the Conference of Poissy between the Roman Catholics and the Huguenots. He published no important work. H. Grisar has edited his Disputationes Tridentince (2 vols., Innsbruck, 1886).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: As sources the early lives by M. d'Esne, Dousi, 1597, P. de Ribadeneira (in French), Douai, 1597 (and in Latin), Cologne, 1604, and by F. Dilarino (pseudonym), Rome, 1672, are to be consulted. Modern lives are by J. Boero, Paris, 1894; H. Maller, Les Origines de la compagnie de Jesua; Ignace et Lainez, ib. 1898; cf. KL, vii. 1555‑57.
LAITY: The body of non‑clerical members of the Christian community. The designation is foreign to the very early Church (cf. Gal. iii. 2628) [though the distinction between priests and people was clearly marked among the Hebrews]. The term arose when the officers of the congregation became prominent, and when that development began which culminated in the monarchical episcopacy. The expression first occurs, as applied to the congregation in the First Epistle of Clement (ANF, i. 16), denoting, as in the body politic, the subjects in contrast with the rulers, the clergy. At the head of the clergy stood the bishop, who appointed the rest of the clergy, and installed them in office by the act of ordination. All ceremonial functions were reserved for the clergy and forbidden to laymen. If these principles be viewed in the light of the Apostolic Age, they indicate an enormous innovation, a total revolution of conditions in the congregation. Indeed, for a good while longer expressions, views, and privileges still appear that had survived from the earlier age, and were gradually weeded out as being incompatible with the Church episcopal. For example, the designation of the congregation as brotherhood (Gk. adelphotes), which reflects the view of the primitive Church, was long in use. The right of laymen to baptize was restricted, even from Tertullian's time, to baptism in case of necessity (see BAPTISM, III. 4); and sermons by laymen prac‑
398
tically ceased in the third century, though it should be added that provision for lay preaching was made by the Apostolic Constitutions (viii. 32). For a layman to preach in the presence of a bishop was particularly objectionable (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vi. 19).* The laity's distinctive right continued to be the election of the bishop; though this, too, became gradually circumscribed through the cooperation of the other bishops of the province, and through the rights of the metropolitan. Similarly, the congregation originally had the right to depose the bishop in case of grave shortcomings‑a prerogative still exercised in Cyprian's time, though contested as early as by the Roman Bishop Calixtus I. (d. 222). The clergy's battle against ancient rights of laymen is shown in an interesting way by the Syriac Didascalia (cf. TU, new ser., x. 2, pp. 274 sqq.), the particular issue here being the right of absolution. The same Didascalia shows the laity grouped in classes, having their separate places in public worship‑old men and young. men, old women, young women and maidens (T U, x. 2, pp. 68‑69). The Canones Hippolyti (TU, vi. 4, p. 110) give special directions to laymen with reference to their behavior at the agape. H. ACHELIS.
A word may be added regarding lay representa‑
tion. Nearly all the Evangelical parties in Europe

* In answer to the complaint of Demetrius of Alexandria the bishops of Csesarea and Jerusalem wrote that " whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are found, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people. Thus in Laranda Luelpis was asked by Neon, at Iconium, Paulinue by Celsus, and at Smyrna Theodore by AtticuA:" Missionary work was frequently undertaken and churches established by laymen, as in Abyssinia (fourth century) by Frumentius and Aedesius, young Tyrian captives (Socrates, Hist. eccl., i. 19). An imperial law (394) prohibited laymen from discussing religious questions in public. Pope Leo I. sought to curb Nestorian and Eutychian error by urging the exclusion from the teaching and preaching office of monks and laymen (453). Frequent prohibitions of lay preaching in the subsequent time indicate imperfect observance of papal and imperial orders. Charlemagne forbade even the recitation of the lesson in church by a layman. It is probable that most of the prohibitions of lay activity were directed against heretical teaching and that any zealous layman in sympathy with the hierarchy could at any time have secured permission to exercise his gifts. The multiplication of grades of clergy (subdeacons, readers, exorcists, acolytes, sextons, etc.) resulted from the growth of the sacerdotal idea in accordance with which even the more external and mechanical duties in connection with church services must be performed by functionaries duly consecrated, and involved the exclusion of the laity from active participation in church work. With the growth of monasticism and the decline in the efficiency of the secular clergy, most of the preaching and missionary work of the medieval time was done by unordained monks.
Medieval Evangelical parties, like the Waldenses, insisted
upon freedom of preaching and teaching. Peter Waldo was
himself a layman., Men and women alike who were received into the inner cirle of the society freely evangelized. Yet when the party completed its organization there was a clear line of demarcation between the " Poor Men " or Perfecti who renounced property and family relations and devoted themselves exclusively to evangelism and the " Friends " of the evangelists who lived in the world, and supported the latter in their religious work. All the Evangelical parties of the sixteenth century (Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, and Anabaptists) strongly reasserted the doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, and restriction was put upon lay teaching and preaching only so far as seemed necessary in the interest of good order and sound teaching. At present the utmost freedom is given to lay effort byall Evangelical parties.‑A. H. N.

399	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lainez
		Lamaism
and America now make provision for lay represen
tation in their general meetings (synods, confer
ences, conventions, etc.). In Germanyand in Eng
land State control involves the preponderance of
lay authority. In the disestablished Episcopal
Church of Ireland lay representation is provided
for. In the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States three lay delegates from each church
participate in the diocesan conventions, and each
diocesan convention sends four lay delegates to the
general convention (with an equal number of cler
ical delegates), which legislates for the entire body.
The Reformed bodies of the Presbyterian type
amply provide for lay representation in the ruling
elders, appointed for life, who participate with the
ministers in the presbytery and in the graduated
synodical meetings that culminate in the general
assembly. Original Wesleyanism made no pro
vision for lay representation. A growing and in
sistent demand for it led to controversies and
schisms. It was adopted in a limited measure,
after years of discussion and thorough testing of the
sentiments of the constituency, by the Methodist
Episcopal Church of the United States in 1872.
A still more liberal representation (equal to the
ministerial) had been accorded to laymen by the
Methodist Episcopal Church South in 1866 and put
in full operation in 1870. All the Anglo‑American
congregational bodies (Congregationalists, Baptists,
Disciples, Unitarians, Universalists, etc.) have al
ways accorded equality of privileges in general
meetings to laymen.‑A. H. N.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Hatch, Organization of the Early Chris
	tian Churches, lecture v., London, 1895; Bingham, Orig
	ines, I., v (gives citations from original authorities);
	L. Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified, pp. 107
	109 et passim, Philadelphia, 1869; H. B. Restarick, Lay
	Readers: their History, Organization, and Work, New York,
	1894; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 123‑131; Neander,
	Christian Church, consult Index, p. 131; DCA, ii. 912
	916; and the literature on the DIDACHE and the APos
	TOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. The development of the dis
	tinction between clergy and laity is usually treated in
	discussions of post‑apostolic Christianity.
		LAMAISM.
Tibet (§ 1). 	Development into Lamaism
Visits by Occidentals (§ 2). (§ 4).
Introduction of Buddhism Characteristics of Lamaism
(§ 3). 	(§ 5).
Tibetan Literature (§ 6).
Lamaism is the name given to the religion of Tibet and a large part of Mongolia. It is a composite faith consisting of a debased (not the classical) Buddhism, which accommodated to itself elements of the early native " bon " (see below, § 3) religion and of Hinduism and then developed its own forms of belief and of government. The word lama means a " superior," and is applied by courtesy to all monks above the grade of novice, though originally given only to the abbots.
Tibet is a region of Central Asia bounded south by the Himalaya, north by the Kuen‑luen Moun‑
tains (which almost meet on the west),
	z. Tibet.	west by Kashmir, and east by China.
		It is a region of high plateaus cut
by extremely deep and often precipitous val
leys, divided by a lofty mountain range running
east and west so that geographers make two main
divisions‑the northern, inhospitable, entirely unknown to occidentals, intersected by parallel mountain ranges running east and west, between which are valleys and lakes frozen eight months in the year, where the population is sparse; the southern, richer in its possibilities and possessions, several times traversed in whole or in part by western travelers, and containing the sources of the Brahmaputra, Indus, Sutlej, Ganges, Mekong, Hoangho, Yang‑tse‑kiang and other important rivers. The population is estimated at between one and a half and three and a half millions, of whom about half a million are said to be monks. The ethnological affinities, as indicated by the language, are with the peoples of the Himalayas and Assam, but observation points to a mixing with the Chinese on the east and the Hindus on the south. In the settled regions polyandry is the rule, among the noroads monogamy prevails, while the wealthy are frequently polygamous. The culture is of mixed native, Chinese, and Indian origin. The principal points of the history, so far as it is known, are necessarily related in the story of the religion. China claims the region as a part of the empire, and a resident at the capital, Lhasa, is the representative of the suzerain power.
The first European visitor of record was Odoric of Pordenone (Odoricus Forojuliensis), who in 1330 led a company of monks into the country and reached Lhasa, which he described (cf. H. Cordier, Les Voyages en Asie . . . du . . . frere Odoric de Pardenone, Paris, 1891). Of the result of his preaching nothing is known. In 1624 the Portuguese Jesuit Antonio D' Andrada (q.v.)
	z. Visits	went from Delhi to western Tibet and
	by Occi‑	was kindly received by the local chief
	dentate.	of Tjaprang. His success as a preacher
		was such that the foundation of a
cathedral was laid, but the position was abandoned
when apparently all was favorable. Lhasa was
again visited in 1706 by the missionaries J. de As
culi and F. M. de Torin, who stayed but a short
time. During 1716‑27 Hippolytus Desiderius and
Emanuel Freyre resided in the land, protected by
the local ruler against the prejudice of the people,
in whom the tendency toward isolation was be
ginning to show itself. Other missionaries were
sent out in 1719 and 1730, but the opportunity to
establish Christianity' was lost. About 1760 the
isolation of the country was brought about, and
thereafter entrance was difficult to effect and was
usually accomplished only by craft. In 1811 an
English physician reached Lhasa disguised as a
Hindu and in attendance upon a Chinese general.
The Abby E. R. Hue (q.v.) arrived there by way of
Mongolia in Jan., 1846, but was compelled to leave
in March of the same year. 1n spite of the policy
of exclusion reports from Hindus, from Mongolians,
and from Russian subjects have made the situa
tion and appearance of Lhasa and its vicinity well
known. From nearly all sides the city has been
approached by numerous travelers, but access to
the capital was strictly barred until the recent
British expedition, which failed, however, to reach
the Lama, who retired as the English drew near,
and finally went to Pekin, where he stayed

LAMAISM
until 1909, when he was induced to start on his return.
The early faith of the people was the " bon " religion, a shamanistic animism, the deities of which were nature gods and spirits; ancestor worship was an element, witchcraft and magic were dominant, and the idea of transformation was widely diffused.
Legends, probably untrustworthy, as‑
3. Intro‑ cribe the introduction of Buddhism to
duction of descendants of Asoka who after defeat
Buddhism. took refuge in Tibet. The introduc‑
tion of the faith was probably due to King Sron‑tsan‑gampo (b. 617 or 629), who married a Chinese and a Hindu princess, both devoted Buddhists, and at their request summoned teachers and obtained books from India. The progress of the new religion seems to have been slow and the opposition of the old faith strenuous, for about a century later a successor of Sron‑tsan‑gampo invited the noted Padmasambhava from India to complete the conversion of the land (747)., and he is celebrated as the founder of Lamaism. His writings appear to have been the nucleus of a large literature, of which, however, nothing is known. The whole circle of Buddha legends was carried over and applied to him, with fantastic additions to the effect that he claimed to be a greater magician than Buddha, that he overcame the magic and vanquished the magicians of the bon religion, created a magic draft which bestowed immortality, and had a magic horse which carried him to distant isles where he preached his religion to the demons and magicians. The entire trend of the story shows that the practise of Buddhism in Tibet, as elsewhere, was to assimilate what it could not conquer. Buddhism had already developed a series of Buddhas prior to Gautama, and now, in accordance with the Hindu doctrine of avatars, it was announced that Padmasambhava, already regarded as an incarnation, would have successors until the new Buddha came, while the attainment of Buddhaship was to be assisted by the practise of Yoga. For a century and a half the progress was great, but the reputation of the founder became a menace to the king (c. 900), the religion was proscribed, and the monks were persecuted and driven into hiding. Eventually this course aroused the resentment of the people, who rallied around the monks, King Lang‑darma lost his life and the kingdom, the power going to petty chiefs and the abbots, while shortly after the heads of the great monasteries came to exercise a power almost regal. In 1042 Attisa, one of these abbots, whose life marks an epoch in the development, invited the Indian monk Vikrasila to Tibet, a period of great literary activity ensued and of moral reformation of the Church. The new teacher united the communities of monks and paved the way for a reunited Tibetan Church. This was first realized after Genghis Khan had united China and Mongolia into one empire (1220‑1340), when his grandson Kublai Khan chose as his spiritual adviser Ragspa, abbot of the Sa‑skya monastery, became a convert to Buddhism, made Tibet an ecclesiastical state in the empire, and appointed the abbot ruler. This condition continued under eight reigning abbots till 1340. The results were two‑
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
400
fold: the conversion to this form of Buddhism of great numbers of the Mongolians, and the subversion of Attisa's reforms and a rejuvenescence of magic. When this empire fell, the Ming dynasty of China gave precedence to the abbots of Digung, Phag‑dub and Tahal, broke the preeminence of the Sa‑akya monastery and made it subordinate to Phagdub, while the political control was vested in the great monasteries.
At the beginning of the fifteenth century a new reformer arose who is known only as Tsong‑kapa, " the man of Tsong‑ka." He was a noted scholar, belonged to the same sect as Attisa, and aimed at the purification and unification of the
4. Devel‑ Church. To the monks he forbade
opment marriage and the use of magic, made
into the yellow robe and the begging‑bowl Lamaism. the badge of his sect, took as his three guiding principles pure teaching, stern discipline, and the absolutism of the Church, while the individual's welfare was subjected to that of the organization. He made Lhasa the center of the new movement, and founded there three great monasteries in 1407, 1414, and 1417. The religion received as its governing characteristic the idea of the continued reincarnation of the Boddhisat in the chief abbot, and this incarnation was made subject not to descent, since marriage was prohibited to the monks, but to the choice of the Boddhisat himself, who became incarnate in a babe born after the abbot's death. Tsong‑kapa is reported to have said that he would be continually reborn as Dalai Lama. Alongside this official was to be another, the Tasi Lama, the two theoretically equal, but in fact the Dalai Lama the greater both by reason of the larger territory ruled and because he incarnated Padmapani, who is to be the new Buddha and savior of the world. The succession of Dalai Lamas is traced to a successor of Tsong‑kapa who in 1439 became the head of the Church and thus gave to the religion its decisive cast. The second of these officials developed further the organization of the Church, and founded a body of advisers corresponding closely to the Roman Catholic cardinalate. Missionary efforts continued among the Mongolians, and the fourth Dalai Lama came from the family of a Mongolian chief. In 200 years the yellow Church became supreme, the red monks sank to a mere faction, while a national consciousness was awakened and bound up with the ecclesiastical order. The Tatar dynasty of China confirmed the ecclesiastical privileges of the order, but since 1750 has kept a representative at Lhasa as a reminder of political dependence, and it is believed that Chinese influence is potent in determining the succession to the chief office and the emperor certainly has the right of confirmation. The Dalai Lama resides in the important monastery of Mt. Petals, near Lhasa; the Tasi Lama (also called " Pan‑chen ") lives at Kraahis‑lhun‑po.
The religion centers in the "three jewels" of Buddhism, belief in the Buddha, the law, and the order. It is held that prior to the historical Gautama there were other Buddhas, three of whom are now withdrawn from the world except as guardians during the intervals when no Buddha is incarnated;

401	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lazabt"m
		Lambert
a fourth corresponds to the historical Buddha
who is known as Amitabha and incarnated in
	the Tasi Lama; while the fifth is the
5. Charac‑ Bodhisat Padmapani, the coming Bud
teristics of dha and savior of the world, incar
Lamaism. nated recurrently in the Dalai Lama,
	who is therefore sacred. The Bud
dhist doctrines of heavens and hells is fully accepted,
while the saints of the order are objects of adoration.
The principle of reincarnation is applied not only to
the two heads of the Church but to the abbots
and monks, and most monasteries claim to have at
least one incarnated saint. Syncretism is seen in
the worship of deities and spirits whose disguise as
Buddhist saints is transparent, and in the formulas
of worship and ritual which retain elements from
the bon ceremonial and from Hinduism. Similar
traces of elementary religion are seen in the mag
ical charms and the divination which still remain
in use. Baptism, confirmation, and the mass for
the dead are among the rites of the Church, while
the rosary is everywhere found. Especial efficacy
attaches to the Buddhist formula Ommani padme
hum, " Oh the jewel in the lotus." Hence it is ever
on the lips of the people, is inscribed on cylinders
made to revolve by hand, water, or wind, and on
flags which flutter in the wind, each turn or wave
being regarded as a repetition of the prayer bring
ing merit to the owner or maker. Great merit is
	attached to the ascetic life, hence about one‑fifth
	of the population are in the cloisters. Alongside
	the reincarnation of the male saints are those of
	females, reflecting perhaps the influence of the
	Sakti religions of India. Of two nunneries the ab
	besses are incarnations of deities probably derived
	from the early bon religion. Politics has influ
	enced the Church to declare the emperors of China
	and Russia incarnations of Lamaist saints; curi
	ously, the king of England is not so regarded, pos
	sibly because it is the heretical red monks who are
	most numerous on the Indian border. The acces
	sion to the headship depends upon the assumption
	that when a Dalai Lama dies the soul of the Bod
	dhisat who lived in him is reincarnated in an in
	fant born forty‑nine or more days after his death.
	This infant is discovered in various ways‑by the
	use of the lot, by divination, or, as in the case of
	the last Lama, by the intervention of a monk of
	pure life, who had first to be discovered. When
	found, the infant and his parents are brought to a
	palace near Lhasa, kept there till the child is four
	years of age, when he is entered as a novice; at
	eight years of age he becomes a monk, then abbot
	and Dalai Lama. In this way the real control of
	the Church and the direction of affairs is kept in
	the hands of the advisers, and the Dalai Lama is
	hardly more than tlae living idol of the population.
	Of the literature of the bon religion little is
	known, but such as has been investigated is in a
	native script and dialect, both of early
	6. Tibetan date. The Lamaist literature consists
	Literature. Of translations of the Buddhist canon
	and standard commentaries, and of
	the Tibetan writings of the monks on encyclopedic
	subjects. The canon embraces 1,083 titles, an
	immense mass of writings, which exists in several
VI.‑26
recensions. The literature includes rules for the discipline of monks and nuns, metaphysical treatises, discourses of the Buddhas, legends from their lives, treatises on magic, hymns to deities, commentaries on the canon and commentaries on commentaries, dictionaries of philosophical terms and phraseology and of language, and works on philosopay, medicine, astronomy, and astrology, translated from the Sanscrit. Many of these are diglots of Sanscrit and Tibetan, and the literature has been translated also into Mongolian, a large collection of the plates of which was kept at Peking and destroyed during the Boxer uprising. The red church literature outside of the foregoing is by the yellow church held heterodox, and the principal work is the book of the legends of Padmasambhava, existing in many editions in Tibetan, Lepcha, and Mongolian. The popular literature is also immense and various‑apocalyptic, miraculous, prophetic, and ritualistic. Noteworthy are the works of Milareba (1438‑1122), a story of his life and travels, and the " Collection of 100,000 Songs." Both are valuable as pictures of the language and customs of the times. Another monk of about the same period, Kasarrgyalpo, wrote a huge epic on the deeds of heroes assigned to the eighth century, which has been widely diffused in the Mongolian and Kalmuck languages. The principal printing‑press is at Nartang near Shigatse, in the jurisdiction of the Tasi Lama. Block printing is done from wooden plates, 12x24 inches in size, each block representing a page of text.
The language, while akin to the crude dialects of the wild peoples of the Himalayas, has been so developed by the monks as to be capable of expressing with fulness and precision the sublimest and subtlest thought of India. The religion of Lamaism hasmade of Tibet a land of culture so far as the monasteries are concerned, but has not raised the MaM Of the
population much above the level of animistic peoples, so hedged about is life with ritualistic and magical observances. GEO. W. GILMORE.
BIBLroGRAPHY: The best account of the religion available
	in English is L. A. Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet, Lon
	don, 1894. An excellent though condensed account,
	covering the literature and the history, is A. Granwedel, in
	Die Kultur der Gegenwart, 1., iii. 1, Die orientalieehen Re
	ligionen, pp. 136‑161, Berlin, 1908, of. his Mytholoyie des
	Buddhismus in Tibet and der Mongolei, Leipsie, 1900.
	The account in P. D. Chantepie de la Sausmye, LehrbwA
	der Religionagesehichte, ii. 113‑117, is so abbreviated as to
	be misleading. Material is found also in E. Scblagint.
	weit, Buddhism in Thibet, London, 1863; idem, Lebene
	be8ehreibunp des Padma Sambhava, in Abhandlunpen der
	k6niglichen bayriachen Akademie, Munich, 1899, 1903;
	W: W. Roekhill, The Lamaiat Ceremony called " Making
	of Mani Pills," in the Journal of the American Oriental
	Society, 1890, pp. xxii.‑xxiv.; idem, The Uae pof Skulls in

Lamaiat Ceremonies, ib. Pp, 8$IYI I~l~l., ,~Q11CLDana, Journey 10 Lhasa and Central Tibet, London, 1902.
Still of use is B. H, Hodgson, Essays on the Languapea, Literature and Religion of Nepal and Tibet ib. 1874. For travels consult: G. Sandberg, The Exyloration of Tibet IB.g3‑1904, Calcutta, 1904 W, W, gockb01, The Land of the Lama*, New York 1891; H. S. Landor, In tha Forbidden Land London, 1898; O. T. Crosby, Tibet and Turkestan New York 1905; L. A. Waddell, Lhaeaa and

its Mysteries, with a Record of the (British) Expedition of 1903‑01,, London, 1905.
LAMBERT LE AGUE; Belgian ecclesiastic;
b. in the first quarter of the twelfth century of a

Lambert
Lambeth
family of poor Walloon artisans; d. at Lidge c.
1177. Whether he bore the name le B~gue (" the
Stammerer "), which is by no means peculiar to
Lambert, on account of a physical infirmity is not
to be ascertained. As a secular priest he first had
charge of a church affiliated with the cathedral
foundation at Li6ge; there he undertook the cure
of the small church of St. Christopher, in a suburb
of Liege. At the diocesan synod of 1166 he de
manded a moral reform of the clergy, especially
curtailment of extravagance in dress, and the pro
hibition of admitting sons of priests to orders.
When subsequently ecclesiastical abuses grew worse
he vehemently opposed them in the pulpit. At the
same time he exerted a profound influence upon
the populace of Li6ge through his penitential ser
mons. To his devoted followers, the women and
maidens whom he had led to renounce the world,
he dedicated a number of religious poems in the
Walloon dialect; also a paraphrase of the Acts and
a translation of Paul's epistles. These writings are
lost; but P. Meyer believes he has discovered the
Latin Psalter which Lambert used. In his stormy
zeal for winning the widest circles to the thoughts
of the Sermon on the Mount and imitation of Christ's
life of poverty, Lambert vividly reminds of Francis
of Assisi; still more sox of Waldo of Lyons. In his
sermons he often deviated widely from the doctrine
and tradition of the Church. Thus, he ascribed a
greater importance to the devout mind and prac
tical love of one's neighbor than to means of grace
and ecclesiastical sacraments; he characterized all
expenditures for the administration of sacraments
and for acts of consecration as simony, opposed pil
grimages to Palestine, and taught that no obedi
ence was due to priests forgetful of duty. In 1175
the clergy of the diocese of Li6ge, whom Lambert
had vehemently attacked, urged an accusation of
heresy against him. He was condemned and im
prisoned, but escaped and went to Italy on a pil
grimage to Pope Calixtus III., who permitted him
to return in peace to Liege. Lambert's most ex
tensive polemical tract, Antigraphum Petri, was
published by A. Fayen (in Compte rendu de slsances
de la commission royale d'histoire, vol. 1xviii., pp.
255‑356, Brussels, 1899). In the seventeenth cen
tury he was numbered with the saints of the Church.
His memory is perpetuated especially by the Beg
uines, who without doubt were founded by him.
At first a nickname, " Beguines " was soon adopted
by the societies themselves.	See BEGHARDB,
BEGUINES. 	HERMAN HAUPT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. Come, Disquiaitio historica de oripine Beghinarum, Lidge, 1629; Brial, in Hiatoire littiraire de la France, xiv. 402‑410; H. Delvaux, in Biographie nationals, xv. 158‑162, Brussels, 1891; Analecta Bollandiana, aiii. 206 aqq., Brussels, 1894; P. Fredericq, Corpus documentorum inquisitionis hareticae pravitatis Neerlandica, u. 9‑36, The Hague, 1896; P. Meyer, Le Psautier de Lambert Is BPgue, in Romania, xxix (1900), 528‑545; A. Fayen, in Comptee rendus des a6ances de la commission royals d'hidaire, Ixviii (1899), 255‑356.

LAMBERT, 1Fn"bar', FRANqOIS: Reformer in Hesse; b. at Avignon 1486; d. at Frankenberg (32 m. s.w. of Cassel), Prussia, Apr. 18, 1530. At the age of fifteen he entered the cloister of the Franciscan Observants at Avignon. His calling as
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
402
" Apostolic preacher " gave him occasion to familiarize himself more deeply with Holy Scripture, and he made a great impression as a preacher of repentance and castigation. Under the influence of Luther's writings, which found their way to him shortly after 1520, he left the cloister in the spring of 1522 and went to Geneva and Lausanne, where he was promptly suspected of heretical opinions. At Zurich, in July of that year, he ventured to defend in public debate the intercession of the saints against Zwingli, but finally declared himself vanquished. Under the assumed name of Johannes Serranus he now entered Germany to study the Lutheran Reformation at its source. Having secured, through Georg Spalatin, credentials to Luther and the elector, he went to Wittenberg in Jan., 1523. His sojourn there lasted till Feb., 1524. At Luther's advice he delivered lectures on the prophet Hoses, the Gospel of Luke, Ezechiel, and Canticles; sought to advance the Reformation by translation of reformatory pamphlets into French and Italian; and prepared a tract on the subject of his exit from the cloister and a cbmmentary on the Minorite rule. He was one of the first monks of the Reformation era to resolve on contracting matrimony. In Mar., 1524, he went to Metz, whither he was called by secret friends of the Reformation, but was not allowed so much as once to venture to speak publicly. In Strasburg, whither he turned in Apr., 1524, he found friends, but failed to obtain a position. In spite of his extensive literary activity, his outward status continued oppressive. At last, in 1526, there was opened for him the opportunity for work and the prospect of an assured living. Recommended by Jacob Sturm of Strasburg to Landgrave Philip of Hesse, he was enabled to take the leading part at the Homberg Synod (q.v.). In 1527 he was made professor at the University of Marburg, where in company with Adam Kraft and Erhard Schnepf he served as one of the university's first theological teachers. His attachment to Zwingli's theory of the Eucharist subjected him to much suspicion in Germany, and his French mobility, pragmatism, and easy eloquence provoked opposition, but as a teacher he found great acceptance. His favorite branch was exposition of the Old and New Testament, although his object was not learned exegesis, but practical interpretation and application. CARL MIRBT.
BIBLIOORAPBT: Biographies are by: J. W. Baum, Strasburg, 1840 (in German); F. W. Hassencamp, Elberfeld, 1860; F. St. Stieve, Wratislaw, 1867 (in Latin); L. Ruffet, Paris, 1873 (in French). Consult further: F. G. Schelhorn, in Amanitates literarim iv. 307‑389, Supplement, x. 1235 sqq., Leipsic, 1730; F. W. Strieder, Heesische Gelehrtengeschichte, vii. 378‑396, ix. 405‑406, Cassel, 1787; F. W. Hassencamp, Heesieche Kirdenpeschichte, i. 65‑75, Marburg, 1852; O. Clemen, in ZKG, xxii (1901), 133 sqq.; ADB, xvii. 548 sqq.

LAMBERT, lcm'bart (LAMPERT), OF HERSFELD: Medieval historian; b. probably c. 1025; d. after 1078. It is not improbable that he was educated at the famous cathedral school of Bamberg. He entered the Benedictine abbey of Hersfeld Mar. 15, 1058, and was ordained priest at Aschaffenburg in the following September, after which he made a pilgrimage through Hungary and

403	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lambert
		Lambeth
Bulgaria to the Holy Land, returning to Herafeld a
year later. The abbey school, which Lambert may
have conducted, was a very flourishing one, and
his works are good evidence of the height which
learning had reached there. The most character
istic is his biography of Lullus, the reputed founder
of the abbey, a really masterly performance, writ
ten between 1063 and 1073. He followed this with
a poem, now lost, on the later history of the abbey,
and a complete history to the year 1074, of which
only scattered sixteenth‑century extracts remain.
But his most important work was his Anrwlm from
the creation of the world to 1077. The first part is
brief and not original, but from 1040 the narra
tive grows fuller and becomes the most extensive
account of Henry IV. by a contemporary. In
opposition to his abbot and the majority of his fel
low monks, Lambert was decidedly against the em
peror, and probably wrote the annals with the pur
pose of justifying the election of Rudolf of Swabia
by the Saxon and Church party. He shows little
of the conscientiousness of the true historian, but a
	literary talent remarkable for his age, which for
	merly led to the placing of too high a value upon
his work. In fact, until quite rent times it de
	termined the conception of the character of Henry
	IV. taken by modern historians, and it is still im
	portant for the large number of facts contained in
it.	(O. HOLDER‑EGGER.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera, ed. O. Holder‑Egger, are in
	Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Hanover, 1894, where
	mention is made of earlier editions and literature. Con
	sult: A. Eigenbrodt, Lampert von HereJeld and die neuere
	Quellenforachung, Camel, 1898; idem, Lampert van Here
	feed and die WortausLegunp, Leipsie, 1898; W9ttenbaeh,
	DGQ, ii. 97‑109; Rettberg, KD, i. 802; Ceillier, Auteura
sacr6s, xiii. 399‑401.
	LAMBETH, lam'beth, ARTICLES: A series of
	nine articles drawn up in 1595 to supplement the
	Thirty‑nine Articles by stating the doctrine of
	predestination in terms more explicit and incisive
	than were used in art. xvii. of 1571, which admits
	of both a Calvinistic and an anti‑Calvinistic inter
	pretation. Toward the close of Elizabeth's reign
	Calvinism had many sympathizers in England, not
	only among the Puritans, but also in the Estab
	lished Church. Calvinistic theology was ably ad
	vocated at Cambridge by Thomas Cartwright, Will
	iam Perkins and William Whitaker (q.v.). On the
	other hand Peter Baro (q.v.) taught anti‑Calvinism.
	He found an ally in William Barrett, fellow of Gon
	ville and Caius, who on Apr. 29, 1595, sharply
	attacked Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, and others
	in a sermon which he preached for his bachelor's
	degree. A lively controversy followed at Cam
	bridge, Barrett being forced to recant, and the
	matter was referred to Archbishop Whitgift. Whit
	aker drew up nine articles strongly and harshly
	Calvinistic as an interpretation of art. xvii. of the
	Thirty‑nine Articles; and, after some modifications
	of language by the archbishop, they were signed by
	Whitgift, Bishop Fletcher of London, Bishop
	Vaughan of Bangor, and others at a conference
	at Lambeth Palace Nov. 20, 1595. Archbishop
	Hutton of York later added his assent. Whitgift
	sent the articles to Cambridge as an admissible
	interpretation of art. xvii., hoping thereby to
allay the controversy and deal a blow at Puritanism by making concessions to the Calvinists of the Church of England. Though he was moderately Calvinistic in doctrine he was strongly opposed to the Geneva polity, and he was too good a churchman to insist on the articles when the queen expressed disapproval, being displeased because the conference had been held without her consent and impatient with both sides for stirring up controversy. Consequently the articles were soon withdrawn‑a measure rendered easier by the death of Whitaker two weeks after the conference.
The Lambeth Articles state in the most explicit terms that God from eternity has destined a part of the human race for life, another part for death, and that the " moving cause " of " predestination to life " is nothing whatever in the individualneither " the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the person predestinated "; the cause is " solely the good will and pleasure of God." In different forms of expression it is declared that the twofold decree has made two distinct classes of men. But it is not said‑doubtless intentionally‑that God's decree occasioned the Fall; the implication is rather infralapsarian. At the Hampton Court Conference (q.v.) in 1604 the Puritans asked in vain that the Lambeth Articles be recognized. They were incorporated in the Irish Articles of 1615 (see IRISH
ARTIcLEs). 	(F. KATTENBUSCH.)
BIBLIOORAPHT: Schiff, Cfwd1. i. ON‑N2, iii. 823‑525;
	J. H. Overton, The Church in England, i. 481‑483, Lon
	don, 1897 (where the articles are given); and especially
	J. Strype, The Life and Acts of . . . John Whitpift,
3 vols., Oxford, 1822.

LAMBETH CONFERENCE (also called the PanAnglican Synod) * A gathering held at Lambeth Palace approximately every ten years under the presidency of the archbishop of Canterbury, and composed of all the bishops of the Anglican Communion. The first suggestion of such an assembly is said to have come from Bishop Hopkins of Ver‑
mont in 1851, but the earliest official action in that direction was taken by the provincial synod of
Canada in 1865. The matter was brought to the
attention of the convocation of Canterbury in the
following year, and the first call was issued by
Archbishop Lon81ey in 1$61, In September ef t6l
year seventy‑six bishops assembled at Lambeth and discussed various questions affecting the organization and work of the Anglican Communion as a whole. The second conference was held in 1878, under the presidency of Archbishop Tait , attended by 100 bishops; the third in 1888, with 145 in attendance, presided over by Archbishop Benson; the fourth in 1897, under Archbishop Temple, with 194 bishops; and the fifth in 1908. The bish‑
ops carefully disclaim any legislative or synodical authority, but their deliberations and resolutions have a wide and increasing effect upon the action of the various national churches represented. The largest general interest attaches to the step taken by them in 1888, when they sanctioned, with some final modifications, the statement as to the basis of a possible reunion of Christendom put forth by the general convention of the American Episcopal

Lambruschini Lamy
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Church in 1886; for the text of the statement, commonly known as the Chicago‑Lambeth Quadrilateral, see FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, § 4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. T. Davidson, The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888, with the Official Reports, new ed., London, 1896; idem, Origin and Hist. of the Lambeth Conferences of 1887 and 1878, ib. 1888. The encyclical letters and reports are published in tract form by the S. P. C. K., London; Lambeth Conference of 1907, London, 1907; Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion . . . 1908, . . . Encyclical, ib., 1908.

LAMBRUSCHINI, Idm‑brfs‑ld'ni, LUIGI: Cardinal and statesman; b. at Genoa May 6, 1776; d. at Rome May 8, 1854. He early entered the Barnabite Order, and rose to high rank in his order, afterward in ecclesiastical diplomacy. With Ercole Consalvi (q.v.) he represented the Curia's interests at the Congress of Vienna in 1818, and after his return, as secretary of the Congregation for Extraordinary Affairs, he conducted negotiations over concordats with Bavaria and Naples (see CONCORDATS AND DELIMITING BULLS, VI. 2, J 2; VI. 3). In 1819 he was made archbishop of Genoa; and in 1823 he was sent as papal nuncio to Paris, where he successfully labored to make Ultramontanism (q.v.) dominant in France, and this, too, upon the fundamental ground of legitimacy. In 1831 he was made cardinal by Gregory XVI., and in 1836 secretary of state for foreign affairs. It was in Lambruschini that the reaction now centered. Wherever measures were devised, or where efforts were forward which reflected the tendency of the modern era, he perceived revolution. Hence, too, he strictly opposed the strivings toward unity and freedom within the States of the Church; the prisons were filled, and previously granted concessions were set at nought. In the Prussian government's conflict with the Curia, 1836‑38 (see DROSTEVISCHERING), Lambruschini vindicated the standpoint of the Curia and drafted the state papers against Prussia (Rome, 1838; German text, Augsburg, 1839). When ultimately the government of Gregory XVI. became extremely odious Lambruschini had to bear the blame for it. Although he had seen to it that only his adherents should be admitted to the college of cardinals, so strong became the feeling against him, that when it came to electing a successor to Gregory XVI., he received only ten votes. Under Pius IX. he adorned high positions, but never regained his influence.
K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lambrusehini was the author of Opere spirituali, Rome, 1836 (an ascetic work); Sull' immacolato concepimento di Maria, ib. 1843, Eng. transl., A Polemical Dissertation on the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, London, 1855. Consult: L. C. Farini, Lo Stato romano 1816‑1860, i: 78 sqq., Turin, 1850; F. Gualterio, Gli ultimi rivolgimenti italiani, vol. i., Florence, 1850; H. Reuchlin, Geschichte Italiens, vol. i., Leipsic, 1860; F. Nippold, The Papacy in the 19th Century, pp. 98‑115, New York, 1900.

LAMENNAIS, 1a"men"n6r, HUGUES FELICITE ROBERT DE: A prominent French Roman Catholic theological author, of an increasingly liberal type; b. at Saint‑Malo (on the English Channel, 200 m. w. of Paris) July 19, 1782; d. in Paris Feb. 27, 1854. His childhood was marked by piety of
404
the strict Breton type and great devotion to study. In 1808 he appeared as a defender of the papal authority in his REfexions sur lWat de l'eglise en France pendant le XVlllme siecle et sur la situation aduelle, which Napoleon's government attempted to suppress. In 1811 he entered the seminary of Saint‑Malo to study for the priesthood. In the Tradition de l'€glise sur l'institution des 4v4ques (Paris, 1814), written jointly with his brother, he exulted over Napoleon's downfall, and on the return from Elba sought safety in England during the " hundred days." In 1816 he was ordained, and continued to write articles in the Roman Catholic and legitimist papers, especially against deism. In 1817 appeared the first volume of his principal work, the Essai sur l'indif6rence en mature de religion (Eng. transi., Essay on Indifference in Matters of Religion, London, 1895), intended to do the work of combating the prevalent indifference to religion and arousing interest in the Christian cause. Three more volumes (1820‑24) stirred up much excitement, and called forth bitter accusations on the part of the Jesuits, while the Callican bishops and the Sorbonne were lukewarm in their approval. In 1824 Lamennais visited Rome, and declined the offer of a cardinal's hat made by Leo XII. His treatise De la religion consideree daps sea rapports avec Z'ordre politique et civil (1826) was still more displeasing to the Gallican party and, in spite of the eloquence of his advocate, Berryer, suffered a judicial condemnation. He now became more and more disaffected to the Bourbons, whose fall he predicted in his next work, Des progres de la revolution et de la guerre contre l'Oglise (1829). In this he advocated the separation of the Church from the State which oppressed and fettered it, and more freedom for the people as well as for the Church. After the July revolution of 1830 he began to publish L'Avenir, a newspaper whose motto was " God and freedom; the pope and the people." The bishops now began to bring formal charges against Lamennais; he went to Rome with Lacordaire and Montalembert in 1832, but found little support, and their ideas were condemned by the new pope, Gregory XVI., in his encyclical of Aug. 15. The publication of L'Avenir was abandoned. Lamennais retired to La Chhnaie, and gave way to the logical development of his liberal principles, marking a definite breach with Rome by the publication of Paroles d'un eroyant (1834; Eng. transl., The Words of a Believer, London, 1834, 1845, 1848, 1891), which was condemned by afresh encyclical of July 7, but made a deep impression on the people, whom he addressed in its glowing words of hope and love. His Livre du peuple (1837; Eng. transl., The Book of the People, London, 1838) reminds them not only of their rights but of their duties in the tone of an inspired prophet. This was followed by a number of fugitive writings of democratic tendency, of which Le Pays et le gouvernement cost him a fine of two thousand francs. He attempted to bring his new ideas into harmony with his original principles in the Esquisse dune philosophie (4 vols., 1841‑46), according to which the truth is determined, not as in his first book by the Church, but by human reason,

405
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Lambruechiai Lamy
examining, judging, and confirming. The revolution of 1848 brought him fresh hopes and fresh disappointments. He was elected to the National Assembly, and laid before it the project of a constitution which was considered beautiful but impracticable. After the coup d'etat (1851) he spent the short remainder of his life in retirement. He had a noble and active nature, never content unless at work. His unselfish piety and humility were unquestioned; but the failure of all his plans so embittered a positive and passionate disposition as to lead him far away from the principles with which he began his life, into a position which his early associates considered little short of apostasy. His (Euvres completes were issued in twelve volumes at Paris, 1836‑37; six volumes of (Ruvres pmthumes appeared in 18551859 and two of fKuvres inkdites in 1866.
(C. PFENDER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographical material may be found in:
A. Blaize, Essai biographique cur Lamennais, Paris, 1858;
J. M. Peignd, Lamennais, sa vie inlime h la Chtnaie, Paris,
1864; E. Dowden, in Fortnightly Review, xi (1869), pp.
1‑26; C. Beard, in Theological Review, x (1873), 341 eqq.,
xi (1874), 70 sqq.; G. J. Harney, in Open Court, v (1891),
2959‑62; H. Gibson, L'Abbe de Lamennais, London, 1899;
C. Boutard, Lamennais, sa vie et ses doctrines, vols. i. ii.,
Paris, 1905‑08. For study of his thought consult: T. Passa,
Ptude our Lamennais, Paris, 1856; M. Lami, Philosophic
de Lamennais, ib. 1867; O. Bordage, La Philosophic de
Lamennais, Strasburg, 1869; P. Janet, La Philosophic de
Lamennais, Paris, 1890; E. Spuller, Lamennais; 41tude
d'histoire politique et religieuse, ib. 1892; F. Brunetiere,
Nouveaux essais sur la litterature contemporaine, ib. 1895;
A. Molien et F. Deune, Lamennais; . . . acs idees, ib. 1899.
LAMMAS‑DAY: The English name for the festival of St. Peter's Chains, Aug. 1, which commemorates the imprisonment and miraculous deliverance of the apostle (Acts xii. 3‑19). The ancient vernacular English name is derived from the custom in England of celebrating at that time a thanksgiving for the wheat‑harvest, and offering the " first‑fruits " in the form of loaves of bread; whence the Middle English lammasse, from the Anglo‑Saxon hlammtesse, " loaf‑mass."

LAMPE, 1dm'pe, FRIEDRICH ADOLF: German Reformed theologian; b. at Detmold Feb. 19, 1683; d. at Bremen Dec. 8, 1729. He studied in Bremen 1698‑1702, and at the University of Franeker 1702‑03. In 1703 he was called as preacher to Weeze near Cleves, in 1706 to Duisburg, and in 1709 to the church of St. Stephen in Bremen. From 1720 to 1727 he was professor of dogmatics and church history at Utrecht; and from 1727 till his death he was pastor of St. Ansgar's and professor at the gymnasium in Bremen. From his schools in Bremen and Utrecht proceeded a great number of men who exerted a salutary influence in all spheres of life in the Reformed Church, Lampe's theology was essentially Biblical; and it was his great merit to further Bible study in the Reformed Church, and to revive the federal theology (see COCCEIUB JOHANNES). His most important work is Geheimnis des Gnadenbundes, dem grossen Bundesgott zu Ehren and alien heilbegierigen Seelen zur Erbauung ge6fnet (6 vols., Bremen, 1712 seq.; Dutch transl., 1727). The first volume treats of the " nature of the covenant of grace " and entirely follows the fundamental conceptions
of Cocceius. The following volumes trace the church of God historically through the threefold economy of the covenant of grace under the promise (vol. ii.), the law (vols. iii. and iv.), and the Gospel (vols. v. and vi.). Lampe adopted the systematic form which Frans Burmann had given to the federal theology. In this framework the whole content of theology is presented, but only in its results for practical Christian life, and in a form intelligible to all persons versed in the Bible. It is owing to Lampe's peculiar union of theory and practise that his spirit as that of no other theologian entered the congregations, while the history of theological science took little notice of him. In the doctrine of the order of salvation Lampe gave to Calvinism and Cocceianism a new and peculiarly Pietistic turn, by emphasizing the Pietistic attention to the inner life of the individual and the pressure of personal decision, but the fundamental view of Calvinism guarded him against all excesses of Pietistic individualism. The Church was for him a divine institution, and he was averse to all separatistic tendencies. Very popular have been his catechisms: Milch der Wahrheit, nach Anleitung des Heidelberger Katechismus (1718); Einleitung zu dem Geheimnis des Gnadenbundes; Erste Wahrheitsmileh fur Sduglinge am Alter and Verstand; also his excellent book on communion, Der heilige Brdutschmuck der Hochwit‑Gdste des Lammes an an ner Bundestafel (Bremen, 1720). He also wrote: Commentarius analytico‑exegeticus in Evangelium secundum Johannem (3 vols., Amsterdam, 17241726; Germ. trand., 2 vols., Leipsic, 1729); Delineatib theologise actime (Utrecht, 1727, Germ. trans]., Frankfurt, 1728), the first system of ethics of the federal theology; and Dissertationum .
syntagma (Amsterdam, 1737). Together with C. van Hase the younger Lampe edited the Bibliotheca historico‑philologica‑theologica (Bremen, 1718‑27). He also took a prominent position among hymnwriters in the Reformed Church.
(E. F. KARL MtILLER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 0. Thelemann, Friedrich Adolf Lampe, Bielefeld, 1868; H. L. J. Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus, pp. 236 sqq., 479‑480, Leyden, 1879; A. Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietiamus, i. 427 sqq., Bonn, 1880. An index to his own writings and to earlier literature about him is in A. J. van der Aa, Biographisch Woordenbock, der Neder landen, xi. 83, Harlem, 1852 sqq.
LAMPETIANS. See MESSALIANS.

LAMY, ld"mi', BERNARD: French Roman Catholic; b. at Le Mans (130 m. s.w. of Paris), June, 1640; d. at Rouen Jan. 29, 1715. He entered the Congregation of the Oratory in 1658, and
became. professor of philosophy W WUmur in 1671,
afterward at the University of Angers. On ac‑
count of his Cartesian views he was deposed from his chair at Angers in 1675 and driven from the city. Through the favor of Cardinal Le Camus he
was soon given the chair of theology in the seminary at Grenoble, and in 1686 was recalled to Paris as professor of theology in the seminary of St. Mag‑
loire. For publishing a book without proper permission he was transferred to the Oratory at Rouen in 1690. His principal works are: L'arl de parler (Paris, 1675); Enlretiens Bur les sciences (Brussels,

Lance, The Holy Lanhrsno
1684); Apparatus ad biblia sacra (Grenoble, 1686; Fr. transl., Lyons, 1709; Eng. transl., Apparatus Btblicus, London, 1723); Harmonia aeu concordia quatEvangeli8tarum (Paris, 1689; enlarged ed., 2 vols., 1699) ; and the posthumous De tabernaeulo flederia, de sancta civitate Jerusolum et de templo (1720), upon which he worked for thirty years.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: KL, vii. 1372‑74; J. Pock, Plopes Mstoriques, Le Mane, 1817; B. Haurdsu, Hist. liWraire du Maine, ii. 117 .qq., Paris, 1844; Lichtenberger, ESR, vii. 709‑710.
LANCE, THE HOLY: The instrument with which the side of Christ was pierced after his death upon the cross (John xix. 31). It was believed to have been found, with the other instruments of the passion, by Helena, the mother of Constantine (see HELENA, SAINT, 1), and in the time of Bede was said to be preserved at Jerusalem. The metal head was carried by the Emperor Heraclius to Constantinople, and later to Antioch, where it was discovered by the crusaders in 1098. Baldwin II. pledged it to the Venetians, from whom Louis IX. of France obtained it in 1239 and brought it to Paris. Here it was preserved and venerated in the Sainte Chapelle, together with the crown of thorns; but since 1796 it has disappeared. The larger portion remained in Constantinople until 1492, when Bajazet presented it to Innocent VIII.; since then it has been preserved in 'St. Peter's. A second lance was venerated in the Middle Ages among the sacred treasures of the empire. According to some authorities it was the lance of Constantine, containing some of the nails of the cross, while others maintained that it was the actual lance of the crucifixion. The Roman Catholic Church has never, even when sanctioning liturgical devotion to these relics, pronounced upon their genuineness. For the so‑called " Holy Lance " used in the Eastern Church in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, see EASTERN CHURCH, 1 19.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Benedict XIV., De . . . eanonizatione, chaps. xxv., xxxi., 4 vols., Bonona, 1734‑38; C. Rohault de Fleury, Mtnloire sur Us instruments de la passion, Paris, 1869; KL, vii. 1419‑22.

LAPCELOTTI, ldn"chb‑let'tt, GIOVANNI PAOLO: Professor of canon law at Perugia, where he died in 1590, and known as the author of the Institutiones juris canonici which are appended to not a few editions of the Corpus juris cantonici. The thought of writing a text‑book of canon law on the model of Justinian's " Institutes " had already occupied Lancelotti for some time when in 1557 Pope Paul IV. commissioned him to undertake it. The work was not, however, formally approved by the pope, and appeared in 1563 as a private publication. It was first adopted by Petrua Matthaeus in his edition of the Corpus juris, 1591. The value of Lancelotti's Institutionea lies in the fact that from them it is easy to become acquainted with the law in force prior to the Council of Trent, and with the practise of that age. The later editors have carefqlly printed out in their notes the differences introduced by the newer legislation. E. SEHLIN(1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. B. Vermiglioli, Bioprafa depli .crittari Perugini, ii. 40 eqq, Perugia, 1829: J. F. von Schulte, Guchichte der Quellen and Literatur des canonischea Rechta,
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
iii. 451 sqq., Stuttgart, 1880; KL, vii. 1378; Lichtenberger, ESR, vii. 718‑719.
LANDELS, WILLIAM: British Baptist; b. near Berwick, Scotland, Apr. 25, 1823; d. at Kirkcaldy, Scotland,. July 7, 1899. His father was an Auld Kirk farmer and fisherman. Converted (c. 1841) under Primitive Methodist influence, he was encouraged by the Morisonians to enter the ministry, and in 1843 began a course of study under James Morison at Kilmarnock, with whom he spent three summers. He was ordained in 1844 and became pastor of a small Morisonian church at Darvel. He seems to have come under Baptist influence at about this time, and when called upon as. pastor to baptize infants, his, scruples led him to examine the question of infant baptism. Having become convinced that it was without Scriptural warrant, he received believers' baptism at the hands of T. MaClean, of Dunbar, and soon afterward became pastor at Cupar (July, 1846). From 1850 to 1855 he was pastor in Birmingham. His most important work was in Regents Park Chapel, London (18551883), where his eloquence attracted large audiences and where he had as members and colaborera Sir Morton Peto, Lord Justice Lush, Principal Angus, and other eminent Baptists. From 1883 to 1895 he was pastor of the Dublin Street Church, Edinburgh, his last pastorate. He published about twenty‑five volumes, mostly sermons; among the most important are: The Gospel in Various Aspects (London, 1856); The Message of Christianity (1856); The Unseen (1859); Woman's Sphere and Work (1859); True Manhood (1861); The Path of Life (1862); Seed for Springtime (1863); Everyday Religion (1863); and The Cross of Christ (1864).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. D. Landels, Mempir of William Landela,
London, 1900 (by his eon); Baptist Handbook, ib. 1900.
LANDERER, liind'er‑er, MAXIMILIAN ALBERT VON: One of the most important, though not best known, representatives of'the Vermittlungstheologie; b. at Maulbronn (23 m. n.w. of Stuttgart) Jan. 14, 1810; d. at Tiibingen Apr. 13, 1878. From 1823 to 1827 he studied in Maulbronn, and then went to the theological seminary of Tiibingen, just at the time when Baur had begun his academic career, and the transition from the supernatural theology of the older Tiibingen school to the Hegelianism which characterized the later was under way. After the completion of his studies in 1832, he became assistant to his father, who was pastor of Walddorf, then a teacher at Maulbronn, and in 1835 in Tubingen. Four years later he was appointed first deacon at Goppingen, and in 1841 professor at Tiibingen.
Landerer considered it his task to mediate between the negative tendency of Baur and the orthodox theology of Beck. He tried to show that the fundamental principles of the traditional faith might be maintained without essential rejection of the results of historical criticism or clear and scientific method. In opposition to Hegel's absolute knowledge, Landerer upheld experience in the ethico‑religious sphere as well as that of natural science. But the facts of the ethico‑religious consciousness are inseparable from the revelation of

407
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Lance, The Holy Lanfrana
Scripture, which again, in its historical development, connects itself with the individual consciousness. The central principle of dogmatics he considered to be the unity of the divine and human by the perfect union.of God and man in the person of Jesus, which proves the Christian religion to be absolute. He deviated from the teachings of the Church in his anthropocentric construction of Christology; yet, though placing the center of Christ's personality in his humanity, he sought to bring out the other side by emphasizing the absolute sinlessness and supernatural birth of Christ and the concrete facts of revelation. On the whole, the results of Landerer's dogmatic teachings were of a positive nature, although not in the sense of orthodox exclusiveness. He always kept his mind open for the results of modern science and criticism‑to such an extent ,that it was exceedingly difficult for him to arrive at final results, and he could never make up his mind to publish a dogmatic system. His contributions to the second edition of the RE show‑ his talents in the sphere of theology; his article on Melanchthon especially made a remarkable impression. Not less important is that on the relation of grace and freedom in the communication of salvation in the Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, which he helped to found. After his death his pupils, P. Buder and H. Weiss published two university lectures under the title Zur Dogmatik, with his memorial address on Ferdinand Christian Baur (Tdbingen, 1879); P. Lang edited a collection of his sermons (1880); and P. Zeller a third posthumous work, Neueste Dogmengewhichle wn Semler bis auf die Gegenwart (1881).
(H. SCHMIDTt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Worte der Erinnerung an Dr. Max Albert Landerer, T6bingen, 1878; Jahrbiicher ffr deutsche Motopie, 1878, part 3; O. Pfleiderer, in Protestantiechs Kirchenzeitung, 1878, no. 20.
LANDO: Pope Aug., 913‑Mar., 914. His pontificate fell within the period during which the Roman nobles ruled both the city and the papal see, so that no details of his administration are known. (A. HAucg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontiicalia, ed. L. Duehasne, i. 148, Paris, 1886; Bower, Popes, ii. 308.
LANDO, ATHANASIO. See AciAP10s MONACHOB.
LANFRANC.
Early Life, to 1042 ($ 1). At Bee and Caen, 1042‑70 (¢ 2). Archbishop of Canterbury, 1070‑89 q 3). Writings (¢ 4).
Lanfranc, prior of Bee and archbishop of Canterbury, was born at Pavia, Italy, about the beginning of the eleventh century (1005?); d. at Canterbury May 24, 1089. Details of his life are scanty, for he himself left no memoirs, nor was any biography of him written until forty years after his death. He appears to have been of noble parentage, and was educated in rhetz. Early Life, oric and Roman law. After his father's
	to 1042.	death, he left Pavia for a time, and
		according to some doubtful accounts
continued his legal studies at Bologna. Returning
to his native city a master of Lombard law, he be‑
came one of the three chief jurists of the Pavian school. Probably banished as an adherent of the nobility in the social and political struggles which raged in the Lombard cities from 1035 to 1043, he suddenly left Pavia and settled at Avrancbes in Normandy as a teacher. Finding little favor there, he soon determined to go to Rouen, the capital of Normandy, but on his way is said to have been attacked by robbers and left bound and blindfolded in the forest. In the terror of the night, he vowed to dedicate himself to God, if he should be freed, and in the morning, when released by passing travelers, he applied for entrance at the abbey of Bee, near the place where he had been attacked. The abbey, founded a few years previously by an old warrior named Herluin (see BI.C, ABBEY op), was both poor and ill‑governed, and Lanfrane quickly determined to leave it. Herluin, however, persuaded him to remain and in 1045 or 1046 made him prior. In 1049 he went to Reims, 2. At Bee probably to call the attention of the and Caen, Curia to the uncanonieal marriage of 1042‑‑70. William the Conqueror with Matilda of Flanders, and accompanied Leo IX. to Rome. There, at Easter, 1050, he received the hostile letter of Berengar of Tours (q.v.), and at the command of the pope detailed his own views on the Eucharist before the Lateran Council, gaining both their approval and the favor of Leo, who sent him to the Council of Vercelli as papal theologian, thus enabling him to score a second triumph over Berengar. Equally crushing was his victory over his opponent's adherents in Normandy, who were finally expelled from the country by Duke William.
Meanwhile Lanfranc's school was steadily increasing both in numbers and prestige, and enjoyed the special favor of Popes Nicholas II. and Alexander II., so that Lanfrane became the greatest teacher and dogmatic authority of the West. This prosperity was interrupted at the end of 1058 or the beginning of 1059 by William, who, censured by
the Curia for his marriage with Matilda, banished Lanfrane from his dominions as his chief antagonist. But the latter appeased the duke by going to Rome and winning the papal sanction to the marriage. The result Of this diplomacy so impressed William that he made his former opponent his chief councilor, thus inaugurating a new period in Lanfranc's life. The exact extent of his influence is uncertain, but William's alliance with Alexander II. in 1066 was evidently due to him, and the grateful duke made him abbot of the new monastery of St. Stephen in Caen. In August of the following year William offered him the vacant archdiocese of Rouen, but this was declined by the abbot who, in 1068, went to Rome as the conqueror's envoy to secure a papal embassy to reorganize ecclesiastical affairs in England. This embassy entered England early in 1070 and in the summer appeared in Normandy and announced to the abbot of Caen that he had been chosen to succeed the deposed Stigand as archbishop of Canterbury.
On Aug. 29, 1070, Lanfrane was enthroned as archbishop of Canterbury, where, after a vain re,

Lanfrane Lang
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
408
quest to Alexander II. to be permitted to resign, he triumphed both over the disorganization of his archdiocese and such powerful enemies as Odo of Bayeux (half‑brother of the king). His difficulties arose from two problems, the questions of the primacy and the cathedral monas‑
3. Arch‑ teries. During the last few decades
bishop of the archbishopric of York had not only Canterbury, claimed independence in the north of
	io7o‑8g.	England, but had asserted jurisdiction
		over the dioceses of Worcester, Lich
field, and Dorchester. Lanfranc, after consider
able controversy, exacted personal submission
from Thomas, the new archbishop of York, but
was obliged to prove the ancient and legal inferior
ity of York to Canterbury to secure the continued
supremacy of Canterbury. In 1071,. when both
archbishops appeared at Rome to receive the pal
lium, Alexander II., declaring himself unable to
solve the problem, referred the matter to an Eng
lish council, at the same time appointing Lanfranc
his vicar. The question was considered at Win
chester at Easter, 1072, but the historic suprem
acy of Canterbury was denied. At the same time
an attempt, aimed at Lanfranc himself as a monk,
was initiated to transform all cathedral monasteries
in England into secular cloisters, and the leaders of
this scheme found themselves able to win the royal
support. In this juncture Lanfrane, who feared
that a double defeat would annul all his influence
in Church and State, forged, or had forged, ten
papal briefs, as well as a legend and three canons
of a council, which he produced at Windsor in Whit
suntide, 1072, thus gaining an easy victory, which
won him recognition as primate and metropolitan.
After this victory Lanfranc energetically began to reform and reorganize the ecclesiastical condition of England, beginning with Canterbury. He transferred episcopal sees from villages to cities, secured the independence of the ecclesiastical courts, and introduced continental canon law, at the same time gradually filling the monasteries with continental monks and increasing the severity of their rule. Yet he was no radical, as is seen by his attitude on the celibacy of the clergy. Himself an advocate of this principle, he obliged only the cathedral staff to put away their wives, though he directed that henceforth each of the clergy, on taking deacon's orders, should make the vow of celibacy. Despite his exclusion of the English from high positions in churches and monasteries, for which he seems in every case to have had good reason, he regarded himself as an Englishman; and in this spirit he promoted the cult of national English saints and opposed all unnecessary harshness toward the conquered. Since his victory at Windsor, he was the mightiest man in England save the king, whose chief councilor he was and who entrusted him with the administration of the kingdom during his own absences on the continent.
Yet even this power was insufficient for him, and in 1072 he asserted the primacy of Canterbury over Ireland as well as all Britain, actually gaining it permanently in Ireland and Wales, and for a time in Scotland. But the higher he rose, the cooler were his relations with the Curia. From the
very first Gregory VII. was scarcely in sympathy with Lanfranc, who doubtless encouraged William in refusing to take the oath of allegiance to Gregory; while the archbishop seems only to have been waiting for a favorable opportunity to break with the papal court. This chance came with the conquest of Rome by Henry IV., when Lanfranc entered into negotiations with Hugo the Wise, the leader of the Guibertines, but his plans came to nought, and England remained neutral. His great friend, William the Conqueror, died Sept. 7, 1087, and William II. repaid the archbishop's loyalty and energy with ingratitude, so that death came as a kindly friend to save him from deeper sorrows.
As in character, so as an author Lanfranc was far inferior to his pupil and successor Ansehn of Canterbury (q.v.). His few works, which are almost entirely occasional treatises, are as follows: Liber de corpore et sanguine Domini contra Berengarium,
which consists of two parts, one re‑
4. Wri‑ futing Berengar's attacks on Hum‑
	tings.	bert of Moyenmoutier and the Roman
		Church, and the other defending the
usual Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacraments,
the author's only advance over his predecessors
being his assumption that the body and blood of
Christ are received even by the unworthy. The
treatise is really identical with the letter addressed
by Lanfranc, while abbot of Caen, to Berengar,
and was composed in 1069 or 1070. A portion of
Lanfranc's correspondence during his primacy has
been preserved as Decretales epistulce. The Scrip
tum de ordinatione sua was written between 1075
and 1087 and treats of his conflict with Thomas,
archbishop of York. The Statuta, or Constitutiones,
of .the cathedral monastery of Canterbury, com
posed before 1084, fall into two parts, one contain
ing the agenda and remarkably similar to the Con
cordia regularis of Athelwold of Winchester, thus
presupposing an English source; and the second
discussing the administration of the monastery and
corresponding in part word for word with the Ordo
Cluniacensis of St. Bernard. Brief and unimpor
tant works are his Libellus de celanda confessione,
sermo sive senterdi(e, and Annotatiunculoe (glosses
on Cassian's Collationes). The Oratio in concilio
habita and the Elucidarium, printed in editions of
Lanfranc's works, are not his, and the authenticity
of his glosses on the Pauline epistles is questioned,
although it may be regarded, on good manuscript
evidence, as genuine. The following works as
cribed to Lanfrane are lost: De sacramentis ex
communicatorum; Nonnulla scripts contra Berenr
garium; Laudes, triumphi et res gestce Wilhelmi
comitis (possibly identical with the work of Guido
of Amiens); and Historia ecclesiastica (probably
the same as the Scriptum de ordinatione sua). The
influence of Lanfranc was more potent as teacher
than as author, although he neither founded nor
could found a theological school. Even his most
important theological scholar, Anselm, quickly
marked out ways of his own, in method following
Berengar rather than Lanfranc, who probably
taught primarily as a jurist. There is some evidence
that he lectured on canon law in Bec, where No
of Chartres (q.v.) was his pupil; and it is accordingly

409
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
possible that to Lanfranc is really due the solution
of the problem of investiture, through which No
achieved his fame. 	(H. BOHMER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera were edited by L. d'Achery, Paris, 1648, and (inefficiently) by Giles in PEA, 2 vols., Oxford, 1844, from both of which they were republished in MPL, cl. Some of Lanfranc's letters are in D. Wilkins, Concilia Magnie Britannier, vol. i., London, 1757.
Sources for a life are the Vita, by Eadmer, in ASK, May,
vi. 848‑952; another life with commentary is in the same,
pp. 832‑847, also, with Mabillon's text and D'Achery's
notes, in MPL, cl.; Eadmer's Historia novorum in Ang
lia, ed. M. Rule, in Rolls Series, no. 81, pp. 20 sqq., Lon
don, 1884; William of Malmesbury, Gesta pontificum
Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton in Rolls Series, no.
52, pp. 37 sqq., ib. 1870; Guilelmus Pictavensis, Gesta
Guilelmi 11., ed. J. A. Giles, in Scriptores rerum . . . Wil
helmi, ib. 1845. Modern lives are by: A. Gharma, Paris,
1849 (not to be neglected); W. and M. Wilks, The Three
Archbishops Lanfrane, Anselm, A Becket, London, 1858;
J. de Crozal, Paris, 1877; P. Moiraghi, Pavia, 1889; E.
Languemare, Paris, 1902. Further material is found in
E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, vols. ii.‑iv., London,
1879; idem, William Rufus, i. 1‑140, ii. 359‑360, ib.
1882; idem, William the Conqueror, pp. 141‑146, ib. 1888
(all valuable); T. Wright, Biographia Britannica literaria,
ii. 1‑14, ib. 1846; E. Churton, Hist. of the Early English
Church, chap. xv., London, 1850; W. F. Hook, Lives of
the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. ii. chap. ii., ib. 1862;
M. Rule, Life and Times of St. Anselm, i. 163‑181, ib.
1883; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, i. 161‑169,
173‑175 et passim, ib. 1897; H. Bohmer, Kirche and
Staat in England and in der Normandie, Leipsie, 1899;
idem, Die Ptilschungen Lanfranks von Canterbury, ib.,
1902; W. R. W. Stephens, The English Church (10661272), passim, London, 1901; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr~s, xiii, 165‑175, 290‑295, 440‑459; Histoire litteraire de la France, viii. 260‑305; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 554572; DNB, xxxii. 83‑89 (where references to other literature are given); and the literature under BERENGAR.

LANG, Icing, AUGUST: German Reformed; b. at Huppichteroth (near Gummersbach, 24 m. e. of Cologne) Feb. 26, 1867. He studied in Bonn (1886‑88,1889‑90; Th. Lic.,1890) and Berlin (18881889), and since 1893 has been cathedral preacher in Halle; since 1900 he has also been privat‑docent for church history at the university of the same city. He has written Wiirttembergs Gemeinschaften (Barmen, 1892); Das haussliche Leben Johann Calvins (Munich, 1893); Die Bekehrung Johann Calvins (Leipsie, 1897); Der Evangelienkommenlar Martin Butzers and die Grundzuoe seiner Theologie (1900); Die Bedeutung der reformierten Theologie fur die religi6se Lage der Gegenwart (Neukirehen, 1905); Der HeidelbergerKatechismus and vier verwandte Katechismen (Leo Juds and Microns kleine Katechismen, sowie die beiden Vorarbeiten Ursin's) nebst einer hi8torischtheologischen Einleitung (Leipsie, 1907); and Johannes Calvin, Ein Lebensbild zu seinem 100. Geburtstag (1909).

LANG, COSMO GORDON: Church of England, archbishop of York and primate of England b. at Aberdeen, of Presbyterian parentage, Oct. 31, 1864. He was educated at Glasgow University and Balliol College, Oxford (B.A., 1885), and then studied law, but suddenly determined to take orders and pursued theological studies at Cuddesdon being ordered deacon in 1890 and advanced to the priesthood in the following year. He was fellow of All Souls' Oxford, in 1888‑93, curate of Leeds in 1890‑93 fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and (lean of divinity in 1893‑96, vicar of St.
~fraao
Mary the Virgin (the university church), Oxford, in 1894‑96, and vicar of Portsea, as well as chaplain of the Kingston prison, in 1896‑1901. He was also examining chaplain to the bishop of Lichfield in 1894‑96 and to the bishop of Oxford in 18941901, honorary chaplain to Queen Victoria in 18991901, and select preacher at Oxford in 1896 and Cambridge in 1897. In 1901 he was consecrated suffragan bishop of Stepney, and in 1908, on the resignation of Archbishop W. D. Maclagan (q.v.), was appointed archbishop of York. He has written: Miracles of Jesus as Marks of the Way of Life (London, 1900); Thoughts on Some of the Parables of Jesus (1905); Opportunity of the Church, of England (1905); and Principles of Religious Education (1906).

LANG, HEINRICH: Advocate of liberalism in Switzerland and Germany; b. at Frommern, near Balingen (38 m. s.w. of Stuttgart), Wurttemberg, Nov. 14, 1826; d. at Zurich Jan. 13, 1876. He entered the University of Tiibingen at the age of eighteen, and there came strongly under the influence of Hegefanism. Nevertheless, he did not go to the radical extremes of the Neohegelians, being restrained by the tenets of Schleiermacher; yet in the great theological struggle precipitated by Strauss, Baur, and their school at Tiibingen, he took a decided stand on the side of unfettered investigation. Like Strauss, he accepted the negative results of philosophical and historical criticism concerning miracles and supernatural dogmas; while, like Baur, he held primitive Christian literature and the history of Christian dogma to be a necessary and continuous process, whereby Christian consciousness seeks to explain its absolute content in the formulas given it. Despite his unrestricted investigations, Lang retained his interest in practical religion, but shortly after passing his theological examination in Aug., 1848, a speech in favor of the abrogation of the Frankfort Parliament and the establishment of a German republic exposed him to the danger of legal proceedings, and he accordingly fled to Wartau, in the Swiss canton of St. Gall, where he was pastor 1848‑63. In this pastorate he first published a small collection of sermons (St. Gall, 1853), to prove that the liberal theologian, while still maintaining his position, may preach in edifying and popular manner, and may be equally devoted to his pulpit and his studies. His own theological investigations were set forth in his Versuch einer christlichen Dogmalik (Berlin, 1858; 2d ed. 1868), showing that the religious principle of Christianity must be revised on the basis of modern science, this principle itself b~jq
none other than spiritualify as contrasted with the
pagan religions of nature, and childlike dependence on God as opposed to Jewish legalism. This work is particularly characterized by its theories of the

atonement and Christology, in which the person of Christ is, relatively speaking, eliminated.

With Lang's next work, Ein Gang durch die christliche Welt, Studien fiber die Entwiekelung des christl2'chen Geistes in Briefen an einen Laien (Berlin, 1859), tracing the evolution of Christian religious teaching ,and ethics from their beginning to

Lane	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	410
Lawn
the present, he won a hearing among the laity, and
in the same year assumed editorial control of the
liberal Zeitstimmen aua der refarmierten Kirehe der
Schweiz, which he directed until 1872, and then
under the title Reform, until his death. Despite
his open expression of radical views, his eagerness
to promote true Christianity on the basis of his
modern conception of the universe is shown in his
Stunden der Andacht (2 vola., Winterthur, 1862‑65)
and also in his Religi6ae Charaktere (1862), in
which he traces the lives and characters of such
divergent men as St. Paul, Zwingli, Leasing, and
Schleiermacher.
	In 1863 Lang was called to the pastorate of
Meilen on the Lake of Zurich, where, without being
the nominal leader of the party, he gradually be
came the guiding spirit of the movement for the
reform of the Swiss Church. In 1870 he published
at Berlin his Martin Luther, sin religibses Charak
terbild, with the aim of aiding the German people
to secure independence of orthodoxy. In 1871 he
was called to St. Peter's, Zurich, as deacon, and
shortly afterward became pastor. Here his abil
ity as a preacher first gained full recognition and
activity, both in the increased attendance at his
services and also in the approval shown his Re
ligi6ae Reden (2 vola., Zurich, 1873‑75). Here too
he was chosen a member of the Evangelical church
council of the Canton of Zurich, and during this
period published two addresses Zur kirchlichen
Situation der Gegenwart (Zurich, 1873). In the
first of these he set forth the struggle of modern
society with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and
in the second the position between the conflicting
extremes of orthodoxy and materialism. Hence
forth his battle was waged against the latter, and
in this spirit he wrote in Reform against Strauss,
Von Hartmann, and Albert Lange; while his two
contributions to the Deutsche Zeit‑ and Streitfragen
of Holtzendorif and Oneken: Das Leben Jesu and
die Kirche der Zukunft (Berlin, 1872), and Die Re
ligion im Zeitalter Darwina (1873), were equally de
signed to maintain religion in its proper place in
modern society. 	(P. CHRISTt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. E. Biedermann, Heinrich Lang, Zurich,
	1876; K. E. Mayer, Heinrich Lane, Basel, 1877.
	LANG, lang, JOHN DUNMORE: Scotch Presby
terian; b. at Greenock (20 m. w.n.w. of Glasgow),
Aug. 25, 1799; d. at Sydney, New South Wales, Aug.
8, 1878. He studied at Glasgow (M.A., 1820; D.D.,
1825), was ordained in 1822, and founded the Scots'
Church in Sydney the following year. He was the
first minister of the Church of Scotland in Aus
tralia. At a time when every increase to the pop
ulation was of the utmost consequence, he was the
means of bringing out many thousands of excellent
emigrants from Great Britain to the new colonies,
as also ministers and teachers for the work of the
Church. He represented Port Philip, Moreton
Bay, and Sydney successively in the legislative
assembly, and was instrumental in securing the
separation and independence of Victoria and
Queensland from New South Wales. He founded
and edited at Sydney at various times several secu
lar weekly papers, and also published several works,
the chief of which is his Historical and Statistical
Account of New South Wales (2 vola., London, 1834; 4th ed. revised, 2 vola., 1874).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult his Brief Sketch of my Parliamen‑
tary Life, Sydney, 1870; G. B. Barton, Poets and Prose of
New South Wales, ib. 1886; DNB, asloi. 89‑90.
LANG, JOHN MARSHALL: Church of Scotland; b. at Glassford (12 m. s.e. of Glasgow), Lanarkshire, May 14, 1834; d. at Aberdeen May 2, 1909. He studied at the University of Glasgow (M.A., 1856), and became minister of St. Nicholas (East), Aberdeen 1856; Fyvie, Aberdeenshire, 1859; Anderaton Church, Glasgow 1866; Momingaide Parish, Edinburgh 1868, and Barony Parish, Glasgow 1873. After 1900 he was vice‑chancellor and principal of the University of Aberdeen. He was moderator of the Church of Scotland in 1893, president of the Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1899, and Baird Lecturer in 1900‑01. In theology he described himself as "holding the great Christian verities; liberal in attitude as to creeds, criticism, and matters not entering into the substance of the faith." He wrote: Heaven and Home (Edinburgh, 1879); The Last Supper of Our Lord (1881); Life: 1s it Worth Living? (London, 1883); Gideon and the Judges (1890); The Expansion of the Christian Life (Duff lectures, Edinburgh, 1897); and The Church and its Social Mission (Baird lectures, 1902), besides contributing The Religions of Central America to the St. Giles Lectures for 1881 (Edinburgh, 1881) and The Anglican Church to the same series for 1883 (1883), and preparing the homiletic sections on Luke for The Pulpit Commentary (London, 1889).
LARGE, Idng'e, JOACHIM: German Lutheran and leader of the Halle Pietista; b. at Gardelegen (86 m. w. of Berlin) Oct. 26, 1670; d. at Halle May 7, 1744. After a youth of poverty, he began his university career at Leipsic in 1689, where he came under the personal influence of A. H. Francke and C. Thomasius. In 1690 he accompanied Francke to Erfurt and thence, in 1691, to Halle. On completing his theological studies in 1693, he went to Berlin, where he became private tutor in the house of F. R. von Canitz, whose poems he later edited under the title Nebenstunden unterschiedener Gedichte (Berlin, 1700). At the same time he came in close contact with Spener and other leading Pietists. In 1696 he was called to CSalin as rector of the gymnasium there, but two years later he returned to Berlin as head of the Friedrichawerderschea Gymnasium, and was also pastor of the Friedrichatadt Church from 1699. From 1709 until his death he was first adjunct and then full professor in the theological faculty of Halle, of which he was rector in 1721‑22 and 17311732. Despite the learning, piety, and discipline he had evinced at Berlin, and notwithstanding the immense popularity of his earlier years at Halle, he had few pupils after 1730. His lectures, though chiefly on dogmatic and moral theology, also included exegetics and, for a time, ascetics.
Lange's literary activity was more potent and lasting than his academic work, but of his long list of writings (even an incomplete catalogue numbering ninety‑five) only those moat important for theology can be mentioned here. He began his career as an author by his Idea theologise paeudorthodoxw,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
speciatim Schelvigianw (Berlin, 1706), first as an appendix to J. W. Zierold's Synopsis veritatis, and in the following year as a separate work. He then assailed the Unschuldige Nachrichten, edited by V. E. L6scher, the orthodox leader, after 1702, with his Aufrichtige Nachricht yon der Unechtheit der sogenannten Unschuldigen Naehrichten (5 vols., Leipsic, 1707‑14). His chief attack on the orthodox, however, was his Antibarbarua orthodoxiae dogmatico‑hermeneuticus (4 parts, Berlin, 1709‑11); while in his Richtiye Mittelstrasse (4 vols., Halle, 1712‑14) he sought to combat the errors and extravagances of his fellow Pietists. He again attacked L6scher in the name of the theological faculty of Halle with his Die Gestalt des Kreuzreichs Christi in seiner Unachuld, etc. (Halle, 1713); and when his opponent sought peace with Halle in 1716 and 1719, it was Lange whose stubborn attitude prevented any reconciliation. Lange now engaged in a controversy with the philosopher Christian Wolff (q.v.), who had been appointed professor at Halle in 1706. Wolff's prorectorial address on the moral philosophy of the Chinese (July 12, 1721), declaring that unaided human reason could attain to moral truths, was bitterly offensive to the theological faculty, and Lange, not only by using his court influence to brand Wolff's determinism and atheism as perilous to the State, but especially by his Causa Dei aaversus atheismum et peeudophilosophiam prrsertim Stoicam, Spinozianam et Wolfianam (Halle, 1723), secured his opponent's banishment in 1723. Yet despite this triumph, which was followed by a series of polemics, such as the Kurze Darstellung der Grundadtze der Wolf'schen Philosophie (Halle, 1736), could not prevent Wolff's return in 1740, while Lange was prohibited from making further attacks.
Lange's writings, though highly esteemed by his contemporaries, have now only a historical value. His works on church history, systematic theology, and exegesis are exemplified by his Historia ecclesiastiea Vewis et Novi Testanwnti (Halle, 1722); (Eeonomia 8alutis evangelique doginatiea et moralis (1728); and Hermeneutica sacra (Berlin, 1743), and his two comprehensive works on the Bible, Biblischea Licht and Recht (7 vols., Halle, 1729‑38), and Hausbibel (2 vols., Leipsic, 1743). As an author of pietistic hymns he is best known by his 0 Jesu, sasses Licht, nun ist die Nacht vergangen, and Herr, wann tvirst Du Zion bauent
(GEOR() MftLLER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The chief source is the autobiography,
Halle, 1744. Consult further: C. W. F. Walch, His" der ~steereieri . . and Religionssdvitipkeiten, i. 844 sqq , Leipsie, 1782; A. Ritsehl, Geschichte des Pietiamua, i. 280560, Bonn, 1884; W. Schrader, Geschichte der PriedrichaUniversitud au Halle, i. 133‑135, 200‑212, 307‑320, Berlin, 1894.
LARGE, JOHANN PETER: German theologian and exegete of the Evangelical school; b. on a farm in the parish of Sonnborn, near Elberfeld, Prussia, Apr. 10, 1802; d. at Bonn July 8, 1884. His father was a farmer and wagoner and brought his son up in the same occupations, but allowed him tq indulge his. passion for reading. He studied at the gymnasium in Dasseldorf 1821‑22 and the University of Bonn, where he was particularly
Lane
Langen
influenced by Nitzsch, 1822‑25. He became assistant minister at Langenberg, near Elberfeld, 1825; Reformed pastor of Wald, near Solingen, 1826; of Langenberg, 1828; and of Duisburg, 1832. At Duisburg he attracted attention by his articles in Hengstenberg's Evangelische Kirchenzeitung and other periodicals, by his poems, and by his book Ueber den geschichtlichen Charakter der kanonischen Evangelien, insbesondere der Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu; mit Beziehung auf " das Leben Jesu van D. F. Strauss " (Duisburg, 1836). In 1841, after Strauss had been prevented from taking his professorship of theology at Zurich (see STRAuss, DAVID FRIEDRICH), Lange was called t0 the position. Here he elaborated his Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien (5 vols., Heidelberg, 1844‑47; Eng. transl., 6 vols., Edinburgh, 1864, 4 vols., Philadelphia, 1872), a positive refutation of the famous work of Strauss, which had a wide circulation and a marked effect upon the subsequent literature on the subject. In 1854 he succeeded Dorner as professor of dogmatic theology at Bonn. In 1860 he became consistorial councilor.
Lange was small of stature, had a strong constitution, a benignant face and bright eye. He was simple in habits, genial, full of kindness, wit, and humor, and was always fully alive to the religious, literary, and social questions of the day. He was a poet as well as a theologian, his mind teeming with new ideas, often fanciful, but always interesting and suggestive. Some of his compositions have gone into the hymn‑book. As theologian he was one of the most original and fertile authors of the nineteenth century. His theology is Biblical and Evangelical‑catholic. His Theologisch‑hotiletisches Bibelwerk (16 parts on the New Testament, Bielefeld, 1857‑71, 20 parts on the Old Testament, 1865‑76) in its English form (ed. Philip Schaff, 25 vols. including an additional vol. on the Apocrypha by E. C. Bissell, New York and Edinburgh, 18641874 new ed. 1886) made his name familiar in England and America. He originated the plan, engaged about twenty contributors, and commented himself on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, John, Romans, and Revelation, giving original and brilliant homiletical hints. Other works worthy of mention are: Biblische Dichtungen (2 vols., Elberfeld, 1832‑34); Das Land der Herrlichkeit (MSrs, 1838); Yermischte Schriften (4 vols., 1840‑41; new series, 3 vols., Bielefeld, 1860‑64); Christliche Dogmatik (part i., Philosophische Dogmatik, Heidelberg, 1849; gait ii., Positive Dogmatik, 1851; part iii., Polemik and Irenik, 1852); Yom Oelberge, geistliehe Dichtungen (Frankfort, 1853); Das apostolisehe
Zeitalter (2 vols., Brunswick, 1854); Grundriss der theologischen Encykloplidie (Heidelberg, 1877); Grundriss der bibliachen Hermeneutik (1878); Grundribs der christlichen Ethik (1878); Grundriss der Btbelkunde (1881).
(PHILIP SCHA"rt.) D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. Schaff, Germany; its Universities, 77ie‑
olopV and Religion, pp. 381‑38s New York, 1857; Worte
der Erinnemnp an . . . J. P. Lange, Bonn, 1884.
LANGEN, 1dng'en, JOSEPH: German Old Catholic; b. at Cologne June 8, 1837; d. at Bonn July

Langen
Languet
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
13, 1901. He studied in Bonn, and was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1859. After being curate in Wervelinghoven, near Neuss, for a year, he was chaplain and lecturer at the Roman Catholic theological institute at Bonn until 1861, when he became privet‑docent for New‑Testament exegesis in the university. He was appointed professor extraordinary in 1864, and full professor in 1867. Before his break with Roman Catholicism in 1870, he published Die deuterokanonischen Stvcke rtes Buches Esther (Freiburg, 1862); Die detzten Lebenstage Jesu (1864); Das Judentum in Paldstina zur Zeit Christi (1866); and Grundrim der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1868). In the latter work the author's divergence from the rising ultramontane school became manifest, and the second edition, though essentially identical with the first, could no longer appear at Freiburg, but was published at Bonn in 1873. It was natural that Langen should join the protest against Ultramontanism (q.v.), and with his colleagues at Bonn he was suspended and excommunicated by the archbishop of Cologne in 1872. He took an active part in the organization of the Ord Catholic Church, drew up the Old Catholic catechism and the Leitfaden fur den Religionsunterricht an den hoheren Schulen, and was president of the committee appointed for the theological interpretation of the question of union with the Greek Church. When the fifth Old Catholic synod in 1878 annulled the obligation of celibacy, he retired from pastoral activity and thenceforth took part in Old Catholic church‑life only on special occasions.
Becoming, through stress of circumstances, a historian instead of an exegete, Langen now wrote the book which was to be at once the scientific basis of Old Catholicism and the justification of opposition to Vaticanism, Das vatikanische Dogma von dem Universal‑Episkopat and der Unfehlbarkeit des Papstes in seinem Verhdltnis sum Neuen Testament and zur kirchlichen Ueberlieferung (3 parts, Bonn, 1871‑73). To this same period belongs Die Kirchenvdter and das Neue Testament (1874); but the chief work of his later life was his Geschichte der r6mischen Kirche, quellenmdssig dargestellt (4 vols., 1881‑93), which extends to the death of Innocent III. (1216) and forms the historic counterpart of his more theoretical Vatikanisches Dogma. He promised also a supplementary volume which should contain a r6sum6 of the history of the papal power from the death of Innocent to modern times, but this, though it probably exists in manuscript, has never appeared. In his studies on the development of the papacy Langen wrote also Die Klemensromane (Goths, 1890), while as an advocate of union between the Old Catholics and the Greek Church he wrote Die trinitarische Lehrdiferenz zwischen der abendldndischen and morgenldndischen Kirche (Bonn, 1876) and Johannes von Damaskus (Goths, 1879).
Although opinions upon Langen's scholarship differ, in great part because of the fundamental divergence of the points of view of Evangelical and Old Catholic thought, he was, at all events, an inspiring teacher, despite the fact that personally he was solitary, strongly pessimistic, and fre‑
quently over‑severe in his judgment of men and
conditions. 	(L. K. GoETz.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the literature under Otn CATHowca.
LANGTON, STEPHEN: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. in England (probably in Lincolnshire) c. 1150; d. at Shndon (50 m. s.w. of London), Sussex, July 9, 1228. He studied at the University of Paris and lectured there on theology till 1206, when Innocent III., with whom he had formed a friendship at Paris, called him to Rome and made him cardinal‑priest of St. Chrysogonus. His piety and learning had already won him prebends at Paris and York and he was recognized as the foremost English churchman. On the death of Hubert Walter, archbishop of Canterbury (1205); some of the younger monks elected to the see Reginald, the subprior, while another faction under pressure from King John chose John de Grey, bishop of Norwich. Both elections were quashed on appeal to Rome and sixteen monks of Christ Church, who had gone to Rome empowered to act for the whole chapter, were ordered to proceed to a new election in presence of the pope. Langton was chosen and was consecrated by the pope at Viterbo June 17, 1207.
There followed a struggle between John and Innocent III. (q.v.) which brought great misery upon unhappy England. The king proclaimed that any one who recognized Stephen as archbishop should be treated as a public enemy, and expelled the Canterbury monks (July 15, 1207), who were now unanimous in support of Stephen. In Mar., 1208, Innocent placed England under the interdict and at the close of 1212, after repeated negotiations had failed, he passed sentence of deposition against John, committing the execution of the sentence to Philip of France in Jan., 1213. In May John yielded and in July Stephen (who since his consecration had lived at Pontigny in France) and his fellow exiles returned to England. His first episcopal act was to absolve the king, who swore that unjust laws should be repealed and the liberties granted by Henry I. should be observed‑an oath which he almost immediately violated. Stephen now became a leader in the struggle against John and none of the barons did more than he to rescue England from John's tyranny. At a council of churchmen at Westminster, Aug. 25, 1213, to which certain lay barons were invited, he read the text of the charter of Henry I. and suggested a demand for its renewal. In the sequel, largely through Stephen's efforts, John was forced to grant the Great Charter (June 15, 1215). Since John now held his kingdom as a fief of the Holy See the pope espoused his cause and excommunicated the barons. For refusing to publish the excommunication Stephen was suspended from all ecclesiastical functions by the papal commissioners and‑ on Nov. 4 this sentence was confirmed by the pope, although Stephen appealed to him in person. He was released from suspension the following spring on condition that he keep out of England till peace was restored and he remained abroad till May, 1218. Meanwhile both Innocent and John died and all parties in England rallied to the support of Henry III.

RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Laalrnet
Stephen continued his work unremittingly and effectively for the political and ecclesiastical independence of England. In 1223 he again appeared as the leader and spokesman of the barons, who demanded of Henry the confirmation of the charter. He went to France to demand for Henry from Louis VIII. the restoration of Normandy, and later he supported the king against rebellious barons. He obtained a promise from Pope Honorius III. that during his lifetime no resident legate should be again sent to England, and won other concessions from the same pontiff favorable to the English Church and exalting his see of Canterbury. Of great importance in the ecclesiastical history of England was a council which Stephen opened at Osney Apr. 17, 1222; its decrees, known as the Constitutions of Stephen Langton, are the earliest provincial canons which are still recognized as binding in English church courts.
Stephen was a voluminous writer. Glosses, commentaries, expositions, and treatises by him on almost all the books of the Old Testament, and many sermons, are preserved in manuscript at Lambeth Palace, at Oxford and Cambridge, and in France. The only one of his works which has been printed, besides a few letters (in The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, ii. London, 1880, Rolls Series, no. 71, appendix to preface) is a Tractatus de translatione Beati Thomce (in J. A. Giles's Thomas of Canterbury, Oxford, 1845), which is probably an expansion of a sermon he preached in 1220, on occasion of the translation of the relics of St. Thomas (Thomas Becket); the ceremony was the most splendid which had ever been seen in England. He also wrote a life of Richard I., and other historical works and poems are attributed to him. It was probably Stephen Langton who first divided the Bible into chapters (see BIBLE TExT, III., § 1).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for a life are a Canterbury Chron‑
icle in Stubbs's Gervase of Canterbury, ut sup.; Roger of Wendover, ed. H. O. Coxe, 5 vols., London, 1841‑49; the works of Matthew of Paris (edited in Rolls Series); Ralph of Coggleshall, De motibua Anglicanus sub Johanne, in Bouquet, Recueil, xviii. 59‑120; and the Life of Innocent III. in MPL, ecxiv.‑ecxv. Modern sketches (a complete Life is still lacking) are: M. Pattison, in Lives of English Saints, ed. J. H. Newman, vol. x., Ldndon, 1845; W. F. Hook, in Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, ib. 1860‑76; C. E. Maurice, London, 1872; R. C. Jenkins, Canterbury, ib. 1880 (on the supremacy of Canterbury); F. Phillips, in Fathers of the English Church, 1 ser., ib. 1891; and DNB, xxxii. 122‑128. Consult also J. H. Overton, The Church in England, i. 220‑231, London, 1897 W. R. W. Stephens, The English Church (1086‑1,1'7.2), ib. 1901; and in general the works on the history of England dealing with his period.
LANGUET, lan"g6', HUBERT: French diplomat and Reformer; b. at Viteaux (21 rn. w. of Dijon), 1518; d. at Antwerp Sept. 30, 1581. He entered the University of Poitiers in order to study law, but he was interested also in theology, history, and natural and political science. He visited the universities of Padua and Bologna, and traveled in Italy and Spain. He was greatly influenced by Melanehthon's Loci theologici, which put an end to his doubts. In 1549 Languet went to Wittenberg' where he was kindly received by Melanchthon as a guest, frequently accompanying him on his
travels and being on intimate terms with his friends. Expelled from France by the persecutions of the Protestants, he settled at Wittenberg, spending the winters there, but making extensive journeys in the summer and fall. In 1559 Languet, on the recommendation of Melanchthon, entered the service of the elector of Saxony as diplomatic agent, which position he held until 1577. The elector sent him to various courts: to Paris, Vienna, Prague, Frankfurt, Cologne, and the Netherlands. As a friend of Melanchthon he opposed the growing party of strict Lutherans; but still he did everything in his power to reconcile the opposing parties, even trying to effect the recognition of the French Huguenots at the diet of Frankfurt in 1562, but without success. In May, 1561, he went to France in order to bring about a closer connection between the German princes and the French Protestants, and was present at the Religious Conference of Poissy (q.v.). In 1562 he was in Antwerp; the following years were spent in diplomatic journeys to France and back to Saxony. In 1571 the elector sent him together with the ambassadors of other Protestant princes of Germany to King Charles IX. of France to congratulate him on the peace of St. Germain. On this occasion Languet advocated the equal recognition of both confessions, but the an.. swer was the night of St. Bartholomew; having narrowly escaped death, he left France in Oct., 1572, and returned there only once more, shortly before his death. From 1573 to 1576 he was at the court of Emperor Maximilian II., whom he accompanied on his various journeys. With the death of Maximilian II. in 1576 his connection with the court of Vienna was dissolved. The bitter feelings against him as the friend of Melanchthon and a Calvinist caused him to ask for dismissal from the court. The elector granted his desire, but continued his salary. In 1577 he went to Cologne in order to be nearer to the Netherlands, as he was greatly attracted by William of Orange.
The leading idea of his diplomacy was that of religious and civil liberty for the protection and expansion of Protestantism. He did everything in his power to advance the union of the Protestant churches. The correspondence with the Elector August of Saxony and with Mordeisen were edited by T. P. Ludovicus under the title Arcana seculi xvi. (Halle, 1699). Other collections of letters are Epistolte politicce et historic(e ad P. Sydnaeum (Frankfort, 1633); Epastoltv ad J. Camerarium, Patrem et fdium (Grdningen, 1646). His chief work is Vindicite contra tyrannos (Edinburgh (Basel?J, 1579). The book is divided into four
portal each of which proposes and answers a ques‑
tion: (1) Must God in a case of dispute be obeyed rather than a ruler? (2) May a ruler who violates the law of God and devastates the Church, be opposed? (3) How far, and with what right lnay it be allowed to oppose a ruler who suppresses or destroys the state? (4) Have neighboring rulers a right to assist a ruler oppressed by hiss subjects?

(PAUL T$CHACKERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Accounts of the life have been written by Philibert de Is Mare, ed. T. P. Ludovicus, Halle,' 1700; Treitschke Leipaic, 1846• H. Chevrenil, Paris 1856; J. Blasel, Brealau. 1872. Consult further: G. von polena,

Lanigan Lapsed
Gesehichte des franzoeiachen Calvininnue, iii., Beilage 6, pp. 434 sqq., 5 vols., Gotha, 1857‑89; J. F. A. Gillet, Crato von Crafftheim, Frankfort, 1860; O. Scholz, Hubert Languet ale kundchaischer Berishteretatter and Gesandter in Frankreich 1660‑72, Halls, 1875.
LANIGAN, lan'i‑gan, JOHN: Irish Roman Catholic; b. at Cashel (13 m. e.n.e. of Tipperary) 1758; d. at Finglas (3 m. n.n.w. of Dublin) July 7, 1828. After a brilliant career at the Irish College in Rome he became professor of Hebrew, ecclesiastical history, and divinity at the University of Padua in 1789, but returned to Ireland in 1796 and secured the chair of sacred history and Hebrew in the Royal College of St. Patrick, Maynooth. A dispute with the bishop of Cork, who suspected him of being a Jansenist, soon resulted in his resigning his professorship. He was then engaged by the Royal Dublin Society as assistant librarian, and was later promoted to the post of librarian and general literary supervisor. In 1813 he began to show symptoms of cerebral decay, and in 1821 he was removed to a private asylum at Finglas. His principal works are the unfinished Institutiones Biblicte (vol. i., Paris, 1793); and An Ecclesiastical History of Ireland . . . to the Beginning of the Thirteenth Century (4 vols., Dublin, 1822; 2d ed., 1829).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. J. Fitzpatrick, Irish Wits and Worthies, including Dr. Lanigan, his Life and Times, Dublin, 1873; DNB, xxxii. 135‑136.
LARSDELL, HENRY: Church of England; b. at Tenterden (17 m. s.e. of Maidstone), Kent, Jan. 10, 1841. He studied at St. John's College, Highbury, 1865‑67, and became curate of Greenwich in 1867, metropolitan associate secretary of the Irish Church Missionary Society in 1869, and was curate of St. Germans, Blackheath, 1880‑82. He was honorary secretary of the Church Homiletical Society 1874‑.86, curate of St. Peter's, Eltham, 1885‑86, and lecturer at St. James', Plumstead, 1890‑91. Since 1892 he has been chaplain of Morden College, Blackheath, London. He has been an extensive traveler, not only touring the world, but also penetrating deeply into Central Asia, and has done amateur missionary work in northern Europe, Hungary, and Armenia. He has written: Through Siberia (2 vols., London, 1882); Russian Central Asia, including Kuldja, Bokhara, Khiva, and Merv (2 vols., 1885); Through Central Asia (1887); Chinese Central Asia (2 vols., 1893); and The Sacred Tenth: or, Studies in Tithe‑Giving, An:ient and Modern (1906).

LAODICEA, 15‑Od"i‑si'a, SYNOD OF: A Phrygian synod held about 360, its acts being placed between those of Antioch in 341 and Constantinople in 381. The date may be somewhat more closely defined by the seventh canon, which mentions the Photinians between the Novatians and the Quartodecimans; compare the eighth, which alludes to the Montanists. The number of those present is not given, but Gratian speaks of thirty‑two bishops, and names as the chief author of the canons Theodosius, who is rightly identified with a Eunomian or Semiarian bishop of the Lydian Philadelphia in 363‑364 according to Philostorgius (viii. 3) and in 359, according to Epiphanius (Haer. lxxiii. 26). The Laoditxan canons are concerned with penance
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
(i.‑ii.), the conditions and requirements of the clerical office (iii.‑v.; cf. xi.‑xii., xl.‑xliv., liv.lviii.), relations with heretics (vi.‑x., xxxi.‑xxxiv.), divine worship (xiii.‑xxviii.), preparation for baptism and fasting before Easter (xlv.‑Iii.), and the relation of Christians to Jews and Gentiles (xxix.xxxix.). The mention of female elders in the seventh canon and of " visitors " in the fiftyseventh is also noteworthy. The repetitions in the canons (cf. xxxi. with x., xxxiii. with vi., xliii. with xxii., and xxxiv. with ix.) show that they are a compilation or compend of an older collection. (EDGAR HENNECKE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hefele, Conciliengeechichte, i. 746 sqq., Eng. transl., ii. 295 sqq.; T. Zahn, Geschichte des neute8tamentlichen Kanons, ii. 193 sqq., Leipsic, 193 aqq.; DCA, ii. 928‑930.
LAOS. See SiAm.
LAO‑TSZE, IS'o"‑tse": The reputed founder of the Chinese religion called " Taoism." He was born about 604 B.c., near the present Kwei‑te, in Ho‑nan province, China; d. at an unknown place and time, probably at a great age. In 517 B.c. he met Confucius, so that he was alive at that time. He was keeper of the archives at the court of Ch&u, and it was to learn something about the ancient rites and ceremonies of Ch&u that Confucius came to him. Foreseeing the downfall of Chhu, Lao retired to a far country, stopping, however, long enough with Yin Hs6, the warden of the gate, to write for him the remarkable volume, in five thousand characters, on the subject of T&o (the " Way ") and Teh (" Virtue "), called Tao Teh King. Lao was a philosopher, as his name (" the Old Philosopher ") implies. His great work, Tao Teh King, is translated in Legge's Chinese Classics, in Chalmer's SPeeulatims of the " Old Philosopher " Lathtsze, and. in Carus' Lao Taze. It is, however, not throughout intelligible even to native Chinese scholars, much less to other readers. It may be briefly described as an ethical treatise, in which the duties of the individual and the State are set forth. It lays great stress upon humility and upon gentleness, and, in one sentence at least, approaches Christian ethics. " It is the way of Tho not to act from any personal motive, to conduct affairs without feeling the trouble of them, to taste without being aware of the flavor, to account the great as small, and the small as great, to recompense injury with kindness." Lao seems to stand for extreme simplicity, even for the restriction of learning, since when people have too much knowledge they are difficult to govern; even the use of knotted cords as means of record seemed better than written characters. His connection with Taoism is supposititious. The founders of that religion simply used his name and part of the title of his book to give their ideas and practise currency. See CHINA, 1., 2.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Julien, Le Livre de la voie et de la Vertu, Paris, 1842; J. Chalmers, The Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity and Morality of the " Old Philosopher," London, 1868; T. Watters, Lao‑Tsze, a Study in Chinese Philosophy, Hong Kong, 1870; P. Carus, Lao Ties, Chicago, 1903; 1. W. Heysinger, Lao Tsze, the Light of China, Philadelphia, 1903.
LA PLACE, JOSUE DE. See PLACEUS, JOSUA.

416	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	La
LAPPS: A people of Finno‑ugric race, who from very early time have wandered in the northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. In the middle of the thirteenth century Christianity began to be propagated among those in Norway, most of whom, however, long retained their heathen customs. More effective measures for their conversion were taken in the seventeenth century by Erik Bredal, bishop of Trondhjem (1643‑72), and at the beginning of the eighteenth by Thomas von Westen (d. 1727; see WEsTEN, THOMAS voN), called the apostle of the Lapps. Toward the end of the eighteenth century the mission declined, but new interest was awakened by the work of Niels Stockfleth (d. 1866), who translated the New Testament into Lappish (1840). The religious and moral life of the Lapps improved much from this time.
In Sweden (q.v.) the Lapps came in contact with Christianity during the late Middle Ages. Several of the Vasa kings took much interest in the attempt to Christianize them, especially Charles IX. (16041611), who laid the foundation of an ecclesiastical organization in Lapland. In the records of the riksdags during the eighteenth century debates on the Lappish missions are often met with. By royal ordinance of Oct. 3, 1723, it was enacted that all the clergy in Lapland should know the native language, that a school should be opened near all the larger churches, and that books should be printed in Lappish at public expense. In 1739 a special board was created to administer the Lappish mission. Liberal grants from the rikadag and private donations furnished a solid foundation. About 1740 several itinerant missionaries were appointed to teach the Lapps in their homes. One of the first missionaries was Per Hogstr6m
(d. 1784). Per Fjellstrdm, pastor at Lycksele (d. 1764) published a catechism (1738), a church manual and hymn‑book (1744), and the New Testa‑
ment (1755) in Lappish. As early as 1735 a special school‑law for Lapland was enacted. The zealous missionary work among the Lapps of Sweden during the eighteenth century bore good fruit in better religious and moral conditions and an advance in civilization. Of the clergymen who worked in Lapland during the nineteenth century, the brothers Petrus La:atadius (d. 1841) and Lars Levi Laestadius (d. 1861) are best known. New regulations for the church organization in Lapland were made Apr. 14, 1846, and Jan. 31, 1896. The entire Bible was published in Lappish in 1811.
	What has been said of the Lapps in Sweden ap
plies also in essentials to those in Finland. Until
1809 the Kemi Lapps were subject to the Swedish
crown. Missionaries of the Greek Church began to
work among the Lapps in Russia in the sixteenth
century and continued in the following centuries.
Most of the Russian Lapps have adopted the Greek
faith, but their Christianity often consists merely
in an outward observance of the ceremonies of the
Church. 	ELoh HALLER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Meylan, Hint. de l'evangelisation deg
	LaPona, Paris, 1863; J. Vahl, Lapperne op den lapake Mie
	sion, Copenhagen, 1866; G Scott, Telletr6m and Lap
	land . . milk Introductory Sketch of as Stockholm Mia_
	eion, London, 1868; A. H. Keane, The Lapp.; their
Origin and Customs, ib. 1885; E. Haller, Svenska Kyrkans mission i Lappmarken, Stockhohn, 1898.
LAPSED: In the broadest sense, Christians who have fallen into mortal sin and are, therefore, liable either to excommunication or to penance. Commonly, however, the term is restricted to Christians (or catechumens) who, in periods of persecution, either disavowed their faith publicly and explicitly, or, by means not recognized by Christian morals, eluded their duty of profession. There were different opinions in the ancient Church both with respect to the definition of the act itself, and with respect to its disciplinary treatment. The question ran through a long development and was not finally decided until long after the time of Diocletian, but the controversy reached its climax in the third century, especially in the years of the Decian and Valerian persecutions.
Open profession is demanded in the Gospels, and a verdict of condemnation is pronounced against such as disavow their faith (Matt. x. 33; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26, xii. 9). The Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of Peter, as well as the messages to the seven churches in the Apocalypse, exhort to constancy under the Apostasy sufferings of persecution. During the
under first century, however, the danger of Persecution. relapses into paganism or Judaism was not great. Christian apologists after Justin state that, in general, the Christians continued faithful; and Roman and Greek writers of the second century, such as Marcus Aurelius, Lucian, Celsus, and others often speak of the fanatical contempt of death evinced by the Christians. Indeed, a passion for martyrdom grew up in the congregations, . but was regarded with dissatisfaction by the more sober and self‑controlled members. That martyrdom might become a duty was generally accepted throughout the Church, the only difference of opinion being with respect to the point at which the duty began. Some considered it legitimate to flee from persecution and martyrdom, while the Montanists declared that every true Christian should seek martyrdom. It must be borne in mind that during the second and third centuries the danger of relapse was augmented. Many fell away, and their number increased with each new persecution. The Shepherd of Hermas contains many striking illustrations of the effect which the persecutions of Trajan and Hadrian had on the congregation of Rome, enumerating the various motives of apostasy, and noting that relapses also occurred in perfectly quiet times. The persecutions of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius likewise had their lapsed, while Tertullian's
De fuga in perseeulione, De corona, and other works were written with special reference to the persecution by Septimius. What a disorganizing influence the Decian and Valerian persecutions exercised is apparent from the letters of Cyprian (q.v.)
and his treatise De ldpsis. Eusebius throws 4 Yfil~ over the lapsed in the persecution of Diocletian,
yet it is evident that the number of apostates was large, and denial was only too frequent in the last persecution, instituted by Julian, although the lapsed were soon permitted to reenter the churches.

Lapsed Lasco
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
	After 250, different classes of lapsed were dis
tinguished: sacriftcati who had sacrificed to the
gods; thuriflcati, who had burned incense to them;
ltbellatici, who by bribery had procured a certifi
		cate showing that they had already
	Classes of	fulfilled all requirements; and tradi‑
the Lapsed. tores, who had either actually surrenTreatment dered their sacred books and vessels, of Them. or had pretended to do so by substituting others for them. At the same time a change took place in the disciplinary treatment of the lapsed. In the second century it was generally accepted throughout the Church that a Christian who had relapsed into idolatry could not be readmitted to the congregation. The most sincere repentance was not sufficient; only open profession under a new trial and martyrdom could blot out the guilt. In the middle of the third century milder views were adopted. In 250 Cyprian and the Roman clergy still felt uncertain about the question, but gradually a more lenient practise prevailed in the churches of Carthage, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and between 251 and 325. a complete system of penitential rules was elaborated by the bishops. Not only was a distinction made between sacrificati and libellatici, but regard was paid to the individual circumstances of each case, thus gradually transforming the penitential system into one of casuistry. The oldest and most important of such penitential decisions are the Liber de pcenir tentia of Petrus Alexandrinus, the first four canons of the Synod of Elvira (306), the first nine of the Synod of Ancyra (314), the thirteenth of the Synod of Arles (314 or 316), and the tenth to the fourteenth of the Council of Nica'a (325).
(A. HARNACK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Wessely, Les Plus Anciens Monuments du christianisme ecrits sur papyrus, Paris, 1908 (contains at the beginning a series of documents of the highest value for this subject); J. Marione, De discipline in administrations sacramenti pwnitentia, Paris, 1651; H. Klee, Die Beichte, Frankfort, 1827; M. J. Routh, Reliquia sacroe, iv. 21‑22, 115‑116, 255, 256, 5 vols., Oxford, 1846‑48; J. Langen, Geschichte der romischen Kirche, i. 279 eqq., 300 sqq., Bonn, 1881; J. H. Kurtz, Church History, i. 82‑83, New York, 1889; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, and Eng. transl., vol. i. passim; Neander, Christian Church, i. 226‑246; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 60 sqq., 76 sqq.; KL, i. 87‑91.
LARDNER, ldrd'ner, NATHANIEL: English nonconformist; b. at Hawkhurat (42 m. s.e. of London), Kent, June 6, 1684; d. there July 24, 1768. He studied in London, Utrecht, and Leyden, and in 1716 toured France, Belgium, and Holland as the tutor of the son of Lady Treby, whom he instructed from 1713 to 1721. After the death of his patroness in 1721 he remained without a position until 1729, his delivery being too dry and lifeless to gain him the pulpit which he desired. In 1729, however, he became assistant minister in a Presbyterian chapel in London, and remained there until 1751, when total deafness obliged him to retire. The rest of his life was passed in seclusion, although he maintained an active correspondence with scholars at home and abroad.
Lardner's theological position may be defined as rationalistic supernaturalism, since it recognized both the justification of reason and the necessity of revelation. Believing that the original simplic‑
416
ity of Evangelical doctrines had been obscured by useless speculations, he sought to return to plain and primitive truth. His primary object was the proof of the truth of Christianity by historical criticism, this being the basal concept of his chief work, The Credibility of the Gospel History (17 vols., London, 1727‑57). This book, at once profound and unbiased, is divided into two parts, with a supplement as a third. The first division contains those facts mentioned in the New Testament which are confirmed by contemporary writers, while in the second portion, which is much the longer, the testimonies of the Church Fathers of the first four centuries are collected and carefully weighed, besides being subjected to a thorough criticism which investigates their authenticity and determines their date. The supplement discusses the canon of the New Testament, which Lardner believed to have been settled long before the Synod of Laodicea. He dated the synoptic Gospels and Acts in 64 and the Johannine Gospel in 68, the latest book being Revelation, which he placed in 96. The date of the Epistles was relatively late, since they were written after the Gospel had been widely promulgated. The Gospel of the Hebrews was a translation of the Greek Matthew. Among his other works special mention may be made of the following: A Vindication of Three of our Blessed Saviour's Miracles (1729); The Circumstances of the Jewish People (1743); A Large Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies to the Truth of the Christian Religion (4 vols., 1764‑67); and particularly A Letter concerning the Logos (1759), which brought upon him the charge of Socinianism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The basal work on the life is the anonymous Memoirs of Lardner, London, 1769 (by J. Jennings). Consult further the Life by A. Kippis, in vol. i. of the Works of Lardner, London, 1788; L. Stephen, Hist. of English Thought, passim, New York, 1881; and notices listed in DNB, xxxii. 147‑151.
LA ROCHELLE, CONFESSION OF. See GAIr LICAN CONFESSION.
LARRABEE, lar'a‑bi, WILLIAM HENRY: Methodist Episcopal; b. at Alfred, Me., Sept. 20, 1829. He studied~at Indiana Asbury (now DePauw) University (B.A., 1845), and was admitted to the bar, although he never practised. After having been a teacher (1846‑52), farmer, and clerk in the office of the superintendent of public instruction in Indiana, he engaged in literary and editorial work. He was assistant editor of The Methodist (New York City) 1862‑65 and 1870‑77, of The Brooklyn Daily Union 1865‑70, and of The Popular Science Monthly 18801901. Since 1880 he has conducted the department on " Life in the Churches " in The Christian Advocate. He has likewise contributed to various encyclopedias, particularly to Bishop M. Simpson's Cyclopedia of Methodism (Philadelphia, 1878), and has written Education through the Agency of Religious Organizations (St. Louis, 1904); How the World was Made (Plainfield. N. J., 1906); and Volcanoes and Earthquakes (1906).
LA SALLE, JEAN BAPTISTE DE. See CHRISTIAN BROTHERS.
LASAUL%, ld"s6l', AMALIA VON: German Sister of Charity known as " Sister Augustine ";

417	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	izpr
b. at Coblenz Oct. 19, 1815; d. at Vallendar (3 m. n.n.e. of Coblenz) Jan. 28, 1872. She entered the mother‑house of the Sisters of Charity at Nancy 1838, served in the hospital of Aix‑la‑Chapelle 1842‑49, and was mother‑superior of the Hospital of St. John at Bonn 1849‑71. During the wars of Prussia with Denmark (1864), Austria, (1866), and France (1870‑71) she cared for the wounded and displayed no slight organizing ability. Her theological instruction was received from disciples of Georg Hermes (q.v.), and, like certain of the Bonn professors, she refused to accept the decrees of the Vatican Council in 1870; she was deposed, 1871, and transferred to Vallendar; when she died the usual burial rites were denied to her remains.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Her life has been written by J. H. Reinkena, Bonn, 1878, and H. Lecoultre, Paris, 1879. Eng. tranal., London, 1880. Consult also: Erinnerunpen an Amalie von LaaauLv, Gotha, 1878, Eng. tranal., Sister Augustine, London, 1880.
LAS CASAS, Ids ca'sas, BARTOLOME DE: Spanish missionary in the West Indies; b. at Seville 1474; d. at Madrid July 31, 1566. He studied the humanities and law at the universities of Seville and Salamanca, and in 1502 accompanied the Governor Ovando to Hispaniola. He remained there eight years, administering the allotment (repartimiento) which had fallen to his father, till 1510, when he entered upon the priest's vocation. While in Cuba in 1512 he became familiar with the harshness of the conquistadores, and even then, as throughout his life, he appeared as the protector of the natives. That he might better fulfil this part, he returned to Spain in 1515 and obtained a commission drawn up in the name of the king empowering him to " watch over . . . the liberty, the good and proper treatment, the bodily and the spiritual weal of the Indians " (teat in FabiS, p. 58), along with the title of protector universal de todos los Indim. Repeated opposition compelled him to frequent journeys to Spain. From the University of Salamanca he received a pronouncement to the effect that it is capital heresy to deny the Indians' capacity for conversion. He himself won the Indians' confidence to such a degree that at his word alone they often voluntarily did what the Spanish lords could not achieve by force. Las Casas wrought subsequently as bishop of Chiapa in Mexico 1544‑47. Since his efforts, supported by ecclesiastical means of discipline, encroached far too deeply upon affairs as the conquistadores had shaped them to suit themselves, opposition to L8,p Casas increased; and at home it was even led by the historian Sepulveda, in the atrocious tract, De justia belli cauais (prohibited in Spain, but printed in Rome). Against this, Las Casas retorted with Brevisima relacion de la de8truceion de laa Indian (Seville, 15.52). With more detail he treats the experiences of his own life in his main work, Hiatoria de las Indian (first printed in Collection de doeeumentoa inkditos para la hietoria de Espaga, vols. Ixii.‑lxvi., Madrid, 1875‑76). It is not open to proof that Las Casas is involved in the responsibility for the introduction of negro slavery into America, (cf. Apologie de B. de las Caaaa in tYlemoires de la clasae lea sciences moralea . . , de I'Instilut
VI.‑27
de France, vol. iv. (5 vole., Paris, 1798‑1804).
There is an incomplete edition of his works, with
a sketch of his life, by J. A. Llorente (2 vole., Paris,
1822). 	K. BmmrrleaTS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life of Las Came has been written by M. Pio, Bologna, 1818; by Llorente as an introduction to the (Euvna de Las Casaa, Paris, 1822; A. Helps, London, 1888; C. Gutierrez, Madrid, 1878; R. Baumatark, Frei‑
burg, 1879; A. M. Fabie, in Collection de documentoa inedi^ toe, with an appendix of hitherto unprinted writings of Las Cams, Madrid, 1879‑80; F. A. Mac Nutt, Bartholomew Las Caaas: his Life, Apaetoiate, and Writings, New York, 1909; AL, vii. 1437‑1441. Consult also W. H. Prescott, Conquest o1 Mexico, book ii., chap. viii., appendix, New York, 1843 and often.
LASCO, las'ca, JOHANNES A (JAR LASKI): Polish reformer; b. probably at Lask (90 m, sm. of Warsaw), Poland, 1499; d. at Pinczow (120 m. s. of Warsaw), Poland, Jan. 8, 1580. In 1510, probably, the archbishop of Cracow, his uncle, received him into his home, giving him an opportunity for pursuing humanistic studies at that time flourishing in Cracow. In 1513 he accompanied the archbishop to Rome where a council was to be held. He then entered the University of Bologna, devoting himself to the study of theology. In 1518 he returned to Poland where in 1521 .he was consecrated priest and became dean at the metropolitan church in Gnesen. But, perceiving with dissatisfaction the deficiencies of his church, in 1523 he gladly followed his brother on a diplomatic mission which led them to Basel and Paris. In 1524 he settled for some time at Basel, where he became an intimate friend not only of Erasmus, but also of other prominent men, who, seized by the new intellectual and spiritual move‑
ment, sooner or later joined the Reformation. He became an enthusiastic humanist, seeing plainly the deep‑rooted defects of the Church and convinced of her need of a thorough reform; but like Erasmus he hoped that this might proceed from within. During his absence the Reformation had invaded Poland. By the king's order in 1526 Luther's writings were confiscated, and all men suspected of importing them were seized. At this critical time Lasco was called back to Poland; but he labored ten years in vain, to bring order into the confused conditions of the Church, until he finally broke completely with the Roman Church, resigning his offices and leaving the country. He went first to Louvain and thence to Emden where Countess Anna, the regent of the country, en‑
trusted him. with the government of all the Awlto
in the COMT Q~,. Lasco succeeded in ifn‑

pressing upon the East Frisian Church the stamp of his personality in such a way that Friesland for
a long time was called the northern Geneva. His influence was felt also in neighboring territories, at Wesel and thence up the Rhine to Heidelberg. Although his success was obstructed by the violent opposition of the Lutherans, he remained true to his convictions concerning the truth of the Gospel. A few years later, in 154$, the Interim induced him to leave Friesland. In 1550 he came to England where the duke of 90metwt, the lordprotector, and Archbishop Cranmer, the primate,
took a decisive stand on the side of the Reforms`‑‑‑ Soon his influence was felt in the Evange!‑

Lssco
I.etimer
ical development of the Church of England. The king entrusted Lasco with the organization of a congregation of all foreign Protestants in London. It was acknowledged as a congregation independent from the government of the Church of England, Lasco being its superintendent, assisted by four clergymen. He wrote a confession (Confessio Londinensis) intended as a strong defense against the sectarian tendencies of the foreigners, and this was to be signed by every new member; for the instruction of youth he used a catechism which he had compiled in Emden and was not without influence upon the Heidelberg catechism. Lasco exercised a decisive influence upon the English Church, as well as upon his own, also by his highly important work on the sacraments, Brevis et dilueida de sacramentis ecdesice Christi tractatio (London, 1552). But with the early death of Edward VI. in 1553 the whole work of Lasco broke in pieces. Mary dissolved the congregation of foreigners and expelled them from the country. They wandered from place to place, finding no rest, owing to the dissensions between the adherents of the Reformation. Even in Emden Lasco found no home. He went to Frankfurt, where a part of the fugitive congregation obtained an asylum, always and everywhere taking pains to alleviate the dreary lot of the fugitives' way to Basel, to defend the confession of his brethren as well as their legal status within the Church of the Reformation, and to warn the whole assembly of Evangelicals to unite against their common foe, the Roman Church. On an urgent request from Poland he returned thither in Dec., 1556, with the intention of devoting the rest of his life to the service of the Evangelical Church of his native country. During his eighteen years' absence the Reformation had made rapid progress among the nobility, not so much from Wittenberg as from Geneva since the Calvinistic system of the congregation and of the church government met more readily the peculiar conditions of Poland. But there was no prominent, energetic theologian to bring order into the confused conditions of the Evangelical congregations. Lasco, the fittest man, was in exile. So it happened that the Evangelicals of Poland at the Synod of Kozminek in 1555 united with the Bohemian Brethren, adopting their confession and church order. In 1556 Lasco arrived in Poland. He immediately perceived that the Evangelical Church in Poland needed her own independent development in order to guard herself against the Roman Church in the country, and he spared no efforts to destroy the connection with the Moravians and to lead the Evangelical Church of his country into genuinely Evangelical paths. Until the last moment of his life he bad to. struggle against great difficulties, on the one side from a hostile party within the Church of the Reformation herself, and, on the other side, from the Unitarians who had gained considerable ground in Poland. His works were collected in two vols. by Kuyper (Amsterdam, 1886). (H. DALTON.)
BIBLIoGaAPHY: His life was written by P. Bartels, Elberfeld, 1860; H. Dalton, Gotha, 1881; G. Pascal, 1894. Consult further: M. Goebel, Geschichte des christlichen Labens in der rheinisch‑westfaliachen Kirche, i. 324‑358,
Coblents6 1862;H. Dalton, Lasciana, Berlin, 1898;
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
418
idem, MisceUanea, ib., 1905; Kruske, Johann a Lasco and der Sakramentasereit, Leipsie, 1901.
	LASICIUS, la"si‑si'us, JOHANNES (JAN LASI
CKI) : Polish noble and author; b. in Great Po
land or in Lithuania, 1534; d. shortly after 1599.
Of his life little is known, but about 1557 he was
in Switzerland, where he left the Roman Catholic
Church for the Reformed. He traveled extensively,
not only as a private tutor and private scholar,
but also as a diplomat, being appointed royal en
voy by King Stephan Bathory. Later he seems
to have returned to his native country, where he
occupied himself with teaching and literary work.
He took an active part in the extension of Protes
tantism, the union of the Lutherans, Reformed, and
Bohemian Brethren, and the war on Polish Jesuit
ism and Unitarianism. In consequence of his in
terest in the Bohemian Brethren he wrote his De
origine et institutis Fratrum Christianorum qui Bunt
in Prussia, Polonia, Boemia, d Moravia (written
in 1568), later expanded.into his De origine et re
bus gestis Fratrum Bohemorum . . . lxbri octo (writ
ten after 1575). Neither of these have been pub
lished, nor are even their manuscripts complete,
though the eighth book of the larger work was ed
ited, with a summary of the other books, by J. A.
Comenius(Lissa, Poland, 1649). His main source was
J. Camerarius's Historica narratio (Heidelberg, 1605;
written in 1573). The work of Lasicius is still not
without value, since much of the material at his
disposal is now lost. He also wrote De Russorum,
Moseovilarum et Tartarorum rdigione, saerificiis,
nuptiarum et funerum ritu a diversis seriptorzbus
(Speyer, 1582), which, like his De this Samagitarum
cceterorumque Sarmatarum el falsorum Christianarum
(published, with his De religione Armeniorum, in
Michalonis Lituani de moribus Tartarorum, Lituano
rum et Moschorum fragmina decem, ed. J. Grasser,
Basel, 1615; also ed., W. Mannhardt, Riga, 1868),
is of great value as one of the few sources for a
knowledge of the pagan religion of the Balto‑Slavic
peoples. 	(JOSEPH MfiLLER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Lukaszewicz, Geschichte der reformirten Kirche in Litauen, ii. 182 sqq., Leipsie, 1850; E. W. Cr6ger, Geschichte der alien Braderkirche, ii. 100 sqq., Gnadau, 1866; J. Goll, Quellen and Untersuehunpen zur Geschichte der bohmiachen Brader, i. 74 sqq., Prague, 1878; H. Usener, Gotternamen, p. 82, Bonn, 1896.
LAST THINGS. See ESCHATOLOGY.

LATERAN CHURCH AND COUNCILS: The church of St. John Lateran in Rome and the councils held in the palace connected with it. The palace was the official residence of the popes for over a thousand years. It was originally the property of the rich patrician family of Plautius Lateranus, but was confiscated by Nero, and later became an imperial residence. A portion of it, bestowed by Maximian on his daughter Fausta, second wife of Constantine, became known as the Domus Faust, and she lived there until her husband beheaded her. Constantine then gave it (312) to Pope Melchiades, confirming the donation to Sylvester, in whose pontificate the first basilica, was built here and consecrated in 324. It was overthrown by an earthquake in 896, and rebuilt by Sergius 111. (904911). This second church was destroyed by fire

419	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Laeco
Latimer
in 1308, and a third in 1360. The fourth was erected by Urban V, (1362‑70), and still contains remnants of the fourth‑and tenth‑century buildings. The church of St. John Lateran is properly speaking the cathedral of the Roman diocese; here the pope is bishop of Rome, while St. Peter's is the seat of his universal jurisdiction. Hence the inscription on the west front, designating it " the mother and head of all the churches of the city and the world."
Of the numerous councils and synods convened in the Lateran basilica. five are designated as ecumenical by the Roman Catholic Church. These are: (1) The first general council held in the West, reckoned as the ninth ecumenical, under Calixtus II. (1123), attended by over 300 bishops; its principal purpose was the settlement of the investiture controversy (see INVESTITURE) by the confirmation of the Concordat of Worms (see CoNCoRDATs AND DELIMITING BULLS, I., § 1). (2) The tenth ecumenical, under Innocent II. (1139), with about 1,000 members; to heal the schism caused by the antipope Anacletus II. and to condemn the heresies of Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia (qq.v.). (3) The eleventh ecumenical, under Alexander III. (1179), attended by 400 bishops and 600 abbots and other dignitaries; to end the schism caused by Frederick Barbarossa and to condemn the Waldensian and Albigensian doctrines. (4) The twelfth ecumenical, under Innocent III. (1215; see INNOCENT III.), attended by 412 bishops and 800 abbots and priors; for the recovery of the Holy Land and the general improvement of the Church, including the condemnation of thti Cathari and Albigensians (see NEw MANICHEANS, II.). It is notable as containing in its decrees the first official sanction of the term transubstantiation and the requirement of annual confession. (5) The eighteenth ecumenical, under Julius II. and Leo X. (1512‑17), with an average attendance of 100 to 150 members; the Pragmatic Sanction (q.v.) was abolished and a concordat concluded with Francis I. for the regulation of the status of the Gallican Church (see CONCORDATS AND DELIMITING BULLS, III, 2 § 1). Other important Lateran synods were those held by Melchiades in 313 on the Donatist question (see DONATISM); by Martin I. in 649
against Monothelitism (see MONOTHELITES); by
Stephen IV. in 769 against the iconoclasts (see
IMAGES AND IMAGE‑WORSHIP, II.); and several re
forming synods in the Hildebrandine epocb, of
which that under Nicholas II. in 1059 is noteworthy
for its regulation of papal elections and its imposi
tion of clerical celibacy. See COUNCILS AND SYNODS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY; The literature ou the councils is given under the articles COUNCILS AND SYNODS; CALIXTUS II.; INNOCENCE II.; ALEXANDER III.; INNOCENCE III.; JiyLios IL; and LEo X. Cf• KL. vii• 1498‑1502.
LATIMER, HUGH: English reformer; b. at Thurcaston (4 m. n.e. of Leicester), Leicestershire,
about 1480; burned at the stake at Oxford Oct. 16, 1555. He studied at Christ's College, •Cambridge (B.A., 1510; M .A., 1514; B. D. 1524), and was at first a bitter antagonist of the Reformation, obtaining his baccalaureate of theology by a disputation against the teachings of Melanchthon.
Among his auditors, however, was Thomas Bilney (q.v.), who so influenced him that his antipathy to the Roman Catholic Church equaled his former enthusiasm for it. In his sermons he laid stress on the utter corruption of man and on atonement through the death of Christ, opposing indulgences and the belief in tradition, and urging the need of a translation of the Bible. His opponents now induced Nicholas West, Bishop of Ely, to forbid him to preach in the diocese, but the Augustinian prior Robert Barnes, whose monastery in Cambridge was exempt, opened his church to him, and a large number, including West himself, came to hear him. At the request of the Roman Catholics, Cardinal Wolsey examined Latimer, but soquitted him and gave him permission to preach anywhere in England. In 1530 he preached before the king, and shortly afterward received the living of West Kington, Wiltshire. His sermons caused excitement in his parish, and he was cited to London, threatened with excommunication, and freed only at the intervention of the king, who was pleased with his attitude and talents. At the recommendation of Cranmer, he was appointed chaplain to Anne Boleyn and in 1535 was made bishop of Worcester, where he actively promoted the Reformation. Four years later he resigned, since he would not sign the Six Articles (see Six ARTICLES, ACT OF THE), and then lived in retirement until detected by the spies of Gardiner, when he was confined in the Tower until the accession of Edward.
He declined an invitation to resume his bishopric and preferred to live in the archiepiscopal palace, where ‑a wide field of activity opened to him, since he was now the confidant of Cranmer, whom he assisted in the preparation of the Book of Homilies (See HOMILIES). At the same time he was conspicuous for his charity and his justice, while he was untiring as a preacher, sparing no hypocrisy and no tyranny. His theology, though his sermons were drawn immediately from the Bible, was Lutheran, but his theory of the Eucharist later became Calvinistic through the influence of Cranmer. His activity was checked by the accession of Mary. While on a preaching‑tour he was cited to appear before the council, and refused a proffered opportunity to escape. On Sept. 13, 1553, he was imprisoned in the Tower, being placed in the same room with Cranmer, Ridley, and Bradford. In March of the following year Latimer, Cranmer, and Ridley were taken to Oxford, and on Apr. 18 Latimer was examined, but refused to dispute, basing his arguments solely on the New Testament. After a year and a half of imprisonment, he and Ridley were sentenced to death Oct. 1, 1555, and died at t,~
stake in front Of Balliol C0I1Q24 60 weeks later.
(C. SCHOELLt.)
IBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for a life are his Sermons and Re. mains, ed, G. E. Corrie for the Parker Society, 2 vole., Cambridge. 1844‑4b; and Select Sermons and Letters in

British Rejarmera. vol, iv., London 1830. Sketches have been written by J. C. Ryle, in Bishops and t;lerA, of
Other Daya, London, ig54; idem, in The Bishop, the Pastor and the Preach ib. 1854; W, Gilpin ib. 1755• J. Tulloeh, in I,eadera of the Reformation. Edinburgh. 1859; W. Beck London. 1861; J. J. Ellisw‑York, 1890• R. M. and A. J. Carlyle, London, 1899; It, Demaua, ib.

Latitadiat Laud
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
1903. Consult also: J. Gairdner, The English Church in the 16th Century, ib. 1903; Cambridge Modem History, ii. 538‑541 et passim, New York, 1904; DNB, xxxii. 171‑179; and works on the Reformation in England.
LATITUDIHARIMIS, lot"i‑till"di‑n6'ri‑anz: The name applied to a school of thought in the Church of England, especially in the seventeenth century. It is given somewhat indefinitely to men who differed widely in their theological opinions, but agreed in a spirit of toleration toward dissenters and in laying stress only upon the fundamentals of religion. According to its first representatives, Hales, Chillingworth, and Taylor, attached as they were to the " Church and king " side of the great conflict of their period, the genuine basis of Christian communion was to be found in a common recognition of the great realities of Christian thought and life, not in any outward adhesion to a definite ecclesiastical system. All who profess the Apostles' Creed are, according to them, members of the Church, and the national worship should be so ordered as to exclude none who make this profession. The movement begun by these men passed on into a higher and broader stream of thought with the " Cambridge Platonists " (q.v.), especially Whichcote and Culverwel, who, in a philosophical spirit, dealt with questions touching the very essence of religious and moral principles. They carried forward the cause of religious liberality, and took up and molded into a definite form all the nobler intellectual tendencies of the time. Almost all the influential English divines of the Revolution period, when these principles had free sway, were trained in the Cambridge school, and carried its attitude into the regulation of their public conduct.
The spiritual apathy of the eighteenth century in England has been attributed (as by Canon Perry, History of the English Church, ii., London, 1862, 514 sqq.) to the influence of the Latitudinarians; but it may be truer to regard both as alike results of a reaction from the fierce religious passions and prejudices of the preceding age. The temper of the Latitudinarians finds its modern representative in the so‑called " Broad‑church " party, whose earliest distinguished members in England were Coleridge, Whately, Thomas Arnold, Julius Charles Hare, Frederick Denison Maurice, Charles Kingsley, and Dean Stanley. The tendency to reduce the number of essential doctrines to a minimum and to lay stress rather upon the Christian temper of daily life and earnest work for social betterment, helped forward by the results of the " higher criticism " of the Bible, has become very wide‑spread in recent years, in America as well as England, and not only among members of the Anglican communion but throughout all the Protestant bodies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. J. Conybeare, Church Parties, London, 1854; J. Hunt, Religious Thought in England, 3 vols., ib. 1870‑73 (impartial); L. Stephen, Hut. of English Thought in the 18th Century, 2 vols., New York, 1881; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, vol. ii. passim, London, 1897; J. F. Hurst, Hist. of Rationalism, New York, 1902; J. H. Overton and F. Relton, The English Church (171.¢‑1800), London, 1908; Cambridge Modern History, v. 911 sqq.; KL, vii. 1504‑45.
LATOMUS, lot°o‑mus, BARTHOLOMAEUS (BARTHOLOMAEUS HEINRICI) : Roman Catholic hu‑
420
monist; b. at Arlon (16 m. w.n.w. of Luxemburg), about 1485; d. at Coblenz Jan. 3, 1570. In 1516 he matriculated at the University of Freiburg, where he lectured three yearn later. In 1521 he accompanied Erasmus on a journey into Alsace, and in Sept., 1522, he was in Treves and defended the city against Franz von Sickingen (q.v.). He had already made himself known as a poet by his Vita et obitus Maxieniliani 1. imperatoris (Augsburg, 1519) and an Epiatola Austria, ad Carolum imperatorem (Strasburg, 1521), while he now wrote his Actin memorabilia Francisci ab Siccirtgert, cum Trevirorum obsidione, tum exihts ejusdem (Cologne, 1523). From Trevea he went to Cologne as teacher of dialectics and rhetoric, and in 1530 he became a teacher at Louvain, but soon accepted a call to the high school of Trevea. In 1531 he was in Paris as a teacher at the Collegium Sanctae Barbarae. Three years later he was appointed professor of rhetoric at the CollSge Royal founded by Francis L, and in 1539 visited Italy, settling for a time at Bologna. Thence he traveled to Rome, where his zeal for the Reformation seems to have abated. In 1542 he was appointed councilor at the electoral court of Treves, with a residence at Coblenz. An attempt to introduce the Reformation in Cologne occasioned a controversy with Butzer, who accused him of inconsistency, whereupon Latomus replied that he had never taught the Lutheran doctrine (Reaponsio Bartholomcei Latomi ad epistolam quandnm M. Buceri, Cologne, 1544). Butzer responded with his Scripts duo adversaries (Strasburg 1544), which was answered by Latomua in 1545. After accompanying his elector to the diets of Speyer and Worms in 1544‑45, Latomus was summoned to the conference of Regensburg as a Roman Catholic scholar, where he seems to have‑ written the anonymous Actorum colloquia Ratiabonenais narratio (Ingolstadt, 1546). In 1557 he attended the colloquy of Worms, and when the Lutherans accused the Catholics of having broken up the colloquy, he wrote his Spaltung der avgsburgiachen Konjesaion dtcrch die rteuzn and atreitigen Theologen. This occasioned another dispute with Petrus Dathenus, pastor of the Flemish congregation at Frankfurt, and he also engaged in a controversy with Jacob Andre# on the doctrine of communion in both kinds. In 1569 Jacob of Eltz made line councilor of his electoral court. In addition to his poems and his controversial and occasional writings, the works of Latomus include the following: Summa totius rationis disaerendi (Cologne, 1527), Oratio de sttidiis humanitatis (Paris, 1534), Gratin de latcdibus eloquentice (1535), as well as editions of Cicero, Terence, and George of Trebizond. (G. KAwERAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His letter of June 24, 1533, to Melanchthon, ed. G. Kawerau, is in TSK, Ixxv (1902), 140 sqq. Consult: L. Roareeh, in Bulletin de Z'acad~mie royals de Belgique, aeries 3, xiv (1887), 132‑178; idem, Biographie nationals de Belgique, xi. 424‑434, Brussels, 1891; A. J. van der Aa, Biopraphiaeh Woordenboek der NederEanden, pp. 191 aqq., Harlem, 1885; ADB, xviii. 14 (not particularly valuable).

LATOMUS, JACOBUS (JACQUES) MASSON:
Roman Catholic theologian; b. at Cambron, Hainaut, in 1475; d. at Louvain, Belgium, May 29,
1544. He was educated at Paris, and in 1505 was

4611	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lataid dlnariaa'
called to Louvain, where he was appointed regular professor of theology and canon of St. Peter's in 1535, becoming rector of the university two years later. He protested against the Collegium trilingue founded at Louvain by Erasmus in his De trium linguarum et studii theologici rations dialogus (Antwerp, 1519) and was henceforth stigmatized by the admirers of Erasmus as an enemy of the new learning. Melanchthon and the Lutherans contributed to the general contempt and irony heaped upon the theologians of Louvain and Latomus defended them in his Articulorum doctrine fratris M. Lutheri per theologos Lovanienaes damnttorum ratio ex sacras literis et veteribus tractatoribus (Antwerp, 1521). Luther immediately replied, and four years later Latomus responded with his De primatu pontif eis adversus Lutherum. In the same year he attacked G;colampadius and Beatus Rhenanus in his De confessions secrets (Antwerp, 1525), and also wrote against Tyndale. He was likewise the author of treatises on various doctrinal problems, and in the year of his death published his Duce epistoke, una in libellum de ecclesis, Philippo Melanchthoni adacripta; altera contra orationem fadiosorum in comitiis Ratisbon;nsibus habitsm (Antwerp, 1544). He was the object of the special antipathy of the Lutherans on account of his zeal against heretics and as the theological coadjutor of Franz van der Hulst, the imperial inquisitor in the Netherlands, in 1522. (G. KAWERAU.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Opera appeared, Louvain, 1550. Consult: Biopraphie rationale de Belgique, Id. 434, Brussels, 1891; KL, vii. 1508‑07; Bibliotheca rerorrnata Nedandica, iii., 1905.
LATRIA: See DULIA; SAINTS, VENERATION OF.

LATTER‑DAY SAINTS. See MORMONS.

LAUD, lad, WILLIAM: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Reading Oct. 7, 1573; d. at London Jan. 10, 1645. He was the son of a clothier, and studied at St. John's College, Oxford (B.A., 1594; M.A., 1598; D.D., 1608), being a fellow at the age of twenty. In 1601 he was ordained, and in 1603 became chaplain to the earl of Devonshire. His ability was already winning attention, and his advance was rapid. In 1607 he was made vicar of Stanford, Northamptonshire, and chaplain to Richard Neile, later archbishop of York, who in 1610 presented him to the living of Cuxton in Kent, and he resigned his fellowship to enter upon his parochial duties. In 1611 he was elected head of his college. His position there was difficult; the Oxford of his day was thoroughly Calvinistic, while Laud was equally hostile to Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. The Puritan antipathy to him became intense. Robert Abbot, later bishop of Salisbury, made a violent attack on him in 1614, but his stanch friend Neile gave him the prebend of Buckden in the same year and the archdeaconry of Huntingdon in 1615, while in 1616 he became dean of Gloucester. There, with most excellent intentions, he roused opposition by his besetting fault, lack of tact, when he directed that the altar, placed through Puritan influence in the center of the choir, should be restored to its ancient position against the eastern wall. He increased his unpop‑
ularity in 1617 by wearing a surplice at a funeral in Scotland. His favor with the king, on the other hand, increased. In Jan., 1621, he was installed as a prebendary of Westminster, and six months later was consecrated bishop of St. David's. It is characteristic of his rigid adherence to what he deemed right, that he refused to hold the two offices of bishop and head of St. John's, although he had express permission to do so. In 1622 the affair of the countess of Buckingham, who was inclining toward Roman Catholicism, required him to define his position toward the Church of Rome, which he acknowledged to be a true Church, although neither at that time nor at any other did he approach or accept its characteristic teachings.
With the death of James I. (Mar.. 27, 1625) Laud's real power in the English Church began. Firmly convinced of the justice of his cause, he sought to make the king an instrument in forcing his own views on the entire body of the Church. A firm advocate of the alliance between Church and State, he stressed the doctrine of the divine right of kings until the Puritan house of commons came to regard him as the enemy both of civil and religious liberty. On the other hand, Charles rewarded his fidelity richly. On June 20, 1626, he was nominated bishop of Bath and Wells, and continued his attempts at reform in his new post, notwithstanding Puritan opposition, which he did not try to conciliate. In 1633, on the death of George Abbot, who had been his bitter opponent, Laud became archbishop of Canterbury. About this same time an event happened which was a puzzle at once to the Puritans and the Roman Catholics; Laud, suspected by the Puritans of Roman Catholic tendencies, received the offer of a cardinal's hat, but refused, saying " somewhat dwelt within me which would not suffer that till Rome were other than it is." He entered energetically on his new duties, as head of the Church of England. The use of the prayer‑book was enforced, dignity of worship was insisted on, the churches were repaired, the system of " lecturers," by which sermons attacking Anglican principles were fostered, was curbed, and aggressive Puritanism, as exemplified by the polemics of the overzealous William Prynne (q.v.) was checked. On the other hand, his insistence upon bowing at the name of Jesus, and the placing of the altar at the eastern wall of the church, thus distinguishing it from the communion table of the Puritans, as well as his plea for healthful recreation on Sunday as contrasted with Puritan asceticism, were violently assailed. At the same time he incurred the hostility of the queen, who was a Roman Catholic, by his protest against the favoritism shown her coreligionists. As he himself said he was " very like corn between two mill‑stones."
In the first year of his incumbency of the see of Canterbury Laud attempted to force ritualism on the Scotch churches, which were strongly Presbyterian; the results were disastrous, leading to riots in the churches, particularly in St. Giles', Edinburgh (see GEDDES, JENNY), and ultimately to the renewal of the Solemn League and covenant in 1638 (see COvENANTERB). The unfavor‑

Laud
Lavater	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	422
able termination of the two "bishops' wars" against the Scotch hastened the downfall of the archbishop, already hated for his activity in the privy council, the court of high commission, and the star chamber. On Dec. 18, 1640, he was impeached of treason by the house of commons, and was placed in confinement, although he was not sent to the Tower until Mar. 1 of the following year. He resigned the chancellorship of the University of Oxford June 28, 1641, and lingered in the Tower until May 31, 1643, Prynne meanwhile seizing the opportunity to print damaging extracts from the archbishop's diary. The trial began Mar. 12, 1644, but the commons perceived that they could not count on the house of lords as they had hoped, and in October they resolved to substitute attainder for impeachment. Under threats of mob
v; lence and the claim that parliament could de‑
10
clare whatsoever crime it pleased treason, the lords finally passed the ordinance, and the archbishop was beheaded on Tower Hill six days later.
Laud was a munificent patron of learning, giving 1,300 manuscripts to Oxford and founding a chair of Arabic which is still in existence. His complete works were first edited by W. Scott and W. Bliss (7 vols., Oxford, 1847‑60). According to those of Puritan sympathies, he was narrow, cruel, and an enemy of religion; according to adherents of the Anglo‑Catholic branch of the Anglican Church, he, like his king, was a martyr. In his favor it may be said that his faults were those of his age and his narrowness can readily find its parallel among many who opposed him. His sincerity and adherence to what he believed to be right are beyond question, and the same recognition should be accorded these qualities in him as in his Puritan antagonists. He was persistent in his warfare against the Puritanism which he regarded as injurious to the Church, despite scant hopes of success. He insisted,on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (see APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION), the importance of tradition, and the return to the primitive Church of the first four centuries. On the other hand, he rejected Roman Catholicism as overladen with accretions not recognized by early Christianity. His stress was laid on conformity in ritual, which, in his judgment, would lead to uniformity of heart, but, on the other hand, he did not insist on absolute harmony on matters of mere opinion. In theology he was an Arminian, and postulated the necessity of good works. Though not the first Anglican to advance High‑church views, Laud may not unfairly be regarded as the most prominent early ex‑
ponent of this school. 	(T. KOLDE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The account of the Laud commemoration,
with a bibliography of the literature of the subject, ed. W. E. Collins, appeared London, 1895. The main source for a life, outside of Lauds Works (ed. W. Scott and W. Bliss, 7 vols., Oxford 1847‑60) is the biography by Peter Heylyn. Cyprianus Anglicus London 1668 and often. Modern biographies are by W. H. Hutton, London, 1896; J. Norton, Boston, 1864 T. Rogers, in Historical Gleanings, ser. 2, London, 1870; P. Bayne, in Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution, Edinburgh, 1878; Frances Phillips, in Fathers of the English Church ser. 2, London, 1892; C. H. Simpkinson, ib. 1895; A. C. Benson, ib.
1898; and W. L. Mackintosh, ib. 1907. Consult also: A.
h Wood, Athena Oxonienaes, ed. P. Bliss, iii. 117‑144, 4 vols., London, 1813‑20; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, vol. ii., ib. 1897; W. H. Hutton, The English Church (182'6‑19'1!,), ib. 1903 (valuable); A. Plummer, English Church Hist. (1676‑1649), Edinburgh, 1904; W. H. Frere, The English Church (1668‑16&6), London, 1904; DNB, xxxii. 185‑194. A new ed. of the Relation of the Conference . . . (with) Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, by C. H. Simpkinson, appeared London, 1901.
LAUDS: An office in the breviary (q.v.) which originally was closely joined to matins, but is now frequently separated from it. See MATINS.
LAURA. See MONASTICISM.
LAURENCE. See LAuRENTIUS.
LAURENCE, SAINT: Christian martyr, who suffered at Rome in the Valerian persecution, Aug. 10, 258. He was a disciple of Pope Sixtus II., who made him one of the seven deacons of Rome, and his martyrdom fell four days after that of his master, whose fame he soon surpassed. According to tradition, the Roman prefect, having heard that the Church possessed great treasures, demanded that Laurence should surrender them, whereupon he gathered a crowd of the old, poor, and sick, paupers and cripples, and said, " These are our treasures."
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An excellent means of tracing the literature legends, and institutions in honor of the saint is afforded
in Ceillier, Auteurs sacrea, Table generals, ii. 90‑91.
LAURENCE OF CANTERBURY: Second archbishop of Canterbury; d. at Canterbury Feb. 2, 619. He was one of the original companions of Augustine (q.v.), was sent back to Rome by the latter probably in 598 with a letter for Pope Gregory, and returned to England in 601 with Mellitus, Justus, and others. Augustine ordained him as his successor and he succeeded to the see bf Canterbury on Augustine's death (604 or 605), but never received the pallium. He tried to win over the bishops of the Celtic Church, both in Britain and Ireland, finished and consecratbd the church of St. Peter and St. Paul at Canterbury (613), and translated Augustine's remains to its north chapel. Eadbald, son and successor (616) of the pious Ethelbert, was a heathen and Laurence was on the point of giving up his work arid joining his breth‑
ren, Justus and Mellitus (qq.v:), in Gaul when he opportunely converted the king (c. 618) and was allowed to stay.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bede, Hiet. Eccl., i. 27, 33, ii. 4, 6, 7; Haddan and Stubbs Councils, iii. 61‑70• DCB, iii. 631‑632;

W. F. Hook Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, i. 79 sqq., London, 1860; DNB, i. 79 sqq.
LAURENTIUS: Antipope 498. He was an arch‑presbyter in Rome, the choice of the imperial
party for the papal chair, and was elected Nov. 22, 498, successor of Anastasius II. The Roman party chose Symmachus (q.v.). The decision was left to Theodoric, king of the Ostro‑Goths, who decided in favor of Symmachus; and Laurentius was
made bishop of Nocera (498); but when he returned to Rome, his partizans stirred up constant strife until the Roman council of 501 deposed him.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontificalis, ed. Mommsen, in MGH,

Gest. Pont. Rom., i (1898), 120 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i. 296 sqq.; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 415 sqq.; and literature under SYMMACHUB.

42$	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Laud
Lavater
LAURENTIUS VALLA. See VALLA.
LAVAL ‑MONTMORENCY, la'val"‑m5n"m6"ran"si', FRANCOIS XAVIER DE: First French bishop in Canada; b. at Montigny‑surAvre, department of Eure‑et‑Loir, France, Apr. 30, 1623; d. in Quebec May 6, 1708. He received the tonsure at the age of nine, and a canonry of Evreua at fifteen. Renouncing his rights as heir to the ancient name and estates of his family, he pursued his ecclesiastical career, and was ordained priest in 1647 and made archdeacon of Evreua. In 1653 he was chosen as one of three French bishops to be sent to the Indies, and spent fifteen months in Rome awaiting consecration, but the opposition of the Portuguese government brought the plan to nothing. In 1659 he was sent to Canada as vicar‑apostolic, with the title of bishop of PetrEea in partibus, and from his first arrival there (with the exception of three visits to France to regulate the affairs of his mission and to obtain from the government humane treatment of the aborigines) was active until his death in pastoral and missionary labors. In 1663 he founded the Seminary of Quebec, to which the king assigned tithes that were to be used in supplying clergy for the whole province. The see of Quebec, the first diocesan bishopric in Canada, was founded in 1674, with jurisdiction over all the French possessions in North America. Worn out by his arduous tasks, which were made harder by conflicts with Frontenac and other secular authorities, he resigned his see into the hands of a younger man in 1684, but continued to make himself useful in the affairs of the seminary and the mission until his death. Laval University at Montreal, founded in 1852, was named in his honor. In 1878 his remains were transferred from the cathedral to the seminary; and in pursuance of the investigation connected with the process for his canonization, the coffin was opened in 1901, when his body was found in a perfect state of preservation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. J. Morgan, Sketches of Celebrated Canadians and Persona Connected with Canada, pp. 14 eqq., Montreal, 18&5; H. TAtu, Monseigneur de Laval, premier w0que de Qu6bec, Paris, 1887; A. Gosselin, Le Venerable Franfois de Laval . . : as vie et sea venue, Qpebee, 1890; A. Leblond de Brumath, Bishop Laval, Toronto, 1906.
	LAVATER, la‑va'ter, JOHANN CASPAR: Poet
and theologian, perhaps best known as founder of
the " art of physiognomy," was born at Zurich Nov.
15, 1741; d. there Jan. 2, 1801. He grew up in an
atmosphere of good breeding and earnest piety and
		early displayed a decidedly religious
	Life. nature. At the gymnasium in Zurich
		he had as his teachers Johann Jakob
Bodmer and Johann Jakob Breitinger (q.v.), the
ardent standard‑bearers of a poetical art that had
its wellsprings in refined sensibility. Bodmer
entered into close personal relations with Lavater
and awakened his enthusiasm for friendship and
virtue, for free political ideals, and for the poetry
of Klopstock and Young. His theological growth
and thought were greatly influenced by Bishop
Butler, Samuel Clarke, and their German devotees.
In the spring of 1762 he was admitted to the minis
terium of Zurich. The same year occurred his ac‑
tion against a certain district ruler, whom he socused before the council of oppression and fraud. A trip to Germany and a sojourn of nine months in the Pomeranian village Barth, where he studied with J. J. Spalding, removed him from the agitations which that legal action left in its train. On his return to Zurich in 1764 he busied himself in literary labors of a practical pastoral character. Under the title Der Erinnerer he issued an ethical weekly, which was largely a product of his own pen. Though yearning for the spiritual calling it was not till 1769 that he received his first appointment as assistant at the Orphan House Church, Zurich. He succeeded to the pastorate in 1775. In 1778 he was called as assistant at St. Peter's, Zurich; and in 1786 he was made pastor of this famous church and a member of the consistory.
	Lavater assembled beneath his pulpit a large
congregation every Sunday, attracted by his natu
ralness of delivery, by the direct and practical
matter of his sermons, and by the spiritual afflu
ence and personal conviction of the preacher.
With his warm interest in every individual, his
psychological delicacy of feeling, and his hearty
love of man, he was a pastor quite unique. Not
residents alone, but many strangers chose him as
counselor for their inner life; and his pastoral cor
respondence grew to enormous proportions. He
seldom left Zurich, but he frequently offered hos
pitality to old and new friends in his house. In the
summer of 1774, at Bad Ems, he met Goethe, Base
dow, and Jung Stilling; in 1786 he accompanied
his son to Bremen; and in 1793 he acceded to an
invitation of Count Bernatorff to visit Copenhagen.
His closing years are interwoven with the great
events which brought on the downfall of the an
cient Swiss Confederacy. At the outset Lavater
hailed the French Revolution as the dawn of pop
ular freedom. Later, however, the "liberators"'
deeds of violence filled him with indignation. An
act of great boldness was his Wort eines f reien
Schweizers an die franzdsische Nation (Eng., Fr.,
and Germ., London, 1798), a tract of arraignment
that he sent on May 10, 1798, to the French di
rector Reubell. There was no procedure against him
immediately; but in the following year he was
banished to Basel. He was at home again, when
on Sept. 28, 1799, the French triumphed over the
allies near Zurich. The French entered the city
and a soldier asked Lavater for some wine; but
hardly had he received it when he shot Lavater
through the breast, and this wound ultimately
caused his death. A few days after his departure
each of his friends received a memorial verse that
he had devised for them as a farewell greeting.
Lavater's intercourse with German scholars confirmed in him a tendency to abstain from dogmatic forms of expression in religious matters. His own point of view was distinctly that of a mystic, though he held rigidly to the Bible. All Mib‑
Religious erality and petty disputatiousness was
	Views.	repulsive to him. It was this that set
		him at odds with the Pietista and the
Moravian school. From the observation, made in
1768, that in the New Testament the divine com
munications of power bear a sensibly supernatural

Law sad Gospel
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	424
stamp, and that nowhere in the New Testament is there mention of any ceasing of such sensible manifestations, Lavater inferred that perfect Christianity should still rest upon experiences of this kind. Thus, he acquired the habit of watching curiously and longingly for manifestations of supernatural divine powers. In the animal magnetism of Mesmer, in somnambulism, in Pastor Gassner's exorcisms, he was inclined to detect communications from the silent deity; and to the last he believed that the Apostle John still tarried on earth. His predilection for occult phenomena subjected him to considerable ridicule. However, Lavater recognised the danger of his enthusiastic proclivities and used discretion in the expression of his supernatural anticipations. Regarding Lavater's personality there was much discussion even in his lifetime. The unfriendly and unjust criticisms of Goethe, particularly in the Xenien, have dominated general opinion even to the present; but in other connections Goethe spoke quite differently of Lavater (Cf. Wahrheit and Dichtung, 111. 14). In practical life Lavater manifested deep piety, trust in God, and love toward man, and he fulfilled the duties of his calling with the greatest fidelity.
Lavater was a voluminous author, and he invariably wrote with a view to " general usefulness." Nevertheless, with his tendency to emphasize practical effectiveness he combined the
	Writings.	idealism common to the Sturm urn
		Drang period, characterized by a tend
ency to contemplate and glorify the inner life.
Lavater was a prominent exponent of this move
ment, though, in wealth of ideas and completeness
of form, his contributions to the movement fall far
behind those of Goethe, Herder, and others. At
least three works deserve special mention here. In
the case of the first the new style, for Lavater, ar
rayed itself in the mantle of Klopstock. A lady
had besought him for a poem on the blessedness of
the glorified. As the task grew upon him, he ap
pealed by letters to his friends for counsel. The
poem never took shape, but Lavater published his
letters as Aussichten in. die Etuagkeit (4 vols., Zu
rich, 1768‑78), being speculations as to the condi
tions and powers of man after death. The guiding
genius of Lavater's ideas here is not imaginative
vision, in its proper sense, but psychological and
ethical intuition; though these ideas are neverthe
less expected to withstand the judgment of physio
logical and metaphysical science.
In Physiognomische Fragmente (4 parts, Leipsic, 1775‑78; Eng. tranal., EssaysonPhysiognomy, 3 vols., London, 1789‑98), Lavater sought to portray the greatness of human nature under the wealth of individual characterizations. More independently than elsewhere with Lavater, the esthetic interest stands forth in this work‑the esthetic in that higher sense, wherein form is the symbol of an inner content. At the same time, the physiognomic manner of contemplation was to have for its object the Creator's wisdom and his peculiar working in genial men, as the elect witnesses of his greatness. The ethical individualism that reached its most comprehensive expression in this work stands in funds, mental accord with Goethe's mode of thought, as
against the rationalistic ethics of the Enlightenment. In Pontius Pilatus (4 vols., Zurich, 17821785) Lavater gives a portraiture of humanity in the mirror of Christ's passion history. The author esteemed this work his most important; but Goethe took offense at the form and substance alike; and from that time these two spirits parted. It has even burdened more indulgent readers to find their way through this whirl of ideas; and yet in this work the author's fundamental thoughts, which he was fain to call his " system," might be supposed to appear most completely centered. Humanity, according to Lavater, lives in individualities, whose particular manifestation is consonant with the divine will, and who must mutually advance one another. Each one can " incite and enkindle the slumbering or inactive powers in his fellow "; can help him to become " livelier, freer, more positively existent, more enjoyable, and more surely discerning." Even God becomes enjoyable only through men. Uppermost on the ladder of humanity stands Christ, the " divine man " and the " manlike God." The infinite is enjoyable for us only in the finite; God humanizes himself in Christ. As touching the operations of Christ, Lavater loves the image of the physician and healing: forgiveness of sins is restoration of lost power. The fundamental thoughts of Christian belief thus appear reduced and adapted to the Gospel of the quickening, to the deification of humanity, as advocated by the youthful spirits of the sixties and seventies of the eighteenth century. With Hamann, Lavater is the Christian spirit of this circle.
Aside from Lavater's numerous collections of sermons and many devotional compilations, there are a number of other works deserving mention. The more important of these are: Schweizerlieder (Bern, 1767), a volume of patriotic songs with which Lavater achieved his greatest success as a poet; Das geheime Tagebuch von einem Beobachter seiner selbst (2 parts, Leipsic, 1771‑73; Eng. transl., Secret Journal of Self‑observer, 2 vols., London, 1795), the first of those sentimental disclosures whose more distinguished parallels occur in Goethe's Werther (1774) and Rousseau's Confessions (1781); Abraham and Isaak (Winterthur, 1776), a Biblical drama; Jesus tier Messias (4 vols., 1783‑86), a Biblical epic; Nathanael (1786), an apology for Christianity and the Bible; Handbibliothek fur Freunde (24 vols., 1790‑94); Joseph von Arimathia (Hamburg, 1794), another Biblical poem; and Das menachliche Herz (Zurich, 1798), a poem in six cantos. Lavater also wrote about seven hundred hymns, the best‑known collection being Christliche Lieder (2 parts, Zurich, 1776‑80). Of Lavater as a poet it may be said that, while he had great facility in metrical expression, he lacked creative power.
G. VON SCHULTHE8S‑RECHBERG.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life by his son‑in‑law, G. Gessner, 3 vols., Winterthur, 1802‑03, is excellent as a source, but uncritical in its use of the material. The best life is by F. Muneker, Stuttgart, 1883 (those by F. 1. Herbal, Ansbach, 1832, and F. W. Bodemann, Goths, 1877, are closely dependent upon Gessner). Consult further: J. C. Morikofer, Die schweizeriache Literatur ties 18. Jahrhunderts, Leipsic, 1861; H. Funck, Lavater and tier Dfarkgraf Kart Friedrich von Baden, Freiburg, 1890; idem, Goethe and Lavater. Briefs and Tagebiecher, Weimar, 1901; C. A.

425	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	?.avatar
		Law and Gospel
	Moller, Aug Lavaters Brieftasche, Munich, 1897; J. C.
	Finaler, Lavatere Beziehungen zu Paris . . . 17886,
	Zurich, 1898; ‑Johann %aspar Lavater, 17.¢1=1801, ib.
	1902 (a memorial on the centennial of Lavater's death).
	There is a Life in English, London, 1849.
	LAVIGERIE, ld"v%"zhe‑1''1', CHARLES MAR
TIAL ALLEMAND: French prelate, cardinal, and
promoter of African missions; b. at Bayonne Oct.
31, 1825; d. at Algiers Nov. 26, 1892. He was ed
ucated for the priesthood at the seminaries of St.
Nicholas and St. Sulpice and at the Itcole des
Carmes. In the last‑named, after his ordination
in 1849, he taught Latin literature, and was ad
junct professor of theology at the Sorbonne 1854
1856. He was then appointed director of the French
Christian schools in the East, and in Syria. came
for the first time into contact with the non‑Chris
tian world, recognizing then his missionary voca
tion. In 1861 he returned to Europe, and was
named auditor of the Rota at Rome and two years
later bishop of Nancy. By the influence of Mar
shal MacMahon, then governor of Algeria, he re
ceived the offer of the bishopric of Algiers in 1866,
and accepted it in preference to the coadjutor
archbishopric of Paris which was offered him at the
same time. His new see had just been raised to
the rank of an archbishopric. He took possession
of it in Mar., 1867, and at once plunged into mis
sionary plans. In the next year he organized the
" Society of Algerian Missionaries " (though it did
not receive its final constitution until 1874), and in
1868 the Propaganda gave him the oversight of the
prefecture apostolic of the Sahara. His " White
Fathers," as the members of his society were com
monly called from their habit, penetrated the in
terior, and in 1875 and 1878 some of them at
tempted to reach Timbuctu at the cost of their
lives. In 1878 the whole of equatorial Africa was
placed under their charge. From that year Lar
vigerie was prominent in antislavery agitation, and
it was by his efforts that the great congress on
that subject assembled in Paris in 1890. He was
made a cardinal in 1882. His work in Tunis led
to the reestablishment of the ancient see of Cyprian
at Carthage in 1884, and from Jan. 25, 1885, he
bore the title of archbishop of Carthage and pri
mate of Africa. The policy of toleration of the
French Republic adopted by Leo XIII. was first
enunciated by him at a dinner which he gave to
the officers of the Mediterranean squadron in Nov.,
1890, and was confirmed by a papal brief of the
following February. A selection of his works, con
sisting principally of letters and allocutions (2 vols.)
was published in Paris, 1884.
BIBLIOGRAPI;Y: A. C. Grussenmayer Vingt‑cinq annees
	d'episcopat en France et en Afrique, 2 vols., Algiers, 1886;
	R. F. Clarke, Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave
	Trade, London, 1889; F. Klein, Le Cardinal Lavigerie et
	lea missions d'Afrique, Paris, 1890; idem, Le Cardinal
	Lavigerie et ses auvre8 d'Afrique, ib. 1897; E. Lesur and
	J. A. Petit, Hist. populaire de . . . le cardinal Charles
	Marlial‑Allemand Lavigerie, ib., 1892; A. Perraud, Le
	Cardinal Lavigerie, ib., 1893; F. Bournand, Son Eminence
	le Cardinal Lavigerie, ib. 1893; A. Ricard, Le Cdrdinal
	Laviperie, Lille, 1893; X. de PrOville, UR grand franvais,
	le cardinal Lavigerie, ib., 1894; L. Baunard, Le Car
	dinal Lavigerie, 2 vols., Paris, 1896; J. Simon, Quatre
	portraits, ib., 1896; L. d'Annam, Le Grand Ap6tre de
	l'Afrique, Lyons, 1899.
LAW AND GOSPEL.
The Judaic and Pauline Conceptions (§ 1). The Conception of Jesus (§ 2). The Writings of John (§ 3). Early and Medieval Church (§ 4). Luther (§ 5).
	The history of these two conceptions is the his
tory of the general conception of Christianity, be
cause Christianity as a whole is based upon two
corresponding categories which form the standard
of the religion of redemption‑that of the obliga
tory demand which human activity is to fulfil, and
that of the saving grace which God bestows. Juda
ism teaches that only he whom God declares justi
fied upon the basis of the fulfilment of the law of
Moses partakes of the promised salvation to be re
vealed in the Gospel. Apart from the ritualism and
		national particularism of the Jews,
	i. The this theory is defective in so far as the
	Judaic and relation between God and man is eon
	Pauline sidered, after the analogy of civil law,
Conceptions. as one of human service and a divine
		equivalent for it, from which follow
irreligious self‑dependence, heteronomy, and he
donistic motives of morality. For Paul both law
and Gospel are revelations of God concerning the
way to eternal life, which to him is of a spiritual
nature, a life of justice, love, and sanctity. The
law, however, does not lead to eternal life, not only
because it consists merely of ritual provisions, but
also in so far as it demands virtues like justice,
love, and sanctity. Just because it merely demands,
it can not accomplish its aim over against the flesh;
it even increases the lust of the flesh and incites
transgression. But, apart from the flesh, the law
can not give life, because it induces man to secure
his justification before God as a legal claim of re
ward. Therefore it is not a permanent, but only a
transitory, order of God. It was to awaken knowl
edge of sin and thus prepare the way for the per
manent divine order, namely that of the Gospel,
an order of grace which pardons and gives gratui
tously and demands nothing more than faith,
which gives God his honor by humbly renouncing
the assertion of one's own will and trusting in
God's grace and omnipotence. What the new
order signifies may best be seen from the stand
point of faith. On the basis of the assurance of
God's intention of grace in Christ, the believer
knows himself to be justified and adopted by God
and reconciled with him. He has the assurance
that he will escape the wrath of judgment, inherit
eternal life, and finally be endowed with perfection.
The consciousness of his freedom from the law
leads him to the consciousness of the duty to con‑
centrate his will upon the struggle against the lusts
of the flesh and the earnest endeavor to fulfil the
will of God and the moral conditions of eternal
life. Paul does not consider Christians as freed
from the need of moral instruction and he expects
Christian tact only as a result of the Christian's
self‑examination and self‑education. But herein
he does not fall back upon the standpoint of the
law, because the reasons on which he bases his in
dividual rules of life exclude the heteronomy of
ritualistic norms, and also all hedonistic motives.

Law and
Law,	GEo®pel	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	428
Hebrew
Thus the permanent part in the law is its content, in so far as it corresponds to our conception of salvation and as the Gospel realizes it, while its legal form is only a temporary means. Since this was only the final result of Paul's reflections, it was possible for him to concede previously to the legal form that it must be satisfied by the death of Christ before the order of grace can become efficacious.
Jesus had a different conception of law and Gospel. Not only does he use the terms differently, in. so far as " the Gospel " was for him the message of the nearness of the kingdom of God, understood in eschatological sense, and in so far as he subjected his disciples to " the law," not dissolving it, but advocating its fulfilment to its fullest extent, but also there is an essential difference, in so far as Jesus, instead of starting from the experience of the present redemption from guilt and the power of sin, appealed to the will by means of fear and hope so that justification of life might
2. The be brought about, and in so far as he, Conception instead of deriving all salvation from
	of Jesus.	his own person and will, placed both
		behind what men are to do and what
God will do. But in the innermost essence, there
is no real difference between Paul and Jesus. The
seeming contrast is to be explained from the fact
that the sermon of Jesus is a means of the edu
cating and hence redeeming activity of the bearer
of revelation, while Paul speaks out of the con
sciousness of the redeemed. Jesus filled the tra
ditional formula " through fulfilment of the law
to reward " with a new content‑the same which
Paul advocated. This is manifest from the most
peculiar thought of Jesus, that of Adoption (q.v.).
Without infringing upon, the ritualistic commands
of the law, he asserted, as that which pleases God,
only that attitude of the heart which manifests
itself in childlike trust in God, and in imitation of
God's disposition in the love of our fellow men.
He excluded the legal conception of our relation to
God by demanding an unassuming childlike spirit
and calling the reward a superabundant reward of
grace. Thus he changed the demand; but adop
tion was for him more than an obligatory demand.
For himself, his life and activity were the reflex of
the love of God as he had experienced it in his
heart, however much in individual cases obedience
conformable to duty was not strange to him. But
as he disclosed his knowledge of the Father to his
disciples and assured them of God's forgiveness
and care, and as the impression of his unity with
God gave emphasis to his work, his admonition to
trust in the Father and become similar to God
grew powerful in such a way that it raised it into
the life of adoption which will be perfected in the
coming kingdom of God. Therefore those who
have heeded his admonition become, first of all
certain of the fact that they have been saved.
Under the presupposition of the consciousness of salvation, the writings of John place the self‑activity to be expected of the regenerated, especially that of love, under the view‑point of a new commandment, whose fulfilment is the condition for the continuance and perfection of the new life. This
does not mean the reestablishment of law; for the experience of the love of God is the motive of the fulfilment of the commandment. The
3. The new law in the sense of John is not a
	Writings	sum of commandments as they are
	of John.	given to servants, but a disclosure of
		the entire and uniform will of God
as it is made to friends of Christ. Its fulfilment is
immediate life and blessedness. Moreover, the
consciousness of duty toward God's commandment
is overshadowed by the consciousness of depend
ence upon the preserving, purifying, and perfect
ing activity of God.
In the early Church Christianity was at first understood as new law in the Judaistic sense, in so far as free persons have to acquire the eternal reward by their own fulfilment of moral demands, and grace is limited to knowledge of God and forgiveness of sin in baptism. This was not altered when Irenaeus disclosed Christ again as
q. Early the Redeemer, because redemption in and his sense is only physical; or when the
Medieval	institution of penance mediated for‑
	Church.	giveness of sins also after baptism,
		because this relates only to particu
lar sins and does not give an individual certainty
of the state of grace. The Roman spirit even in
tensified the legal conception, since the relation to
God was considered after the manner of civil law,
and there was not only demanded that the Chris
tian should earn for himself the reward of God, but
should give him satisfaction also for sins by volun
tary painful works. Augustine renewed the doc
trine of Paul concerning law and Gospel, law of
works and law of faith; both aim at the realization
of love to God as the highest good, but are opposed
to each other in so far as this love is only demanded
by the law, while it is actually given as a blessing
in the Gospel. " By the law of works God says to
us, ` do what I command thee '; but by the law
of faith we say to God, 'give rrie what thou com
mandest' " (De spiritu et litters, xxii., NPNF, 1st
ser., v. 92). They are related to each other in so
far as the law, by inciting lust, shows that the mo
tive of its fulfilment is not love to God, but " the
fear of punishment " and " the love of gain," and
thus compels us to seek faith, which as hope and prayer takes refuge in God's mercy. But his mercy infuses love of him or of righteousness into the soul of the believer, by means of which the will after its cure fulfils the law without the law, and desires no other reward but progress and perfection, being conscious that the fulfilment is due to the grace of God. But Augustine does not come up to the standard of Paul since he knows grace only as a secret power and has not attained an absolute certainty of salvation. Moreover, he combined with Paulinism the common view of Catholicism concerning the law, by repeatedly esti‑
mating the achievements due to grace a6 merits and satisfactions. In the Middle Ages this com‑
bination of Augustine remained as basis, but by enlarging the conception of merit and applying it to actions which are possible without grace and necessary for its preparation, and by deriving all hope of salvation by means of the uncertain de‑

487
duction from natural secret effects of grace, the law practically gained the upper hand.
Luther put law and Gospel into the strongest opposition. The law demands and frightens, the
Gospel bestows and consoles; but they 5. Luther. belong together and exhaust the whole content of Scripture. In order to understand this, we must distinguish in the law content and form. Its content is the unchangeable will of God; without its fulfilment there is no salvar tion; but it is not to. be fulfilled merely as a condition of salvation, but in the spirit of " a loving delight in the law," contrasted with the common pleasure‑seeking piety. Thus Luther advanced a step beyond Augustine and the mystics, since with them hope preponderates, while for him eternal life begins here on earth in reconciliation with the law; and since their love of God is a retired, holy indifference, while his love of God manifests itself in a trust in God which is elevated above sins and death and governs the world and manifests itself in the love of our fellow men. According to its form, the law brings man before the " throne of judo ment." It is a demand and threat of punishment against a contradicting will. In this respect it is only temporary; for the thought that the favor of God might be earned is not only impossible in consideration of original sin, but " a dream which is false in itself," a robbery of the honor of God, idolatry; God is not a " huckster," it is his nature to give everything gratuitously. It is true, the content of the law as humble trust in God and inclination toward good conduct contradicts the form of the law as a rule of retribution, but in this very form it is a means of God to accomplish his purposes. On the one side, it guards against external transgressions and upholds public peace; on the other side; by disclosing and magnifying our spiritual transgressions it destroys our self‑sufficiency and awakens a feeling of guilt and longing after forgiving grace. After this has been accomplished, the Gospel steps in‑by assuring us of forgiving grace, it awakens love to God which gladly fulfils the law and thus experiences salvation already in this life. The Gospel has three characteristic traits. It is promise or attestation of the divine will of grace to the consciousness, it is promise of the forgiveness of sins, it is promise of the forgiveness vouchsafed in Christ for the awakened conscience. It is the active cause of faith which supports conscience without blunting it. With this faith the whole redemption is realized in principle; for it is the moving power for the fulfilment of the law. By extending over the whole life, it is the fulfilment of the first commandment, and by becoming a prayer of thankfulness and supplication, that of the second; and the desire to pass on our blessings to others produces in us an inclination to love our fellow men, and by paralyzing the attraction of worldly goods and evils by means of trust in God it gives the power to realize this inclination. But all these abilities Luther traces back also to a second gift beside forgiveness, namely, the Holy Spirit. As the unchangeable will of God, the law is also the measure for the manner of the realization of the order of grace. In this respect, the inviolabil‑
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Law and Gospel Law, Hebrew
ity of the divine will as expressed in the law must
be fully satisfied. This is the case in so far as the
forgiveness of sins in the penitent is the very means
of realizing its content. But Luther postulated
also the satisfaction of the law by the vicarious
satisfaction of Christ, in contradiction to his state
ment that the law has only a pedagogical import.
The fulfilment of the law is to take place in a natu
ral manner, without reflection on the law, just as
the good tree brings forth its fruits. The good must
spring from a good disposition; but by this compar
ison Luther places himself in contradiction, not
only to Christ and John, but also to Paul, since it
excludes reflection on every objective norm and
the motivation of good‑will by the thought of the
aim of eternal life. But since for Luther the new
life of the Christian is still in a state of growth and
maintains itself only by continual struggle with
the remnants of sin, he teaches that the Christian
still needs education through the objective law.
As he can think, however, of an objective order of
the law only in the legal norm of right which
threatens punishment, instruction and admoni
tion by the law appear to him as something that is
in contradiction to the spiritual condition of the
new man; and thus Luther makes Christian life
dualistic, instead of showing how it stands under
a moral law without losing the character of its
freedom. 	(J. GOTTSCHICgt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature on §§ 1‑3 is given under BIBLICAL THEOLOGY; that on § 4 under DocTRINEs, HIaTORY OF. On § 5 consult: J. KSstlin, Luthers Theologie, Stuttgart, 1863; T. Harnaek, Luthers Theologie, i. 475480, Erlangen, 1862; S. Lommatzseh, Luthers Lehre, Berlin, 1879; E. Trbltaeh, Vernunft and Ofjeubarung bei J. Gerhard and Melanchthon, pp. 127‑143, Gottingen, 1891
On the general problem: S. H. Tyng, Lectures ore the Law and the Gospel, New York, 1848; J. M. Armour, Atonement and Law, London, 1885. Consult also ATONEMENT.

LAW, HEBREW, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL.
I. Origins and Development.
Semitic Background (§ 1).
Effects of Settlement in Canaan (§ 2).
The Hebrew Codes (§ 3).
TI. Administration of the Law.
The Judges (§ 1).
The Procedure (§ 2). III. Criminal Law.
Development from Lex Talionis (§ 1).
Capital Offenses (§ 2). IV. Rights of Persona.
V. Rights of Property.
	Real Estate (§ 1).
	Debt (§ 2).
	Injury to Property
VT. Inheritance.
I. Origins and Development: According to the ancients, law and justice came from God. The Babylonian King Hammurabi received his mandates from the hand of the sun‑god Shamash, while Yahweh gave the tables of the law to Moses on Sinai. Throughout their history Yahweh was the source of law for the Israelites, his precepts (toroth)
being communicated to them by his r. Sem‑ servants, the priests. Matters of little itic Back‑ importance were not referred to him, ground. but where the wisdom of man was in‑
sufficient, or where no fixed law had yet been established, the decision of the divinity was sought through the priests. This ruling was then regarded as a norm in similar cases and thus became law, deriving its authority from the fact that it was the will of God. This sanction gained additional force in Israel, sipce there Yahweh was

Law, Hebrew	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	428
regarded as a God who watched over righteousness and justice and hated iniquity. When the Israelites first emerged into the light of history, thgy possessed neither a firm political organization nor law. Instead of written law tribal custom prevailed, and in place of an executive magistracy stood the tribal deity, whose will was represented by the customs of the .tribe. It might, then, be supposed that each tribe would create its own custom, without regard to its neighbors, but it must not be forgotten that since the dawn of history Arabia and the Syro‑Arabian desert had been under the influence of Babylonian civilization, and that in Babylonia as early as 2200 B.C. law had reached a height in the Code of Hammurabi (q.v.) which was not equaled even in the Hebrew Book of the Covenant in the late regal period. Contact with ancient Arabian culture, which attained a noteworthy eminence among the Minaeans in the second half of the second millennium B.C., is confirmed by the Israelitic narrative itself when it states that Moses modeled his code according to the counsel of the Midianite Jethro.
The settlement in the West Jordan country was a momentous epoch in the development of law. In its content law must have been widely extended, since new conditions brought new legal problems; but the independent development of Israelitic law had not yet begun. Since the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi, it may be regarded as certain that the Canaanites among whom the
a. Effects Hebrews had come and whose culture of Settle‑ they adopted had a highly systemment in atized code. This Canaanite system Canaan. was deeply influenced by Babylonia, and this explains why Israelitic law, even after being taken from the Canaanites and worked over in the Book of the Covenant, shows so close an affinity with the Code of Hammurabi. This agreement is seldom verbal, but the spirit and the basal concepts, except in religion, are essentially the same, although the Babylonian code deals with a far more highly developed and more coherent political organization. The entire system of legal procedure was transformed by the new home of the Israelites. Nomadic Bedouins have no judges clothed with executive authority, but fixed abodes change clans and families to local communities and territorial unions. The heads of the communities, or elders, become the magistracy, and behind their enactment stands the power of the community. Thus a form of public law was evolved, and the community assumed control of the protection of individual rights.
The rise of the Israelitic kingdom resulted in a definite system of law and in legal uniformity, in so far as this had not already been achieved. The date of the codification of the unwritten law is unknown. It may have taken place at an early date at the sanctuaries, but the most prim‑
	a. The	itive document known is the so‑called
	Hebrew	Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 24
	Codes.	xxiii. 19). The Book of the Covenant
		does not pronounce great principles of
law or abstract legal doctrines to be applied in indi
vidual caaes.at the discretion of the judge, but it is
a collection of special instances and is restricted to the problems of daily life. It deals with the status of slaves, with injuries to life or limb, and with injuries to property, whether daughter or slave, cattle or fruit. There is as yet no commercial law, while the Code of Hammurabi is highly developed in this respect. The Book of the Covenant was evidently a compilation of existing customary law, and it is nowhere stated that it ever received sanction as official, nor is it known who compiled the collection or who caused it to be made. It was possibly not official, but may have been drawn up by private persons, or, in other words, by the priests. Far different is Deuteronomy, which was officially proclaimed as the law of the State in the eighteenth year of Josiah (621 B.C.). Though similar to the Book of the Covenant in form and content, it marks an important step in advance in that it seeks to bring all civil and religious law within the scope of the point of view of the theocracy. The characteristic of this code is its humanitarianism in providing for the poor, for servants, for widows, and for orphans. The Priestly Code was introduced as the law of the State after the exile (Neh. viii.‑x.). Taken as a whole, it contains only religious law, although it also considers individual questions of civil life in so far as they concern the hierocracy of the priestly code. In it is incorporated the independent " Law of Holiness " (Lev. xvii.‑xxvi.), which proceeds from the point of view of the sanctity of the people. The written law, as extant, concerns only a small portion of civil life; unfortunately no other codification of customary law has been preserved. The Torah became the infallible basis for all further development of the law, its deficiencies being supplied by casuistic interpretation or by a codification of the law of custom. The law thus deduced was termed Halakhah, and with its recognition the scholars of the law became the actual legislators. The results of their activity are summed up in the Mishnah (see TALMUD), which is based on an earlier work dating from the time of Rabbi A.kiba ben Joseph, who flourished between 110 and 135 A.D., under whose direction the Halakhah, which had been transmitted orally, seems to have been codified.
II. Administration of the Law: Legal jurisdiction was originally lodged in the family (Gen. xxviii. 24; Deut. xii. 18 sqq.), or in the " elders," or heads of the clans and tribes (Ex. xviii. 13 sqq.;
Num. xi. 16 sqq.; Deut. i.13 sqq.). Par‑
i. The allel with this was the decision of the judges. priest as the servant of God, while
Moses, according to the narrative, laid the most difficult problems before God (Ex. xviii. 15, 19). The judicial power of the elders was only moral; they possessed no executive authority and with the settlement in Palestine were superseded by the heads of the local communities, who acquired executive power, since a permanent community naturally had an interest in the maintenance of the law. This court of elders retained its judicial authority in the regal period (II Sam. xiv. 4 sqq.; I Kings xxi. 8 sqq.), while Deuteronomy recognizes them as an organized body with full judicial powers (Deut. xix. 12, xxi. 2 sqq., xxii. 15, etc.), and as

429	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Law, Hebrew
the representatives of the community (Deut. xvii. 7). It must accordingly be assumed that though the Book of the Covenant does not state it, its " judges " were the elders. The priests retained their judicial power at all times. In the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxii. 9, R.V.) the decision of God is sought at the sanctuary in cases of unusual difficulty, while in Deuteronomy the Levites constitute an ecclesiastical court which decides also secular matters. The tendency oP Deuteronomy is to enlarge their jurisdiction, and to leave the elders the right of punishment only in those derelictions which directly concern the family (Deut. xxi. 1 aqq., 18 sqq., xxii. 13 sqq., xxv. 7 sqq.). At that period the king was the chief judge (II Sam. xiv. 4 sqq.), although his ruling might be sought at the very first, especially in difficult cases (II Sam. xv. 2 sqq.; I Kings iii. 16 sqq.; II Kings xv. 5). This right of the king was then transferred to his officials, who judged in the king's name. Unfortunately it is not known whether or how the authority of the royal officials was conditioned by the elders and priests. The Chronicler ascribes to Jehoshaphat the creation of a supreme court in Jerusalem and the appointment of judges in the individual cities (II Chron. xix. 4‑11), but it is impossible to assume that the high priest and the " prince of Judah " were the spiritual and secular presidents of this court, although it would agree with the statement of the Chronicler that David had given 6,000 Levites the office of judge (I Chron. xxiii. 4, xxvi. 29). The local judges in the time of Ezra were chosen from among the elders of the city (Ezra vii. 25, x. 14). In the Greek and Roman period such judges were found everywhere (Judith vi. 16; Josephus, Wars, II., xiv. 1; cf. Matt. v. 22, x. 17; Mark xiii. 9). In small towns the council of elders exercised judicial functions (Luke vii. 3), while larger places seem to have contained special courts. In later times local courts usually had seven members, and twenty in larger cities.
Judicial procedure was oral, although the later period seems to have known written complaints (Job xxxi. 35 aqq.). The judges sat at the citygate (Deut. xxi. 19, xxii. 15; Amos v.
s. The 12, 15), while Solomon built a " porch Procedure. of judgment " at Jerusalem (I Kings vii. 7). The plaintiff lodged his own complaint; if he failed to do so, no one else brought the matter to the attention of the court, for there was no prosecuting attorney. Proof was by witnesses, the `aw requiring the concordant testimony of two witnesses, especially in cases involving capital punishment (Deut. xvii. 6, xix.15; Num. xxxv. 30; for an exception of. Deut. xxi. 18 aqq.). According to the Talmud (cf. Josephus, Ant. IV., viii. 15) adult freemen alone were eligible as witnesses, slaves and women being excluded; according to Lev. v. 1, compulsory testimony was common. False witness was punished by the lex talianis (Deut. xix. 18 sqq.). In cases where witnesses could not be found, an oath was required (Ex. xxii. 6‑1.1), and in the older period the Ordeal (q.v.) was frequently invoked as a means of proof (Ex. xxii. 8; I Sam. xiv. 41; Joshua vii. 14), although later this was re‑
stricted to the single case of the charge of adultery (Num. v.). Torture was first employed as a means of obtaining testimony during the Herodian rule (Josephus, Wars, I., xxx. 2‑5).
III. Criminal Law: In the Code of Hammurabi criminal law is under the absolute control of the State, while in the Old Testament it is still in process of development from private to public law.
Private law belongs primarily to the r. Develop‑ lex talionis (" Eye for eye, tooth for meat from tooth, . . . wound for wound," Ex.
the Lex xxi. 24‑25). This principle domTalionis. inated even public law, as is shown by
the Code of Hammurabi, although it was originally the norm for private revenge. The man who had been injured had the right to do to his injurer the same harm as had been done him; among savage peoples revenge is regarded as a righteous and holy sentiment. This appears most clearly in the case of murder, where revenge was not merely justified but sanctified, and was a kinsman's duty. Absolute lex talionis, as is clear from Blood Revenge (q.v.), makes all controversies eternal, and it therefore marks a long step in advance when the Israelites at an early period substituted in certain cases the wergild for blood‑revenge. Such compensation could not escape regulation by general custom, and ancient Israelitic usage required such settlement in personal injuries (Ex. xxi. 18), but paralleled it with blood‑revenge, except in the case of manslaughter (Ex. xxi. 30). A third stage is public criminal law, in which society deprives the individual of the right of punishment, which is then executed by the authorities. Revenge thus becomes punishment, which is regulated by the interests of the whole community. Punishment has, moreover, a religious end. Sin, especially murder, brought on the land a defilement which was purged by punishment (cf. II Sam. xxi., xxiv.; Num. xxxv. 33; Deut. xix. 19). This assumption of guilt by the State involved a family in the punishment of its members, and in aggravated cases children suffered with their fathers (Joshua vii. 24; II Kings ix. 26; cf. also the general principle that Yahweh visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children). The concept of blood‑revenge is still retained, and if the avengers are unable to seize the murderer, his family is slain instead (cf. II Sam. xxi. 6 sqq.), a principle found both in the Code of Hammurabi and in modern custom among the Bedouins, which was not abrogated among the Israelites before Deuteronomy (Deut. xxiv. 16). Punishment by retaliation occurs only in case of bodily injury, and substitutional punishment, frequent in the Code of Hammurabi, is mentioned but once (Deut. xxv. 12). The death‑penalty was by stoning (Lev. xxiv. 14; Deut. xvii. 5), since such cases as those described in II Sam. i. 15 and II
Kings x. 7, 25 were not the execution of a punishment ordered by the court. In certain instances the penalty was increased by burning or
hanging the corpse, thus depriving the criminal of the benefit of burial (Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9), although Deuteronomy (xxi. 22) mitigated this portion of the punishment. Crucifixion and strangulation (the latter, according to the Talmud, the usual

Law, Hebrew
Law, William
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
form of punishment) were introduced by the Romans. Burning to death seems to have been praotised in the earliest period (Gen. xxxviii. 24) but in later times it was restricted to gross immorality (Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9), while the Code of Hammurabi enacts it as the penalty for incest. Punishment by beating is first mentioned in Deut. xxv. 1‑3, but the crimes for which it was inflicted are taken for granted, although the maximum number of blows is fixed at forty (later forty less one; cf. II Cor. xi. 24; Josephus, Ant., IV., viii. 21, 23). Imprisonment is first mentioned in the post‑exilic period (Ezra vii. 26), but dungeons, stocks, and iron collars were frequently employed by the kings (Jer. xx. 2, xxix. 26 sqq.; II Chron. xviii. 25). In all other cases, as in the Code of Hammurabi, fines alone were exacted, and were regarded as a recompense for plaintiffs rather than as punishments. The sense of liability is well developed, as it is in the Code of Hammurabi. A careful distinction is drawn in the Book of the Covenant between murder and manslaughter (Ex. xxi. 12 sqq.), and the right of self‑defense is recognized (Ex. xxii. 2), while accidental injuries are distinguished from intentional.
In their details the punitive regulations which have been preserved are very incomplete. According to the ancient view, death alone could atone for murder (Gen. ix. 5‑6), and the later law was thus obliged to recognize the right of blood‑revenge
(Deut. xix. 1‑13; Num. xxxv. 16‑21), a. Capital although the tendency to transform
Offenses. this into punishment inflicted by the
authorities was early manifested (II Sam. xiv. 4 sqq.). The factor here at work was the distinction between murder and manslaughter. In Deuteronomy (xix. 1‑13) previous hatred is considered a proof of the intentional character of the deed, and in the Priestly Code the use of a deadly weapon bears with it the same implication (Num. xxxv. 16 sqq.). Murder was punished with death (Num. xxxv. 31), yet the murderer had the right of asylum at a sanctuary (Ex. xxi. 14), or, in later times, at special cities of refuge (Deut. xix. 2‑3; Num. xxxv. 11 sqq.). There it was to be decided whether the fugitive was guilty of murder or manslaughter. In the former case he was to be driven from his asylum (Ex. xxi. 14; Deut. xix. 11 sqq.; Num. xxxv. 11 sqq.); in the latter eventuality the guilty man was free within the city, although he could not obtain full amnesty until the death of the high priest (Num. xxxv. 25; post‑exilic). In case of malice, the lex talionis was employed, but in injuries inflicted in the heat of quarrel the defendant had only to pay the expenses for the healing of the plaintiff, and recompense him for the time of his illness (for another case of fine, cf., Ex. xxi. 22). Among offenses against morality, incest, pederasty, and bestiality were punished with death (Lev. xx. 10 sqq.; Ex. xxii. 18), and the same penalty was inflicted on both parties guilty of adultery, except that, when force had been used, the woman was acquitted (Deut. xxii. 25‑26), the law agreeing herein with the Code of Hammurabi. The seduction of an unbetrothed girl was regarded as an injury to property (Ex. xxii. 15; Dent. xxii. 28‑29), although
430
the daughter of a priest was punished with death (Lev. xxi. 9). A significant trait of Hebrew law is the fact that it, in antithesis to the Code of Hammurabi, comprised crimes against religion under civil law, punishing not only idolatry and witchcraft (Ex. xxii. 18, 20) with death, but even, in Deuteronomy (xiii. 6‑18), any temptation to these crimes, while the Priestly Code was still more severe (Lev. xxiv. 16).
IV. Rights of Persons: Full rights were enjoyed only by adult freemen who were capable of bearing arms. Lists of the citizens seem to have been prepared at an early period (Ex. xxxii. 32), and are frequently mentioned in later times (e.g., Isa. x. 19). In Num. i. 3 and Lev. xxvii. 3 the age of twenty is taken to be that at which arms may first be borne, and it may be assumed that this rule held good at an earlier period. The legal freedom of women, on the other hand, was limited.
V. Rights of Property: The regulations coming under this category are concerned with purchase, debt, and indemnity. The purchase and sale of movable property, as well as many other commercial matters regulated in the Code of Hammurabi,
were not controlled by. Hebrew law. r. Real Preexilic Israel was not a commercial
Estate. people. In the sale of real estate,
custom laid restrictions on the owner. The ground in which father and grandfather were buried (I Kings xxi. 3) was sacred to the son and grandson, and the law sought to keep the property in the family, giving those kinsmen who had the right of inheritance the privilege of preemption and redemption (Jer. xxxii. 8 sqq.). The Priestly Code enacted the right of redemption of real estate to be exercised within a year (Lev. xxv. 25 sqq.). The antiquity of this custom is unknown, but it is a mere theory that every fifty years purchased property was restored to its original owners without compensation (Lev. xxv. 13 sqq.). Certain formalities were customary in purchase. Witnesses were summoned (Gen. xxiii. 7‑20), and in the time of Jeremiah it was usual to draw up a deed (Jer. xxxii. 6 sqq., 44). An ancient symbolic act in the transfer of real estate was the giving of a shoe to the purchaser by the seller in token of his renunciation of the property, a ceremony no longer clear in origin (Ruth iv. 7; cf. Ps. Ix. 8; Deut. xxv. 9, xi. 24?).
Debt receives less detailed treatment than in the Code of Hammurabi. Debts exist, even according to the view of Deuteronomy, only because the poor exist; the Old Testament knows nothing of a system of credit in connection with trade. The
tendency of the laws, therefore, was to 2. Debt. protect the debtor against oppression.
Usury was accordingly forbidden, but unfortunately there is no statement respecting a just rate of interest (Ex. xxii. 25). In ancient Babylonia interest ran as high as forty per cent. and averaged twenty per cent. In the Israelitic code the creditor received a pledge, but could retain an upper garment, the covering of the poor, only until sundown (Ex. xxii. 26). Deuteronomy went still further, and prohibited the taking in

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Law, Hebrew
Law, William
pledge of any article necessary for livelihood (Deut. xxiv. 6, 13, 17, xxx., xxiv. 10‑11, and Code of Hammurabi, 241). In a like spirit interest was absolutely forbidden (Deut. xxiii. 19‑20; cf. Ezek. xviii. 16‑17), at least so far as compatriots were concerned. In the case of insolvent debtors, as in Babylonian law (cf. Code of Hammurabi, 54), the levy seems to have included the person, but though the creditor could not deprive the debtor of his property, be was permitted, as in the Code of Hammurabi (116, 117), to sell the debtor into slavery together with his family and property (II Kings iv. 1; Neh. v. 5, 8; Isa. 1. 1; Jer. xxxiv. 8 sqq.), although this servitude ended after the lapse of six years (Ex. xxi. 2; cf. Code of Hammurabi, 117, which enacts that a wife and her children shall work only three years; on the bondage of the daughter, cf. especially Ex. xxi. 7 sqq.). In Deuteronomy this law becomes a command to remit all debt in the seventh year (Deut. xv. 1 sqq.), although with little success (Deut. xv. 9 sqq.; Ezek. xvii. 7 sqq.; Jer. xxxiv. 8 sqq.). To Rabbi Hillel was ascribed the device of the prosbul, a declaration before the court that the creditor reserved the right to demand payment of the debt at any time without regard to the year of release. In the Priest Code the manumission was required to take place in the year of jubilee, but kindly treatment of the enslaved debtor was enjoined (Lev. xxv. 35 sqq.; cf. Code of Hammurabi, 11:‑116).
Indemnity for injury to property could be exacted only where guilt was proved, as in theft and embezzlement, wherein the Hebrew law was more lenient than the Code of Hammurabi, which here frequently imposed the death penalty. The restitution for theft was to be double the
3. Injury amount of money (comp. Code of Ham‑
		to	murabi, 120, 124, 126), four times the
	Property. number of sheep, and five times the
			number of oxen (Ex. xxii. 1‑3), Guilt
was also evidenced by gross carelessness (Ex. xxi.
29‑36, xxii. 5, 12). If a man's guilt was proved
and he was unable to make restitution, he was
sold into slavery as a debtor, but where there was
no evidence of guilt, there was no compensation
(Ex. xxii. 7‑8, 10‑11, 13). Deuteronomy contains
no details on these subjects, but the Priest Code is
occasionally milder, enacting that one who con
cealed anything entrusted to him; or anything
stolen or found, make complete restoration and add
one‑fifth of the value as a fine (Lev. vi. 20‑24).
VI. Inheritance: The law of inheritance was agnatic throughout. Unlike the Code of Hammurabi (172), Hebrew law denied the inheritance to the wife, since she formed part of the heritable estate of her husband. Daughters likewise were incapable of inheritance, this being another point of divergence from the Code of Hammurabi (180, 183, 184). Lack of male offspring gave the inheritance to the nearest agnate, who also had the duty of blood‑revenge. The sons of different wives had equal right of inheritance, although the. firstborn son received a double portion (Deut. xxi. 17). The father might, however, favor one son rather than another, and might even transfer the inheritance of the first‑born to a younger son, as to the
first son of a favorite wife, although this was contrary to custom and was forbidden by Deuteronomy (Gen. xlim 3, xxi. 1 sqq.; I Kings i. 11‑13; Deut. xxi. 15‑17). It is unknown whether the real estate was divided, nor is it certain whether the inheritance of the sons by a concubine (Gen. xxi. 11) was equal to that of the sons by a wife, although much seems to have depended on the good‑will of the father. It was not until the later period that the law allowed daughters to inherit in case there were no sons (Num. xxvii. 4 sqq.), although in such instances they were obliged to marry a husband from their father's stock (Num. xxxvi. 1‑12), in order that the estate might not pass to an unrelated family. It was an exceptional act of favor to allow daughters to inherit together with sons (Job xlii. 15), but even in case of a childless marriage the wife had no right of inheritance, the heirs then being the kinsmen of her husband.
I. BENZINGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Klein, Daa Geseta fiber das gerichtliche Beweiaverfahren nach moeaiech‑falmudiachem Recht, Halle, 1885; J. D. Michaelis, Moaaiaches Recht, 6 vols., Frankfort, 1775; Frenkel, Der gerichtlichw Beweis, Berlin, 1846; J. L. Saalachuts, Dos mosaiache Recht, ib. 1853; L. Diestel, Die religiften Delikte im israeliliachen Strafrecht in Jahrbacher flir proteatantiache Theologie, v (1869), 297 sqq.; M. Duschak, Dae moeaische Recht, Vienna, 1869; A. Kuenen, Religion of Israel, ii. 250‑286, London, 1875; idem, National Religions and Universal Religions, pp. 82 eqq., ib. 1882; A. P. Bissel, The Law of Asylum in Israel, Leipsic, 1884; Smith, OTJC, pp. 298 sqq., 428‑430, and lectures xi.‑xii.; G. Wildeboer, De Pentateuchkritik en het mozaiache Strafrecht, in Tijdachrift vor Strafrecht, iv. 205 aqq., v. 251 sqq.; A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten and Juden zu den Fremden Freiburg, 1896; E. Day, Social Life of the Hebrews, New York, 1901; C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament, vol. iv., ib., 1907; Schiirer, Geschichte, ii. 143 sqq., Eng. transl., consult Index; DB, iii. 64‑72; EB, iii. 2714‑30; JE, vii. 633638; the literature cited under HAMMURABI AND HIS.CODE; and the works on Hebrew archeology and antiquities by DeWette, Ewald, Keil, Benzinger, and Nowack.

LAW, WILLIAM: English controversial and devotional writer; b. at King's Cliffe (28 m. n.e. of Northampton), Northamptonshire, 1686; d. there Apr. 9, 1761. He studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge (B.A., 1708; M.A., 1712), and was ordained and elected fellow of his college in 1711. He was a fearless nonjuror, and, in consequence of his refusal to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration on the accession of George I., forfeited his fellowship, and all prospects of advancement in the Church. Subsequently he took up his residence at Putney as tutor to Edward Gibbon, father of the historian. In 1740 he returned to King's Cliffe, where he spent the rest of his life in literary labors and works of charity. Law was one of the most eminent English writers on practical divinity in the eighteenth century. He was a genuine mystic, although he lived in a worldly and rationalistic age, and is best known by his Serious Call to a Devout arid Holy Life (London, 1729 and often; new ed., 1906). With the exception of The Pilgrim's Progress, no book on practical religion in the language has, perhaps, been so highly praised. Gibbon, Dr: Johnson, Doddridge, and John Wesley, vie with each other in commending it as a masterpiece. At one time, Law was a kind of oracle with Wesley, and his influence upon early Methodism

Lawlor
Lasartats
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
was of an almost formative character. In his later years he became an enthusiastic student of Jakob Boehme, but his strong churchly feeling and his sound English sense kept him from the wild errors and extravagances into which some of Boehme's disciples fell. In The Spirit of Prayer (1750; new ed., 1893) and The Spirit of Love (1754; new ed., 1893), Law unfolds his mystical views, and answers the objections which had been made to them. They are remarkable works, and abound in passages of uncommon spiritual force and beauty. Other well‑known writings by Law are: Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor (1717‑19; new ed., 1893), the most forceful piece of writing produced by the Bangorian controversy (see HOADLY, BENJAMIN); and A Practical Treatise on Christian Perfection (1726; abridged in part by J. Wesley, 1740 new ed., 1902). All of these may be found in his Works (9 vols., 1762; a beautiful reprint ed. G. B. Morgan, 9 vols., Brockenhurat, 1892‑93.) Recent volumes of selections from Law are: Characters and Characteristics of William Law (ed. A. Whyte, London, 1893); Wholly for God (ed. A. Murray, 1894); The Power of the Spirit (ed. A. Murray, 1896); and The Divine Indwelling (ed. A. Murray, 1897); Liberal and Mystic Writings (New York, 1908).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. H. Overton, William Law, Nonjuror and Mystic, London, 1881 (satisfactory); [C. Walton), Notes and materials for an Adequate Biography of William Law, ib. 1854 (privately printed); L. Stephen, Hours in a Library, 2 ser., ib. 1876; J. H. Overton, The Church in England, ii. 222, 228‑231, 235, 240, ib. 1897; ideal and F. Relton, The English Church (1714‑1800), ib. 1906; DNB, xxxii. 236‑240; and the literature under NO:NJORORB, especially T. Lathbury, Hiat. of the Non. jurors; Cambridge Modern Hist., vi. 81 sqq., 1909.
LAWLOR, HUGH JACKSON: Church of Ireland; b. at Ballymena (33 m. n.n.w. of Belfast), County Antrim, Dec. 11, 1861. He studied at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1882; M.A., 1885), was ordered deacon in 1885, and ordained priest in 1886. He was curate of Christ Church, Kingstown, Dublin 1885‑93, and senior chaplain of St. Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh 1893‑98. Since 1898 he has been professor of ecclesiastical history in the University of Dublin, where he had already been a&sistant to Archbishop King's lecturer in divinity in 1890‑93. He was university preacher in 18981905, and has been examining chaplain to the bishop of Edinburgh since 1895, precentor of Trinity College since 1900 and of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, since 1902, and curate of Bray, Dublin, since 1905. He has edited: The Rosslyn Missal (London, 1899); G. T. Stokes' Some Worthies of the Irish Church (1900); and The Diary of William King . . . Kept during his Imprisonment in Dublin Castle, 1689 (Dublin, 1903); and has written: Chapters on the Book of Mulling (Edinburgh, 1897); The Kilcormic Missal (Dublin, 1900); Thoughts on Belief and Life (sermons; 1900); and The Manuscripts of the Vita Sancti Columbani (1903). He has also contributed to the Peplographia Dublinen, ais (London, 1902) and The Psalms of Israel (1904).

LAWRENCE, WILLIAM: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts; b. in Boston May 30, 1850. He was graduated at Harvard in 1871 and the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass.,
in 1875. He was ordered deacon in 1875 and priested in 1876. He became rector of Grace Church, Lawrence, Mass., in 1876, professor of homiletics and pastoral theology in the Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge in 1884 (dean from 1888), and bishop of Massachusetts in 1893. He has written: Life of Amos A [dams] Lawrence (his father; Boston, 1888); Visions and Service (1896); Life of Roger Wolcott, Governor of Massachusetts (1902); and Study of Phillips Brooks (1903).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. 8. Perry, The Episcopate in America, p. 359, New York, 1895.

LAY BAPTISM. See BAPTISM, III., 4.

LAY BROTHERS, LAY SISTERS. See MONASTICISM.

LAY CLERK: A designation given to certain members of the establishment of an English cathedral, whose duty it is to take a regular part in the choral services; they are sometimes known also as lay vicars, or vicars‑choral. As in the case of the parish clerk, the name comes down from a time when these functions were performed by actual clerics; the qualifying adjective " lay," though etymologically importing a contradiction, being added to mark the difference in modern usage.
i
LAY COMMUNION (Lot. communio laica)
Originally the status of the lay members of the
Church as contrasted with the clergy, but restricted
after the differentiation between clergy and laity
to a deposition from the higher estate of the former
to the lower rank of the latter. It is mentioned in
this sense as early as the third century, especially
as a punishment parallel with Deposition (q.v.).
The punishment implied that a clergyman thus de
posed resumed the status of a layman and had
henceforth only lay rights, so that he received com
munion outside the choir instead of within the
sanctuary, like the clergy. III modern Roman
Catholic usage the development of the doctrine of
the " indelible character " of bishops and priests
has rendered absolute reduction to lay commu
nion impossible. A cleric of major orders can be
released from the duties of his office, especially
from the vow of celibacy, only by dispensation of
the pope. Those who hold minor orders, however,
may return to the estate of laymen, and if they
marry, they lose their benefices and all other priv
ileges. 	(P. HINscaIVsf.)

LAY READER: A term applied in the Anglican Communion to laymen who are licensed to read portions of the service, usually in the absence of a clergyman. The system received its earliest wide development in the United States, where the number of clergy was inadequate to the needs of missionary expansion, and the services of the Episcopal Church were in many places kept up for long periods almost entirely by the ministrations of lay readers; but in recent years it has been adopted to a considerable extent in England also. In the United States a lay reader is required to have a license from the bishop, which is granted for a year at a time, and his powers are minutely defined by the canons.

		Lawlor
433	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lazarlaw
LAYING Oft OF HANDS: A religious rite, both Jewish and Christian. In the Old Testament, as a prescribed act, it appears first in Lev. i. 4, for the burnt‑offering; in iii. 2 for the peace‑offering; in iv. 4 for the sin‑offering; in xvi. 21 for the sending away of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. It was used also in connection with the setting apart of priests (Ex. xxix. 10, 15, 19), and with the solemn punishment of idolatry (Lev. xxiv. 14). In
Num. viii. 10, 12 the close connection In the Old between the use of the rite in sacrifice
Testament. and that in consecration of priests is
seen; whence it follows that it can not be used to denote the designation of representatives by the people, but rather signifies that they belong to God. The laying on of hands in the case of the scapegoat is a symbolic expression of participation between subject and object, the latter becoming or doing what properly belongs to the former. In the punishment of idolatry a similarly close connection is established between the bearing of witness and the punishment of the crime. It is an easy transition to the setting apart of Joshua as leader of the people by the laying on of the hands of Moses (Num. xxviii. 18; Deut. xxxiv. 9), in order to symbolize the participation of the younger in the exalted mission of the elder. From all these cases it appears that the act either meant the marking out of a special destiny for the object, expressed in the words which accompanied the act (for some words were always used), or else it signified transmission, either of an office, or of a blessing, or of sin.
In the New Testament there is no express mention of the rite as a part of the law. But Christ performed a number of his miracles of healing by the laying on of hands (e.g., Mark v. 23, vi. 5, vii. 32), and his blessing was conveyed by the same act (Mark x. 13, 16). The same thing is related of the miracles of healing performed by the disciples (Acts vi. 6, ix. 12, 17, xxviii. 8). The expression
of the will to heal or bless by this act In the New is so natural that there is no need to
Testament. attribute any magical effect to the
mere touch, against which would be the failure of the parallel passages to mention it, and the same working of the word at a distance (e.g., Matt. viii. 5‑13). The imposition of hands is merely symbolic of the healing will; but in accordance with the new dispensation, the effect closely accompanies the sign. It is not surprising to find the laying on of hands permanently connected with the washing away of sin in baptism and with the appointment to ofces in the Church. In the former connection it so appears in Acts viii. 17 and Heb. vi. 2, but not as a separate, substantive act accompanying the baptism and with a blessing of its own. According to Acts ii. 38, the communication of the Holy Ghost is not a thing separate from baptism, but follows upon it. The separation of the laying on of bands from baptism, and its elevation into a right reserved to bishops in Confirmation (q,v.), is both contrary to Scripture and derogatory to the sacrament of baptism.
According to Acts vi. 6, xiii. 3, the appointment to office in the Church is conferred by prayer and VI.‑28
the. laying on of hands, which here again is nothing more than a natural symbol for the transmission of the power of the Holy Spirit necessary to their exercise. It is analogous to the Jewish priestly consecration (Num. viii. 10), as also to the ordination of readers or members of
In the the Sanhedrin in the post‑Maccabean
	Church.	period. But once more the New‑Tes
		tament symbolism differs essentially
from the Old; for as long as the service of the
Church had not developed into a hierarchical con
stitution, the commissioning of a man with an
office was supposed to include the transmission of
the powers necessary to its exercise. Thus Paul
could write to Timothy (I., iv. 14, II., i. 6) of the
charisma which was in him through the laying on
of his hands and the hands of the presbytery, and
warn him (I., v. 22) to lay hands suddenly on no
man. For later development, see CLERGY, IV.;
CONFIRMATION; ORDINATION. (H. CREMERfi.)
&sLloasarax: DCA, i. 828‑‑828: DB, W. 84‑85: BB, u.
1958.
LAYMANIS MISSIONARY ' MOV13MT. See MOVEMENT, LAYMAN~s M1581pNARY.

LAZARISTS: 1. A name sometimes given to the Mekhitarists from their monastery on the island of San Lazzaro (2 m. s.e. of Venice). See MEKaITARI$TB.
2. The common name of the congregation of secular priests for missions founded by St. Vincent de Paul from the old hospital of St. Lazare in Paris, where they had their mother house. See VINCENT DE PAUL, SAINT.
3. The Knights of St. Lazarus, organized for the care of the sick, especially lepers, probably at Jerusalem about the middle of the twelfth century. The tradition that the order was founded by the leprous King Baldwin IV. may be partially authentic, in that he probably showed special favor to a lazaretto in Jerusalem at that period, and knighted the brothers in attendance at it. After the thirteenth century, they spread throughout Europe, chiefly in Sicily, Lower Italy, and GerMany, and most of all in France, where the lazaretto at Boigni (near Orl6ans) became the seat of the Grand Master. About 1490 the order was suppressed in Italy by Innocent VIII., only to be restored by Leo X. In 1572 they were united by Duke Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy with the Knights of St. Maurice (founded 1434 and following Benedictine rule), and the two orders now dovoted themselves to the defense of Roman Catholic doctrine against Protestantism. The Knights of Saints Lazarus and Maurice still exist in Italy as a secular order established by Victor Emmanuel I. of Sardinia in 1816.
	In France the Knights of St. Lazarus w qre united
in 1607 by Henry IV. with the Knighg of Our
Lady of Mount Carmel, and under Louis XIV. they
enjoyed special favor in 1672, receiving the estates
of all extinct or suppressed Prench orders. After
1691, however, these estates were withdrawn, and
henceforth the order slowly declined, being almost
annihilated in the Revolution and being formally
suppressed in 1830.

Lea	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	434
Lebanon
		As special insignia both the Italian and French
	branches bore a green cross with eight points, while
the French division added lilies between the arms
	of the cross and pictures of Our Lady of Mount
Carmel and Lazarus.rising from the dead.
			(O. Z6C3CLERt.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Helyot, Ordrea monaetiquea, i. 32, 54; Heim
		bucher, Orden and Kongregationen; G. Uhlborn, Die
		christliche Liebeathatigkeit im Mittelalter, pp. 272‑274,
		493‑494; Currier, Religious Orders, p. 218.
		LEA, HENRY CHARLES: Historian; b. in
	Philadelphia Sept. 19, 1825; d. there Oct. 24,
	1909. He was educated privately, and in 1841
	entered the publishing‑house of Lea and Blanchard,
	in his native city, becoming a member of the firm
	in 1851 and having sole control from 1865 to 1880,
	when he retired from active life. During the Civil
	War he was a member of the Union League, and
	always retained interest in municipal and civil re
	form. He is universally known by his studies of
	medieval ecclesiastical history, which comprise:
	Superstition and Force: Essays on Wager of Law,
	Wager of Battle, Ordeal, and Torture (Philadelphia,
	1866); Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the
	Christian Church. (Boston, 1867; 3d ed., 2 vols., New
	York, 1907); Studies in Church History: Rise of Tem
	poral Power, Benefit of Clergy, Excommunication
	(Philadelphia, 1869); History of the Inquisition of the
	Middle Ages (3 vols., New York, 1888); Chapters from
	the Religious History of Spain connected with the
	Inquisition (Philadelphia, 1890); Formulary of the
	Papal Penitentiary in the Thirteenth Century (1893);
	History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in
	the Latin Church (3 vols., 1896); The Moriscos of
	Spain, their Conversion and Expulsion (1901); and
	History of the Inquisition of Spain (4 vols., New
	York, 1906‑07); Inquisition in the Spanish Depend
	encies (1908).
		LEAD (LEADS), JANE: English mystic; b. in
	Norfolk 1623; d. in London Aug. 19, 1704. Her
	maiden name was Ward. Receiving the, usual ed
	ucation of the well‑to‑do English girl of the period,
	she heard, in her sixteenth year, a marvelous voice,
	which so impressed her that she devoted herself
	thenceforth to meditation. At the age of twenty
	one she married her kinsman William Lead, and
	after his death in 1670 lived in retirement in
	London. Her innate tendency to mysticism was
	furthered by her study of Jakob Boehme and her
	acquaintance with John Pordage (q.v.), an Anglican
	clergyman, after 1652; but she was not content with
	the visions of others, her vivid imagination speedily
	producing phantasms of her own. These occurred
	almost nightly and were recorded after 1670 in her
	diary, A Fountain of Gardens; but her writings
	made little impression until 1693, when one of
	them was translated into Dutch. She now became
	famous in an hour. An important event in her
	life at this period was her acquaintance with an
	Oxford scholar Francis Lee, who became succes
	sively her adopted son secretary, and son‑in‑law,
	and gave her writings their present literary form.
	About the pair gathered a circle of mystics who
	termed themselves the Philadelphian Society and
	kept in close touch with Germany and Holland. In
	her latter years she had to struggle against poverty
and jealousy, though she was freed from the for
mer by an annual pension of 400 florins given by
Baron Kniphausen. She regarded herself as the
mere instrument of her visions; and her works,
though lacking in originality and style, exercised
a wide influence in limited circles. Their charac
ter is sufficiently indicated by the titles: The
Heavenly Cloud now Breaking: The Lord Christ's
Ascension‑Ladder Sent Down (London, 1681); The
Revelation of Revelations, etc. (1683); The Enochian
Walks with God, Found out by a Spiritual Traveller,
whose Face towards Mount Sion above was set, etc.
(1694); The Laws of Paradise, Given Forth by Wis
dom to a Translated Spirit (1695); The Wonders of
God's Creation Manifested in the Variety of Eight
Worlds as They were made known experimentally
unto the Author (1695); A Message to the Philadel
phian Society, Whithersoever Dispersed over the
Whole Earth (1696), followed by two similar mes
sages in 1698; The Tree of Faith or the Tree of Life
Springing up in the Paradise of God, etc. (1696);
The Ark of Faith (1696); A Fountain of Gardens
Watered by the Rivers of Divine Pleasure and Spring
ing up in all the Variety of Spiritual Plants, etc.
(4 vols., 1696‑1701); A Revelation of the Everlast
ing Gospel Message (1697); The Ascent to the Mount
of Vision (16987); The Signs of the Times: Fore
running the Kingdom of Christ and Evidencing when
it is to Come (1699); The Wars of David and the
Peaceable Reign of Solomon, etc. (1700), with au
tobiographical material; A Living Funeral Testi
mony, or Death Overcome and Drowned in the Life
of Christ (1702); and The First Resurrection in
Christ (Amsterdam, 1704; dictated shortly before
her death). 	(ARNOLD RtEGG.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An autobiography exists in Secha myatiache
	Tracuttlein, pp. 413‑423, Amsterdam, 1696. Consult:
	DNB, xxxii. 312‑313; I. W. Jaeger, Hiatoria eccleaiaatica
	IL, ii. 90‑117, Hamburg, 1717; C. Walton, Notes for an
	Adequate Biography of W Law, London, 1854; Canon
Jenkins, in British Quarterly Review, July, 1873, pp. 181187.
LEAGUE AND COVENANT, THE SOLEMN. See COVENANTERS, § 4.

LEANDER, SAINT: Metropolitan of Seville; b. at Cartagena, Spain, c. 550; d. Mar. 13, 600 or 601. The brother of Isidore of Seville, Fulgentius, bishop of Ecija, and Florentina prioress of a nunnery, he was for many years a monk, and even at this early period seems to have exercised the influence on the Visigothic Prince Hermenegild, son of Leovigild, which ultimately converted him from Arianism to the catholic faitb. Leander was exiled when Hermenegild rebelled against his father; and between 579 and 582 he went to Byzantium to induce Tiberius II. to send troops to the aid of the catholic party headed by his convert. Despite the powerful influence of Gregory the Great, Leander met with no success at Byzantium. After his return to Spain, he was consecrated bishop, or metropolitan, of Seville, probably in 584. In this capaoity he not only confirmed Leovigild's successor Recared in his conversion to orthodoxy (58'7), but also aided materially in overcoming the opposition of the Arian bishops and in effecting the final conversion of the Visigoths from Arianism. He pre‑

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Lea
Lebanon
sided over the famous Synod of Toledo (589) which
marked this event, and was the chief agent in add
ing the fioque to the creed of the Visigothic Church.
His activity in behalf of his Church is also shown
in his correspondence with Gregory the Great, who
not only answered his questions carefully and cor
dially, but also sent him the pallium in 599 and
dedicated to him his Moralia in Jobum. The ex
tant works of Leander are: Regula sanctimonialium,
sive libellus de institutions virginum et contemptu
mundi ad Florentinam sororem, and Homilia de
triumpho ecelesix ob conversionem Gothorum (de
livered in the synod of Toledo). Both are printed
in MPL, lxxii. 873‑898. He also wrote two trea
tises against Arianism, one a sharp polemic, the
other an orthodox catechism. In the ecclesiastical
art of Spain Leander is always represented with his
brother Isidore. 	(O. Z&gr.Eat.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Isidore of Seville, De var. ill., chap. x1i.; ASS, March, ii. 275‑280; ASM, i. 378‑385; P. Gams, Kirchengeachirhte von Spanien, ii. 2, pp. 37 eqq., 66 IKiq., 3 vole., Regensburg, 1862‑79; E. Wires, in Porachungen zur deutachen Geachichte, 1872‑73; idem, in ZHT, 1873, parts i., iv.; idem, in ZWT, xxv (1885), part iii., xxvi (1886), part i., pp. 36‑50; DCB, iii. 637‑840; and the literature under ISIDORE OP SEVILLE.
LEATHES, STANLEY: Church of England; b. at Ellesborough (20 m. e. of Oxford), Bucks, Mar. 21, 1830; d. at Much Hadhan7 (7 m. n.e. of Hertford), Herts, Apr. 30, 1900. He studied at Jesus College, Cambridge (B.A., 1852; M.A., 1855), and after serving various churches was appointed in 1863 professor of 'Hebrew in King's College, London. He was also perpetual curate of St. Philip's, Regent Street, London, 1869‑80, and rector of Cliffeat‑Hoo, Kent, 188089 and of Much Hadham, Herts, 1889‑1900. He became a member of the Old‑Testament company of revisers in 1870, and from 1876 until his death was prebendary of Caddington Major in St. Paul's Cathedral, examining chaplain to the bishop of Lichfield after 1891, and examiner in Scripture to the University of London after 1892. Among his publications, special mention may be made of his Witness of the Old Testament to Christ (London, 1868); The Witness of St. Paul to Christ (1869); The Witness of St. John to Christ (1870; these three volumes the Boyle lectures for 1868‑70); The Structure of the Old Testament (1873); The Cities Visited by St. Paul (1873); The Gospel its own Witness (Hulsean lectures for 1873; 1874); The Religion of the Christ (Bampton lectures for 1874; 1874); The Grounds of Christian Hope (1877); The Christian Creed, its Theory arid Practice (1877); Old Testament Prophecy, its Witness as a Record of Divine Foreknowledge (Warburton lectures; 1880); The Foundations of Morality: Discourses upon the Ten Commandments (1882); Characteristics of Christianity (1883); Christ and the Bible (1885); The Law in the Prophets (1891); and The Testimony of the Earlier Prophetic writers to the Primal Religion of Israel (1898).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, Supplement, iii. 85‑86.
LEBANON: The western part of the mountain system of central Syria, starting near the sources of the Jordan and stretching northeast about one hundred miles. Over against it to the east is Antilebanon, while between the two ranges is the
plain of Caele‑Syria (q.v.). The general character of the entire system is that of a mighty mountain wall between the coast and the interior. Lebanon begins at the south where the Litany breaks through on its way to the sea; its southern half reaches northward to the pass through which the railroad from Beirut to Damascus crosses at a height of 4,870 feet, and its highest point is Jabal Baruk, about 6,870 feet above the sea; its northern half extends to the valley of the Nahr al‑Kabir where the latter flows westward into the Mediterranean. The northern half reaches a higher altitude and a greater variety of form than the southern. Instead of a single line of mountain crests there are numerous extended plateaus, reminding of the Alpine formation, though the Lebanon outlines are somewhat softer in outlife. These plateau heights are known as Jabal Sannin (8,060 feet), Munaitim (8,680 feet), Khaswani (c. 9,000 feet), " the Cedars " (Arab. Arz Libnan, " Cedars of Lebanon "), and Akkar (6,610 feet). Arz Libnan culminates in two ranges of peaks running north and south, each row having five summits, of which the highest is Dahr al‑Dubab in the western range, altitude 9,470 feet, just a little below the line of perpetual snow, if the observation of C. Diener be accepted. Yet there are isolated places where in some years snow lies continually in the hollows (Jer. xviii. 14), and moraines reveal traces of the glaciers of former times.
The cedar groves near Bsharrah (40 m. n.e. of Beirut) cover part of a somewhat hilly basin about 6,180 feet high, and are surrounded by a high wall pierced by two gates which, however, continually stand open. Leo Anderlind counted on Oct. 23, 1884, 397 trees, of which eight were outside the wall, none of them higher than seventy‑eight feet.
The most vigorous trees are near the The Cedars. little Maronite chapel, one of which at
the height of four feet from the ground has a girth of about forty‑five ieet. Of trees like this, which bespeak a great age, there are seven. Rauwolf in 1573 counted only twenty‑four trees, but Burckhardt in 1810 reckoned in all 375, showing a very large increase during the last 300 years. Modern investigation shows the timber not to be especially durable and aromatic, but it was much valued in ancient times (I Kings vi. 20 aqq.; Isa. xiv. 8, xxxvii. 24, xliv. 14; Ezek. xxvii. 24, and the cuneiform inscriptions).
The width of the stretch between the mountains and‑ the sea varies from seventeen miles at Sidon, to near eighteen and a half at Beirut and tW'eptYsix and a third at Tripolis. The Valleys of drainage in the south are largely the result of erosion in their lower course, in the upper course following geological cleavage. The northern watercourses are in general formed by gorges, the sides of which by the varying color of the strata and the mixture of vegetation present a beautiful effect. Sometimes these brooks have a subterranean channel, that of the Dog River (Nahr al‑Kalb) having been followed for nearly two‑thirds of a mile.
The descent from the crest to the shore is accomplished in great terraces, each of which has in popular usage its own name. The lowest is al‑Sahil,

Lebanon
Led& Bible
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
436
the second is al‑Wast, while the highest is al‑Jurd; in the latter the chalky formation overlies the sandstone. The chalk formation is the conserver of the water from the melting snows, which percolates until it reaches the sandstone and is then brought to the surface. The numerous springs thus created have much to do with the fertility and consequent population of the region below. Much snow falls on the range during the snowy season, and the lower limit of snowfall is between 1,550 and 1,850 feet above the sea.
The flora in consequence of these favorable conditions is very rich, and the zones marked by the terraces have each its own characteristic plants. For those of the coast plain see PHENICIA. In the middle region are found the mulberry, olive, and fig, then come nuts, the apricot, peach, almohd, pear, apple, pomegranate, quince and pistachio.
Vineyards are productive at an elevaFlora and tion of 3,100‑1,600 feet, at which ele‑
	Fauna.	vation diligence has produced some
		spots of singular fertility. The earlier
and native flora of pines and cypresses has been
superseded by the plane, maple, linden, arbutus,
and oak. Alpine flora commences at an elevation
of 7,400 feet. The zone of the mulberry is fertile
also in fragrant plants such as the myrtle and the
lavender (cf. Hos. xiv. 6). Continued occupation
of the country and consequent despoilment has
cleared away the former rich growth of forest so
often mentioned in the Old Testament. Some
pieces of woodland still remain and give shelter to
the panther, bear, jackal, hyena, wild boar, and
gazelle, though archeology shows that a much
larger fauna existed in the woods which once
reached nearly to the coast. There are indications
that the primitive inhabitants of the region were
cannibals.
The lofty and abrupt character of Lebanon as well as the great number of gorges make access exceedingly difficult and fit it as a retreat not easy to approach. It has consequently been the refuge during the centuries of those in difficulties, who found there security and freedom. Concerning the
inhabitants of Lebanon only too little Inhabitants. is known. Possibly the earliest known
to history were the Amorites (q.v.), since the Amor of the Egyptian inscriptions includes this region. In the fourteenth century the Amorites fought the Egyptians, in the next century they broke out to the south, and when Israel settled in Canaan, they had founded two kingdoms in the mountain region and across the Jordan. Compare with this the independent Druse principality, 1595‑1634 A.D. Among the historical examples of refugees to the region with achievement of comparative freedom is the case of the Maronites and the Druses (qq.v.). Present conditions are the result of the interference of Western powers, particularly of France. The region is now under a Christian governor who pays a yearly tribute to the Sublime Porte.
To the east of Lebanon is the great valley of Caele‑Syria, which begins at the Lake of Homs (altitude about 1,545 feet), and rises toward the south, bounded on the east by the range of Antilebanon.
Its present name is ab.Bika, " the Valley " (cf. the " valley of Lebanon " of Josh. xi. 17). The middle
and southern part has a heavy fertile Caele‑Syria. red‑brown soil, though the climate is
	somewhat harsher than on the western
slope. The highest point is not far from Baalbek,
whence the Orontes flows toward the north and the
Litany toward the south. Antilebanon begins at
the south with the mighty Hermon. North of the
post‑road to Damascus the range spreads out fan
shaped into different spurs named by the inhabi
tants the " Eastern, Middle, and Western Moun
tains." Damascus lies under the " eastern " range
and in this range rises the Amana of 11 Kings v.
12, the modern Barada. In the cuneiform in
scriptions the names Amana and Senir (cf. Dent.
iii. 9) are used for Antilebanon, Senir especially for
the northern part. 	(H. GUTHE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, London, 1906; J. L. Porter, Five Years in Damascus, 2 vols., ib. 1855; M. C. A. Churchill, Mount Lebanon, 4 vols., ib. 1862; R. F. Burton and C. F. T. Drake, Unexplored Syria, ib. 1872; O. Frass, Drei Monate am Libanon, Stuttgart, 1876; G. Ebers and H. Guthe, Pahdstina in Bild and Wort, ii (1884), 1 sqq.; C. Diener, Libanon, Vienna, 1886; Leo Anderlind, in ZDPV, x (1887), 89 sqq.; M. Blanckenhorn, Enturickelunp des Kreidesystems in Mittelund Nord‑Svrien, Cassel, 1890; K. von Fritsch, Zumo$ena Hdhlenfunde im Libanon, Halle, 1893; G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, London, 1897; DB, iii. 90‑92; EB, iii. 2755‑60; JE, vii. 656‑657.
	LEBBAEUS, leb‑bi'os (LEBBEUS). See JUDAS.
	LEBWIN (LIAFWINE, LEBUINUS): English
missionary to the Frisians and Saxons in the early
part of Charlemagne's reign. He went to Gregory,
abbot and priest at Utrecht (d. 775 or 776; see
GREGORY OF UTRECHT), who sent him with a cer
tain Marcellinus or Marchelm to what is now Over
yssel. Many of the people were already Christians
and Lebwin built a church at Deventer and an
other on the west side of the Yssel. Inroads of
heathen Saxons occurred, however, and according
to Lebwin's biographer, Hucbalct, he followed them
to the heart of their country and appeared at their
national assembly at Marklo on the lower Weser,
clothed in his priestly vestments with a crucifix in
one hand and the Gospel in the other, and delivered
a	threatening address. The infuriated warriors
prepared to slay him with stakes which they tore
from the ground and sharpened; but 6.n old noble
took his part and the outcome was that Lebwin
was allowed to return to Deventer and work there
unmolested the rest of his life. He is the patron
saint of Deventer and is honored on July 25 and
Nov. 12. The story of a missionary of the same
name in Flanders, the patron of Ghent, who is said
to have died c. 660, is probably an imitation of
Lebwin of Deventer by one Falsarius of the eleventh
century. 	(O. ZSCKLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Altfrid, Vita S. Lindper in MGH, Script., ii (1829), 405‑406, Eng. transl. in H. P. Cressy, Church History of Brittany, 1668; ASM, v. 21, 36; Histoire littkraire de la France, vi (1742), 210‑221; Rettberg, KD, ii (1848), 405, 535‑536; DCB, iii, 640‑641; DNB, xxxii. 333; Hauck, KD, ii (1900), 348‑349.
LECHLER, leH'ler, GOTTHARD VICTOR: German Lutheran; b. at Kloster Reichenbach, near Freudenstadt (40 m. s.w. of Stuttgart), Wiirttemberg, Apr. 18, 1811; d. at Leipsic Dec. 26, 1888.

437	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lebanon
		Leds Bible
He studied at tha gymnasium at Blaubeuren 1825
1829 and at the University of Tiibingen 1829‑34, and
became repetent at Blaubeuren in 1835. He was
transferred to Tdbingen in the same capacity in
1838. He was appointed assistant pastor at Waib
lingen in 1841 and dean at Knittlingen in 1853,
whence he was called to Leipsic in 1858 as superin
tendent and pastor at St. Thomas' and professor of
theology at the university. He lectured on eccle
siastical history, Symbolics, canon law, and eccle
siastical polity, and also on certain books of the
New Testament, especially Acts and the Epistle of
James. Later he became a member of the Saxon
diet, and in 1880 privy ecclesiastical councilor. In
1883 he resigned his superintendency and pastorate
in order to devote his closing years entirely to his
academic and literary work. Some of his more im
portant books are: Geschichte des englischen Deismus
(Stuttgart, 1841); Das apostolische und nachapos
toli8che Zeitalter (Haarlem, 1851; Eng. transl., Apos
tolic and Post‑Apostolic Times, 2 vols., Edinburgh,
1886); Geschiehte der Presbyterial‑ unit Synodalver
fassung (Leyden, 1854); and Johannes von Widif
and die Vorgeschichte der Reformation (2 vola., Leip
sic, 1873; Eng. transl., John Widif and his English
Precursors, 2 vols., London, 1878, new ed., 1884).
In collaboration with K. Gerok he prepared the
commentary on Acts for Lange's Bibelwerk (Biele
feld, 1862; Eng. transl., New York, 1869). Other
works by Lechler are, De Thoma Bradwardino
(Leipaie, 1862); Der Kirchenstaat and die Opposi
tion gegen den pdpstlichen Absolutiamus im Anfang
des xiv. Jahrhunderts (1870); Urkundenfunde des
ehristlichen Altertums (2 parts, 1885‑86); and Jo
hannes Hub (Halls, 1890). THEODOR FICBER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Meuse], %irchliches Handlesikon. iv.
	201, Leipsic, 1894.
	LECLERC, le‑Clare', JEAN. See CLERICUS, JO
HANNEB.
	LECOT, le‑W, VICTOR LUCIEN SULPICE:
Cardinal; b. at Montescourt (40 m. n.w. of Reims),
Jan. 8, 1831; d. at Chambery Dec. 19, 1908. He
studied at the Petit Sdminaire of Compi6gne and at
the Grand S6minaire of Beauvais, and was appointed
professor at the Petit Sdminaire of Noyon (Oise).
During the Franco‑German war, he was chaplain in
the French army, and after being parish priest of
St. Antoine de Compi~gne 1872‑86, was consecrated
bishop of Dijon in the latter year. In 1890 he was
enthroned archbishop of Bordeaux, and in 1893
was created cardinal priest of Santa Pudenziana.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Der Papal, die Regaerung and die Vermal
	lung der Wigan Kirde in Rome, pp. 185, 187, 188, Mu
	nich, 1904.
	LECTERN: Originally a high, sloping desk,
either single or double, which stood in the middle
of the choirs of churches, and was used as a rest
for the antiphonarium and lectionarium from which
the cantors sang the antiphons and lessons. In
this shape it is retained in some Roman Catholic
churches at the present day; but it occurs much
more frequently, usually in the shape of an eagle
with outstretched wings and frequently of brass, in
Anglican churches as a support for the Bible from
which the lessons are read at morning and evening
prayer. In this latter use it stands as a rule either beneath or just outside the chancel arch.
LECTION, LECTIONARY. See EVANGF,LIARIUM; PERICOPE.
LECTOR ("Reader"; Gk. Anagnostes) : In the early Church, an ecclesiastic in minor orders appointed to read to the congregation from the Scriptures and other religious writings. From the very first the oral reading of the sacred Scriptures occupied a large place in religious services, and for a long time it was the sole, or at least the principal means of imparting Scriptural knowledge to the congregation. Since during the first two centuries Christianity diffused itself especially among the poorer classes, and the congregations were frequently small, it was not always easy to find a competent reader of the 'sacred books, written as they were without spacing between the words. The position of the lector in the congregation was consequently an important one. In addition to reading, he often expounded passages of Scripture, especially as the sermon was not yet an official duty. Alplleeua, lector and exorcist at Ciesarea (d. 303), was " preacher and teacher of the word of God " at that place, " and had great fortitude before every one " (Eusebius, De martyribus Palestina', i.). During the early centuries the lector appears to have been reckoned with the spiritual leaders of the congregations, with the prophets, evangelists, and teachers who were accustomed to conduct divine worship. Certain expressions in liturgies of the later time reflect the ancient estimate of the lector's office; thus the Statuta ecclesile antiqua (viii.) observe of the prospective lector, " he is to have a part with those who minister the word of God," consequently the lector occasionally took precedence of the deacon and subdeacon. The development of polity in the Church catholic from the second century downward was unfavorable to the dignity of the lector's office. The bishop or the presbyter was accustomed to appropriate the sermon, and sometimes the preacher included the Scriptural reading as a part of his functions, with the result that the lector became superfluous. In the ceremonially ordered public worship from the fourth century onward, the reading of the Gospel was regularly reserved to the deacons or presbyters, and the lector came to be reckoned with the clerici minores, being of the next to the lowest rank in the order of ecclesiastical promotion (Siricius, Ad Himerium, xiii.). In many church districts, children and even catechumens were admitted to the lector's rank, an impropriety which Justinian sought to correct. The ritual for the installation of the lector was furnished by the liturgies. It usually consisted in the delivery of the codex of the sacred Scriptures. In the Roman Catholic Church the lector's ordo still exists, but in a merely formal sense. See ORDERS, HOLY. H. ACHELIB.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The earlier literature is given in A. Har•
nack, Ueber den Ursprung des Lektorats and der anderen niederen Weihen, in TU. ii. 5 (1886), 57 sqq. Consult:
Bingham, Oripines, III., v.; F. Wieland, Die genetiads Enlurickelung der . . . ordines minores, Rome, 1892.
LEDA BIBLE. See BIBLE VERSIONS, B, IV., § 9.

Lee
Lefroy
LEE, ANN: Foundress of the sect of Shakers in America.; b. in Manchester, Eng., Feb. 28, 1736; d. at Watervliet, N. Y., Sept. 8, 1784. Her father was a blacksmith and gave her no education, but put her at work in a cotton‑factory; afterward she served as cook in the Manchester Infirmary. In 1758 she married Abraham Standerin (so spelled in the register, but usually given as Standley or Stanley), a blacksmith, by whom she had four children, who died in infancy. In 1758 she had joined the Manchester society called the " Shaking Quakers," which had seceded from the Society of Friends and was under the leadership of James Wardley. Being naturally excitable, she was quickly affected by the religious exercises of the society, and began to practise austerities, to have visions, and to make revelations. But it was not until 1770 that she had the epoch‑making revelation against marriage, and began her " testimony against all lustful gratifications as the source and foundation of human corruption and misery," a course which led to her imprisonment. It was then that Christ appeared to her in a vision, and revealed to her that she was the second incarnation of Christ, and thus the head of all women, as he was the head of all men. From that time forth she was called by her followers " Mother Ann," and believed by them to be perfectly righteous.
	Henceforth she claimed to be directed by revela
tions and visions. In 1774 she came with her fol
lowers to America, and finally settled, in the spring
of 1776, at Niskeyuna, later Watervliet, near Al
bany, N. Y. In 1775 or 1776 she and her husband
parted, Shaker documents asserting that he de
serted her after having been tenderly nursed through
a dangerous illness. During the Revolutionary War
she was accused of treasonable correspondence with
the British and cast into prison, but was released
by Go*. Clinton, 1777, At a later period (1780)
she was again imprisoned for refusing to take the
oath of allegiance to the State of New York, which
she could not conscientiously do, but was released
without trial by the _ same governor. Persecution
had the usual effect of increasing the numbers of
the persecuted. Taking advantage of a revival of
religion (1779), she gathered many converts, and
in 1780 removed the community to New Lebanon,
Columbia County, N. Y. From 1781 to 1783 she
went through New England on a missionary tour.
Her influence is still felt by the Shakers, who revere
her memory. See COMMUN1aM, II., 10.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Anna White and Leila S. Taylor, SAaker‑
ism, Its Meaning and Message, pp. 13‑87, Columbus,
Ohio, 1904; T. Dwight, Travels in New England, iii. 149
aqq., New York, 1822; DNB, xxxii. 343.
LEE, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: African Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. at Bridgeton, N. J., Sept. 18, 1841. He was educated at Wilberforce University (A.B., 1872), where he was professor of homiletics (1873‑75) and , president (1876,84). From 1884 to 1892 he was editor of The Christian Recorder, and in the latter year was elected bishop of his denomination.
LEE, FREDERICK GEORGE: Church of England; b. at Thame (13 m. e. of Oxford), Oxfordshire, Jan. 6, 1832; d. at Lambeth, London, Jan.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
438
23, 1902. He studied at St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford (D.C.L., 1854), and was curate of Sunningwell, Berka, 1854‑56, then for several years domestic chaplain to the duke of Leeds and earl of Morton, while from 1867 almost until his death he was vicar of All Saints', Lambeth. He was a High‑churchman, and shortly before his death was received into the Roman Catholic Church. He was a prolific author, among his principal works being: The Beauty of Holiness (London,1859); Notitia Liturgica (1866); The Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England Maintained and Vindicated (1869); The Christian Doctrine of Prayer for the Departed (1872); The Other World: or, Glimpses of the Supernatural (2 vole., 1875); Historical Sketches of the Reformation (1879); The Church under Queen Elizabeth (2 vole., 1880); History and Antiquities of the Church of Thame (1883); Reginald Pole, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury (1887); The Church of Haddenharil, Bucks (1888); King Edward the Sixth, Supreme Head (1889);. The Sinless Conception, of the Mother of God (1891); and The Church of St. Mary, Long Crendora (1891). He compiled A Glossary of Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Terms (London, 1877), while among the numerous works which he edited were the second and subsequent editions of the Directorium Anglicanum (London, 1865) and its abridgment, Manuals Clericorum (1874); Altar Service Book, according to the Use of the United Church of England and Ireland (1867); and The Communion Office of the Church of Scotland (Aberdeen, 1869).
LEE, JESSE: Founder of Methodism in New England; b. in Prince George County, Md., Mar. 12, 1758; d. at Hillsboro, Md., Sept. 12, 1816. He removed to North Carolina 1777, preached his first' sermon in 1779, entered the itinerant ministry in 1783, and during the next six years labored in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. In 1789 he was sent by conference to the Stamford circuit, Conn. For thg next eleven years he traveled throughout the New England States, preaching often in barns, private houses, or on highways. In 1796 he became assistant to Bishop Asbury. He returned to the South in 1800.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. M. Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, Richmond, 1848; w. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, vii. 80‑87, New York, "1881; J. M. Buckley, American Church History Series, vol, v., ib! 1898.
LEE, SAMUEL: English Orientalist; b. at Longnor (8 m. s. of Shrewsbury), Shropshire, May 14, 1783, d. at Barley (16 m. n.n.e. of Hertford), Hertfordshire, Dec. 16, 1852. He received his elementary training at a charity school, and at the age of twelve was apprenticed to a Shrewsbury carpenter. While working at his trade he became interested in the study of languages, and before he was twenty‑five .he had learned, without a teacher, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Samaritan, Syriac, Persian, and Hindustani. To these languages he subsequently added a dozen others. The accidental loss of his tools compelled him to look for other means of a livelihood, and in 1810 he became master of Bowdler's Foundation School, Shrewsbury. In 1813, under the auspices of the Church Missionary Society, he entered Queen's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1818; M.A., 1819; B.D.,

439	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lee
Leftoy
1827; D.D., 1833). In 1819 he was appointed professor of Arabic at Cambridge, and from 1831 to 1848 was regius professor of Hebrew. He was also a canon in Bristol Cathedral after 1831, vicar of Banwell, Somerset, 1831‑38, and rector of Barley, Hertfordshire, 1838‑52. His publications include editions of the Scriptures in Arabic, Coptic, Persian, Syriac, and Hindustani; A Grammar of the Hebrew Language (London, 1827); Prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglot Bible (1829); Six Sermons on the Study of the Holy Scriptures (1830); A Brief History of the Church of Abyssinia (in S. Gobat's Journal, 1834); a translation of Job, with commentary (1837); A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee, and English (1840); and An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy (1849).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Alice M. Lee, A Scholar of a Past Generation; . . . Memoir of . . . Samuel Lee, London, 1896; DNB, axrii. 378.

LEE, WILLIAM: Church of Scotland; b. in Edinburgh Nov. 6,1817; d. in Glasgow Oct.10,1886. His father was John Lee, principal of the University of Edinburgh and professsor of divinity. He was educated at the high school and the University of Edinburgh, and in 1842 was chaplain to the marquis of Bute, lord high commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In the following year he was appointed to the parish of Roxburgh, where he ministered with much faithfulness and acceptance for over thirty years. Pastoral duties did not prevent him from engaging in literary labor, or from taking an active part in the general work of the church and in the business of its Supreme Court. During his Roxburgh ministry he edited his father's Lectures on the History of the Church. of Scotland (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1860); contributed to Cassell's Biible Educator, and published The Increase of Faith (1867), and The Days of the Son of Man (1874). In 1874 his learning and ability led to his appointment by the crown to the chair of,church history in the University of Glasgow. He devoted himself with much zeal to the work of his classes, and to the well‑being of his students, but found time also to continue his contributions to literature, his most noteworthy writings during this later period being Scripture Biographies in the Bible Educator. HENRY CowAN.

LEENHOF, l6n'hef, FREDERIK VAN: Dutch Protestant; b. at Middelburg Aug., 1647; d. at Zwolle (52 m. e.n.e. of Amsterdam) 1712. In 1670 he became pastor of the Flemish congregation in Abbeville in Picardy; in 1672 he was called to Nieuwvliet. In 1698‑79 he was preacher at the extraordinary embassy of the general states at the court of Louis XIV., but returned to his native country in 1679 as court preacher to Albertina Agnes, the widow of the Frisian stadtholder. In 1680 be became preacher at Velzen, and in 1681 at Zwolle. He was an adherent of Cartesian Cooceianism; and in the history of Dutch Protestantism he is known in connection with the controversy produced by his book, Den Hemet op Garden; of een korte en klaare be8chnjving van de waare en stantvastige blydschap (Zwolle 1703), which he «‑rote to refute those who sought the test of Chris‑
tianity in a morbid gloom. He maintained that the true service of God must lead to a pure enjoyment of true happiness on earth. On being accused of Spinozism and Hattemism (see HATTEM, PONTIAAN vAN), he defended himself in another work, Den hemel op aarden, opgehelderd van de nevelen van misveratand en vooroordeelen (Zwolle, 1704). In the course of the ensuing controversy the entire Dutch Church was thrown into a turmoil, and finally Van Leenhof was deposed by the Synod of Overyssel in 1708. The consistory and magistrates of Zwolle, as well as the estates of Overyssel, did not acknowledge the legality of his deposition, but to preserve peace Van Leenhof voluntarily resigned his charge Jan. 1, 1711. Other works are, De keten der bijbelsche godgeleerdheid (2 parts, Middelburg, 1678); Kort onderwijs in de chr. religie volgens d'ordre van de H. Schrift (4th ed., 1680); De geest en conscientie des menschen in haar eygen wezen en werkingen eenvoudiglijk verklatl! t (3d ed., Amsterdam, 1683). (S. D. vAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. F. Jenichen, Historia Spinozismi Lesnhoflani, Leipsic, 1707; A. Ypey and I. J. Dermout, Gea chiedenis der nederlandeche hervormde Kerk, iii. 240 sqq., ~ vols., Breda, 1819‑27; E. J. Lorgion, De nederlandache hervornule Kerk in Friesland, pp. 216‑223, Groningen, 1848; L. A. van Langeraad, De nederlandacha Amtassade‑Kapel to Parijs, i. 238‑245, The Hague, 1893 (gives sources and further literature).
LEFEVRE D'ETAPLES, le‑f6vr dl?"td'pl, JACQUES. See FABER (FABRI) STAPULENSI8, JACOBUS.
LEFFINGWELL, CHARLES WESLEY: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Ellington, Conn., Dec. 5, 1840. He studied at Union College and at Knox College, Galesburg, Ill. (graduated 1862). He was vice‑principal of a military school at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 1862‑65, and then studied theology at Nashotah Theological Seminary, Nashotah, Wis., being graduated in 1867. He was ordered deacon and ordained priest in 1867, and was curate of St. James', Chicago, 1867‑68. In 1868 he established at Knoxville, Ill., St. Mary's School for girls, of which he has since been rector, as well as of St. Alban's School for boys, which he founded at Knoxville in 1890. Since 1879 he has been editor of the weekly Living Church, an organ of the High‑church party.
LEFROY, WILLIAM: Church of England; b. at Dublin Nov. 6, 1836; d. at Zermatt (72 m. e.s.e. of Geneva), Switzerland, Aug. 12,1909. He studied at TrinityCollege, Dublin (B.A.,1863), was ordered deacon in 1864, and ordained priest in 1865. He was curate of Christ Church, Cork, 1864‑66 and perpetual curate of St. Andrew's, Liverpool, 1866‑89. After 1889 he was dean of Norwich, and also vicar of St. Mary in the Marsh, Norwich, after 1903. He was honorary canon of Liverpool 1880‑$7, rural dean of South Liverpool 1884,87; proctor for the archdeaconry of Warrington 1886, and archdeacon of Warrington 1887‑.89. He was Donnellan lecturer at Trinity College, Dublin, 1887‑88, and was regarded as the founder of the Clergy Sustentation Fund. Among his writings, special mention may be made of his Lecture on Scepticism (Liverpool, 1868); Plea for the Old Catholic Movement (London, 1875); Pleadings for Christ (1878); The Christian Minis‑

Lesstee and Xunoioa, Papal	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	440
Legend, Legendary
try (1890); The Christian's Start (1890); The Chris
tian's Duties (1891); The Christian's Responsibilities
(1892); All the Counsel of God (1893); AgoniatChristi
(1893); Lectures on Ecclesiastical History (1896);
History of Norwich Cathedral (1897); and Christian
Science contrasted with Christian Faith (1903).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: B. B. Gould, In Memoriam: The Very Rev.
	William Lefrog, London, 1909.
	LEGATES AND NUNCIOS, PAPAL: Represent
atives of the pope. These were present at all the
ecumenical councils in the East except the fifth
(Constantinople, 553), but neither held the actual
presidency nor exercised a really decisive influence.
			What they were able to accomplish de
		Early	pended upon the position of their prin
	Papal Rep‑ cipal at the moment, and especially his
resentativeL relation to the emperor. Besides the
			pope, they frequently represented Ro
man synods also, or, in a word, the whole Roman
Church. In addition to these delegates for a
special purpose, from the pontificate of Leo I.
(440‑461) until at least the end of the seventh cen
tury, the popes, like other patriarchs, had perma
nent representatives at the imperial court, known
as apocrWarii or reslvonsalm (see APOCRISIARIUS);
but these were simply intermediaries, and had no
jurisdiction in the later sense. The canons of Sar
dica (343) conceded to the pope a superior juris
diction, which was fully recognized on the part of
the State by the constitution of Valentinian III.
(445). On the basis of this, from the end of the
fourth century the popes entrusted the exercise of
such jurisdiction to individual bishops (e.g., those
of Thessalonica and Arles), who were designated
as apostolic vicars, In the succeeding centuries
other representatives appear for the decision of
definite questions, both ecclesiastical and political.
These were known as missi or legati apostolicas sedis,
in a few cases as legati a latere. Their position be
came more important with the rise of the papal
power from Gregory VII. onward. Gregory em
phasized this by inserting in the episcopal oath of
fealty (where it remains to this day) the clause
" I will treat with honor a Roman legate going or
coming and assist him in his necessities." Leg
ates were now more frequently employed, some
times empowered for whole countries, and endowed
with great powers, including even that of a concur
rent jurisdiction as ordinaries, in the pope's name,
with the bishops.
	The legatine system was formulated and devel
oped in the decretals, and the different classes are
definitely distinguished. (1) The legatus natus was
			one to whom the legatine authority
	Develop‑ came ex officio as the incumbent of a
	ment and special archiepiscopal see (e.g., Can
	Classifica‑ terbury). His powers were originally
		tion.	those of legates in general, especially
			that of concurrent jurisdiction with the
bishops of all the dioceses in his province; he ap
pears as ordinarius ordinariorum, competent to de
cide in the first instance cases brought before him
by the parties. With the sixteenth century began
a gradual disappearance of these powers, which
finally left little besides the bare title. The king
of Hungary claimed the position of a legatus natus,
and a similar claim on the part of the king of Sicily was the foundation of the so‑called rnonarchia Sicula. (2) The class called legati missi in the decretals were sometimes entitled nuncii apostolici by the writers of the thirteenth century, and more often in the papal briefs of the fourteenth, until the title of nuncio became the regular one. They were sent out on a special mission, exercising an ordinary jurisdiction in the territory affected, and until the sixteenth century concurrently with the bishops. They had the power to decide many but not all reserved cases (see CASUs RESERVATI) without special faculties, and to grant indulgences not extending beyond one year. Red robes, a white horse, and golden spurs were among their insignia. (3) Legates a latere, sent " from the (pope's) side," i.e., cardinals, exercised practically the authority of the pope in person, on the analogy of the senators sent out by the later emperors to represent them. Their ordinary jurisdiction in a province enabled them to suspend the entire authority of a bishop, to absolve from all reserved cases, to confirm the election of archbishops and bishops (even in the case of exempt sees), to take precedence of all bishops and preside at councils, and to use the insignia of a cross carried before them and a canopy over them. They were not, however, permitted to depose bishops, to divide or unite dioceses, or to interfere with elective dignities in cathedral and collegiate churches. Distinguished from these plenipotentiary legates a latere were certain extraordinary ones sent on a special mission, as to convoke a council or deal with a sovereign. Nuncios were occasionally sent out with the powers of legates a latere.
Many complaints were made against the legates, and led to a substantial alteration of the system. Leo X. at the Lateran Council of 1515 ordered the
cardinal‑legates to reside in the places Modern to which they were sent and attend to
Modifica‑ their duties. The Council of Trent tions. (session xxiv., chap. 20) liberated the
episcopal jurisdiction from legatine interference, and the Congregation of the Council subsequently, on the basis of this decree, decided numerous cases against legates. The Council, however, allowed them to share with the bishops in investigating the canonical requirements for cathedral dignitaries and still conceded to them an appellate jurisdiction (ib. chap. vii.). The altered conditions after the Reformation led to the establishment of permanent nunciatures. Such had existed at the courts of Vienna and Warsaw from the beginning of the sixteenth century, but here they were political in origin. Others were now established‑at Cologne for the Rhine district in 1582, at Lucerne for Protestant Switzerland and southwestern Germany in 1586, and at Brussels for the Netherlands in 1600. Their work was to a large extent the supervision of missionary efforts, though their ordinary faculties permitted them to concur with the episcopal jurisdiction in such parts of their territory as had remained Roman Catholic. In modern times the Roman Catholic Church regards the system of the decretals as still legally in force. Nuncios are now in practise sent much oftener than legates a latere, and there is a consid‑

441
RELIGIOUS
ENCYCLOPEDIALegend LLegd ndely a' papal
erable number of permanent nunciatures. According to the order of precedence adopted at the Congress of Vienna, legates and nuncios are considered by secular governments to have the rank of ambassadors. This recognition of the pope's right to send diplomatic representatives formerly rested, of course, partly on his position as a temporal sovereign; since 1870 it has been based not upon his still asserted claims to that position, but upon his undoubted social importance as the absolute spiritual ruler of so many millions. The recognition, however, extends only to the matters in which the nuncio is accredited to the government, not to the internal ecclesiastical matters for the regulation of which he holds powers from the pope. In a word, the attitude of modern non‑Catholic governments toward this matter is the same which has been assumed in the making of Concordats.
p 	(J. F. VON SCHULTE t.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. A. Gambarus, Tractatue de officio atque auctoritate legau de Were, Venice, 1521; $. F. de la Torre, De auctaritate, gradu et terminis Watd a latere, Rome, 1666; L. Thomassin, Vetus et noroo eccleaia! ditciplina, part i., book ii., chaps. 107‑108, 117‑118, 3 vols., Paris, 1728; A. J. Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten, iii. 162 sqq., Mainz, 1826; P. Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, i. 498‑499, Berlin, 1870; J. F. von Schulte, Die Stellung der KonziliM Pgpate and Biechbfe, Pp. 64 sqq., Prague, 1871.
LEGEND, LEGENDARY: In present usage " legend " denotes almost any fictitious narrative, ancient or modern, or a recital of true history distorted by the fancy or subjectively colored. It is well, however, to confine the term to the religious domain, as many recent literary historians have done. Legends and saints belong together. Only in so far as heroes, ancient and modern alike, enjoy a sort of saint‑worship, may one speak of legend in respect to them; and since worship of saints is not restricted to the Christian medieval era, one may transfer the idea of legend to other religions. This usage is modern. About 1180 Johannes Beleth (De divinis oftciis, lx., in MPL, ccii. 66; cf. William Durand, Rationale divinorum ofciorum, VI., i. 29) calls the book " which treats of the life and death of confessors and is read at their festivals " a legendary. This presupposes the term legends (i.e., " things to be read "), which, however, first appears in the thirteenth century and more frequently in the fifteenth. Originally distinguished from the Passiones of martyrs, legendte or legendarii later included the entire aggregate of the lives and passions of the saints; and their ecclesiastical use in public reading or chanting receded in favor of private edification.
Christian legend is as old as Christianity itself. Like a wild vine it soon encircled the Gospel and created an apocryphal history of the apostles, wherein they are heroes at once of asceticism and of martyrdom. It transformed genuine martyrology according to the taste of later times and created incredible monastic tales. The products of the fourth and fifth centuries constitute the foundation story, the common fund of Christendom's hagiography, but legendary creation continued, finding new motives in every new saint, in every translation of relics, and in every church foundation.
Of literary affinity with fiction, legend aims to
entertain, but likewise to edify along definite religious and moral lines. The hero is supposed to serve as a pattern of beneficence, renunciation, selfsacrifice, constancy, and triumph over the devil. The invisible is to appear tangibly‑‑God's providence toward the devout, the hearing of their prayers, the reward of the righteous, and the punishment of the impious. Miracle displays God's intervention in its broadest light. In self‑defense the legend also appropriates rationalizing traits, and seeks to enhance its credibility by proclaiming the refutation and punishment of doubters.
Legend borrows its materials first of all from historic reminiscence, but adorns the same and combines it with motives of its own. The fancy is ever creating new forms by transferring details from place to place and from one person to another. The same motive often occurs in an Indian myth, a tale of the Thousand and One Nights, and a medieval legend of the saints. From this fact Grimm's school inferred a common Indo‑Germanic origin. Of late there has been talk of literary migrations. Usener's theory of myths which have undergone a Christian transformation has been sharply criticized by Delebaye; the points of contact are frequently of a purely external kind, and the features really common are story telling motives.
The legend was early incorporated into the liturgy. Records of martyrdom were collected to be read aloud as early as by Eusebius, and afterward Palladius, Rufinus, and others gathered ascetic narratives for the edification of monks. From these beginnings arose the great collective works (see ACTA MARTYRUM, ACTA SANCTGRUM). Legends were worked over into sermons (Symeon Metaphrastes, Sernwnes de sanctis), and also largely utilized as poetry (Prudentius, Peristephanon; Paulinus of Nola, Carmina natalicia). In the medieval era the rhapsody of the Madonna and the praise of heroic renunciation occur as the counterparts of secular minstrelsy and chivalrous adventures. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries turned the entire Legends aurea (see JACOBUS DA VARAGINE) into verse and found edification in miracle plays. Graphic art, especially church painting, considered its most important task to be the illustration of legend. Thus the legend enveloped the whole intellectual life of the Middle Ages.
In the later Roman Catholicism legends still have a place, though the critics have taken much away from them. Luther defamed legends as Rgenden ("lie‑Bends"), yet he appreciated their practical utility. Hence an Evangelical history of martyrs could thrive on Lutheran soil, whereas Calvinism assumed an attitude of gruff rejection. While the Enlightenment saw nothing in legends but superstition and priestcraft, romanticism found in them the revelation of the deepest secrets of the popular soul. Modern philological and historical investigation has discovered rich mines in this field. Indeed ecclesiastical history itself is taking more and more note of the fact that the legend, with ceremonial and custom, offers the best embodiment of the popular theology. E. VON DOB$CHttTZ.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. G. von Herder, 1Verke, ed. B. Suphan. xvi. 387‑398, xxviii. 167‑246, 31 vole., Berlin, 1877‑93;

LBger
Leibnitz	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 	442
K. G. Vogel, in Historisch‑theolopiache Athandlungen, iii (1824), 141‑179; Migne, Dictionnaire des l6gendea, Paris, 1855; idem, Dictionnaire des apocryphea, ib. 1856; H. von Eieken, Geschichte and System der mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung, Stuttgart, 1887; F. GSrres, in Metorische Zeitechrift, lvii (1887), 212‑221; J. J. T. von D51linger, Akadsmische Vortrape, i. 180 eqq., Bonn, 1890; A. Harnaek, in Protestantiaches Jahrbuch, lxv (1890), 249‑265; Mrs. A. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, London, 1890; idem, Legends of the Madonna, Legends of Saints and Martyrs, Legends of the Monastic Orders, 3 vols., London, 1903; A. Ehrhard, Altchristliche Literatur, i. 539 sqq., Freiburg, 1894; A. Maury, Croyances et Iigende8 du moyen‑dpe, Paris, 1896; E. Male, L'Art religicvs du xiii. sQcle en France, ib. 1898; H. Aehelis, Die Martyralogien, ihre Geschiehte and ahr Wert, GSttingen, 1900; C. A. Bernoulli, Die Heiligen der Merovinger, Tiibingen, 1900; G. Paris, Pobmmea et legendm du moyen‑dye, Paris, 1900; idem, L~pendes du moyen‑dpe, ib. 1903; P. Toldo, in Studien zur vergleichenden Literatur‑Geschichte, 19011902; E. Lucius, Die Anfanpe des Heilipenkulte, T17bingen, 1904• H. Delehaye, Les L4gendes hagiopraphiques, Paris, 1905• H. H. Gunter, Lependen‑Studien, Cologne, 1906. The best lists of lives of the saints are to be found in the works issued by the Bollandists‑Bibiiotheca hagioprapha Graeca, Brussels, 1895 sqq., and Bibliotheca hapioprapha Latina, ib., 1898 eqq.
LEGER, JEAN: French Protestant; b. at Villa Secca (in the valley of San Martino, Piedmont) Feb. 2, 1615; d., probably at Leyden, after 1665. At the age of fourteen he went to Geneva to study, and remained there until 1639, when he went to Turin. He found the city in great commotion, since the province of Piedmont was overrun by the French and Spaniards. Leger himself was exposed to peril and was taken prisoner, but escaped by his presence of mind. On Sept. 27, of the same year, the synod of San Germano appointed him pastor of the two churches of Prali and Rodoreto. In 1643 he succeeded his uncle Antoine as pastor of San Giovanni in the valley of Luserna, and there came into repeated conflicts with the monks. His popularity was so great that his opponents at first sought to win him over, but this failed, and they then resorted to persecution. The valley of Luserna was overrun with troops, who pursued the fugitives to the heights of Angrogna. Leger himself escaped, and as the moderator of his church gathered his coreligioniata about him, urged them to remain true to their faith and native land, and hastened to seek aid and comfort for them in foreign courts. He stopped in Paris, where he issued a manifesto addressed to all the powers, which impressed even Louis XIV., while Cromwell sent Sir Samuel Moreland to the court of Turin to lodge an emphatic protest. About the same time Leger returned to the Waldenaian valleys, and a treaty of peace was signed Aug. 18, 1655, restoring the Waldensians to their rights, but forbidding them instruction in their religion. Leger refused to obey this, and was condemned to death Jan. 12, 1661. He was cited to appear at Turin and was resentenced on Sept. 17. Once more he fled, and passing through Geneva settled at Leyden as pastor of the Walloon Church, where he seems to have spent the remainder of his life, and where he wrote his Hiatoire gt6n&ale des rglism 6vangeliques de Pi& nwnt ou vdudoises (2 vols., Leyden, 1669), the first part treating of the Waldensian doctrines and discipline as preserved in purity and without interruption or the need of a reformation from the time
they emerged from heathendom, while the second part gives a history of the persecutions which his coreligionists endured from the establishment of the Inquisition to 1664. The work is marred by partiality and lack of critical ability.
Leger had a noteworthy kindred. His uncle Antoine was pastor at Constantinople and a friend of the patriarch Cyril Lukar, later becoming pastor in the Waldenaian valleys, whence he fled to Geneva and was appointed French and Italian preacher and professor of theology. Two cousins of Jean Leger were also preachers. (E. COMBA t.)
BIBLIOGBAPHT: E. Benoit, Hist. de l'Mit do Nantes, vol. iii., Delft, 1693; A. Muston, L'larael des Alpes, vole. ii., iv., Paris, 1851; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 84‑88; and the literature dealing with the WALDENSES.
LEGGE, AUGUSTUS: Bishop of Lichfield; b. at Sandwell Hall, Staffordshire, Nov. 28, 1839. He studied at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A., 1861), was ordered deacon in 1864, and ordained priest in the following year. He was curate of Handaworth, Staffordshire, 1864‑66, and of St. Mary's, Bryanaton Square, London, 1866‑67; vicar of St. Bartholomew's, Sydenham, 1867‑79, and of Lewisham 1879‑91. In 1891 he was consecrated bishop of Lichfield. He was chaplain to the bishop of Rochester and honorary canon of the same diocese 1877‑91, proctor of the diocese of Rochester 18851891, rural dean of Greenwich 188086 and of Lewisham 1886‑91. In theology he is a liberal churchman, and has written In Covenant with God (a book of instruction on confirmation; London, 1891).

LEGGE, JAMES: English Congregationalist; b. at Huntly (34 m. n.w. of Aberdeen), Aberdeenshire, Scotland, Dec. 20, 1815; d. at Oxford Nov. 29, 1897. He studied at King's College, Aberdeen (M.A., 1835), and the Highbury Theological College, London, and from 1839 to 1842 was a missionary of the London Missionary Society at Malacca, where he was appointed principal of the AngloChinese College in 1840. From 1843 to 1873 he was pastor of the Union Church at Hongkong and head of the theological seminary of the London Missionary Society at that place, the successor of the Malacca Anglo‑Chinese College. In 1873 he returned permanently to Great Britain. From 1876 he was professor of Chinese at Qxford. He was the author of many works in Chinese, and also published or translated: The Notions of the Chinese Concerning God and Spirits (Hongkong, 1852); Chinese Classics (5 vols., 1861‑72); Life and Teachings of Confucius (London, 1867); The Life and Teaching of Mencius (1875); The Book of Ancient Chinese Poetry in English Verse (1876); The Texts of Confucianism (4 vols., Oxford, 1879‑82); The Religions of China: Confucianism and Tkoism described and compared unth Christianity (London, 1880); The Texts of Tdoi8m (2 vols., Oxford, 1886); Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms: Travels of the Buddhist Pilgrim Fo‑hsien in India (London, 1886); and The Nestorian Monument of HsE‑an F‑il in Shen‑Hsf, China, relating to the Difusion of Christianity in China in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries (1888).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, Supplement, iii. 87‑88, where refer.
ences to other literature may be found.

443
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
LEGION, THE THUNDERING. See MARCUS AURPILIUB.
LEHNIN PROPHECY: A poem in 100 leonine verses, preserved in manuscript in Berlin, Breslau, Dresden, Gottingen, Greifawald, and elsewhere, prophesying the fortunes of the House of Brandenburg until after 1700. It is ascribed to a monk named Herman, who is said to have lived in the Cistercian abbey of Lehnin (14 m. w.s.w. of Potsdam) in the thirteenth or fourteenth century; but the post‑medieval Latinity and the content of the poem forbid its attribution to either Herman II. (1257‑72) or Herman III. (1335‑42), both of whom were abbots of the monastery. The prophecy begins with a lament on the early fall of the Askanian dynasty, touches briefly on the Wittelsbachs and Luxemburgs ruling Brandenburg, recounts the transfer of power to the burgraves of Nuremberg, sketches briefly the first four of the Hohenzollerns, and then pauses to express hostility to the favor shown Lutheran doctrines by Joachim I. and to the secularization of Lehnin by Joachim II. The five following electors are also clearly indicated, but here the author loses sure historic ground. Frederick I. does not win a crown; Frederick William I. resolves to enter a monastery; and Frederick the Great is drowned after a reign of misfortune. The Hohenzollern line ends with Frederick William III., when Germany receives a Roman Catholic sovereign.
The poem's hostility to Prussia and its ultramontanism are self‑evident, but its authorship is still a problem. It has been assigned to at least six: an unknown monk or priest between 1688 and 1700; Andreas Fromm (d. 1685), Lutheran abbot at Cologne‑on‑the‑Spree, but deprived of office in 1666 because of hostility to the Reformed Church, and a convert to Roman Catholicism at Prague in 1668; Friedrich Seidel (d. 1693), councilor of the supreme court of judicature and conaistorial assessor at Berlin; the adventurer and catholicizing pseudoprophet Oelzen (d. 1725); the Jesuit F. Wolf, chaplain, for a time, of the Austrian embassy at Berlin during the last years of the great elector (1685‑86); and the Roman Catholic convert Nikolaus Von Zitzewitz, abbot of Huysberg, near Halberstadt (1692‑1704). Even after the spurious nature of the Lehnin prophecy was known, it was repeatedly used in anti‑Prussian polemics. Thus, in the crisis of Prussia after the disasters of Jena and Auerstl£dt, the speedy fall of the Hohenzollerns was proclaimed in various anonymous pamphlets based on this document; and in like manner the period immediately preceding and following the Revolution of 1848 called forth an abundance of literature of similar character. (0. Z6C$LER t.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The edition princeps was published in Das gelehrte Prmssen, Yol. ii., Thorn, 1722; an edition in Lat. and Germ. appeared, Rgensburg, 1873. For the litera. ture an It consult E. W. Sabel], Die Literatur der . ,
kAninschen Wefsaagung, Heilbronn , 1879, and British Museum Catalogue, " Hermannus, Abbot of Lehnin." Consult also: B. Schmidt, Die Weissagung des ‑ . . Hermann von Lehnin, Berlin, 1820; C. L. Gieseler, Die lehnineche We msaouqw, Erfurt, 1849; O. Wolff, Die berahmte Uhnin"e Weissagung, Grfnberg, 1850; A. Hilgenfeld, Die lehnineche Weissagung fiber die Mark Brandenburg, Leipsie, 1875; J. Schrammen, Des . . . Hermanne aus
L87bIlltz
Lehnin Prophezsiung, Cologne, 1887; Hermens, Kloster Lehnin and Seine Weissagung, Barmen, 1888.
LEIBNITZ, laibrnii,s.
Early Life and Works (§ 1). Metaphysical Doctrine (§ 2). Religious Views (§ 3). Efforts for Church Union (1 4).
Gottfried	Wilhelm (after 1709 Freiherr von)
Leibnitz, one of the most distinguished of German
philosophers, was born at Leipsic July 1, 1646, and
died at Hanover Nov. 14, 1716. After studying
		jurisprudence, mathematics, and phi
	r. Early losophy at Leipsic and Jena, he en
	Life and tered the service of the elector of
	Works. Mainz in 1666, in which he held vari
		ous positions, being occupied chiefly
with jurisprudence. In 1672 he went to Paris, ostensibly as tutor to Baron von Boyneburg's sons, but his real purpose was to divert the attention of Louis XIV. from plans against Germany. After a visit to London he settled in Paris till 1676, occupying himself principally with mathematics and natural science. His great mathematicabdiscovery, the differential calculus, dates back to 1676, though it was not published till 1684. In 1676 he accepted an offer from the Duke of Brunswick to settle at Hanover as librarian and historiographer. Here he resided during the remainder of his life., Charged with writing the history of the house of Brunswick, he made various journeys in Germany and Italy and gathered an immense amount of material. The fruits of these labors were, Codex juris gentium diplomaticus (2 vole., Hanover, 1693‑1700), Accessiones histm‑icce (2 vols., 1698‑1700), Scriptores rerum Brunavteensium (3 vols., 1701‑11), and the unfinished Annades imperii occidentis Brunavicenses (ed. G. H. Perz, 3 vols., 1843‑46). Along with these historical studies he wrote a large number of mathematical, philosophical, and theological treatises, published mostly in Acta eruditorum, Journal des Savants, and Miscellanea Berolinensia. He also carried on extensive etymological investigations and published Coldectanea etymologica (1717).
It was through Leibnitz that German philosophy first came into its own. The starting‑point of his speculations was the conviction that
	s. Meta‑	the world is not to be explained in the
	physical	last analysis as a mechanism. Things
	Doctrine.	in nature do not act upon one another
		through the mediation of some ex
ternal force, but are ultimately self‑determining.
Reality is'apiritual, and consists of a plurality of
simple, independent monads, whose activities and
relations to one another were predetermined by the
wisdom of God. To use his form of expression, the
monads have no windows through which they may
receive external impressions. On the contrary,
each monad, as a peyehieal entity, and center of
intellectual activity, is a mirror of the universe. The human body is an aggregate of monads; the soul is the dominating central monad. God is the
monad monddum. By regarding ultimate reality
as ce=ty spiritual in essence, Leibnitz overcame
thof Descartes' dualism involving the
relation of mind to body; and for the cumbersome

Leibnitz
Leipeic, Colloquy of
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
concursus dei he substituted his famous doctrine of preestablished harmony. From his view‑point development, or evolution, becomes a progressive growth of what already existed in embryo. There is nothing radically evil; and moral life is gradually advancing toward perfection. At all times the same reason dominates this process, but it too is caught up in this process of development. In this historical process nothing is lost. The present is " laden with the past and pregnant with the future" (Cf. also IDEALISM, II., § 2). Leibnitz left no single work that adequately presents his philosophy. The best exposition of the monadology is a mere summary which he prepared for Prince Eugene of Savoy in 1714. His largest philosophical work was the Nouveaux essais our l'entendement humain (ed. R. E. Raspe, in (Euvres philosophiques, Amsterdam, 1785; Eng. transl., New Essays concerning Human Understanding, New York, 1896), which was written against Locke in 1704, but not published, owing to Locke's death.
The same intellectualism which Leibnitz exhibits in his metaphysical doctrine also dominates his
religious views. While the core of all
3. Relig‑ religion is love toward God, this must ious Views. be reached by a process of cognition.
For Leibnitz religion is not a matter of feeling but of the intellect; though it may be added that his desire for the immediate prdsence of God in the soul often brings him close to mysticism. He expressed himself frequently on religious questions, but his principal religious work is the Theodicee (a word coined by Leibnitz himself), which is an attempt to demonstrate the agreement of reason with faith. The full title is, Essais de th6odicte sur la bones de Dieu, la liberM de l'homme et l'origine du mal (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1710). The work originated as a polemic against Bayle's dictionary and was occasioned by the request of Queen Sophia Charlotte. In many ways it reflects the author's metaphysical doctrines, his optimism, and determinism. His doctrine, that this world is the best world which could possibly exist, leads him to a conception of evil which is essentially different from that held by the religious consciousness. Evil is to his mind the simple and natural result of the necessary limitation of every thing created: it is consequently something metaphysical, and not ethical. He does not reduce evil to the status of mere appearance, but seeks to prove that the world is better with evil in it that it would be without it. The world can not be rationally condemned on the basis of the very small portion of it actually known to us. It is to be viewed as an intelligent whole. Just as the astronomer, by taking the sun as his view‑point, brought forth a beautiful solar system out of chaos, so the philosopher of the universe will transform it into a kingdom of reason, as soon as he learns " to put his eye in the sun." In a similar way, his doctrine of preestablished harmony leads him into a kind of determinism, in which the freedom of the will becomes lost in the metaphysical necessity, or at least loses its true ethical point. In general he considers Christianity only as the purest and noblest of all religions, as the religion of the wise made by Christ the religion of all, as the natu‑
444
ral religion raised by Christ into a law. Nevertheless the book is written with great vigor and warmth, nor did it fail to make a wide and deep impression.
Another interesting side of Leibnitz's theological activity is his participation in the endeavors then made for the purpose of uniting
4. Efforts the different Christian denominations.
for Church The general feeling prevalent after the
	Union.	end of the Thirty Years' War was fa
		vorable to such plans; and the subject
was ably broached by Bossuet's Exposition de la
doctrine de L'6glise catholique (Paris, 1671), a de
fense of the Church of Rome, but conciliatory in its
spirit, and very guarded in its expressions. Rajas
de Spinola, a Franciscan monk of Spanish descent,
and confessor to the Emperor Leopold, was a zeal
ous champion of the project. He visited Hanover
several times, at the instance of the emperor; and,
as Duke Ernest August was willing to enter into
negotiations, a conference was arranged between
Rojas de Spinola on the one side, and Molanus and
Leibnitz on the other. The results of the confer
ence were received with great hopes, both in Han
over, and in Vienna and Rome. About 1686‑90
Leibnitz outlined his plan of church‑union in what
is known as Systema theologicum (Paris 1819; Eng.
transl., A System of Theology, London 1850), which
was really a philosophical defense of Roman Cathol
icism. In 1691 he entered upon along correspond
ence with Bossuet; but ultimately the authority of
the Council of Trent, absolutely insisted upon by
Bossuet, and absolutely rejected by Leibnitz, proved
the rock on which all the plans and negotiations for
a union between Romanism and Protestantism were
wrecked. In the attempts of the courts of Berlin
and Hanover to unite the Lutheran and the Re
formed Churches, Leibnitz also took a prominent
part. The agitation for union was begun in 1696,
and in 1698 a conference was held at Hanover be
tween the Prussian court‑preacher Jablonski, on
the one side, and Leibnitz and Molanus on the other.
The plan for union was effected in outline, and the
common name " Evangelical " was adopted; but
political changes now caused the ardor of the states
men to cool. In 1703 Frederick I. of Prussia took
a further step by establishing at Berlin a Collegium
Irenicum, consisting of Lutheran and Reformed the
ologians; but gradually interest in the plan died
out, and Leibnitz himself withdrew from it. To
ward the close of his life he became involved in a
controversy with Samuel Clarke (see CLARKE,
SAMUEL, 4), who published the correspondence be
tween them (London, 1717).
At present there is no complete edition of the works of Leibnitz, though an edition is in course of preparation under the auspices of the International Association of Sciences. The best collected editions are those of L . Dutens (6 vols., Geneva, 1768), G. H. Pertz (12 vols., Hanover, 1843‑63), and the unfinished edition by 0. Klopp (1864‑84). The philosophical works have been edited by J. E. Erdmann (2 vols., Berlin, 1839‑40), by P. Janet (2 vols., Paris, 1866), and by C. J. Gerhardt (7 vols., Berlin, 1875‑90). Editions in English are, The Philosophical Works of Leibnitz : . . Translated . . . with Notes by G. M. Duncan (New Haven,

445
1890); and The Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings, Translated with Introduction arid Notes by R. Latta (Oxford, 1698).
(RUDOLF EUCKEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Data regarding the editions and translations of Leibnitz and an extensive list of works concerning him are in J. M. Baldwin, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, iii. 1, pp, 330‑338. Materials for a life are found in his letters, the various collections of which are noted in Baldwin, ut sup., pp. 331‑332. Lives and sketches of his life have been written by B. de Fontenelle, Paris, 1716 (used the biographical notices of J. G. von Eckhart, Leibnitz's secretary); G. E. Guhrauer, 2 vols., Breslau, 1846 (perhaps the best; on the basis of this was written the Life by J. M. Mackie, Boston, 1845); L. Grote, Hanover, 1869; E. Pffeiderer, Leipsic, 1870; E. Bodemann, Hanover, 1876; F. Kirchner, C6then, 1877; J. T. Merz, London, 1901; ADB, xviii. 172‑209; and the socounts in the works on the hist. of philosophy by Windelband, Erdmann, and Ueberweg, especially in that of K. Fischer, Geschichte der neuern Philoeophie, Heidelberg, 1902.
Discussions of his philosophy or of phases of it are: C. Secrdtan, La Philosophie de Leibnitz, Lausanne, 1840; L. Feuerbaeh, Geschichts der neuern Philoaophie, Ansbaeh, 1844; A. Helfferieh, Spinoza and Leibnitz, oder daa Wesen do Idealismue uiud des Realiamua, Berlin, 1846; R. Zimmermann, Leibniz's Monadologie, Vienna, 1847; J. F. Nourisson, La Philosophie de Leibnitz, Paris, 1860; A. Pichler, Die Theologie des Leibnitz, 2 vols., Munich, 18691870; C. H. Plath, Leibnitz's Miasionagedanken, Berlin, 1869; G. Class, Die metaphysi8cken Voraueaetzungen des leibnizischen Determinismue, Tubingen, 1874; E. Segond, La Monadologie, Paris, 1883; J. Dewey, Leibnitea New Essays concerning the Human Understanding, Chicago, 1888; B. R. Martin, Leibniz's Ethik, Erlangen, 1889; H. F. Beneke, Leibniz ala Ethiker, Erlangen, 1891; E. Dillmann, Eine neue Daratellung der leibnizischen Monadenlehre, Leipsie,1891; P. Gesche, Die Ethik Leibniz's, Halle, 1891; F. G. F. Wernigk, Der Begrif der Materie bei Leibniz, Jena, 1893; A. Niethack, Leibniz' Lehre von der menschlichen Wahlfreiheit, Halle, 1894; B. Russell, Critical Exposition of the Philoaophy of Leibnitz, Cambridge, 1900; E. Cassirer, Leibnitz' System in aeinen wisaenachaftlichen Grundlagen, Marburg, 1902.
LEIGH, lf, EDWARD: English Puritan; b. at Shawell (15 m. s. of Leicester), Leicestershire, Mar. 24, 1602; d. at Rushall (15 m. s.s.e. of Stafford), Staffordshire, June 2, 1671. He studied at Magdalen Hall, Oxford (B.A., 1620; M.A., 1623), and afterward studied law at the Middle Temple. In 1640 he was elected a member of Parliament for Staffordshire, but was expelled for voting for the king in Dec., 1648. His reputation rests upon two compilations, Critica sacra . . . Observations upon all the Greek Words of the New Testament (London, 1639), and Critics sacra. Observations on all the Radices or Primitive Hebrew Words of the Old Testament (1642). Both works were published together as a third edition in 1650 (4th ed., 1662; Lat. trans]., Amsterdam, 1696). Other works are: A Treatise of Divinity (London, 1647); Annotations upon all the New Testament (1650; Latin transl., Leipsie 1732); A System or Body of Divinity (1654); A Treatise of Religion and Learning, and of Religious and Learned Men (1656).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. h. Wood, Athena oxoniensea, ed. p. Bliss, iii. 926‑931 4 vols.. London, 1813‑20; John Nichols, Literary Anecdotes iii. 164‑166, 9 vols., London, 1812‑15; DNB, xxxii_ 432‑433.

LEIGH, SAMUEL. See METHODISTS, II., § 1.

LEIGHTON, Wtun ROBERT: Archbishop of Glasgow; b. (probably in London) 1611; d. in London June 25, 1684. His father, Alexander
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Leibnit$
Leivdo, Colloquy of
Leighton, a Presbyterian clergyman and physician who was cruelly persecuted by the Star Chamber, sent him to the University of Edinburgh (M.A., 1631), and afterward to travel on the continent. He spent several years in France, where he was strongly attracted to the Jansenists. On his return to Scotland, in 1641, he was licensed by the presbytery of Edinburgh, and on Dec. 16, 1641, was ordained and inducted into the parish of Newbattle. In 1652 he was sent to London by the Synod of Lothian to negotiate the liberation of the Scottish ministers imprisoned there. Finding himself out of sympathy with the political zeal of his colleagues he resigned his charge in 1652, and in 1653 became principal and professor of divinity at the University of Edinburgh. This post he retained till the Restoration. When episcopacy was established in Scotland in 1661 he remained in the reconsttuted church, became bishop of Dunblane, and was consecrated with Sharp and two others, in Westminster Abbey, Dec. 15, 1661. With two or three exceptions all the clergy in his diocese conformed. In other dioceses many clergymen refused to conform, and the persecution began. Leighton pleaded with Charles II. for milder measures, and in 1669 got the first Indulgence. In 1670, Archbishop Burnet having been deprived for opposing this clemency, Leighton was made archbishop of Glasgow, accepting the position on condition that he should be assisted in his efforts to secure the comprehension of the Presbyterians. Failing to get the support of his colleagues he retired from the archbishopric in 1674, and, after a short residence at Edinburgh, went to live with his sister at Broadhurst in Horsted Keynes, Sussex.
Leighton published nothing during his lifetime, and requested that his papers should be destroyed. His writings were first edited by his friend Dr. James Fall. The principal are: Sermons (London, 1692); A Practical Commentary upon the . . . First Epistle General of St. Peter (part i., York, 1693; part ii., London, 1694); Prelectiones theologian (London, 1693); and Three Posthumous Tracts (1708), including the well‑known Rules and In. strudions for a Holy Life (new ed., Oxford, 1905). There are several more or less complete collected editions of his works, the best that of W. West (VOIs. ii.‑vii., London, 1869 75; vol. i. was never published).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lives were prefixed to the editions of his works by J. N. Pearson, London, 1825, and J. Aikman, Edinburgh, 1839. Consult also: T. Murray, Life of R. Leighton, Edinburgh, 1828; C. F. kretan, The Troub. led Times and Holy Life of Archbishop Leighton, London, 1866; W. Blair, Selections from the Writings of Archbishop Leighton, With Memoir and Notes, London, 1883 idem,
Short Biography of Archbishop Leighton, with Selections, ib. 1884; G. Burnet, Hiat. of my own Tames, ed. O. Airy, i. 239 sqq., Oxford, 1900 (authoritative); D. Butler, Life
and Letters of Rt*1 Leighton, London, 1903; DNB, xxxiii, 4‑7.
LEIPSIC, COLLOQUY OF: A conference between German Lutherans and Calvinists held in connection with a convention of Protestants of the empire at Leipsic in Feb.‑Mar., 1631, called for the purpose of securing united action to prevent the execution of the Edict of Restitution (see WEsTPHALIA, PEACE or). The elector of Brandenburg

Leivado Colloquy of Lenfant
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
448
was accompanied by his court preacher, Johannes
Bergius; and the landgrave of Hesse by his court
preacher, Theophilus Neuberger, and Professor
Johannes Crocius. These theologians, who be
longed to the Reformed faith, invited certain Lu
therans of Saxony, Matthias Hots von Hodnegg,
Polyearp Leyser, and the court preacher Heinrich
HBpffner to a colloquy on the points of difference
between them. It began Mar. 3, and continued till
Mar. 23, the Augsburg Confession being taken as
basis. An agreement was soon reached with re
spect to articles i.‑ii., v.‑ix., xi.‑xxviii. The third
article, on Christology, proved more difficult; the
Lutherans upheld the Communicatio Idiomatum
(q.v.) which the Reformed denied, and it was finally
decided to attempt no more than a definite state
ment of points of agreement and difference. In re
gard to the fourth article the Reformed declared
that they taught the universality of the divine will
of salvation. The tenth article, on the Lord's Sup
per, occasioned the same difficulties as the third,
and was passed in the same way, since an actual
agreement was impossible. The Reformed hoped
for an agreement in order to oppose Romanism
more effectively, but the Lutherans dreaded to
make concessions. After the Augsburg Confession
had been discussed, it was felt that not all dis
putes had been settled, and the doctrine of pre
destination was specially debated. Here again a j
divergence was revealed, as the theologians of
Brandenburg and Hesse upheld the election of a
limited number and excluded divine foreknowledge
from salvation, while the Saxon theologians con
sidered election as conditioned by a' faith which
God foresaw. The tone of the colloquy was
friendly, even in cases where concord could not be
attained. AS it was private, only four copies of the
protocol were made‑one for each of the princes,
and one for the faculty of Leipsic; but general re
ports were soon published in Germany, Holland,
France, and England. 	(A. HAucg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are the protocol, reprinted in Corpus librorum aymbolicorum ed. J. C. W. Auguati, pp. 386 sqq., Elberfeld, 1826, and in Collectio confesaionum, ed. H. A. Niemeyer, pp 653 sqq., Leipeic, 1840; J. Bergius, Relation der Privat‑Conferenz . . . zu Leipaie 1631, Ber‑
lin,,1635. Consult: J. K. Seidemann, Die Leipziper Disputation, Dresden, 1843 (best, contains documents); C. W. Hering Geachichte der kirchlichen Unioneverauche, i. 327 sqq., Leipeic, 1836; A. G. Rudelbach, Reformation, Luthertum and Union, pp. 407 eqq„ ib. 1839; Schaff, Christian Church, vi. 178 eqq.; and in general the literature on LDTHER; the REFORMATION; Hog vON HGENEGG, MATTHIAS.
LEIPSIC, DISPUTATION OF. See Ecs, JOHANN; LUTHER, MARTIN.
LEIPSIC INTERIM. See INTERIM, 3.
LELAND, lel'and, JOHN: Name of two divines.
1. English nonconformist divirq& and polemical writer; b. at Wigan (15 m. w.n.w. of Manchester), Lancashire, Oct. 18, 1691; d. in DublinJan. 16, 1766. At an early age he was taken by his father to Dublin and there educated for the ministry. From 1716 till his death he was pastor of a Presbyterian congregation in Dublin. He distinguished himself by his writings against the deists, particularly Tindal, Thomas Morgan, Henry Dodwell, and Bolingbroke. His most important work is A View of the Principal
Deistical Writers that have Appeared in. England in the Last arid Present Centuries (2 vola., London, 1754‑56; best ed., 1837). This work is still valuable for the facts it gives about deistic writers, though its arguments against deism are now antiquated. Other works are: The Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament (2 vole., 17390); A Defence of Christianity (1740); The Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation (2 vole., 1764); and the posthumous Discourses (4 vole., 1768‑69).
2. American Baptist; b. at Grafton, Mass., May 14, 1754; d. at Cheshire, Mass., Jan. 14, 1841. Converted at twenty, he began at once to preach as an evangelist and soon made his way to Virginia (1775), where he became a leader of the Virginia Baptists in their struggle for liberty of conscience. In 1789 he introduced a resolution which was adopted by the Baptist general association of Virginia to the effect that " slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, and inconsistent with a republican government," and recommending that Baptists " make use of every legal means to extirpate this horrid evil from the land." In 1788, as a member of the Baptist general committee on religious liberty, he addressed a noble letter to President Washington in which he pointed out the lack of sufficient security for liberty of conscience in the United States' constitution as it was being presented to the States for ratification. Washington responded courteously and sympathetically, and article 1. of the present constitution was introduced. He returned to Massachusetts in 1800 and continued active in his ministry almost to the end of his long life. He published The Rights of Conscience Inalienable (Richmond, 1793).
A. H. NEWMAN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. The Discourses, ut sup., contains a Life by the editor, Z. Weld. Consult: L. Stephen, English
Thought in the 18th Century, vol. i., New York, 1881;
DNB, xltiii. 17‑18; KL, vii. 1711. 2. A. H. Newman,
Hilt. of the Baptist Churches in the United States, New
York, 1898; W. Cathcart, Baptist Encycloptadia, Philadelphia, 1888.
LELONG, 1e‑18n', JACQUES: French bibliographer; b. in Paris Apr. 19, 1665; d. there Aug. 13, 1721. At an early age he was sent to Malta to be educated by the Knights of St. John, but returned to Paris in 1676 and entered the Congregation of the Oratory in 1686. He was librarian of the Oratory of St. Honors at Paris from 1699 till his death. His principal work is the valuable Bibliotheca sacra (2 vole., Paris, 1709; 2d ed., much enlarged, 2 vole., 1723). Enlarged editions were published by C. F. BSrner (2 parts, Leipaic, 1709) and A. G. March (5 vole., Halls, 1778‑90). Other works are: Suppl6rllent Zc l'histoire ties dictionrutires hebreux de Wolfius (in Journal des Savants, Paris, 1707); Diseours historiquea sur lea principales editions des Bibles polyglottes (1713); and Bibliothtque historique de la France (1719; augmented by Fwret de Fontelle, 5 vole., 1768‑78).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life was written by P. N. Desmoulets and prefixed to his (2nd) edition of the Bibliotheca Sacra, Paris, 1723. Consult KL, vii. 1712‑14.
LEMAISTRE DE SACY, le‑mb'tr de s8"si', LOUIS ISAAC: Jansenist; b. in Paris Mar. 29, 1613; d. at the Ch&teau of Pomponne, in Brie Jan. 4, 1684. He added to his name " Sacy," or " Soci," an ana‑

447	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	I."fast Colloquy of
gram from his Christian name Isaac, and is often referred to under this title. He studied at the College of Beauvais with his uncle, Antoine Arnauld (q.v.), was ordained priest in 1648, and in 1650 became spiritual director of the recluses at Port Royal. During the persecution of the Jansenists he was expelled from the monastery (1661) and on May 13, 1666, he was imprisoned in the Bastile. After his liberation, Oct. 31, 1668, he lived for a time with his cousin, the Marquis of Pomponne, in Brie. Later he went to Paris and returned to Port Royal in 1675. On having to leave the monastery a second time in 1679, he retired to Pomponne, where he spent the rest of his life. . He was buried in the church of Port Royal.
Under various pen‑names Lemaistre de Sacy was a prolific writer and was particularly successful as a translator, both of verse and prose. He is principally known for his French translations from the Bible. He collaborated with his brother Antoine Lemaistre on his Nouveau Testament (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1668), long known as the Nouveau Testament de Mons. This work was vehemently attacked by several bishops, condemned by Clement IX., defended by Arnauld and Nicole, and caused a controversy that lasted twenty years. The first instalments of a translation of the entire Bible, which Lemaistre de Sacy had begun while in the Bastfe, appeared in 1672. After his death the work was completed by Thomas du Foss6 and C. HurS (32 vols., Paris, 1672‑1706). See BIBLE VERSIONS, B, VI., § 4. Among other translations of Lemaistre de Saey are, Fables de Phbdre (Paris, 1647); Comedies de T6rence (1647); L'Imitation de Jesus‑Christ (1662), which passed through more than 150 editions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult the literature under PORT‑ROYAL.
LE MAQTRE, le m6'tr (MEISTER, MAISTER), JEAN HENRI: Swiss Protestant; b. at Zurich c. 1690; d. at Kussnacht (7 m. e.n.e. of Lucerne), 1774. He studied theology and philosophy at Zurich, espoused the cause of the Huguenots and became preacher of the French colony of .Huguenots in Baireuth. In 1733 he was called to Backeburg as assistant of Pierre Cr6gut, the court preacher and director of the Huguenot colony, whom he succeeded in 1738. He rendered valuable service to the gifted counts of Buckeburg, Friedrich Ludwig Karl and Albrecht Wolfgang, the sovereign of Schaumburg‑Lippe, by introducing them into the philosophy of Malebranche, Pierre Bayle, Christian Wolff, Spinoza, and others, and by assuming the religious and scientific education of the two sons of Count Albrecht Wolfgang‑Wilhelm and Georg. On account of the rigid church discipline which he introduced in the Huguenot colony, after the model of the Reformed Church in France, Le Maitre was secretly attacked and slandered, so that about 1747 he left Biickeburg and accepted a call to Erlangen. Later he returned to his native country and acted as preacher at Kiissnacht, but his relations with his former pupil, Count Wilhelm, who in 1747 ascended the throne, always remained cordial.
(F. H. BRANDES.)
BIBLIOGRAPtrY: Brandes, in Die franz6siache Kolonie, 1895,
nos. 10‑12; idem, in Geachichtablauer des deutschen Hu‑
genoftenvereina, vol. iii. nos. 7‑8.
LEMME, LUDWIG: German Protestant; b. at Salzwedel (110 m. s.e. of Bremen), Aug. 8, 1847. He studied philosophy and theology in Berlin 1866‑69, was private tutor, and then tutor at Gbttingen 1872‑74. In 1874 he was ordained, and was then assistant preacher at the cathedral and second inspector of the seminary for canons at Berlin for two years. From 1876 to 1888 he was inspector of the Johanneum at Breslau, and from 1876 until 1881 also privat‑docent at the University of Breslau, where he was appointed associate professor in 1881. In 1884 he was called to Bonn as professor of systematic theology, and since 1891 has occupied a similar position in Heidelberg. In theology he maintains a positive position, allied to that of I. A. Dorner and R. Rothe. He has written: Das Verhdltniss der Dogmatik zu Kritik and Aualegung der heiligen Schrift nach Schleiermacher (GUtingen, 1874); Die drei groseen Reformationsachriften Luthers vom Jahre 1520 (Goths, 1875); Das Evangelium in Bohmen (1877); Die religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Dekalogs (Breslau, 1880); Die Ndchstenliebe (1881); Das erste Ermnhnungsachreiben des Paulus an den Timotheus (1882); Die Sfnde wider den heiligen Geist (1883); Die Pflege der Einbildungakraft (1884); Die Maeht des Gebets mit besonderer Beaehung auf KrankenheiL. ung (Barmen, 1887); Der Erfolg der Predigt (1888); Die Prinzipien der Ritachl'schen Theologie and ihr Wert (Bonn, 1891); Grundlage, Ziel and Eigent4mlichkeit des theologischen Studiums (Heidelberg, 1891); Der Wert des Gebeta (1892): Daa Recht des apostoliachen Glaubembekenntnissea and seine Gegner (1893); Die Kirche die Gemeinschaft der Heiligen (1893); Heilstatsachen and Glavbemerfahrung (1894); Die Preundschaft (Heilbronn, 1897); Die Endlosigkeit der Verdammnis and die allgemeine Wiederbringung (Gross‑Liehterfelde, 1899); Richard Rothes Hundertjahrfeier (Heidelberg, 1899); Zeugnisse vom Heil in Jesu Christo (sermons; 1899); Der gegenurdrtige Stand der Ethik (Carlsruhe, 1900); Das Wesen des Christentums and die Zukunftsreligion (Gross‑Lichterfelde, 1901); Die Busse nach Schrift, Bekenntnis and Erfahrung (Herborll, 1901); Religionageschichtliche Entwicklung Oder gbttliche 0fenbarung? (Carlsrnhe, 1901); Christliche Ethik (2 vols., Gross‑Lichterfelde, 1905); Wer w~sr JeausY (Berlin, 1905); and TheologischeEnzyklopadae (1909).

LENFANT, lien"fens, JACQUES: French Protestant; b. at Bazoches (50 m. s.w. of Paris) Apr. 13, 1661; d. at Berlin Aug. 7, 1728. He studied theology at Saumur and Geneva, and in 1684 he became preacher to the French congregation at Heidelberg. In 1688 Elector Frederick of Brandenburg (the first king of Prussia) appointed him pastor of the French church in Berlin, where he labored nearly forty years. He was a member of the supreme consistory and of the committee for the regulation of French emigration, and in 1724 became a member of the academy of sciences in
Berlin. He was a prolific writer, but is prominent chiefly as a church historian. His principal works are: Histaire de la papesse Jeanne (Amsterdam, 1694); Hiatoire du Concile de Constance (1714;
2d ed., 2 vols., 1727; Eng. transl., 2 vols., London,

Le Nonrry
Leo I	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	448
1730), the most important of his works; Histoire du
Concile de Pise et de ce qui s'est passd de plus me
morable depuis ce Coneile jusqu'au Concile de Cony
stance (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1724); and Histoire de
la guerre des Hussites et du Concile de Basle (1731).
With Beausobre he wrote Le Nouveau Testament de
notre Seigneur Jesus Christ traduit en frangois Sur
l'original grec, avee des notes lit6rales (2 vols., 1718;
Eng. transl., in part, London, 1726). Lenfant is
the author of the first volume, which contains the
four Gospels and a comprehensive introduction.
Other writings are: the polemical Pr4servatif contre
la r6union aveo le siege de Rome (4 vols., Amster
dam, 1723); and Seize sermons sur divers textes
(1728; Germ. transl., Halle, 1742). Lenfant was
also one of the founders of the Bibliothbque Ger
manique. 	(C. PFENDER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. and A. Ham, La France proteetante, ed. H. L. Bordier, vol. vi., Paris, 1889; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 130‑138.

	LE NOURRY, le nai"ri', DENIS NICOLAS: A
member of the Benedictine congregation of Saint
Maur and a participant in their learned works; b.
at Dieppe in 1647; d. at the abbey of Saint‑Ger
main‑des‑Pres, Paris, Mar. 24, 1724. He was edu
cated by the French Oratorians, and entered the
Benedictine order at Jumi6ges in 1665. He wrote
the introduction to Garet's edition of Cassiodorus
(2 vols., Rouen, 1679), and collaborated with
Duchesne and Bellaise in the edition of Ambrose,
which he completed with Du Friche (2 vols., Paris,
1686‑90). He edited also the treatise De mArtibus
persecutorum. (1710), attempting to prove that it
was not written by Lactantius. His chief work,
however, was his Apparatus ad btbliothecam, vet
erum patrum (2 vols., 1694‑97; 2d ed., enlarged,
2 vols., 1703‑15), a historical and critical treatment,
to the end of the fourth century, of the authors
comprised in the Maxima btbliotheca veterum patrum
(27 vols., Lyons, 1677). 	(C. PFENDER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Nioeron, Mdmoiree, i. 275‑278; J. C. F. Hosts, Nouvelle biographic g6nkr'ale, xxxviii. 680, 46 vole., Paris, 1855‑56.

LENT: The forty days' fast preparatory to the celebration of Easter. The name appears in Middle English as Lenten, which goes back to AngloSaxon lencten, " spring " (cf. German Lenz). The Latin name is Quadragesima, from the fortieth day before Easter, when it was approximately supposed to begin. By a similar loose calculation, the three preceding Sundays were known as Septuagesima (seventieth), Sexagesima (sixtieth), and Quirtquagesima (fiftieth). Traces of the ancient variations in the length of the season still appear in the Roman Catholic practise of beginning from Septuagesima to wear vestments of violet, the Lenten color of mourning, and to omit from the services the Alleluia as an ejaculation of joy. For the history and observance of the fast, see FASTING, II.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Origines, XXl., i (best); E. Mart6ne, De antiquis ecclesitu ritibus, iii., chaps. 18‑19, Antwerp, 1737; H. Liemke, Die Quadragesimalfaeten der Kirche, Paderborn, 1853; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, pp. 407‑408, London, 1870; W. E. Addis and T. Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, pp. 558560, ib. 1903; DCA, ii. 972‑977 (gives early literature).
LENTULUS, EPISTLE OF. See JESUS CHRIST, PICTURES AND IMAGES OF, L, § 3.
LEO: The name of thirteen popes.
Leo L, called the Great: Pope 440‑461. According to the LtMer pontifecalis he was a native of Tuscany. By 431, as a deacon, he occupied a sufficiently important position for Cyril of Alexandria to apply to him in order that Rome's influence should be thrown against the claims of Juvenal of Jerusalem (q.v.) to patriarchal jurisdiction over Palestine‑unless this letter is addressed rather to Pope Celestine. About the same time Johannes Cassianus (q.v.) dedicated to him the treatise against Nestorius written at his request. But nothing shows more plainly the confidence felt in him than his being chosen by the emperor to settle the dispute between Aetius and Albinus, the two highest officials in Gaul. During his absence on this mission, Sixtus III. died (Aug. 11, 440), and Leo was unanimously elected by the people to quoteed him. On Sept. 29 he entered upon a pontificate which was to be epoch‑making for the centralization of the government of the Church.
An uncompromising foe of heresy, Leo found that in the diocese of Aquileia, Pelagians were received into church communion without formal repudiation of their errors; he wrote to rebuke this culpable negligence, and required a solemn abjuration before a synod. Manicheans fleeing before the
Vandals had come to Rome in 439 Zeal for and secretly organized there; Leo be‑
Orthodoay. came aware of this and proceeded against them (c. 443), holding a public debate with their representatives, burning their books, and warning the Roman Christians against them. The edict of Valentinian III. against them (June 19, 445) was brought about by his efforts. Nor was his attitude leas decided against the Priscillianista. Bishop Turrubius of Astorga, astonished at the spread of this sect in Spain, had addressed the other Spanish bishops on the subject, sending a copy of his letter to Leo, who did not let slip the opportunity to exercise influence in Spain. He wrote an extended treatise (July 21, 447) against the sect, examining its false teaching in detail, and calling for a Spanish general council to investigate whether it had any adherents in the episcopatebut this was prevented by the political circumstances of Spain.
Leo enforced his authority in 445 against Dioscurus, Cyril's successor in the patriarchate of Alexandria, insisting that the ecclesiastical practise of his see should follow that of Rome; since Mark, the disciple of Peter and founder of the Alexandrian Church, could have had no other tradition than that of the prince of the apostles. The fact that the African province of Mauretania Caesariensis had been preserved to the empire and thus to the Nicene faith in the Vandal invasion, and in its isolation was disposed to rest on outside support, gave Leo an opportunity to assert his authority there, which he did decisively in regard to a number of questions of discipline. In a letter to the bishops of Campania, Picenum, and Tuscany (443) he required the observance of all his precepts and those of his pre‑

449	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	LL:.No
decessors; and he sharply rebuked the bishops of Sicily (447) for their deviation from the Roman custom as to the time of baptism, requiring them to send delegates to the Roman synod to learn the proper practise.
The assertion of Roman power over Illyria had been a strong point with previous popes. Innocent I. had constituted the metropolitan of Thessalonica his vicar, in order to oppose the growing power of the patriarch of Constantinople there. But now the Illyrian bishops showed a tendency to side with Constantinople, and the popes had difficulty in maintaining their authority. In 444 Leo laid down in a letter to them the principle that Peter had received the primacy and oversight of the whole Church as a requital of his faith, and that thus all important matters were to be referred to and decided by Rome. In 446 he had occasion twice to interfere in the affairs of Illyria, and in the same spirit spoke of the Roman pontiff as the apex of the hierarchy of bishops, metropolitans, and primates. From the end of the fifth century, however, the influence of Constantinople was again predominant here.
Not.without serious opposition did he succeed in asserting his authority over Gaul. Patroclus of Arles (d. 426) had received from Pope Zosimus the recognition of a primacy over the Gallican Church (see ARLES, ARCHBISHOPRIC OF), which was strongly asserted by his successor Hilary (429‑449). An appeal from Celidonius of Besangon gave
Asserts His Leo occasion to proceed against HilAuthority ary, who defended himself stoutly at
	in Gaul.	Rome, refusing to recognize Leo's ju
		dicial status. But Leo restored Celi
donius and restricted Hilary to his own diocese, de
priving him even of his metropolitan rights over
the province of Vienne. Feeling that his domi
nant idea of the Roman universal monarchy was
threatened, Leo appealed to the civil power for
support, and obtained from Valentinian III. (q.v.)
the famous decree of June 6, 445, which recognized
the primacy of the bishop of Rome based on the
merits of Peter, the dignity of the city, and the de
crees of Nicaea (in their interpolated form); or
dained that any opposition to his rulings, which
were to have the force of law, should be treated as
treason; and provided for the forcible extradition
by provincial governors of any one who refused to
answer a summons to Rome. Hilary made his sub
mission, although under his successor, Ravennius,
Leo divided the metropolitan rights between Arles
and Vienne (450).
A favorable occasion for extending the authority of Rome in the East offered in the renewal of the Christological controversy by Eutyches (see EBTYCHIANISM), who in the beginning of the conflict‑appealed to Leo and took refuge with him on his condemnation by Flavian. But on receiving full information from Flavian; Leo took his side decisively. At the " Robber Synod " of Ephesus Leo's representatives delivered the famous " tome " or statement of the faith of the Roman Church in the form of a letter addressed to Flavian, which repeats, in close adherence to Augustine, the formulas of western Christology, without really touchVL‑29
ing the problem that was agitating the East. The council did not read the letter, and paid no attention to the protests of Leo's legates, but deposed Flavian and Eusebius, who appealed to Rome. Leo demanded of the emperor that an ecumenical council should be held in Italy, and in the mean time, at a Roman synod in Oct., 449, repudiated all the decisions of the " Robber Synod." Without going into a critical examination of its dogmatic decrees, in his letters to the emperor and others he demanded the deposition of Eutyches as a Manichean and Docetic heretic. With the death of Theodosius II. (450) and the sudden change in the Eastern situation, Anatolius the new patriarch of Constantinople fulfilled Leo's requirements, and his " tome " was everywhere read and recognized. He was now no longer desirous of having a council, especially since it would not be held in Italy. It was called to meet at Niceea, then transferred to Chalcedon, where his legates held at least an honorary presidency, and where the bishops recognized him as the interpreter of the voice of Peter and as the head of their body, requesting of him the confirmation of their decrees. He firmly declined to confirm their disciplinary arrangements, which seemed to allow Constantinople a practically equal authority with Rome and regarded the civil importance of a city as a determining factor in its ecclesiastical position; but he strongly supported its dogmatic decrees, especially when, after the accession of the Emperor Leo I. (457) there seemed to be a disposition toward compromise with the Eutychians. He succeeded in having an orthodox patriarch, and not the Monophysite Timotheus Xlurus (see MONOPHYSITEs, § § 3 sqq.), chosen as patriarch of Alexandria on the murder of Proterius.
The approaching collapse of the Western Empire gave Leo a further opportunity to appear as the representative of lawful authority. When Attila invaded Italy in 452 and threatened Rome, it was Leo who, with two high civil functionaries, went to meet him, and so impressed him that he withdrew ‑at least according to Prosper, although Jordanis, who represents Leo's contemporary Priscus, gives other grounds. His intercession could not prevent the sack of the city by Genseric in 455, but murder and arson were repressed by his influence. He died probably on Nov. 10, 461.
The significance of Leo's pontificate lies in the fact of his assertion of the universal episcopate of the Roman bishop, which comes out in his letters, and still more in his ninety‑six extant orations.
According to him the Church is built Leo's Sig‑ upon Peter, in pursuance of the piom‑
nificance. ise of Matt. xvi. 16‑19. Peter partici‑
pates in everything which is Christ's; what the other apostles have in common with him they have through him. The Lord prays for Peter alone when danger threatens all the apostles, because his firmness will strengthen the others. What is true of Peter is true also of his successors. Every other bishop is charged with the care of his own special flock, the Roman with that of the whole Church. Other bishops are only his assistants in this great task. Through the see of Peter, Rome has become the capital of the world in a wider sense

Leo I‑IX	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	450
than before. For this reason, when the earth was
divided among the apostles, Rome was reserved to
Peter, that here, at the very center, the decisive
triumph might be won over the earthly wisdom of
philosophy and the power of the demons; and thus
from the head the light of truth streams out through
the whole body. In Leo's eyes the decrees of the
Council of Chalcedon acquired their validity from
his confirmation. The wide range of this theory
justifies the application to him of the title of the
first pope. 	(N. BoxwaTscA.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera were edited by P. Quesnel, 2 vols., Paris, 1675 (defended Hilary against Leo, therefore put on the Index); and by P. and H. Ballerina, 3 vole.. Venice, 1753‑57 (contain works of doubtful authenticity), from which they were reprinted in MPL, liv,
lvi., with life by Anastasius Bibliothecarius (given with commentary in MPL, exxviii. 299 sqq.) and Quesnel's Diesertatio. Fifty selected letters are ;printed in H. Hurter, Opuscula sacrorum patrum selecta, ser. 1, vols., xxv‑xxvi., Innsbruck, 1874. An Eng. transl. of selected letters and sermons is given in NPNF, 2 ser., vol. xii., together with a life and prolegomena.
Data concerning Leo's life may be sought in: Liber pontifcalia, ed. Mommsen in MGH, Gest. pont. Rom., i (1898), 101‑106; Tillemont, Memoires, xv. 414‑832 (accurate, impartial); Jaffd, Regesta, pp. 34 aqq.; W. A. Arendt, Leo der Groom and seine Zeit, Mainz, 1835 (Roman Catholic, apologetic); E. Perthel, Leo's 1. Leben and Lehren, Jena, 1843 (Protestant and depreciatory); T. Greenwood Cathedra Petri, i., book vi., chaps. iv.‑vi., London, 1859; F. Bahringer, Die Kirche Christi and Are ZeupM vol. xii., Stuttgart, 1879; C. H. Gore, in Fathers for English Readers, London, 1880; DCB, iii. 652‑673 (minute); F. Gregorovins, Hist. of the City of Rome, i. 189‑228; London, 1894. Views of his activities are given by P. Kuhn, Die Christologie Leos I., Wfirzburg, 1894; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. 302‑356, 564, Eng. tranel" vols. iii.‑iv.; O. Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, pp. 460 sqq., Freiburg, 1901; Harnack, Dogma, vols. ii.‑v., passim. Consult also, Ceillier, Auteura sacrts, x. 169‑275; Bower, Popes, i. 189‑248; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 253 sqq.; Neander, Christian Church, vol. ii., passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 314 eqq. et passim.

Leo IL: Pope 682‑683. The importance of his brief pontificate lies in his action in confirming the acts of the sixth ecumenical council, which contained the inclusion of his predecessor Honorius among the condemned leaders of Monothelitism (q.v.). Similarly, in sending the acts of the council to the Spanish bishops, he included Honorius as one " who did not, as became his apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical doctrine, but by his negligence fostered it." Macarius of Antioch and his Monothelite friends, who had been sent to Rome, were (according to the Liber pn»tifualis) imprisoned in various monasteries, with the exception of two who recanted. The same authority describes Leo as learned in the Scriptures, Greek, and ecclesiastical music, and as charitable. The date of his burial is July 3, 683. (N. BoxwETsca.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Eplstold are in MPL, xcvi., cf. NA, viii. 363‑364. Consult: Liber pontificalis, ed. Mommeen in MGH, Gent. Pont. Rom., i (1898), 200‑202; ASB, June, v. 375; R. Baxmann, Die Politik der Pitpste. i. 185 sqq., Elberfeld, 1868; J. Langen, Gmchirhte der romischen Kirche ii. 568 sqq., Bonn, 1885: Ceillier, Auteurs weres, xi. 784‑785, xii. 955‑958; Hefek. Concilienpeachichte, iii. 287 eqq, Eng. tranal., v. 179 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i. 486‑487; Milman, Latin Christianity, ii. 287: DCB, iii. 673‑674.
Leo IIL: Pope 795‑816. A Roman by birth, he was elected Dec. 26 and consecrated the next day. His election is said by the Liber pontificalis
to have been unanimous; but the Roman aristocracy was certainly hostile to him at the start, which drove him to rely on the support of Charlemagne. He sent word of his election to the king, assuring him of his fidelity, and Charlemagne's answer expressed his readiness to renew the alliance between the Frankish kingdom and the Church. At first this relation was useful to Leo, and soon enough was absolutely necessary, owing not only to the danger of Saracen attack but even more to the hostile attitude of Leo's personal opponents in Rome, the men whom his elevation had robbed of their power. At the customary procession on St. Mark's day, 799, he was attacked and maltreated; and a tumultuous gathering judged him on various grave charges and declared him deposed. His partizans rallied and released him in the night. He fled to Germany, where Charlemagne received him as the lawful pope, and in November he was restored by the Frankish power. In Charlemagne's mind, however, the duty of protection involved the right of oversight. His commissioner was directed to make a full investigation as well of the charges against Leo as of the violence of his opponents. Difficulties stood in the way either of judging a pope or of allowing his sacred office to be filled by a man under suspicion of serious misdoing. The suggestion of Leo's voluntary retirement to a monastery was made, but not so easily carried out. Charlemagne decided to take the matter up in person, and appeared in Italy in the autumn of 800. The investigation ended not by a judicial condemnation or by a judicial acquittal, but by Leo's taking a solemn oath in Charlemagne's presence that he was innocent of the charges, after which his opponents were condemned to death as rebels, though the sentence was commuted to banishment. Two days later, on Christmas day, Leo crowned Charlemagne as emperor, apparently (though the question has been much debated) without any preliminary knowledge or desire on the king's part, and to the profit rather of Leo's own importance.
Charlemagne deduced from the new title the conclusion that Rome was to be treated as an integral part of his empire, and thenceforth little essential difference can be observed between its bishop and the other metropolitans of the empire; the pope was considered a subject of the emperor. The extent to which this was carried may be seen from the small part assigned to Leo in the settlement of the controversies of the time. The Adoptionist controversy was taken in hand by Charlemagne himself, and Leo had nothing to do but to repeat at a Roman synod Oct. 23, 798, the condemnation already pronounced in Germany. In the negotiations as to the Filioque he ventured, indeed, to dissociate himself from the conclusion of the Frankish Church, but his solemn exposition of the ancient text of the creed, engraved on silver tablets, in St. Peter's made no impression on Charlemagne and his theologians, and the Filioque was accepted both in the Frankish Church and tacitly in Rome. Even in his relations with the Greek Church Leo was hampered by his relation to Charlemagne. When the, emperor died (Jan. 28, 814), Leo neglected to have the Roman people do homage to his successor LoiuS

451	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Leo I‑IX
the Pious. Thinking to get revenge on his old
enemies, he had some of them imprisoned or exe
cuted. Louis took notice of this trespass on the
imperial rights, and sent his nephew Bernard to in
vestigate it; but Leo succeeded in pacifying him
by an embassy. He died June 12, 816. He was a
man of small capacity, unduly magnified in later
times by the importance attached to his coronation
of Charlemagne. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Episto&e are in Jaffl;, BRG, iv. 308334, and Bouquet, Recueil, v. 597‑604. Sources are: Liber pontiflcalis, ed. Duchesne, ii. 1 sqq., Paris, 1892; and the annals collected in MGH, Script., i. 1826. Consult: F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, ii. 460493, London, 1894; J. A. Ketterer, Karl der Grosse and die Kirche, Munich, 1898; Hauck, KD, ii. passim; Hefele, Conefiliengeachichte, vol. iii. passim; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr6a, xii. 399‑401 et passim; Bower, Popes, ii. 173‑192; Milman, Latin Christianity, ii. 454 sqq.; Neander, Christian Church, vol. iii. passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 455; DCB, iii. 674‑679; and also much of the literature under CHARLEMAGNE.
Leo IV.: Pope 847‑855. He was elected at the end of January and consecrated Apr. 10, without waiting for imperial confirmation, on pretext of danger from the Saracens. For the same reason he zealously pushed the new fortifications of Rome, and thus strengthened the papal independence. The legal relations with the empire were not, however, substantially altered; Leo acknowledged the theoretical supremacy of the emperor in both temporal and spiritual matters, even while he endeavored to efface the recollection of its past exercise. In purely spiritual questions he acted unhesitatingly as the supreme head of Christianity. He showed his conception of his see as " mistress and head of all churches " (Jaff6, Regesta, 2647) by refusing his assent to the decrees of the Synod of Soissons (853) and requiring a new one to he held in presence of his legate (see HINCMAR OF REIMS), as well as by reproaching Ignatius of Constantinople for holding a synod and deposing certain bishops without his sanction, and finally summoning both parties to Rome (see PHOTIUS). He died July 17, 855.
(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Epiatola et decreta are in MPL, exv. 655‑674, cf. exxix‑ 999‑1002. Sources for a life are the Vita with commentary in ASB July, iv. 302‑326; Liber pontifdcalis, ed. Duchesne, ii. 106 aqq., Paris, 1892; and the annals collected in MGH, Script., i. 1826. Consult: F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, iii. 91‑111, London, 1895; Ceillier, Auteurs sacres, xii. 406‑409; Bower, Popes, ii. 217‑220; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 18‑20; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 459. Much of the literature cited under GREGORY IV. is pertinent.
Leo V.: Pope 903. He ruled only a month from his consecration in August, was then overthrown and imprisoned, and soon died.
(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for a life are: Liber pontiftcalis, ed. Duchesne, ii. 234 Paris, 1892; Jaffd, Regeata, i. 444; J. M. Watterich, Romanorum pontiflcam . , viteP, i. 32, Leipsic, 1862. Consult: F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, iii. 242, London, 1895; C. Dommler, Auxilius and Bulgarius. Leipsic, 1866; Ceillier, Auteurs sacres, xii. 743: Bower, Popes, ii. 306; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 155.
Leo VL : Pope 928‑929. He was the son of the Roman primicerius Christophorus. All that is known of him is that he was elected in June, 928, and died probably in the following February.
(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, ii. 242, Paris, 1892; Jaffd, Regesta, i. 453; J. M. Watterich, Romanorum pontificum . . . vita, i. 33, Leipsic, 1862. Consult: F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, iii. 282; Bower, Popes, ii. 311.
Leo VIL : Pope 936‑939. He was consecrated early in Jan., 936, presumably the choice of the younger Alberic, then in power. He was a pious monk, allied with the Cluniac movement, and what is known of his papal acts is principally confined to efforts for monastic reform. He died in July, 939. (A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: His Epistoke are in Bouquet, Recueil, vol. ix. Consult: Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, ii. 244, Paris, 1892; Jaff6, Regesta, i. 455‑456; J. M. Watterieh, Romanorum pontificum . . . vitro, i. 33, Leipsic, 1862; E. Sackur, Die Cluniacenser, Halle, 1892; F. Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome, iii. 306‑317, London, 1895; Bower, Popes, ii. 312‑313; and the literature under JOHN XI.
	Leo VIII.: Pope 963‑965. He was elected Dec.
4 to replace John XII., who had been deposed by
Otto 1. For a time he was driven from Rome,
but was restored by Otto after John's death, and
his new rival, Benedict V., was deposed in June,
964, at a synod held in the emperor's presence (see
JOHN XII.; BENEDICT V.). Leo died, however, in
the following spring. 	(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, ii. 250,
	Paris, 1892; JaffE, Regesta, i. 467‑468; J. M. Watterieh,
	Romanorum pontiicum . • . vine, i. 42‑43; A. Ens,
	Pythagoras novus excuasus,Lidge, 1767; Ceillier, Auteurs
	sacres, xii. 831‑833; F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of
	Rome, iii. 348‑357, London, 1895; Bower, Popes, ii. 319
	320; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 183‑185; Neander,
	Christian Church, iii. 368; Schaff, Christian Church, iv.
290.
Leo I%. (Bruno, son of Count Hugo of Egisheim in Alsace, a Cousin of the Emperor Conrad II.)
Pope 1048‑54. He was born at Egisheim (2 m. w. of Colmar) June 21, 1002, and had already distinguished himself by a model administration as bishop of Toul when, by command of Henry IIl. and on request of the Roman delegates, he was chosen pope at the diet in Worms early in Dec., 1048, succeeding Damasus II. Talented, energetic, lovable, experienced, and in close touch with the movement for a reform in church life emanating from Cluny (q.v.), he was highly qualified for the office tendered to him. His reception in Rome was brilliant, and, at his own request, he was there again elected and then assumed the pontifical government, being enthroned on Feb. 12, 1049. Hildebrand (see GREGORY VII.), who in 1046 had been obliged to accompany Gregory VI. to Germany, returned to Rome in Leo's retinue, and was now received into the body of cardinals. Of still greater significance was the importation of other forces. The episcopal see of Silva Candida was assigned to the monk Humbert (q.v.); Hugo the White (q.v.) was promoted as cardinal priest of St. Clement in Rome; Stephen of Lorraine obtained an abbot's post in Rome; and Archbishop Frederick, brother of Duke Godfrey of Lorraine, was called from Li6ge.
Leo held his first Roman synod in the Lateran Apr. 9‑12, 1049, and there laid the foundation and outlined the policy of his whole administration. His first attempt at reform aimed to suppress simony. The synod approved the deposition of simoniacal bishops, but, with clamorous protest, refused

Leo IX‑g	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	462
the pope's demand for the annulment of all ordinations of simonists on the ground of its practical inexpediency. A law was also passed Leo's concerning compulsory celibacy in the
	Reforms.	priesthood, which involved little sub
		stantially new but proved of great
consequence as it initiated the reformed papacy's
warfare against the marriage of priests. Soon after
ward, Leo started on a journey to Germany, over
taking the emperor in Saxony, and attending him
by way of Cologne to Aix‑la‑Chapelle. At Reims,
Oct. 3‑6, he held the great synod which has peculiar
interest both by reason of the preceding situation
and of its enactments. There was but small at
tendance from France, and Leo exercised great re
serve. The celibacy question did not at this time
come up for discussion at all, and the examination
of charges in case of the bishops under suspicion of
simony was conducted in a lukewarm way. Leo
also forbore to press his rigorous conviction in re
spect to simoniacal consecrations. On the other
hand, he pursued all the more energetically his aim
of bringing out in clearly expressed terms the au
thoritative position of the papacy. The archbishop
of Santiago in Galicia, northern Spain, had as
sumed the title Apostolicus, and was therefore ex
communicated. Many French bishops and abbots
who had stayed away from the synod were likewise
sentenced with the ban, while others were sum
moned to Rome. At the close of the synod the
first investiture law by the reformed papacy
was promulgated (see INVESTITURE). Two weeks
later, about Oct. 19, Leo opened, in presence
of Emperor Henry III., a brilliant synod at
Mainz, which likewise took measures against
simony and the marriage of priests. He then
returned to Italy.
In the spring of 1050 Leo was in southern Italy, where he convened a synod at Salerno and at Siponto, southward of Monte Gargano. The Roman synod which met under his presidency on Apr. 29 continued the activity for reform. A few weeks l%ter, however, he was again in southern Italy, where the advance of the Normans was inaugurating new political combinations. The synod at Vercelli then recalled him to the north. This belongs to the conventions under Leo IX. which are of great moment in the history of dogma, for here Berengar of Tours (q.v.) was condemned anew. Here again the difficult question came up as to what course should be observed in the matter of ordinations by simonists, but once again the pope failed to have his policy adopted; namely, that the actual proof of a simoniacal ordination required the revocation of the sacrament thereof. In the autumn Leo journeyed across the Alps once more to France.
Early in 1051 he was present in Germany, and had interviews of political importance with Henry III. at Cologne, Treves, and Augsburg. On returning to Rome, Leo finally resigned his bishopric of Toul. The third of the Roman synods convened by him sat in April, after Easter. Once again the administration of the sacraments by simonists was discussed without any understanding being reached. During the following months all the pope's energy
was called forth in southern Italy, where the issue was to meet the dangers of the Norman invasion.
Leo first attempted, by alliance with The Nor‑ Prince Weimar of Salerno and Count man In‑ Drogo, chief of the Apulian Normans, vasion. to secure the acquisition of Benevento by pacific means, but did not succeed. Claims on Benevento could be made effectual by force alone, and to this end the pope sought help from King Henry I. of France and Emperor Henry III. of Germany. Later, in the early summer of 1052, Leo attempted to lead the conflict with the Normans in person, but was unable to keep his army together. In this difficult situation he desired a personal understanding with the German emperor, and being appealed to at this very time by King Andrew of Hungary as mediator in the war with Henry III., he hastened to the imperial camp at Pressburg. Although his intervention brought no advantage to the German empire, and though the Hungarian expedition issued unfavorably, the good understanding between Henry and Leo was not impaired and they returned together to Germany. While pope and emperor were celebrating the Christmas festival together at Worms, they came to the important agreement that Henry ceded Benevento and other imperial tenure in southern Italy to the pope, in return for which Leo renounced the rights of the Roman Church to a number of foundations and cloisters in Germany (the bishopric of Bamberg, abbey of Fulda, etc.). The value of this bargain for Leo, however, depended on whether the German emperor would also vouchsafe him the help of the empire to maintain these territories against the Normans. At the outset Henry intended this, but Bishop Gebhard of Eicbatadt brought it about that the army, already started on its march to Italy, was recalled. Nevertheless a good many German troops, especially from Swabia, were in the pope's train when he returned to Italy in Feb., 1053.
Leo's time of successes was past. When he convened the Lombard episcopate, which had proved far from responsive to his reforming efforts, in synod at Mantua on Feb. 24, 1053, turbulent scenes ensued rendering all business impossible and even menacing the pope's life. After the (fourth) Roman Easter synod, in April, Leo made preparation for a decisive blow at the Normans. The battle at Civitate in Norman Apulia, June 18, brought the decision‑the papal army was almost annihilated, and Leo himself fell into the hands of the enemy. He was detained nearly nine months at Benevento as captive of war, but without being subjected to restrictions of open communication. Unbroken by his misfortune he urged the Eastern Empire and Germany to a great action against the Normans, but did not achieve his object. Upon his falling dangerously ill, he was allowed to return to Rome. He left Benevento on Mar. 12, and died at Rome on Apr. 19, 1054.
The pontificate of Leo IX. covers.few years, but in this brief span of time he managed to win a position of commanding respect for the Roman primate in western Christendom, indicated new and universal tasks for the same, and by adoption of the

453	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Leo 3X_X
pseudo‑Isidorian code (see PSEUDO‑IsIDORIAN DECRETALB) in the practical life of the Church, paved
		the way for the later supreme domina
	Leo's	tion of the papacy under Gregory VII.
Achieve‑	His extensive journeys were a well
	ments. 	chosen means of coming into personal
contact with the various parts of the Church; and his plan of combining with his visits church consecrations and translations, in so far as these festivals afforded opportunity for the vast multitude to see the head of the Church, not only enhanced the popularity of Leo himself, but likewise the prestige of the papacy as an institution. Of no smaller significance was the revival and further development of church synods. Under Leo the synods again became vehicles and centers of ecclesiastical life, at the same time proving an available arm for strengthening, or at least reviving, the connection between the episcopate and Peter's throne. This result was also effected through the manifold honors which Leo was wont to bestow on occasion of his journeys; and no less so by his manner of having himself escorted by devoted prelates, such as Archbishop Halinard of Lyons, Archbishop Hugo of Besanqon, and Abbot Hugo of Cluny. There can be no doubt that these measures were part of a systematic policy on the part of the pope. Nevertheless this tendency toward centralization of the church life bad no disquieting effect upon Leo's contemporaries, as it was associated with an energetic procedure against the vice of simony and the custom of sacerdotal marriage, wherein the circle of the Cluny reform party discerned the greatest perils to the life of the Church. When Leo ascended the throne, he was the trusted advocate of this group, and he thoroughly fulfilled the hopes that were entertained of him from that quarter. There could be no question, again, of a real jeopardizing of the independence of the episcopate under Leo IX., or of an aggressive movement against the temporal State, although some attempts in this direction and the germs of complications may be remarked; but they did not, as yet, mature, nor was the situation with reference to Henry III. clouded by the recognition of a fundamental antagonism. It is true that Leo's achievements are offset by too decided attention to Italian territorial politics, and by the initiation of the great schism of the Eastern Church (see CERULARIUS, MICHAEL; EASTERN CHURCH, II., § 4). However, it must not be overlooked that this catastrophe was the culmination of developments embracing hundreds ofyears; and in so far as the personalities then on the stage can be made accountable for the same at all, it is not so much Leo IX. who incurs the burden of blame as his representatives. CARL MIRRT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the Epiatolle, diplamata et decreta consult: MPL cxliii.; MGH, Fpiat., iii (1883), 261‑728; NA, iv. 192‑195; Jaff6, Repeats, i. 529 549, ii. 749; Tabularium Casinenae, i. 378 sqq., Monte Casino 1887; P. Kehr Nachrichten von der kliniglichen Gesellachaft der Wiamnachaften zu Gottingen, philoaophiaeh‑hiatoriache Klaaae, 1898, part i, p, 311, 1899, part i. PP. 216‑218, 1900, part ii. 142‑146, part iii. 309‑310, 1901, part i. PP. 83‑84. Bibliographies are found in F. Cerroti, BiblioUaJ1a di Roma meduvale a moderns, i. 353 sqq., Rome, 1893; U. Chevalier, RFpertoim des sources hiatoriquea du moyen tape, p. 1373, and SUPPlement, p. 2708, Paris, 1877‑1888.
An early anonymous Vita is reproduced in S. Borgia, Memorie iatorichs delta pontiicia, ii. 299‑348, Rome, 1764. Other lives, including those by Bruno and Guibert, with accounts of his death and miracles, are found in MPL, exliii. 465‑548, clxv. 1109‑1122, and in ASS, April, ii. 642‑674. A Germ. tranel. of Guibert was issued by P. P. Brucker, Strasburg, 1902; cf. J. May, Zur Kritik mittefalterlidier Geachichtaquellen, Offenburg, 1889. Modern lives are: L. Spach, Strasburg, 1864; O. Delarc, Paris, 1876;, L. Winterer, Rixheim, 1886; W. Martens, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1894; KL, vii. 1787‑95. On the place of his birth consult: Fischer, Recherchee cur Is lieu de la naiaaance du . . . Llon IX., Nantes, 1873; P. P. Dexen, Ox! eat M . . . Leon IX., Strasburg, 1884; L. G. Gldekler, Geburtsort des . . . Leo IX., ib. 1892. Further material on the general subject will be found in C. Will, Die Anfdnge der Reatauration der Kirche in 11. Jahrhundert, Marburg, 1859; L. Duhamel, Llon IX. et lea monaatlres de Lorraine, Itpinal, 1869; R. Baxmann, Die Politik der Pfipate, ii. 213 eqq., Elberfeld, 1869; J. Hergenr6ther, Photiua, iii. 735 sqq., Regensburg, 1869; W. Martens, Die Besetzung des pttpatlichen Stuhles unter . . . Heinrich III. and IV., pp. 25 sqq., Freiburg, 1887; W. Br6eking, Die franz6sirehe Politik Papat Leos IX., Stuttgart, 1891; J. Langen, Gewhichte der r6miechen Kirche, iii. 445‑485, Bonn, 1892; C. Mirbt, Die Publiziatik in Zeitalter Gregor XII., Leipaie, 1894; F. Gregorovius, Hiet. of tAe City of Rome, iv. 7490, London, 1896; H. Gerdes, Geachichta der ealiachen Kaiser and ihrer Zeit, pp. 100‑111, Leipaie, 1898; J. von Pflugk‑Harttung, Die Bullen der Pupate, pp, 160 eqq., Gotha, 1901; J. Drehmann. Papat Leo IX. and die Simonie, Leipsic, 1908; Ceillier, Auteura aacr6a, xiiL 199‑214; Hefele, Concilienpeachichte, iv. 716 eqq.; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 378‑386; Moeller, Christian Church, ii. 229‑230; Bower, Popes, ii. 343‑361; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 240‑283; and the literature under BERENGAR; GREGORY XII.
Leo X. (Giovanni de' Medici, second son of Lorenzo the Magnificent): Pope 1513‑21. He was born in Florence Dec. 11, 1475, and was destined by his father for the spiritual career with the intent that he should eventually attain to the highest office in the Church. This was anticipated in 1489 when Innocent VIII. on Lorenzo's motion nominated the lad of fourteen cardinal in petto. Four years later, when Giovanni's humanistic education, directed by Angelo Poliziano, Marsilio Ficino, Pico dells Mirandola, and the author (subsequently Cardinal Bibbiena) of the immoral play Il Cortigiano, was completed, and after a supplementary course of theology and canon law at Pisa, he put on the cardinal's insignia, and became occupied in affairs of the Curia. He also took part in the conclave which, very much against his wish, chose Alexander VI. to succeed Innocent VIII. after the unexpected death of the latter in 1492. Rome had now little attraction for Giovanni and he scarcely visited the city until 1500, spending his time in Venice, Germany, and Flanders. His ascendency with the Curia did not set in till the time of Julius IL, in 1503, when the pope's eagerness to aggrandize his family ran parallel with like interests of the Medici, and on both sides a comprehensive culture of humanistic and artistic endeavors appeared as a matter of course. The Medicean cardinal gained important political influence in 1509, when appointed governor in Bologna, though this was ended by the defeat of the papal power at Ravenna Apr. 11, 1512, when the governor himself was captured. While being transported to Milan, however, he escaped the French and reached Florence, where the pope also was present.
When Julius II. died in the early part of 1513,

Leo x‑xIII	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	454
after a brief conclave Giovanni was elected. His family now stood doubly high, since in Florence, too, the leader of a conspiracy against them had just been seized and executed. In Rome the election was hailed with jubilation. The " Holy " League against France was concluded by Henry VII. of England with Ferdinand the Catholic and Maximilian Sforza, though Leo X. had as little part in it as in the matter of accepting an offer of alliance with Louis XI. of France. The defeat of the French at Novara, however, in June, 1513, served the pope's cause. Meanwhile the Fifth Lateran Council was in session at Rome; this was to institute " reform," and it has been affirmed by some later Roman Catholic historians, conceding the corrupt state of contemporary church affairs, that even without Luther, and better than he, the council would have attained this object, had it only been allowed complete operation. But there was no suggestion of thoroughgoing reform; the sole consequence of weight, and that important only for the Curia, was the fact that the schismatic Council of Pisa (see JULIUS II.) suffered its deathblow, in that the leaders of the schismatic prelates submitted to the Curia. At the eighth and ninth session, the reform question was treated, and certain amendments in respect to the filling of ecclesiastical offices were introduced; there were also some further ameliorations in particular points; but touching what constituted the very fulcrum of the Lutheran Reformation, that is, a religious renewal and quickening, there was no discussion whatever‑at the utmost, a speaker here and there suggested the necessity and manner of laboring toward that end.
	After the dark clouds of the political situation
had been dispelled, Leo X. felt himself at the sum
mit of his power; the Turks were to be actively
resisted, funds for a crusade were to be collected,
and a fleet made ready. While he was planning
all this, likewise collecting money for continuation
of the building of St. Peter's and other objects, an
event ocourred in Germany which was to shake
the position and power of the papacy most pro
foundly‑the beginning of the Reformation. Un
doubtedy Leo X. against his will promoted its
progress, because he failed to understand its nature
and aim; and that he did not understand is ex
plained by the fact that his whole, interest was
directed upon other matters than the question as
to how religious life could be reawakened. He did
not discern that the Reformation was ushering in a
new era, and his bull of excommunication against
Luther (1520), as well as his cooperation in the
Edict of Worms (1521) were vain attempts to re
tard the movement. Leo died in Rome, Dec. 1,
1521. 	K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: P. Bembo, Epistolo . .
quorum libri 16 Leonis X. . . nomine scripti aunt, Basel, 1539; Leonis X. regesta, ed. J. Hergenr6ther, 8 parts, Freiburg, 1884‑91 (reaches only to 1515); the Vita by P. Giviro, in Latin, Florence, 1548, in Italian, ib. 1549, in French, Paris, 1675. The best life is by W. Roscoe, London, 1805, reissue, 1888 (was translated into Fr. and Germ.). A work of distinct value is H. M. Vaughan, The Medici Popes, New York, 1908 (deals principally with Leo X.). Other lives are: A. Fabroni, Pisa, 1797; Audin, Paris, 1844; and Life and Times of Leo X., London, 1850.
Consult also: T. Dandolo, !1 Seeolo di Leone X., 3 vols., Milan, 1861; Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii., chap. i., New York, 1904; Ranks, Popes, i. 57‑88, iii. 11‑22; Creighton, Papacy, v. 203‑vi. 213 (essential); Bower, Popes, iii. 291‑299; Schaff, Christian Church vol. vi.vii.; Pastor, Popes, vol. iv.; and much of the literature on LUTHER; REFORMATION.
Leo %I. (Alessandro Ottaviano de' Medici)
Pope Apr. 1‑Apr. 27, 1605. He was born in Florence 1535, and was archbishop of his native city, when chosen to succeed Clement VIII. by a combination of Italian and French cardinals and against the wish of the king of Spain. The French triumph, however, was frustrated by his death after a pontificate of but four weeks. K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Petrucelli della Gattina, Hint. diplomatique des conclaves, ii. 404 sqq., Paris, 1864; M. Brosoh, Geschiehte des Kirchenataates, Gotha, 1880‑82; Ranke, Popes, ii. 106; Bower, Popes, iii. 327.
Leo XII. (Annibale della Genga) : Pope 18231829. He was born at the castle of the Genga, near Spoleto, Aug. 22, 1760. Pius VI. and Pius VII. employed him in various missions in Germany, the latter particularly in the negotiations for concordats in the early years of the nineteenth century (see CONCORDATS AND DELIMITING BULLS, VI., 2, § 1). Pius VII. made him cardinal in 1816. He was chosen pope to succeed Pius VII. after a five weeks' conclave on Sept. 28, 1823, and forthwith transferred the high office of secretary of state, till then held by Cardinal Ercole Consalvi (q.v.), to one of the Zelanti, the octogenarian Cardinal della Somaglia. The government and administration of the States of the Church now assumed a narrowly ecclesiastical character which disordered the finances and irritated the adherents of the party of progress. The episcopal jurisdiction was extended into civil affairs; the competency of the provincial courts, as well as the right of women to inherit, was restricted; and vaccination was forbidden. On the other hand, the needlessly large corps of public servants was reduced, better training of officials was required, and stricter surveillance was exercised. The segregation of the Jews in‑ ghetti‑a practise which had been done away during the French control‑and restraint of their mercantile activities was again enforced. The secret revolutionary leagues in the Romagna were summarily dealt with; in the course of three months Cardinal Rivarola, who was dispatched to Bologna in 1825, passed 507 sentences, condemning seven to death, the others to hard labor for life or long terms of imprisonment. A murderous attempt on Rivarola moved him to flight, and the pope then commissioned Monsignor Invernizzi in his place, who pursued the same object, with recourse to denunciation, false promises of indemnity, and the like. Leo's administration of the Church was characterized by the same extreme reactionary policy, shadowed forth in his very first encyclical, May 3, 1824, wherein he issued the invitation to the next jubilee festival at Rome. The same spirit was also operative in connection with the concordats concluded during his pontificate with Hanover, the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine, and, especially, several of the South American governments (see CONCORDATS AND DELIMITING BULLS,

455	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Leo a‑xul`
VI. 2, §§ 4‑5). In France, Lamennais (q.v.), who
embodied all the neo‑Catholicism and Ultramon
tanism just then in vogue, evoked the pope's ap
proval. He came to Rome in 1824 ‑and Leo offered
him a cardinal's hat. The pope's relations with the
French government were not cordial. He carried
on tedious negotiations with the Netherlands over
the question of the nomination of bishops and the
closing of the clerical seminaries, which came to
nothing because of the revolution in Belgium (cf.
O. Mejer, Die Propaganda, ii. 98 sqq., G6ttingen,
1853; F. Nippold, Die rdmisch‑katholische Kimhe
im Konigreich der Niederlande, Leipsic, 1877, 149
151). 	K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. de Montor, Hist. du Pape L6on XII., 2 vols., Paris, 1843; J. G. KSberle, Leo XII. and der Deist der r6mischen Hierarchic, Leipsic, 1848; N. P. 8. whIeman, Recollections of as Last Four Popes, London, 1859; A. von Reumont, Geschichle der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, p. 679, Berlin, 1870; L. von Ranks, Hiatardach‑biopraphischa Studien, pp. 143‑157, Leipeie, 1877; M. Broach, Geachichte des Kirchenstaates, ii. 308 eqq., Goths, 1881; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neueateu Kirchenpeachichte, ii. 70‑79, Elberfeld, 1883; F. Nippold, Papacy in the 19th. Century, pp. 71‑81, New York 1900; F. Nielsen, Papacy in the 19th Century, 2 vols., ib. 1906; Bower, Popes, iii. 434‑484.
	Leo XM. (Joachim Vincent Pecei) : Pope 1878
1903. He came of a noble Siennese family, and
was born at Carpineto (42 m. s.e. of Rome) Mar.
2, 1810. At the age of eight he was sent to the
Jesuit college at Viterbo where he remained six
years and then entered the famous Roman College
		in 1825. He proved himself a dili
	Early gent as well as a brilliant student and
	Life and developed early an extraordinary apti
	Training. tude for the Latin classics. In 1830
		he matriculated for divinity in the
Gregorian University at Rome and received his
doctor's degree two years later. Having decided to
prepare himself for a diplomatic career, he entered,
in 1833, the Academy or College of the Nobles at
Rome where he remained until 1837, devoting him
self to the study of canon and civil law, taking
courses in these branches at the University of the
Sapienza. In 1837 he was made a domestic prelate
by Gregory XVI., who also appointed him to the
office of Referendary of the papal signature, and
at the end of the same year he was ordained to the
priesthood. The following year, being only twenty
eight years of age, he was appointed to the diffi
cult post of governor of the province of Benevento,
which for some time had been in a very disturbed
condition, being infested by smugglers and brigands,
but the young prelate at once asserted his authority,
and by severe and decisive measures speedily sup
pressed lawlessness and restored order to the prov
ince. In 1841 he was recalled and appointed to the
more important charge of delegate of Spoleto,
having his administrative headquarters in Perugia.
He filled this position until 1843, when he was con
secrated titular archbishop of Damietta and ap
pointed papal nuncio to the court of Brussels.
This post he occupied three years, and in the mean
time he became quite popular in academic as well
as in diplomatic circles. In 1846 he spent a few
months in England, and, returning the same year
to Rome, then to Paris, was appointed bishop of
Perugia. His episcopate in this diocese lasted thirty‑
two years through a period of much political and religious disturbance connected with the various movements set on foot for the unification of the Italian states. As a bishop, besides taking an active part in the social and religious movements of the day, he showed more than ordinary zeal for the reform of abuses, and paid special attention to the hitherto much neglected education of the peoplc in secular as well as religious matters. He was created cardinal by Pius IX. in 1853, and . he remained in charge of his diocese until 1878, when, on the death of Pius IX., he was elected pope and took the name Leo XIII.
During his pontificate, which was one of the longest and most distinguished in the history of the papacy, he continued to display marked diplomatic and administrative ability. A lover of peace and unity, he applied himself with much tact to improve the rather strained relations between the papacy and the various powers, which
His Pon‑ had resulted from the reactionary ideas
	tificate.	and policy of his predecessor. While
		he has been criticized for having shaped
much of his diplomacy with a view to bringing about
a restoration of the temporal power, it must be ad
mitted, in view of the far‑reaching results achieved,
that his motives and policy far transcended this
secondary object. It was mainly through his dip
lomatic ability that in Germany an end was put
(1886) to the famous religious strife called the Kul
turkampf which had lasted for nearly twenty years.
In harmony with his general policy of conciliation
he early favored a loyal acceptance of the repub
lican form of government on the part of the French
people, and though he was not a little blamed for
this attitude by the royalists who were then counted
the most enlightened and influential of French
Catholics, he remained firm in his convictions which
he set forth in an encyclical to the French people
in 1892. As a churchman he was characterized by
broad, tolerant and irenic views, and his policy was
shaped not only with a view to the uplifting of
those within the Church, but also to the ultimate
reunion of all Christendom. Thus he evinced a
lively and efficient interest in the religious welfare
of the Slavonic rates, and in the reunion with
Rome of the various eastern churches. It was in
a great measure through his efforts that the Ar
menian schism was extinguished in 1879, in con
nection with which event he issued in 1881 a bull
decreeing the foundation of an Armenian college
in Rome. His appeal in 1895 to the " Illustrious
English Race " was dictated by the same irenic
spirit and desire for unity, but whatever effect it
might otherwise have produced was counteracted
by his bull on Anglican orders issued the following year, which denied their validity. A fitting recognition of his zeal for peace as well as of his diplomatic ability was his appointment in 1885 to be arbiter in a dispute between Germany and Spain concerning the Caroline Islands. He took a deep interest in the intellectual and social problems of the day and did much for the promotion of learning. In this connection may be mentioned the publication of an encyclical on Christian philosophy in 1879; the foundation, shortly after, of the Academy of St.

Leo
Leontillo of Byzantium
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
458
Thomas Aquinas in Rome, together with the creation of a Congregation of Studies; the [partial] opening of the Vatican archives (1884) [Protestant scholars, however, are‑ debarred from examining the papal archives in the period immediately prior to, in, or since the Protestant revolt]; the encyclical "Providentissimus Deus " on Scripture, and the appointment of the Biblical Commission in 1902. His interest in social questions and his zeal for the betterment of social conditions were manifested not only in his encyclical on Socialism issued in 1878, in his letter to the bishops of Brazil, and his encyclical on the condition of working men, but also in his attitude of tolerance with regard to the Knights of Labor, and in the encouragement and support given to Cardinal Lavigerie (q.v.) in his campaign against the African slave‑trade.
Among the more important official acts of his administration besides those already mentioned are the following: In 1878 a bull reestablishing the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland; in the same year the encyclical " Inscrutabili " dealing with the
evils which beset society in Christian
Official countries; in 1880, the encyclical " ArActs. canum " on Christian marriage; in
	1881 the encyclical " Diuturnum " in
defense of the principle of rightful authority in the
Church; in 1884 a bull authorizing the assembly of
the third plenary Council of Baltimore; in 1893,
sending of the first apostolic delegate to the
United States. During his pontificate he remained
always within the precincts of the Vatican, and in
his private life he was simple, studious and devout.
He was exceptionally well versed in scholastic phi
losophy, and his Latin poetry, written by way of
pastime, is quite classical in its ease and elegance.
Among his favorite devotions was that of the ro
sary, which by official letters he did much to pro
mote throughout the Church. He passed away
after a long and fruitful pontificate on July 20,
1903. 		JAMES F. DRISCOLL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Leo's Great Encyclical Letters have been translated, New York, 1903; also his Poems, Charades and Inscriptions, ib. 1902. Among the many lives which have been written, mention may be made of J. McCarthy, London, 1896; J. Oldcastle, ib. 1887; B. O'Reilly, ib. 1887; J. de Narfon, ib. 1899; G. Freund, Milneter, 1902; B. D'Agen, Paris, 1907; De T'Serclaee, Bruges, 1907. Also cf. F. Nippold, Geaehichte des Katholizismus, pp. 155 eqq., Berlin, 1901.
LEON (PONCE DE LEON), LUIS DE: Spanish poet and theologian; ~ b. at Belmonte (90 m. s.e. of Madrid) 1527; d. at Madrigal (50 m. e.n.e. of Salamanca) Aug. 23, 1591. He joined the Augustinians at the age of sixteen, having already begun the study of theology under Melchior Cano at Salamanca, where he became professor in 1561 and proved a brilliant expounder of systematic theology. His method of always going back to the sources, especially the Scriptures and the Fathers, furnished occasion to two envious colleagues and other enemies to accuse him falsely of inclinations toward the Reformation and he was committed to the prison of the Inquisition at Valladolid in 1572, charged with expressing offensive and heretical opinions in his lectures and in an attempt to correct the text of the socalled edition of the Vulgate of Franciscus Vatablus
(q.v.) and in a commentary on the gong of Songs.
After weary waiting he was acquitted on Dee. 15,
1576, and restored to his professorship. He began
his first lecture after his'long imprisonment with the
words, Heri dicebamus (" AB we were saying yester
day "). The acts of his trial are printed in Docth
memos ineditos, vole. x. and xi. (Madrid, 1847).
His Spanish writings, which include his poems, were
issued by the Augustinian Antonio Merino (6 vols.,
Madrid 1804‑16), and recently the Augustinians
have edited his Latin writings (7 vols., Salamanca,
1891‑95). 	K. BENRATH.
BIHwomAPHP: Sources are the Documentoe ineditos, ut sup. Consult: Joel Gonzales de Teiada, Vida de Fray Luis de Leon, Madrid, 1863; C. A. Wilkens, Pray Luis de Leon, Halls, 1866 (cf. H. Reueeh, in TLB, 1867, p~. 478 eqq.); F. H. Reuseh, Luis de Leon and die span' Inquisition, Bonn, 1873; G. Ticknor, Hist. of Spanish Literature, ii. 75‑87, Boston, 1864.
LEONARD, len'ard, DELEVAN LEVANT: Congregationalist; b. at Pendleton, N. Y., July 20, 1834. He was graduated at Hamilton College in 1859 and Union Theological Seminary in 1862. He was ordained in 1863, and held pastorates at New Preston, Conn., 1863‑65, Darlington, Wis., 18651870, Normal, Ill., 1870‑74, Hannibal, Mo., 18741875, and Northfield, Minn., 1875‑81. He was then superintendent of home missions in Utah, Idaho, Montana, and adjacent territories 1881‑87, after which he was pastor of the Congregational church at Bellevue, O., until 1892. Since 1893 he has been associate editor of The Missionary Review of the World. In theology he classes himself "among the liberal‑conservatives, not caring for mere novelties in speculation, but ready to accept new statements of Christian truth if seemingly established by evidence, even in the realm of higher criticism." He has written: The Story of Oberlin (Boston, 1895); A Hundred Years of Missions (New York, 1895); Missionary Annals of the Nineteenth Century (Cleveland, O., 1899); and History of Carldon College (Chicago, 1904).

LEONARD, WILLIAM ANDREW: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Ohio; b. at Southport, Conn., July 15, 1848. He was educated at St. Stephen's College, Annandale, N. Y., from which, however, he was not graduated, and Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn., from which he was graduated in 1871. He was curate of Holy Trinity, Brooklyn (1871‑72), rector of the Church of the Redeemer, Brooklyn (1872‑$1), and of St. John's, Washington (1881‑89). In 1889 he was consecrated bishop of Ohio. He was chaplain of the Twenty‑third Regiment of the New York State National Guard, and from 1897 to 1906 was in charge of the Ameriican Episcopal churches on the continent of Europe. In theology he is a High‑churchman. He has written: Via Sacra (New York, 1875); History of the Christian Church (1883); and Witness of the American Church to Christ (New York, 1895).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in Amarioo, p. 317, New York, 1895.
LEONTIUS, le‑en'ahfos, OF BYZANTIUM: One of the most important Greek theologians of the first half of the sixth century; d. about 543. So many points in regard to his life and works are still

457	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Leo sIII
		Leontius of Byssatium
open questions that it is impossible to do more
than give a somewhat disjointed account of the
present state of knowledge concerning both. Among
the works in MPG, lxxxvi. 1185‑2100, under the
name of " Leontius of Byzantium or of Jerusalem,"
there are four of unequal length which occur in
manuscript collections earlier than the year 1000
among the works of " Leontius the Monk " or "'the
Hermit." These are: (1) the tripartite work
'` Against the Nestorians and Eutychians "; (2) the
" Solution of the Syllogisms Proposed by Severna ";
(3) the " Thirty Chapters against Severus "; (4)
the treatise " Against the Frauds of the Apollina
rians." The first two undoubtedly belong to the
same author, who wrote the first between 529 and
544. He had been a Nestorian in his youth, but
had seen the error of his ways and become a zeal
ous opponent of both the Monophysites and all
whom he called " concealed Nestorians," meaning
the adherents of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Dio
dorus of Tarsus. The " Thirty Chapters" are also.
by the same author, but do not seem to have been
published as a substantive work. The last‑named
treatise is a masterpiece of patristic learning, pos
sibly though by no means certainly from the same
hand. The treatise De sedis, the longest known
of the works ascribed to Leontius in Migne, was
formerly thought to be, according to the Greek
title, a work conceived on the basis of utterances of
the Abbot Theodore, and, according to the time
of the work as a whole, the date of Leontius was
frequently put as late as 600. It is now, however,
generally admitted that it contains genuine Leon
tian material in a later recasting, made ,between
579 and 607. In spite of much recent discussion, it
still seems safe to regard it as based upon a sub
stantive work by Leontius, and not (as with Moller)
upon mere lecture‑notes of his worked into literary
shape by his disciple Theodore, or (as with Zahn)
the conception of a third writer from information
given by Theodore. It may be taken as demon
strated that the treatises of a Leontius of Jerusa
lem Contra Nestorianos (MPG, Lxxxvi. 1396‑1768)
and Contra Monophysitas (ib. 1769‑1901) offer in
some way indubitably Leontian material‑perhaps
they also are a recasting of the treatise on which
the De sect M is based. One thing seems sure, viz.,
the Doctrina antiquorum patrum de verbi incarnatione
edited by F. Dekamp, Munster, 1907, compiled in
the seventh century, quotes this fundamental work,
not the De sectis; all that appears in the latter to
suggest a date later than that of Leontius is absent
in the Doctrind quotations. It is not possible to go
further into detail as to the nature of this funda
mental work until more textual investigations have
been made; but the hypothesis that the "Solution"
and the " Thirty Chapters " originally formed part
of it still seems not improbable. It may have been
a dogmatic‑polemical treatise directed principally
against Arians and Sabellians, Nestorians and
Monophysites, perhaps consisting of separate chap
ters against particular heresies, in which the pa
tristic citations were followed by explanations in
the nature of dogmatic, polemical, and historical
scholia, thus accounting for the quotations " from
the scholia of Leontius," of which five exist in the
Doctrina, and for the use of the word scholia in the Greek title of the De sectis.
Whoever Leontius may have been, it is clear that he was not merely an accomplished theologian but an influential man. The proposition that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh, on the orthodoxy of which Justinian insisted, was evidently defended by him; the edict of the Three Chapters condemned Theodore (and Diodorus), whom he labored to confute; Justinian's policy followed the path of the orthodoxy of Cyril and of Chalcedon, which Leontius represented; the later orthodoxy took up many Leontian thoughts; and his Aristotelianism was the parent of scholasticism. Yet, strangely enough, tradition tells nothing certain of his life. The most one can do is to attempt to identify him with four bearers of the name in the reign of Justinian. (1) The Leontius, a relation of the influential Comes Vitalian, who came forward at Constantinople in 519 with the Scythian monks led by John Maxentius, resisted the " Nestorianizing " tendencies of the Roman legates then in Constantinople, and went to Rome to obtain a confirmation of the proposition just cited and a condemnation of Faustus of Riez, disappearing in 520. (2) The Leontius who in 531 (or 533), together with Hypatius of Ephesus and a certain Eusebius, appeared as an orthodox participant in the conference with the Severians arranged by Justinian. (3) The Leontius who in 536 appeared among the monks of Jerusalem before the council held in Constantinople, together with Domitian, later bishop of Ancyra, and Theodore Ascidas, to obtain the condemnation of Anthimus for Monophysite tendencies. (4) The " Origenist " Leontius, " a Byzantine in race," of whom Cyrillus Scythopolitanus recounts in his Vita Sabm that he was received into the " new laura " between 519 and 521, went with Sabas in 531 to Constantinople, was there convicted of Origenism, returned later to the monastic settlements under Sabas and became a leader among the opponents of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his admirers, went again to Constantinople in 541 in the interests of his cause, and died there not long after. The last three of these are easily connected, and harmonize with the theological position of the writer Leontius, while the second is closely related to the first. The fourth identification alone offers positive difficulties‑although the fact that the extant works of Leontius do not portray an " Origenist " in the sense of the Vita Sabw is not an insuperable objection; and the silence of tradition as to the career of Leontius is most easily explained on the assumption that he was held to some extent to have compromised himself. If these identifications are accepted, the only period of his life left dark is that before 519; and the " Byzantine monk " of the Doctrind receives its confirmation from the " Byzantine in race" of the Vita Sabre. (F. Loom) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The earlier information is summed up in
J. Fessler, Institutionw patroiogia, ii. 934‑935, Innebruek,
1851, ed. B. Jungmsnn, consult ii., part 2, 1896. For
later studies consult: F. Loofs in TU, iii. 1‑2, Leipsic,
1887 cf. T. Zahn in Theolopisches Litteratwblatt, 1887,
pp. 89‑92, and W. M81ler, in Theologiaehe Literaturwi(_
unp. 1887, pp. 336‑339; F. Loofs, Stndien fiber die dc"

Lsontius of Neapolis Leprosy
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Johannes von Damaskus zupeachriebenen Paralielen, Halle, 1892; W. Rfigamer, Leontim von Byzanz, ein Polemiker aus der Zeit Justinians, WOrzburg, 1894• V. Ermoni De Leontio Byzantino et de eius doctrina christologaea, Paris, 1895; K. Holl, Die Sacra parallels dee Johannes Damaecenus, in TU, xvi., 1, Leipsic, 1896, cf. xx., 2, PP. xii. sqq., 1900 Krumbacher, Geschirhte, PP. 54 sqq., et passim; F. Diekamp, Die origenietischen Streitigkeiten im B. Jahrhundert, MGnster, 1899; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, Freiburg, 1901; J. P. Junglae, Leonitas von Byzanz: Studien zu seinen Schriften, Quellen, and Anachauungen, Paderborn, 1908.
LEONTTIUS OF NEAPOLIS: Bishop of Neapolis, Cyprus; flourished in the seventh century. Of his life little is known, except that he was born in Cyprus and was educated by his fellow countryman, John, archbishop of Alexandria (611‑619). He was alive in the reign of Constans II. (642668). He was a prolific author, and at the Second Council of Nicaea (787) his compatriot Conatantinus, bishop of Conetantia, spoke highly of his eulogies. Two homilies of this class have been published, one on the presentation of Christ in the Temple and the other on the feast of Mid‑Pentecost. More interest attaches to a work in five books against the Jews, of which two fragments have been edited, two others being extant in manuscript. In 614 Jerusalem was betrayed to the Persians and the Holy Cross was carried away. The consequent excitement called forth a wide‑spread persecution of the Jews, and Leontius' book was apparently evoked by disturbances in Alexandria. His most important works, however, were biographies written in popular style for readers of general culture, such as his life of Spyridion of Trimithus, extant only in a revamping by Metaphrastes, but apparently comprising originally a naive collection of marvels. He also wrote a biography of Johannes Eleemon, archbishop of Alexandria (q.v.), which is of value for its portrayal of Alexandrian life just before the Arab conquest. It was extremely popular and was translated into Latin at the instance of Pope Nicholas I. Leontius' biography of Symeon of Emesa is likewise valuable for its presentation of current ideas, but otherwise historically worthless. It is based on the Oriental belief that madmen are divinely blessed, and did much to spread this conception among the Greeks and Russians, whose monasteries in succeeding centuries presented numerous examples of " inspired idiots." Many other works still extant in manuscript are ascribed to this Leontius, but he is frequently confused by scribes with others of the name, such as Leontius the Presbyter, Leontius of Byzantium, and Leontius of Jerusalem. (H. GELZER t.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera are in MPG, xciii. His " Life of John the Merciful " was edited by H. Gelzer, Freiburg, 1893. Consult: F. Loofs, Leontias von Byzanz and die OWehnamigen Schrfftateller der grieehischen Kirche, Leipsie, 1887; Krumbaeher, Geschichte, pp. 112, 389, 468; H. Gelzer, in Hidorische Zeitschrift, lxi (1889), 1‑32.
LEONTOPOLIS: The nave of a place in Lower
Egypt important in connection with Jewish his
		tory as the site of the temple built
	Reports of by an Onias (III. or IV.) either c. 170
	Josephus. or c. 154 B.c. The place mentioned is
		apparently located by Josephus (War,
VIL, x. 3) 180 stadia (about twenty miles) from
Memphis, in the Dome of Heliopolis. The sources
468
of information are Josephus, War, L, i. 1, VIL, x. 2 sqq.; Ant., XII., ix. 7, XIII., iii. 1‑3, cf. XII., v. 1. According to War, L, i. 1 " Onias the high priest " was compelled under Antiochus Epiphanes to flee from Jerusalem and took refuge in Egypt with Ptolemy Philometor, who gave him a location in the Dome of Heliopolis, where he " built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple." In Ant., XII., ix. 7 Josephus says that it was the son of " Onias the high priest " who, being " left a child when his father flied . . . fled to Ptolemy," and received the gift in the Dome named wherein he built a temple like that at Jerusalem. With this agrees Ant., XII., v. 1, which says that the son whom Onias left " was yet but an infant." Ant., XIII., iii. 1‑3 affirms that Onias " the son of Onias the high priest " fled to Ptolemy Philometor, and that, stimulated by the prophecy of Isaiah (xix. 19) uttered 600 years earlier, this Oniss wrote a letter to Ptolemy and Cleopatra, which letter Josephus professes to give. In this Onias asks that a ruined sanctuary be given him that he may purge it and erect on its site a temple which may nerve as a place where the Jews may meet, implying that this will gain for the king the favor of the Jews against the Syrian king. The reported reply of the two sovereigns grants the ruined temple at Leontopolis, " named from . . . Bubastis." The second of these letters, at any rate, is generally recognized as spurious. In War, VIL, x. 2 Josephus affirms that " Onias, son of Simon, one of the Jewish high priests " fled from Antiuchus, was received kindly by Ptolemy, obtained leave to build a temple, saying that " the Jews would be readier to fight against Antiochus," built the temple not like that at Jerusalem but to resemble a tower, sixty cubits high, furnished it in the same manner, only substituting a suspended golden lamp for the candlestick, and surrounding the structure with a wall of burnt brick, though the gate (ways) were of stone. The king also gave a large endowment in lands to furnish the requisite revenues for the support of the temple. In § 4 of this chapter Josephus reports that Lupus, governor of Alexandria, and his successor Paulinus (which places the date at 70‑73 A.D.) stripped and closed the temple after it had been open for worship " 343 years."
	These accounts by the same writer raise three
difficulties. (1) Who was the Onias who built the
temple? Two of the accounts distinctly imply
		Onias III., especially Ant., VII., a. 2,
Three which calls him " son of Simon." With Difficulties. this goes War, L, i. 1, " Onus the high priest," since the son of this Onias never served as high priest, at least in Jerusalem, being, as Josephus says elsewhere (Ant., XII., v. 1), left an infant. But the other passages cited oppose this, stating that it was the son of Onias the high priest, commonly known as Onias IV. This latter position is supported by the testimony of II Mace. iv. 33‑34, according to which Onias III. was slain after being enticed from the well‑known sanctuary of Daphne near Antioch. (2) The second difficulty concerns the date of the building of the temple, and its solution depends upon the so‑

459	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Leontius of Neapolis
		Leprosy
lution of the first difficulty. If Onias III. was the
builder, 170‑163 must be the period of erection; if
Onias IV., then c. 154 must be accepted. The
statement in Ant., VIL, x. 4 that the temple was
open for 343 years is usually regarded as a mistake
for 243, which would place the founding of the
structure c. 170 B.c. But this calculation may be
bound up with Josephus' evident confusion as to
the person of the founder, and the later date may
be regarded as correct. (3) The site is by the
statements of Josephus and all earlier indications
left a matter of doubt. Ant., XIII., iii. 2 seems to
fix it definitely at " Leontopolis, in the nome of
Heliopolis . . . named from the country Bubastis."
This can not be the well‑known Leontopolis, which
was the capital of a province north of that of Heli
opolis. Moreover, in War, VII., x. 3 the location
is given as 180 stadia (about twenty miles) from
Memphis. But a Leontopolis is not known in the
region, apart from the capital already mentioned.
	In the Itinerarium Antonini (ed. G. Parthey and
M. Pinder, Berlin, 1848) appears mention of a
Vices Judmorum, which is placed thirty‑four Ro
man miles northeast of Heliopolis. E. Naville
finds that in this neighborhood a temple to Bast
(the lion‑headed goddess from whom Leontopolis
took its name) once stood, and that near by is a
			Tel al‑Yehudiyeh, " Mound of the
		The	Jew," though at the time he investi
	Temple	gated (1887) he found no traces of a
	Found.	Jewish temple there (The Academy,
			Feb. 25, 1888, pp. 140‑141; Egypt Ex
ploration Fund, Seventh Memoir, pp. 20, 22). An
other place of the same name is found farther south,
where a sepulchral inscription, Oniou pat6er, was
discovered (The Academy, 1888, pp. 49‑50, 140
142, 193‑194; Egypt Exploration Fund, ut sup.).
The Notitia dignitatum oraentis, chap. xxv (ed. E.
B6cking, Bonn, 1839), knows a Castra Jud&vKtm,
possibly identical with the more southern of the
two places. Finally, in 1905, near the station Shi
bin al‑Kanater, 20 miles from Cairo (Baedeker's
Egypt, p. 166, 1908), investigation at a mound called
Tel al‑Yehudiyeh (20 miles from Cairo) found
the traces of the temple in question. The ground
showed a settlement roughly in the shape of a
triangle, on the east side a wall of stone 767 feet
long, with the entrance to the enclosure at the
west acute angle, while the temple ruins were at
the south point. The entire enclosure covered be
tween three and four acres. The temple showed
a structure of which the inner court was sixty
three feet long by thirty‑two to twenty‑seven feet
wide, and an outer court forty‑four feet long by
twenty‑seven to twenty‑one feet wide; the archi
tecture was Corinthian in style with Syrian fea
tures; the area was proportioned like that of the
temple at Jerusalem. The traces of sacrifice were
present in the shape of huge sunken cylinders of
pottery which show that they were used for sacri
fice, alternate layers of earth and burnt material
showing that fresh earth was thrown on each sac
rifice of fire so as to deaden it. The pottery of
the mound outside the old town belongs to the
second century B.c., the coins are of the period of
Ptolemy Philometor, and sherds show Jewish names.
These data, reconciling differences and agreeing with the conditions required, set finally at rest the question of the fact and the place of this interesting episode of Jewish history. GEo. W. GiLMoRE.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Egyptian Research Account, vol. xii., w. M. Flinders Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, London, 1906; 8chilrer, Geschichte, iii. 97100, Eng. transl., IL, ii. 286‑288 (contains older literature); A. Bfichler, Die Tobiaden and die Oniaden in 11. Makkablterbuch, Vienna, 1899; Jews' College Jubilee Volume, pp. 39‑77, London, 1906 (collects discussions of the Onias Temple); C. H. H. Wright, Light from Egyptian Papyri before Christ, ib. 1908; J. G. Duncan, Exploration of Egypt and the O. T., New York, 1909; EB, iii. 3507‑11.
LEPROSY.
Geographical Distribution (§ 1). Biblical Conception (§ 2). General Treatment of Lepers (§ 3). Lepra Mosaics, (§ 4). Lepm Tuberosa (§ 5). Lepra Maculosa, Lepra Anmethetica (§ 6).
This disease has existed from times preceding the ages of which history takes cognizance in its backward sweep, has spread widely over the civilized and barbarous world, and still exists endemically in some regions. The Hebrews were
i. Geo‑ sorely afflicted with it before leaving graphical Egypt (indeed, the banks of the Nile, Distribu‑ with their humid atmosphere, seem to tion. have been a cradle of the disease); so much so, that, according to the historian Manetho (Josephus, Apion, i. 26), the Egyptians drove them out on account of this plague of leprosy. It probably existed in Syria before the Hebrews came bringing it with them into that country. From Egypt and Palestine it spread to Greece and Italy, and other countries bordering upon the Mediterranean. It appears to have been introduced into Central and Western Europe somewhere between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, probably through the agency of the returning crusaders, and spread with alarming rapidity. Toward the end of the fifteenth century it had almost disappeared from those sections of Europe. At present, leprosy, or Elephantiasis Grecorum, is found on the coasts and islands of the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas, in Norway, Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, on the coasts of the Indian and China Seas, in the islands of the Australian Archipelago, in South and Central America, in Hawaii, in some parts of the United States, and in Iceland.
By almost all peoples and races, leprosy has been regarded as a visitation of God on account of some sin, and the lepers have been kept apart from the rest of the people. The Jews were told that it came upon a man for idolatry, blasphemy, unchastity, theft, slander, false witness, false judgment, perjury, infringing the borders of a neighbor, devising malicious plans, or creating discord between brothers. Lepers were considered unclean (Lev. xiii. 44‑46), had to rend their garments (excepting in the case of the women), cover
	2. Biblical	their faces, go with unkempt hair,
	Conception.	and cry, "Unclean, unclean 1 " They
		had to live without the camp or
city; had a special part of the synagogue reserved
for them; and any thing they touched, or any house

Leprosy	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	480
into which they entered. was declared unclean. An elaborate ceremonial was prescribed for the cleansing of the leper when the disease had left him (cf. Lev. xiv., and see DISEAsEs AND THE HEAVING ART, HEBREW). Among the Jews, not only was leprosy considered as attacking human beings, but also it was declared to be in garments, houses, and vessels (Lev. xiii. 47‑59, xiv. 33‑53); and ceremonies were prescribed for their cleansing. The exact nature of this leprosy of garments and houses is not known. Its distinctive signs were, in a garment, greenish or reddish spots which spread; in a house, greenish or reddish streaks lower than the surface of the wall which spread. This was, probably, in either case, a species of mildew, or else indicated the presence of some fungus, which, by contact, would generate disease in the human (see HOUSE, THE HEBREW, AND ITs APPOINTMENTS). The Jerusalem Targum regarded it as a visitation on a house built with unjust gains.
The Persians went even further than the Jews, and excluded foreign lepers from their country. The Greek writers thought leprosy was a punishment for some sin against Phoebus. The Arabs
will neither sleep near nor eat with 3. General lepers, nor marry into families known Treatment to be leprous. By the Church of Rome
of Lepers. in early ages, lepers were regarded as
dead, and the last rites of the Church were said over them. In 757 A.D. it was declared a ground for divorce, and the sound party could marry again. In France, at different times, laws were passed forbidding lepers to marry. The leper lost all control of his property, and could not inherit any; he could not act as a witness, nor challenge to a duel. Oddly enough, while, in general, leprosy was regarded as a punishment, in some parts of Europe it was held to be a sign of divine preference for those attacked; as, in a woman, it was to preserve her chastity. Lepers were regarded as saints, and received much honor and alms. All over Europe the lepers had to live apart, and had special churches, priests, etc. In the fifteenth century a special dress was prescribed for them. The houses in which these unfortunate ones lived were called " lazar‑houses." They were generally 1orated just outside the gates of the cities, in close proximity to some body of water, so that the inmates could bathe. They were usually religious in character. The inmates had to be silent, and attend morning prayer and mass; and in some of the houses they had to say so many prayers each day that they had very little time for anything else. No woman was allowed to enter the male lazar‑houses, excepting the washerwoman; and she had to be of sober age and good manners, and must enter the house at a fixed time of day; when she could be seen of all. A female relative had to obtain special permission before she could speak to a male leper. These houses were supported largely by begging, entirely by alms.
Between what is called " leprosy " in the English Bible, and the leprosy as described by the best authorities on skin diseases, there is very little correspondence: indeed, the writer is inclined to adopt the theory advanced in the article on lep‑
rosy in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (American
edition, ii.	1830), that the leprosy of the Mosaic
	dispensation (Lepra Mosaics) is not
4. Lepm one disease, but an enumeration of
	Mosaica.	certain symptoms, which, on account
		of their frightful character, and tend
ency to spread, would render the individual an ob
ject of aversion, and demand his separation. It is
certainly but in few points akin to Elephantiasis
Grecorum, the modern leprosy. The symptoms of
leprosy, as in Lev. xul., and the expressions used
there and elsewhere, " leprous," " white as snow,"
lead one to conjecture that Lepra Mosaica is analo
gous to Lepra vuigaris, more commonly called Psori
asis. Of Lepra Mosaica (Heb. zare'ath), the lep
rosy of Lev. xiii., xiv., the most marked symptoms
were " a rising, a scab, or a bright spot," " in the
skin of the flesh " (Lev. xiii. 2), with a hair turned
white in the rising, scab, or bright spot, these being
deeper than the scarf‑skin (xiii. 3), and spreading
of the scab, etc. (xiii. 7, 8). As a more advanced
case " quick raw flesh in the rising " (xiii. 10) is
noted. Verse 18 implies that the disease may
take its origin in a boil, with the same symptoms.
In verse 29 the disease appears in the beard, or
hair of the head, coming in the form of a acall,
with thin yellow hairs in the patches. These are
all the symptoms; they are probably given merely
as initial symptoms, so that the priest might recog
nize the onslaught of different diseases in their
earliest stages. The " rising " may correspond to
the tubercles of Lepra tuberculosa, or the bullce of
Lepra ancesthetica of recent authors. The scall of
the head may be the Morphwa alopeciata, or Fox
mange, placed by Kaposi (Hdutkrankheiten, Vienna,
1880) as a subdivision of the second form of lep
rosy, Lepra maculosa. Verses 12‑17 state that if
the patient is white all over he is clean, no doubt
because the disease had then run its course. In
this case it is probably a general Psoriasis.
Modern leprosy, Elephantiasis Grecorum, is divided into three varieties: (1) Lepra tuberosa, the tubercular form; (2) Lepra maculosa, the spotted or streaked form; (3) Lepra anceethetica, the anesthetic form. For months or years before the outbreak of the disease, the patient may have vague prodromal symptoms, as weakness, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, lassitude, alight fever, diarrhea and sometimes pemphigus blebs (little blisters).
In Lepra tuberosa the disease begins with the outbreak, on the general surface of the body, of irregular or round‑shaped spots, in size from a finger‑nail to the palm of the hand; at first red, and disappearing under pressure; soon becoming gray to sepia brown or bronze color. Over the spots the skin is smooth and glistening (as if painted with oil), or bronzed and thickened, or slightly prominent, and painful on pressure. The spots are distributed over the trunk and extremities, face, hands, and feet. In some situations they become confluent; in some, disappear; in others, disappear
5. Lepra in the center, while the peripheries ex‑
	Tuberosa.	tend, thus forming ring shapes. The
		tubercles, the distinctive type of this
form, appear after the disease has lasted months
or years; are of various sizes. tip to that of a hazel‑

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	foxy
nut, and are either slightly raised above the level of the skin, or quite prominent; dirty‑brownred in color and glistening; hard‑elastic to soft to the touch; covered with epidermic scales; diffused or closely pressed together, and forming either irregular uneven plaques, or regular circles. They are principally located on the face and ears. On the eyebrows they form thick parallel rows, projecting over the eyes; on the cheeks, nose, and chin they are massed into irregular heaps. The lips become thick, swollen, and protruding; the under lip hangs down; and this, with the prominent, overhanging, knotty eyebrows, and the deeply wrinkled forehead, gives the countenance a morose and stupid appearance. Sometimes the eyelids are everted, and the lobes of the ears hang down in thick masses. Consequent upon the eversion of the eyelids, disease of the eye sets in. The extremities also become tuberculated, though not so much as the face; and the presence of tubercles in the palms of the hands and soles of the feet render handling and walking very painful. Tubercles appear in the mucous membrane of the mouth, pharynx, and upper part of larynx; the tongue becoming thick and cracked, with loss of taste ensuing; the larynx becoming narrow, with loss of voice; the breath becoming sweetish. After many months, these tubercles may be absorbed, leaving behind dark pigmented atrophic places; sometimes they soften centrally, and spread out peripherally; sometimes break down, and form leprous ulcers, which tend to skin over, only to break down again. Sometimes the ulceration goes deeper; necrosis joins itself to it; a diffused inflammation sets in, leading, in the under extremities especially, to deep excavation, and finally opening of joints, and selfamputation of entire members (Lepra mutilans). Earlier or later anesthesia develops in different parts of the body, and the ulnas nerve will be found enlarged and cord‑like. The disease is generally chronic, lasting some eight to ten years, the patient dying of specific marasmus, or some complicating disease of internal organs. Or the disease may be more acute, with high fever, and reaching in a few months to a state which in other cases is not reached in years.
Lepra maculosa is characterized by the appearance on the skin of a large number of red or brown glistening spots, or by diffuse dark pigmentation, intermixed with which are white points, spots, or stripes; so that the body seems streaked. This frequently changes into the former variety, or into Lepra antesthetira, in which anesthesia is the marked feature. It succeeds to the preceding forms or else begins with an outbreak of pemphigus bullet (water‑blisters), which, on healing, leave white, glistening, and anesthetic places, or, breaking, leave ulcerations. Sometimes
6. Lepra anesthesia appears on fully normal
Maculosa; places; sometimes the spot has been Lepra red and hyperesthetic for months
Anaesthet‑ before. Over the anesthetic spots
	ica.	the skin often becomes wrinkled, the
		wrinkled places being bounded by a
red, hyperesthetic border; the wrinkling only taking
place where the anesthetic spots have become
stable, for at first they tend to change their location. The anesthesia is complete, the patient not feeling a needle thrust deep into the muscles. The chief nerve‑trunks become swollen, and painful to pressure. Sometimes hyperesthesia precedes anesthesia to such a degree, that the patient is not able to sit or lie for any length of time in one place, can not take anything in his hands, and walking and standing give him the greatest pain. The anesthesia is followed by atrophy of muscles, and wrinkling; the sphincter muscle of the eye becomes lamed; the under eyelid and the under lip hang down; the tears flow over the cheeks; and the saliva runs dribbling out of the mouth; and thus the face oftentimes, already swollen and out of shape by the presence of the tubercles, assumes a peculiar, old, idiotic, or foolish expression. The flexor muscles of the hand not being atrophied so much as the extensor, the fingers become half bent, the hollow of the hand becomes convex and pressed forward, the back of the hand bent in; the finger‑ends become clubbed, finger‑nails thinned; the hair falls out. Ulceration finally sets in at the anesthetic places, or the tissues gradually atrophy away till the skin, fascia and tendons disappear, one or another joint is laid bare, when suddenly a whole foot, hand, or extremity falls off. The patient grows foolish and apathetic, and dies after some years. Treatment is largely symptomatic. The best is to remove the patient from leprous regions.
The lepers whom our Lord healed were probably not afflicted with Elephantiasis Grecorum, but with Elephantiasis tralgaris (Psoriasis).
The cause of leprosy is the invasion of the skin by the bacillus kprce, an organism discovered by Hansen in 1874. The disease is contagious, and not hereditary. It occurs in both sexes, but rather more frequently in men. Its period of incubation is very long. While it is wide‑spread over the world it is endemic in certain regions. It seems that either a damp and cold climate, or a hot and moist one, favors its development and spread, and that food bears no relation to it. Some, however, insist that it is due to the eating of fish. G. T. JACHsON, M.D.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. Wolff, LepT6eWisn, Leipgle, 1885; H.
Leloiz, TraitE . . . de la ltPre, Paris, 1888; A. Lutz, Zur Morpholopie des Leprabacillus, Hamburg, 1886; G. Thin,
Leprosy, London, 1891; E. A. Senft, Soixant‑quinze annoes parmi lea IEpreuz, NeuehAtel, 1893; G. A. Hansen and C. LOOft, Leprosy in its Clinical and Pathological Aspect., Bristol, 1895; E. Be®ier, Sur is lkpre; r6k Itiolopique. Paris, 1897; V. Babes, Untersuehungen uber den Leprabaeillus and fiber die Histolopie der Lspra, Berlin, 1898; J. Hutchinson, Leprosy and Pish Eating, Chicago, 1908. An important Pamphlet, Beobadtungen aber den A ‑Satz im Wigen Lande (Herrahut, 1908), is by Dr. Einsler, for nearly twenty years head of the Jesus Hilfe, Hospital for Leprosy in Jerusalem.
For the Biblical side consult: J. R. Bennett, of the Bible, London 1,887; G. N. MBneh, Die Zaraath der hebraischen Biker; Einkitung in die Geschichte des Aussatzes, Leipeie, 1893; W. M. Thompson, The Land and the Book, ii. 518‑520, 200, New York, 1859; E. C. A. Riehm, Handm6rterbuch des biblischm Altertums, pp. 155159, Leipeic, 1893; J. F. Sehamberg, The Nature of as LOProsy 01 the Bible, in Philadelphia Polychrome vii (1898), nos. 47‑48; BensingeR, Archdolopie, pp. 481‑‑482; DB, iii. 95‑99; EB, iii. 2703‑68; and literature under DIeEASES AND THE HEALING ART, HEBREW. On the Bib‑: kcal Prescriptions regarding it the one book is A. Dillmann and V. Ryesel, Die Becher Exodus and Lsuiticus, PP. 553 eqq., Leipsic, 1897.

Le Q"le"	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	482
Leslie
		For the historical aide of the medical practise consult:
	E. Vignat, Les Ldpreux et les chevaliers de 3. Lazare de
	Jdruaalem, Orldans, 1884; R. H6ry, Les LEprowriee dana
	l'ancienne France, Paris, 1896; E. Ndret, La Prophylaxis
	de la ldpre au moyen‑dge, ib. 1896; L. Le Grand, Les
	Mai8ona‑Dieu et l6proseries . . . de Paris, 11,. ei&le, Paris,
	1898; E. Ehlers, Danish Lazar Houses in the Middle Ages,
	London, 1901.
	LE QUIEN, le k%rrdnr, MICHEL: French Do
minican; b. at Boulogne Oct. 8, 1661; d. at Paris
Mar. 12, 1733. He became a Dominican at the
age of twenty, and throughout the long period of
his literary activity was librarian of the monastery
of his order in the Rue St. Honor, Paris. His
principal polemical works, which are of minor in
terest, are Defense du tezte hebreu et de la version
vulgate (Paris, 1690); Stephani de Altimura pan
oplia contra schisms Gracum (1718), a defense of
the papal claims to supremacy against Nectarius,
patriarch of Jerusalem; La Nullite deb ordinations
anglieanes (2 vols., 1725); and La Nullite des or
dinations anglicanes demontree de nouveau (2 vols.,
1730). Far more important was his edition of
John of Damascus in Greek and Latin (2 vols.,
Paris, 1712; reprinted, with additions, MPG,
xeiv.‑xcvi.); and, above all, his Oriens Christianus
in quatuor patriarehatus digestus (3 vols., Paris,
1740), modeled on D. de Saints‑Marthe's Gallia
Christiana, and treating in the first volume of
Pontus, Asia, and Thrace as dioceses of the patri
archate of Constantinople, in the second of Illyri
cum (as the fourth Constantinopolitan diocese) and
the patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, and
in the third of the dioceses of the Chaldean and
Jacobite Churches.	(0. ZOCKLERt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Qudtif and J. Echard, Scriptoree ordini8
	prtedicatorum, u. 808‑809, Paris, 1721; H. Hurter, No
	menclator literariu8, ii. 1064‑66, Innsbruck, 1893; KL, vii.
	1827‑28.
	LERINS, le'ran (LERINUM), MONASTERY OF:
An old monastery on the island of Saint‑Honorat
(one of the L6rins group), off the coast of southern
France, opposite Cannes, founded by St. Honora
tus about 400. Honoratus was of Gallo‑Roman
origin and appears to have belonged to an aristo
cratic family. In early youth he began a monastic
routine on an island near Marseilles; later he trav
eled in the East, and on his return he visited Italy
and contracted a friendship with Paulinus of Nola
(q.v.). He then settled on the island of Lerinum
(now Saint‑Honorat). The number of his com
panions soon increased, and, though great free
dom prevailed in the manner of life, Honoratus
continued general superior. Johannes Cassianus
(q.v.), founder of the slightly younger monastic
community at Marseilles, dedicates to him a
portion of his Collationes patrum, and styles him
president of the great cloister of brethren. As
presbyter, Honoratas also discharged the spiritual
functions.
	It is doubtful what cloistral rule was in force on
Lerinum before the introduction of the Benedictine
rule about 661. Arnold has demonstrated that the
founder composed no rule, but that the order of
living which he had established after Egyptian
precedents was transmitted by tradition. The
spiritual exercises included fasting, singing of
hymns, and prayer at appointed hours. The monks also tilled the soil and attended to the education of youth. It is probable that the monastic studies consisted mainly in the introduction of auxiliary means for the understanding of the Bible.
The foundation of Honoratus quickly attained great renown, becoming the hearth of rejuvenation for the secularized Gallic Church and filling the bishops with a more earnest ascetic spirit. The island of Lerinum came to be the nursery of the socalled Semipelagianism. Eucherius of Lyons, Vincentius, and Salvianus, spent some time as monks of Lerinum. Honoratus himself became bishop of Arles in 426, but died in 429. Maximus and Faustus of Riez were his able successors, the latter being one of the most eminent upholders of Semipelagianism. Cmsarius of Arles spent considerable time at Lerinum under Abbot Porcerius. Amid the ravages of the sixth century (Provence fell'into the hands of the Franks in 537) the discipline of the cloister declined. Abbot Marinus desired to introduce the milder Agaunensian rule; and under Abbot Stephen, who entertained St. Augustine of Canterbury on his way to the Anglo‑Saxons, there set in a total decay of discipline. About 661 Aigulf, of the cloister of Fleury. (Saint‑Benoft‑sur‑Loire), reformed Lerinum according to the Benedictine rule; but the ardent Benedictine was assassinated by an opposing faction. By 690, however, Lerinum had again reached such a flourishing state that St. Amandus, then abbot, is said to have had under him 3,700 monks.
About 730 the wealthy cloister was plundered by the Saracens. It indicates a depressed state of affairs again, when in 964 the Burgundian King Conrad ceded Lerinum to the abbot of Mont‑Majeur in behalf of the restoration of order. Soon afterward, however, Pope Benedict VII. made over Lerinum to Abbot Mayolus of Cluny. Afterward Odilo of Cluny appears as abbot of Lerinum, which he visited in 1022. Then followed local abbots; but with the union with the congregation of Cluny there began for Lerinum a new period of splendor. At all events, the wealth and influence of the monastery were still growing in the thirteenth century. In the fourteenth century the monks were no longer disposed to be fratres, but desired to be domini, and at a general chapter in 1319 they resolved that it be left free to every monk, prior, and conventual, to acquire and administer property. Urban IV. and the popes of Avignon, John XXII. and Clement VI., bestowed the rich benefices in commendam: Attempts at reform, in connection with the efforts of Benedict XII., proved of little avail.
During the Great Schism the cloister stood on the side of the Roman obedience. After having again been consigned in the second half of the fifteenth century to commendatory abbots, the monastery entered upon a new period in 1515. To speed the cloister's reform, the incumbent at that time, Augustus of Grimaldi (later 'bishop of Grasse), imported some monks of Cluny and contrived the annexation of Lerinum to the Italian Benedictine congregation of St. Justina of Padua. After his death, however, Francis 1. again bestowed the

483	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Le (k~aien
Leone
abbey in commendam. Du Bellay was the first in tenure; Cardinals Lavalette and Mazarin were in possession in the century following. When after the death of Philip of Venddme, in 1727, the monks promised the bishop of Grasse a pension of 4,000 livres if he would effect, with Cardinal de Fleury, the restoration of free abbatical election, the latter prelate preferred rather to appropriate the monastery outright; and in 1732 he procured a royal brief, by the terms of which, on condition of the bishop's obtaining confirmation thereof by the pope, the monastery was to be conveyed in perpetuity to him and his successors. In 1788 the monastery was secularized, and in 1791 the island of Saint‑Honorat was sold at auction for 37,000 livres. In 1853 the bishop of Fr6jus bought back the island; and in 1859 the church was restored to divine service and monks from Saint‑Pierre de Marseille were stationed on the premises.
G. GRUTZMACHER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hilary of Arles' Sermo de vita S. Honorati is in ASB, Jan., ii. 17‑24, and in MPL, 1. 1249 sqq. Consult: L. Pierrugues, Vie de S. Honorat, Paris, 1875; Silfersberg, Historia monasterii Lerinenaia, Copenhagen, 1834; Berengier, in Revue de Part chr6tien, 1870, pp. 176 aqq.; F. Arnold, Cllamrius von Arelate and die . . Kirche seiner Zeit, pp. 94 sqq., Leipsie, 1894; A. Malnorg, St. CEsaire, pp. 5 sqq., Paris, 1894; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr6s, viii. 433, 439‑442, 452, x. 377; DCB, iii. 138; Helyot, Ordres monastiques, v. 116 sqq.; Heimbueher, Orden and Kongregationen, i, passim.

LESLIE, CHARLES: Nonjuror and controversialist; b. at Dublin, Ireland, July 17, 1650; d. at Glasslough (70 m. n.n.w. of Dublin), County Monaghan, Apr. 13, 1722. He studied at the Enniskillen school and at Trinity College, Dublin (M.A., 1673), and began the study of law at the Temple, but took holy orders in 1680. He was preferred to the chancellorship of Connor July 13, 1686. Though a zealous Protestant he was a stanch supporter of the Stuart dynasty, and for refusing to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary was deprived of his benifice in 1689. He then removed to London and entered upon a period of controversial writing that extended over some twenty years. He attacked the king, Whig divines, Jews, Quakers, Papists, Dissenters, and especially the Deists. In 1693 he visited St. Germains and obtained from the pretender the conge d'elire for the consecration of the nonjuring bishops. When in 1710 his Jacobite zeal had led to the issuing of a warrant for his arrest, he secluded himself at White Waltham, Berkshire, and in Apr., 1711, fled to St. Germains. Later he returned to England and passed under the alias of Mr. White, but in Aug., 1713, he repaired to Bar‑le‑Duc and took up his residence in the household of the pretender. After the failure of the Jacobite rebellion of 1715 he accompanied the pretender to Rome. In 1721 he returned to Ireland. He is now remembered principally for one book, A Short and Easy Method with the Deists (London, 1698, and often). Other works are: Gallienus redivivus (Edinburgh, 1695), an attack on William III.; The Snake in the Grass (London 1696), an attack on the Quakers; A Short and Easy Method with the Jews (1698); The Case of the Regale and of the Pontificate (1700; new
ed., 1838); and The Truth of Christianity Demonstrated (1711). He expounded his political philosophy in a periodical founded by him called The Rehearsal (1705‑09; reprinted, 4 vols., 1708‑09; also 6 vols., 1750). Before his death he collected his Theological Works (2 vols., 1721; reprinted, 7 vols., Oxford, 1832).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. J. Leslie, Life and Writings of Charles Leslie, London, 1885; the Life, prefixed to the Oxford ed. of his Theological Works, ut sup.; L. Stephen, English Thought in the 18th Century, i. 196‑201, 241, New York, 1881; DNB, xxxiii. 77‑83 (contains a good list of authorities). Consult also T. Lathbury, History of the Nonyurors, London, 1862.
LESLIE (LESLEY), JOHN: Scottish Roman Catholic historian and statesman; b. in Scotland 1527; d. at Gurtenburg, near Brussels, May 30, 1596. He studied in Aberdeen, Paris, and Poitiers, was appointed canon of the cathedral church at Aberdeen, 1547, canonist in King's College, Aberdeen, 1553, official of the diocese of Aberdeen 1558, and in 1559 was inducted into the parsonage, canonry, and prebend of Oyne. At the Reformation he became a champion of the Roman faith. He was one of Knox's opponents at the disputation in Edinburgh in 1561 and also one of the commissioners sent to France that year to bring over Mary Queen of Scots. He returned in Mary's train and became her principal ecclesiastical adviser. He was named professor of canon law at King's College and University of Aberdeen in 1562, and in 1565 he was made privy councilor, judge of the court of session, and bishop of Ross. He was Mary's chief commissioner at the conference at York in 1568, and later he was her ambassador at the court of Elizabeth. He was the chief means of communication between Mary and her supporters, and was the prime mover in numerous intrigues in her behalf. It was he who originated the scheme of a marriage between Mary and the duke of Norfolk, which ended with Norfolk's execution. For his part in the Norfolk conspiracy he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Afterward he was transferred to Farnham Castle, and at the close of 1573 he was set at liberty, on condition that he leave the country. On the continent he continued his efforts for Mary and, after a year's sojourn in Paris, went to Rome to represent her interests at the papal court. He was sent by the pope on various missions in Mary's behalf. In 1579 he was made suffragan and vicargenera.l of the diocese of Rouen, and in 1593 he was appointed bishop of Coutances in Normandy. Unable to obtain possession of his see, owing to the unsettled condition of the country, he retired to a monastery of Augustinian monks at Gurtenburg. His literary fame rests upon his De origine, moribus, et rebus gestis scotorum (Rome, 1578), which extends from the earliest times to the year 1562. An earlier Scottish version, written by Leslie in 1568‑70 and presented to Queen Mary in 1571, was edited for the Bannatyne Club by T. Thomson under the title, The History of Scotland from the Death of James 1. in the Year 1436 to the Year 1661 (Edinburgh, 1830). Leslie wrote much in defense of Mary, and composed for her Pice afjlicti animi conaolationes . . . animi tranquilli munamentum et cortaeraatio (Paris, 1574).

Lee Tourer	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
484
BIBLIOGRAPHY: An important and extensive list of sources is given at the end of the sketch in DNB a:odii. 93‑99. Leslie's Diary was published by the Bannatyne Club in its Miscellany, vol. iii., Edinburgh, 1827. An early life is republished in vole. i., iii. of James Anderson's Collections Relating to the Hist. o1 Mary Queen of Scotland 4 vole.,
	I	'b. 1727‑28. Consult also: Life and Times of ft Rev. John
	Leslie, London, 1885.

	LESS, GOTTFRIED: German Lutheran theo
logian; b. at Konitz (65 m. s.w. of Danzig) Jan.
31, 1736; d. at Hanover Aug. 28, 1797. He was
educated at the Collegium Friedericianum in K6nigs
berg, and then studied theology at Jena and at
Halle, where he was the pupil of S. J. Baumgarten.
In 1757 he removed to Danzig where in 1761 he
was appointed extraordinary professor of theology.
After a scientific journey to Holland and England
in 1762, he was appointed professor and preacher
of the University of G6ttingen (1763). In 1791
he was called to Hanover as court preacher, coun
cilor of the consistory and general superintendent.
His theological standpoint was that of a rationalistic
and sentimental religion that conceded one point
of the positive faith of the Church after the other
to the spirit of the time, always believing that by
the sacrifice of external matters there could be
saved the principal point‑" Christianity as the
moral religion of nature." His numerous works
belong mostly to the departments of apologetics,
dogmatics, ethics, and practical theology. His
principal work in apologetics is Beweis der Wahr
heit der christlichen Religion (Bremen, 1768; Eng.
transl., Authenticity, Uncorrupted Preservation, and
Credibility of the New Testament, London, 1804).
The sixth edition (GSttingen, 1786) was to form the
second part of a larger unfinished work entitled
Ueber die Religion, ihre Geschichte, Wahl and Be
stlitigung, of which two volumes appeared (GSttin
gen, 1783). Less was, however, recognized chiefly
as an authority in ethics, on which he published
Ausfuhrlichea Handbuch der chri4Uichen Moral and
allgemeinen Lebenatheologie (1777). In the sphere
of dogmatics he wrote, Handbuch der christlichen
Religionatheorie fur Aufgekldrtere (1789). Of ser
mons he published besides other collections Pas
aionapredigten (1778,84). Besides his chief works
he wrote a great number of monographs and trea
tises on special topics in the various departments of
theology. 	(PAUL. TBCHACLCERT.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Holscher, G. Less, sin biopraphischee Prapmenc Hanover, 1797; G. Frank, Oeschichte der protntantiwhen Theol*e, iii. 100 eqq., Leipeic, 1875.
LESSIIIG, GOTTHOLD EPHRAIM: German critic and dramatist; b. at Kamenz (20 m. n.e. of Dresden) Jan. 22, 1729; d. at Brunswick Feb. 15, 1781. His father was a learned and respected Lutheran pastor, and his ancestors for generations had been clergymen. He attended the Ffiratenschule, St. Afra, at Meissen, and while there began his comedy, Der junge Gelehrte. In 1746 he began to study theology at the University of Leipsic; his interest, however, lay more in the direction of literature and the drama. Later he took up the study of medicine and philology, but again busied himself with literature and the theater. In January, 1748, the Actress Neuber produced the play
already named. Between 1748 and 1751 he was at
Berlin, nominally a student of medicine, but actually earning his living by writing. He made translations, edited a supplement of the Vosaische Zeitung, and began his critical and scholarly works. He translated Voltaire's defense in the suit with Abraham Hirsch and corresponded with the Frenchman, but later lost his respect for him. At the request of his father he resumed his studies at Wittenberg for a few months, where in 1752 he took his master's degree. His Rettungen was written during those months. He returned to Berlin in October, 1752, and continued to work on the Vo8sische Zeitung, publishing his writings in six volumes 1753‑55. His Miss Sara Sampson was the first German tragedy of every‑day life. He won the recognition of eminent scholars and the friendship of such men as Nicolai, Mendelssohn and Michaelis. He then took part in writing the Braefe die neueste Litteratur betrefend. In 1760 he accepted a position as secretary to General Tauentzien, at Breslau, which gave him a feeling of security as to his livelihood while leaving him time to pursue his literary plans. He worked at his Laokoon, and Minna von Barnhelm, and studied Spinoza and the Church Fathers, but resigned his position in 1765. In 1767 he went to Hamburg to become dramaturg to the newly founded theater of Johann Friedrich Loewe. The theater did not last long. A printing and publishing business in which Leasing became interested was also a failure. At Hamburg he was intimate with Klopatock, Hagedorn, Claudius, and many other important persons. The crown prince of Brunswick, on the recommendation of Ebert, offered him a position as librarian at Wolfenbijttel, which he took in April, 1770, but the life there soon lost its attraction for him. In 1777 he began a series of theological polemics, which continued until the end of his life. He had been drawn into the strife by the publication of a manuscript of Berengar of Tours bearing on the controversy concerning the Eucharist (see BEBENGAR OF TOURS, § 2). His connection with the library occasioned a number of scholarly investigations, the results of which he published in his Beitrage zur Geschichte and Litteratur. His Nathan der Weise, which was to some extent the outcome of his theological controversies, was finished in 1779. Erna and Falk appeared in 1778‑80, and Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes in 1780. To the year 1778 belongs a work published by his brother after his death: Neue Hypothese fiber die Evangelisten als bloss menschliche Geschichtswhreiber betrachtet, in which he assumes the existence of an Aramaic original of Matthew which Matthew followed and condensed, and Mark and Luke supplemented with fresh material. Some features of this theory have proved permanent.
Leasing stands beside Goethe and Schiller as one of the German classical writers who is read by all educated persons as well as by mere students of literature. This fact is due in large measure to the perfection of form of his masterpieces, and also to his truthful, manly qualities. His influence on the German language has been very considerable. Various opinions have been expressed upon Lessing's attitude toward Christianity. Those who

486
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
still distinguish between the religion of Christ and the Christian religion, holding to the former alone, may regard Leasing as the inaugurator 9f a new era in theology. But if it be maintained that the essential thing in Christianity is one's attitude toward the Savior, considering him as the object of Christian worship and not merely its teacher, Leasing's position can hardly be called a Christian one. Nevertheless, it can not be denied that his ethical views, and even his religious conceptions, were rooted in Christian soil. His religious opinions did not radically change, as some have suggested, toward the end of his life; nor was he a Spinozist, he was rather a follower of Leibnitz. He believed in a conscious God, who ruled above the world. In the revealed religions he saw preparatory stages to the truths of natural religion. He expected a third stage in religious history, following Judaism and Christianity, in which a new and everlasting evangel should be promulgated, a period in which every man would do right for right's sake.
(CARL Beau.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The editions of Lessing's works are, very numerous and easily accessible; Eng. tranele. of his works are also numerous, e.g., Laocoon, by Sir. R. Phillimore, London, 1875; Selects Prose Works, by E. C. Beesley and Helen Zimmeru, ib. 1879; Dramatic Works, in Bohn's Library, 2 vole., ib. 1875‑78; Education of the Human Rate, by F. W. Robertson, ib. 1858. Among the many biographies may be named: T. W. Daneel and G. E. Gtlhl'auer, 2d ed. by W, von Maltaahn and R. Boxberger, 2 vole., Berlin, 1884; A. Btahr, Boston, 1888; H. Zimmern,London, 1878; J. Lime. 2 vole., London, 1879; E. Schmidt, 2 vole., Berlin, 1884; T. W. Rolleeton, London, 1889; A. W. Ernst, Stuttgart, 1903; and ADB, xic. 758‑‑802. Various phases of his literary and theological activities are discussed in: H. Ritter, Ueber Leasinp'a pAiloeoyhiache and religitise GrurulaUtze, GSttingen, 1847; W. Beyeehlag, Lesainpa Nathan der Weise and daa Positive Chriatenthum, Berlin, 1883; J. W. Loebell, G. E. Leasing, Brunswick, 1885 (deals with his relations to German literature): I. A. Doruer. GeachichEe der proteatantir when 77reologie, pp. 721 eqq.,Munich, 1887, Eng. travel., Hiet. of Protestant Theology, 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1871; E. Niemeyer, Ueber Leesinpa Ptidapopik, Dresden, 1874; T. W. H. Rolleston, Luainpand Modern German Literature, London, 1900; C. Bell, Die Reliqiou uneerer Rlaaeiker, TObingen, 1904; L. Zeoharnak, Losing undSmler, Giessen, 1905.
LESSIUS (LEYS), LEOftARDUS: Jesuit theologian; b. at Brecht (14 m. n.e. of Antwerp), Belgium, Oct. 1, 1554; d. at Lou‑in Jan. 15, 1623. He studied at Louvain and entered the Society of Jesus in 1572. After teaching philosophy in the Jesuit College at Douai for seven years (1574‑81) he devoted himself for four years to the study of theology in Rome and in 1585 became professor of theology at the Jesuit college at Louvain, remaining there till his death. In 1587 the theological faculty at Louvain attacked Lesaius and Jean du Hamel' his colleague, censuring thirty‑four theses extracted from their lectures, especially on the doctrines of inspiration, and grace and liberty. I,essius defended himself m Sex antitheses and Reaponsia ad AretaPologiam. Against the Augustinian dootrine of grace, which was still upheld by the faculty of Louvain, Lesaiusdenied the sole efficacy of grace. He also discarded the doctrine of inspiration and based the canonicity of the books of the Bible upon the subsequent testimony of the Spirit. But in spite of his liberal views he had no sympathy with VI‑‑30
any tendency or creed outside of the Roman Catho
lic Church. He was a versatile and prolific writer,
and owed his chief fame to his comprehensive work
on ethics, De jure d institia ceterisque ro£rhttt'btta
cardirtalibus libri. iv. (Louvain, 160b). Here he
treats in the scheme of the four cardinal virtues all
questions of ethics, political economy, natural law,
etc., after the manner of Jesuit morale. He wrote
also: Defensio poteatatis summi pontifccis (Sara
gossa, 1611); Discuaaio decreti magnz conailii Late
ranensia d quarurtdam rationum annexanem de
Potestate eeelpai.x is tempora,l‑e'bus (Mainz, 1613);
Hygiastiean see de very rations valdudinis bones d
vita; una cum senauum iudicii d memorise irttegritate
ad ezlremam aenectutem conaervaredce (Antwerp,
1613; Eng. transl., Cambridge, 1634). A collected
edition of his works was published under the title
Opuscula quibus plemque aacree theodogia= myateria
ezplicantur d vita, reds inatituertdte prtscepta tradun
Lur (Antwerp, 1623). 	(R. SPJEBER(i.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Hurter, Nanenciatar Ziterariua, i. 245
eqq., Innsbruck, 1892; F. X. Lineenmann, M. Baiua uud die Grundlepunp den Janaenaamua, T(ibingen, 1887; G. 8chneemann, Entatehunp and Entwiekelunp der lAomiatiseh‑rtwliniatiadun Kontroverse, Freiburg, 1879‑80; idem, Controvereiarum de divine gratis libsri arbitrii Concordia, ib. 1881; KL, vii. 1844‑51.
LESSOR FOR THE DAY. See P>alttcor>e.
LESTIBES, SYNOD OF. See LiFTiNx, SYNOD OF.
LE TELLIER, le tel"ly5', MICKEL: French Jesuit and confessor of Louis XIV.; b, near Vire (36 m. s.w. of Caen) Dec. 16,1643; d. at La Fl&he (24 In. s.a.w. of Le Mans) Sept. 2, 1719. He studied at the Jesuit college of Caen, and in 1661 entered the Society of Jesus. While teaching at the College Louisle‑Grand he became distinguished as a polemic theologian, especially against the Jsnsenists. In 1672 he published at Rouen his Obaenxitlons our la version Jrangaise du Nouveau Testament imprimte a Mons (cf. BIBLE: VERSIONS, B, VI., § 4), and assisted Dominique Bouhours in translating the New Testament into French (1697). In support of the Jesuit principle of making certain concessions in order to convert the heathen, especially in China, be wrote Defense den nouveaux ehraiens et den min aionetires de la Chine, du Japon et den Index (2 vole., Paris, 1687); in his Histoire des einq propositions de JansEnius (LiEge, 1699), written under the peen‑. donym Dumas, be assailed Jansenism; and in his Le Pr?re QuesTtel sEditieux et hkr.qtgue (Paris, 1705) he attacked Pasquier Quesnel (q.v.). Among his other works special mention should be made of his Recueil des belles sur lea etreura des deux derniera si,Wes (Mons, 1697).
The services of Le Tellier won him the rank of a provincial of his order, and in 1709 he became the confessor of Louis XIV., over whom he exercised a profound influence against the Janeeniats. To him the destruction of Port Royal was ultimateh due, as was the resumption of efforts to aupprer Protestantism. He was also a potent factor in securing the promulgation of the bull Unigenitua. With the death of Louis XIV. (1715), however, his influence was at an end, and the regency banished him from court, first to Amiene and later to La

Flbche.	flJuo;cx Lsca>cxxexN.)

Letters Dimfseory
Levi, Levites	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	488
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Reuohlin, Geschichtt van Port Radar, ii. 589, 593, Hamburg, 1844; A. Dorsanne, Journal, 2 vols., Rome, 1753; H. J. V. de Saint‑Simon, MEmoires, Paris, 1829; Ranks, Popes, ii. 437‑438.
LETTERS DIMISSORY (lderte dimisstn ate or dimi8sorialea) : The name of a document by which a person belonging to a certain ecclesiastical jurisdiction (diocese, congregation, etc.) is formally permitted to withdraw from the proper authority, either forever (literm dimissoriite perpducs), or for a particular purpose, such as ordination (literte dimisstrrits temporales).

LEUSDER, los'den, JOHANNES: Dutch Biblical scholar; b. at Utrecht Apr. 26, 1624; d. there Sept. 30, 1699. He studied philosophy and theology, and especially Oriental languages at Utrecht, and then went to Amsterdam to perfect his knowledge by intercourse with Jews. In 1650 he became professor extraordinary of Oriental languages at Utrecht, and in 1653 ordinary professor. He was highly esteemed as an Orientalist, and as an academic teacher. Of his works may be mentioned: Philologus HebrWu8 (Utrecht, 1652); Jonas illustrates (1656); Joel explicates . . . adjunctus Obadja illustrates (1657); Philologus Hebrteo‑mixtus (1663); Psalterium Hebrwum (Amsterdam, 1666); Clavis Grow Novi Testamenti (Leyden, 1672); Clavis Hebraicq Veteris Testamenti (1673); and Korte Hebreusche en Chaldeusche taalkanst (Utrecht, 1686). j.eusden rendered valuable service to later editors by his edition of the Old Testament (Amsterdam, 1660; 2d ed., 1667), which he published in collaboration with Joseph Athias, a rabbi and printer in Amsterdam. His Novum Testamentum Grtecum (Utrecht, 1675) has little scientific value.
		(S. D. vAN VEEN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. Burman, Traiectum eruditum, virorum
	doctrine inlustrium, pp. 185‑191, Utrecht, 1738; J. Fabri‑
oius, Hietoria bibliogeoce Pabricianes, i. 244 eqq., Heim‑
.tadt, 1718; B. Glasius, Godpeleerd Nederland, ii. 365
367, 3 vole 'e Hertogenbosch, 1851‑56; C. Sepp, Het
Godpeleerd Onderwiis in Nederland, ii. 172‑174, Leyden,
1874; Lichtenberger, ESR, viii. 195‑196.
	LEVELLERS: A faction with radical religious
and political tendencies which appeared in Crom
well's army at the time of the break between the
Independents and the Long Parliament (1647).
Their aims were set forth by one of their number in
The Leveller, or the Principles and Maxims concern
ing Government and Religion of those commonly
called Levellers (London, 1658). These were in
politics the supremacy of the law without regard
to party, the legislative power of Parliament, the
absolute. equality of all before the law, and the
right of bearing arms; in religion they sought free
dom of conscience, liberty for each individual to
act according to his best judgment, the recognition
of,two aspects of religion (one the correct under
standing, of revelation and a private matter, the
other works of mercy and justice subject to the
approval of mankind and the authorities), and the
condemnation of all controversy on religious faith
and practise. The sect vanished with many others
at the Restoration. 	(C. SaaoElrt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. H. Church, Oliver Cromwell, pp. 277
	278, 306, 328, New York, 1897; Encgclopadia Britannica,
	i. 92, vi. 600 602; and the literature on CromwelL
LEVI, LEVITES.
Origins (4 1). Levites in the Priestly Document (1 2). Character of Their Service (¢ 3). Later Historical Notices (§ 4). Modern Criticism (¢ 5).
In all sources Levi appears as one of the sons of Jacob, and in Gen. xxix. 34, xxxv. 23, and xlix. as the third son of Leah. Of Levi personally little is related outside of his union with Simeon in the cunning and cruel vengeance upon the Shechenutes for dishonoring his sister Dinah and his consequent dispersion among the tribes according to the last oracle of Jacob (Gen. xxxix. 25 aqq., xlix. 5 sqq.).
The fact that he had no inheritance
I. Origins. among the tribes goes with his priestly
calling and the high distinction he received under Moses. The question has been raised whether Levi was originally an individual and personal name (cf. Gen. xxix. 34, R.V. margin), and some modern scholars do not regard it as a tribal or local name but as derived from the vocation"joined [to a sanctuary or a divinity]," " one devoted." Hommel cites such a usage of the word in Minuean inscriptions in connection with the god Wadd. But this usage is altogether foreign to Hebrew, and such a connection is absent in the unfavorable utterance of Jacob's last words, where there is no reference to the later honorable calling of the tribe. Wellhausen's view that Jacob's words refer to a tribe (not an individual) which early sank into insignificance while Deut. xxxiii. 8 sqq. blesses its priestly position is (apart from the otherwise unexplained naming of an unpriestly tribe) not so satisfactory as that under the same name quantitatively different conceptions are treated, since the Jacobic and Mosaic blessings are closely related. In Mosaic times the tribe came into a clearer light, inasmuch as Moses (q.v.) belonged to it and during the wandering it became the priestly tribe. This last is ascribed to two circumstances: first Moses made his brother Aaron priest of the sanctuary, and, second, for fidelity to the covenant the Levites received priestly consecration (Ex. xxxii. 29). The hereditary character of the Aaronic priesthood not only depends upon the setting apart of his sons as his helpers at the sanctuary and the promise of an everlasting priesthood in consequence of the faithfulness of the tribe (Ex. xxxii.; Num. xxv. 11 sqq.), but is in accordance with the Semitic usage which sets apart certain families for the care of sanctuaries. ‑
The priestly document describes the service of the tribe during the wandering as definitely ordered for the care of the sanctuary and its belongings. The period of service is given in Num. iv. 23, 30, as from the age of thirty to fifty, but in Num. viii. 24 sqq. as from twenty‑five to fifty. Tradition regards this as dealing only with the
period of the wandering, and affirms 2. Levites in that at the age of fifty service did not the Priestly cease, as at the sanctuary of Shiloh.
Document. The express statements of the priestly
document concerning Levitical service deal in general with the time of the wandering. In this the consecration of the Levites, analogous

487
RELIGIOUS
to that of the priests, was to a lower grade of service, but signified a setting apart to Yahweh, and consisted of a sprinkling with water of expiation, a shaving of all hair from the body, and the washing of the clothing. Then followed the laying on of hands by the elders, the offering of the wave offering by the high priest and of a sin and burnt offering. A special clothing does not seem to have been appointed for them as it was for the priests (but cf. I Chron. xv. 27; II Chron. v. 12). There is lacking a description of their personal business and manner of life as opposed to the definite regulations for priestly living (Lev. xxi.), except that they were not possessors of land, in lieu of which they received part of the tithes of the people and of the booty of war (Num. xviii. 24 sqq., xxxi. 2L,0; see TiTHEs). For their dwellings forty‑eight cities were set apart, according to Num. xxxv., with definite dimensions in order that ground should be available for pasturage and support, a provision which does not do away with their exclusion from possession of land, since the cities were not inhabited exclusively by Levites (but cf. Lev. xxv. 3233). The carrying out of this provision is given in Josh. xxi. (P), together with the setting apart of thirteen cities for the priests; of these cities six were cities of refuge. The idea of the systematic distribution of a tribe among all the other tribes presents that of a bond admirably adapted to preserve the conceptions of the theocracy, but seems rather ideal than real. The cities named were not in Israelitic possession till long after, and in the time of the Judges the Levites were in the position of strangers and guests.
	The tribe	consisted of three families, those of
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (Gen. xlvi. 11; Ex.
vi. 16), the sons of Levi, and these divided into
eight branches. In Mosaic times the number of
Levites is given as 22,000 (Num. iii. 39) or 23,000
(Num. xxvi. 62). The Chronicler trams a new ar
rangement for the Levite service back to David,
		who in connection with the placing of
3. Charac‑ the ark in Jerusalem is said to have ter of assigned to special duties the different Their families (I Chron. xxiii.‑xxvii.), and
	Service.	the impression is given that. this was
		in accord with prophetic direction.
The objections made to this statement as a merely
fanciful construction are answered by the fact that
it has all the appearance of truth; the Chronicler
might have attributed the assignment to Moses or
Solomon were the representation purely hypo
thetical. It is evident that David and Solomon,
the projector and builder of the temple, and the
monarchs who organized the kingdom, must have
given special attention to the Levites. It is wholly
possible that at that time suitable persons from
other tribes were incorporated among the Levites,
though the tribal descent remained the basis of
assignment. In David's time the number of Le
vites was 38,000 (I Chron. xxxiii. 3), of whom
24,000 were assigned to sanctuary service, 6,000
became officers and judges, 4,000 doorkeepers, and
4,000 were assigned to musical service. The class
first named acted as assistants to the priests,
cleansed the temple, prepared the offerings, and had
ENCYCLOPEDIA
Letters Dimissory Levi, Levites
general supervision of the sacred precincts. To this end a further division was made into twentyfour courses, corresponding to the same number of priestly courses. The officers and judges, taken from the family of Kohath, served outside the sanctuary and in great part outside Jerusalem. The musicians were also divided into twenty‑four choirs, and among their leaders are mentioned sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, Heman, and Kohath. The doorkeepers, one of Korahitic descent and the rest of two families tracing their origin to Merari, guarded the four sides of the temple at twenty‑four posts. The Nethinim (the word means " given over," trd. diti, cf. the hieroduloi of Josephus, Ant. XI., v. 1; III Ezra, i. 3) were assigned to a service different from that of the Levites; in postexilic times they performed the menial services of the sanctuary, in preexilic times the heaviest duties, and their institution appears to have been one of high antiquity (compare the general service of the Gibeonites, Josh. ix. 21 sqq.). Prisoners of war under the kings who followed David were often assigned as temple slaves (Ezra viii. 20), and Solomon seems to have devoted to the same service some of the Canaanites (I Kings ix. 21; cf. Ezra ii. 58). During the continuance of the kingdom the service of the temple seems to have been in part performed even by uncircumcised persons (cf. Ezek. xliv. 7,8).
At the division of the kingdom, according to II Chron. xi. 13 sqq:, many Levites flocked to Judah and Jerusalem from the kingdom of Israel. Levites accompanied the host on a war expedition under Jehoshaphat, and served at the same time
as judges and teachers of the people
4. Later (II Chron. xvii. 8, xix. 8, xx. .19 sqq.).
Historical Jehoiada employed them as an armed
Notices. guard at the overthrow of Athaliah
(II Chron. xxiii. i‑11, an office, assigned in II Kings xi. 4‑12 to the royal guard). To the Levites the Chronicler gives an important part in the reformation of Hezekiah (II Chron. xxix.), and tells of their services in the time of Josiah as slaughterers of the paschal lamb (II Chron. xxv. 11). Hezekiah is said to have reinstituted the giving of tithes, which had fallen into disuse, for the benefit of priests and Levites (II Chron. xxxi. 4), and the Chronicler gives a better character to the Levites than to the priests in that reign (II Chron. xxix. 34). Ezekiel (xliv. 9) expressly excludes them from priestly service on the ground that they had confirmed Israel in idolatry, and allows them to perform only the lower sanctuary services, assigning the altar service to the Zadokites. The effect of Ezekiel's legislation is that of an entirely new arrangement. That the Levites had fostered the high places is suggested by their fewness at the time of the return (Ezra ii. 40); only seventy‑four Levites as against 4,289 priests were repatriated under Zerubbabel, though there appear 128 singers and 139 doorkeepers. These latter had been more closely attached to the temple, hence their greater interest in the return. Under Nehemiah the number of Levites in Jerusalem in‑
creased (Neh. xi. 15 sqq.). The Levitical cities are not mentioned in the period of Ezra‑Nehemiah. Nethinim, regarded as a lower caste of the Levites,

Levi, Levitee	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	4008
Leyser
are mentioned as returning exiles, and they dwelt
mainly in Jerusalem (Ezra ii. 58, vii. 7, 46). The
Miahna (Shekalim, Mid", Timid) preserves the
tradition of the regulations affecting the service of
the Levites at the second temple. After the de
struction of the temple, the Levites and the priest
hood lost their significance, since the synagogue did
not need them, though in the ministrations of the
synagogue Levites enjoyed a certain distinction.
The employment of the name does not, however,
involve descent from that tribe, since it was given
to members of other tribes.
Modern criticism has brought under review the
prevalent tradition regarding the development of
the Levites and their service. Since the sharp dis
tinction between priests and Levites found in the
priestly legislation does not appear in Deuteron
omy, one school throws the latter book into a
later time than the other sources of the Penta
		teuch, on the ground that the distinc
	t. Modern tion had worn away. Another school,
	Criticism. working upon the same distinction be
		tween priests and Levites and holding
that in prophetic times this distinction was not
existent, places the separation between the Aaronic
priesthood and the liturgical Levites in the post
prophetic period. A separation indicated in II
Kings xxiii. 8 sqq. is carried farther by Ezekiel
and placed upon moral ground, when he reduces
to the rank of serving Levites those who had en
gaged in idolatry (Ezek. xliv. 10). Then, accord
ing to this school, the priestly regulations were corll
piled in Babylon, brought by Ezra to Jerusalem,
and there promulgated. In this the separation
made between the priestly class and the Levites
was dated back into Mosaic times. The Chroni
cler took up the matter and developed his history in
accordance with the scheme of the priestly legisla
tion. And the school whose teachings are here
summarized finds these results illuminative of doc
umentary history, and places the development in
the order Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, the priestly legis
lation, the Chronicler.
If all historical worth is denied to the ordinances
of the priest code, if the same position is taken in
respect to the reports of the Chronicler and to such
passages as I Sam. vi. 15, II Sam. xv. 24 and I
Kings viii. 6, then there remains little concerning
the Levites of preexilic times except subjective hy
pothesis. Of a priestly Levitic stock in early times
nothing remains. In the time of the Judges and
early kings there is no separation, so far as the cul
tua goes, between sacred and profane‑Gideon, Ma
noah, and Saul sacrifice, and the Ephraimite Samuel
becomes a priest, and so do David's sons (II Sam.
viii. 18 R.V.). A numerous liturgical personnel,
such as according to P the tribe of Levi must have
had, nowhere appears in early times. Individ
uals assumed the functions of divine service, and
later came to their exalted position as in Deut.
xxxiii. But these are in part arbitrary assump
tions. The sources indicate that the tribe of Levi
belongs to the Mosaic period and was even then in
sacred service. It is inconceivable that between
this tribe and the priesthood there should have
been no line of separation. The union between
people and God depends upon a well‑attested union of the cultus with one sanctuary and one priesthood, and the priesthood is traced in the Pentateuch to a family and not a tribe, though to the tribe during the wandering something of priestly consecration was given because of its fidelity to Yahweh. This does not involve that the Mosaic basis of the priestly legislation did not undergo in the course of time some modifications, while practical variations appeared from time to time, as has been indicated above. In quite early times the separation between sacred and profane began to fade out while the idea of a universal priesthood spread. So Judges xvii. furnishes an example of consecration of a profane person, who is later replaced by a Levite. Many sanctuaries may have existed without Levites in attendance. The systematic ordering of the temple service reintroduced the separation between sacred and profane, and Levitical priests were entrusted with the sanctuary service. In the popular view each Levite had the reversion to the priestly office. The Levites of the temple were so distinguished that for ordinary menial functions lower servants were provided, and were brethren of the priests. This is the Deuteronomic position. The conclusion so frequently drawn from II Kings xxiii. 9 and Dent. xviii. 6 aqq. that the priests of Jerusalem resisted the attempt of Josiah to install there the priests of the high places is not justified; all that is deducible is that Levitic origin alone was not considered sufficient ground for their serving as priests.
C. VON ORELLI.
BIHwoOBAPHY: The subject is so essentially involved in the criticism of the Pentateuch that, at least for the critical side and largely also for the historical data, reference to the literature on the Pentateuch (Hexateuch) is neoes• nary. It is &Igo discussed in treatises on the history of Israel (see under ARAB), on Hebrew archeology and the theology of the 0. T. Consult also: E. Riehm, Die Gesettpebunp Mosis im Lands Moab, pp. 31 sqq., Goths, 1854; J. J. Stahelin, in ZDMO, ix (1855), 708 sqq.; J. Orth, in Nouvelle Revue de theolopie, iii (1859), 384 sqq.; K. H. Graf, in Archiv far . . . Erforschung des A. T., i (186769), 68‑106, 208‑236; A. Kuenen, Oodsdienst van Israel, ii. 104 eqq., Harlem, 1870, Eng. trawl., London, 1875; 13. I. Curtiss, The Levitical Priests, Edinburgh, 1877; t3. Maylmum, Die Enturockelunp des altieraelitiechen Prieatsr tums, Breslau, 1880; R. Smend, Die Listen der Bacher Sera and Nehemia, Basel, 1881; W. H. Green, Moses and the Prophets, New York, 1882 (maintains the traditional view); W. W. von Baudissin, Die Gesckiehte des alttestamentliahen Prissterthums, Leipsic, 1889; C. Piepenbring, in RHR, xxiv (1891), 1‑60, 133‑186 (summarizes the ReussWellhausen theory); E. Meyer, Die Entetehuny des Judentums, pp. 168‑183, Halle, 1896; A. van Hoonacker, Le Swerdoos kvitiqw, Louvain, 1899; F. von Hummelauer, Do# vormosaische Priesterthum in Israel, Freiburg, 1899; J. Ksberle, Die Tempslsanper, Erlangen, 1899; J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford‑Battereby, The Composition of the Hexateach, London, 1902. Smith, OTJC; Scharer, Geschiehte, ii. 237‑242, 271‑279, Eng. trawl., II., i. 223‑229, 286‑273; DB, iii. 99‑102, iv. 67‑97 (not to be overlooked); EB, iii. 2770‑2778, 3837‑47; JE, viii. 19‑21, 49‑50.
LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. See FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATIONS, HEBREW, § 12. LEVITICUS. See HExATEuCH. LEWIS, ABRAM HERBERT: Seventh Day Baptist; b. at Scott, N. Y., Nov. 17, 1836; d. at Watch Hill, R. I., Nov. 4, 1908. He studied at Ripon College, Ripon, Wis., Milton College, Milton, Wis. (B.A., 1861), Alfred University, Alfred Centre,

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
N. Y. (M.A., 1863), Alfred Theological . Seminary (graduated 1863), and Union Theological Seminary (1870‑71). He was pastor at Westerly, R. I., 1864‑67 and New York City 1867‑89; general agent of the American Sabbath Tract Society 1869‑73; pastor at Shiloh, N. J., 1873‑76; professor of church history and homiletics at Alfred University 18761880; pastor at Plainfield, N. J., 1880‑96. From 1896 until his death he was corresponding secretary of the American Sabbath Tract Society and editor of The Sabbath Recorder. He was editor of The Outlook and Sabbath Quarterly 1882‑94, and was corresponding editor of The Philanthropist. In theology he was a liberal orthodox adherent of his Church. He wrote: Sabbath and Sunday (Alfred Centre, N. Y., 1870); Biblical Teachings concerning the Sabbath aced the Sunday (1884); Critical History of the Sabbath and the Sunday in the Christian Church (1886); Critical History of Sunday Legislation from 321 to 1888 A. D. (New York, 1888) ; Paganism Surviving in Christianity (1890); Surift Decadence of Sunday; What Next f (Plainfield, N. J., 1899); and Letters to Young Preachers. and their Readers (1900).
LEWIS, TAYLER: Reformed Dutch lay Biblical scholar and author; b. at Northumberland, Saratoga County, N. Y., Mar. 27, 1802; d. at Schenectady, N. Y., May 11, 1877. After graduating from Union College in 1820 he studied law and began to practise at Fort Miller in 1824. Having become interested in Biblical and classical studies he gave up the law and in 1833 opened a classical school at Waterford, N. Y., which he moved to Ogdensburg in 1835. He was professor of Greek in New York University 1838‑49, and from 1849 till his death professor of Greek and instructor in Oriental languages and Biblical literature at Union College. He was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. He was an able apologete and a prominent exponent of Oriental and classical studies. His more important works are: Plato contra Atheos (New York, 1845), being the Greek text of the tenth book of the dialogue on laws, with luminous notes and discussions; An Essay on the Ground aced Reason of Punishment with Special Reference to the Penalty of Death (1846); The Six Days of Creation (Seheneotady, 1855); The Bible and Science (1856); The Divine Human in the Scriptures (New York, 1860); State Rights, a Photograph from the Ruins of Ancient Greece (Albany, 1864) ; and The Light by which we see Light (Vedder lectures, New York, 1875). He also translated and supplemented the notes on Genesis for Schaff's edition of Lange's commentary (1868), and prepared for the same work metrical versions of Job and Ecclesiastes.
BIRLIOQRAPHY: W. Wells, in the Methodist Quarterly,
xxxviil (1878), 601 sqq.
LEWIS, WILSON SEELEY: Methodist Episcopal bishop; b. at Russell, N. Y., July 17, 1857. He was educated at St. Lawrence University, N. Y., and Cornell College, Mount Vernon, Ia. (B.A., 1889), after which he was principal of Epworth Seminary, Epworth, Ia., until 1897 and president of Morningside College, Sioux City, Ia., until 1908, in which year he was elected a bishop of his denomination.
Levi, Levitsr Leym
LEYDECKER, lai'dek‑er, MELCHIOR: Dutch Protestant; b. at Middelburg Mar. 11, 1642; d. at Utrecht Jan. 6, 1721. After serving for fifteen years as pastor in different places of Zealand he became professor of theology in Utrecht in 1679 and labored there till his death. He was perhaps the last representative of strict Reformed orthodoxy. From his orthodox standpoint he wrote polemical works against Balthasar Becker, the Cartesians, Hermann Witsius, and especially against the federal theology of‑ the Cocceians. His principal works are: De aaconomia trium personarum in nedotio salutis humance (Utrecht, 1682); Synopsis controversiarum de faadere et testamento Dei (1690); Giommentarius in Catech. Heidelberg. Rive de veritate et sanctitate fdei Reformats' (1694); and De repub. lica Hebrarorum (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1704‑10).
(E. F. KARL MtrLLER.)
BIBwOGRAPHl: A. J. van der Aa, Biapraphisch Woorderr
book der Nederlandsn, xi. 387 sqq., HRsrlem, 1852 sqq.;
Sammlunp roan alttn and "own qeolo&djsn Sachet, pp.
1012 sqq., Leipsie. 1721; F. W. J. H. Gas% GearAdchteder
protestantiaeAen Dopmatik, iii. 290, Berlin, 1862.
LEYSER, IAi zer (LEISER, LYSER): A family of Lutheran theologians and learned men, which in the sixteenth century removed from Swabia to North Germany, where its descendants are still flourishing.
1. Caspar Leyser: The oldest known member of the family, was born at Winnenden (12 m. n.e. Of Stuttgart), Wiirttemberg, c. 1527; d. at N17rtingen (13 m. s.s.e. of Stuttgart) 1554 or 1555. He entered the University of Ttibingen in 1541, in 1550 became pastor in his native city, and in 1553 at Nurtingen. He joined his brother‑in‑law, Jakob Andreh, in a proposal to Duke Christopher of Wiirttemberg to introduce a church discipline modeled after Calvin's and "presbyteries," i.e., church courts for the correction of offenders. The duke received the proposal favorably, but Brenz and the secular councilors opposed it, and it was not carried into effect.
2. Polycarp Leyser (the Elder): Only son of Caspar Leyser, was born at Winnenden Mar. 18, 1552; d. at Dresden Feb. 22, 1610. In 1570 he became master and repetent at Tabingen, and in 1573 preacher at Gelleradorf in Lower Austria, whence he was frequently called to preach at Vienna and thus became known to Emperor Maximilian II. After declining a call to Graz, in 1577 he became pastor, superintendent, ,and theological professor at Wittenberg. Here the ungrateful task devolved upon him of pacifying the excitement pre. vailing since the overthrow of the Cryptocalvinists in 1574 and of assisting in the introduction of the Formula of Concord as well as in the reorganization of the university. His modesty, amiability, and oratorical talents soon won the respect and love of his congregation, of the university, and of the elector. He was active in the final arrangement of the Book of Concord (1577‑80), in the reform of the university, and the revision of Luther's. translation of the Bible. In 1582 he attended the colloquy of Quedlinburg (see cammNITZ, MARTIN J 3), is 1583 a synod at Dresden, in 1584 and 1585 conventions at Magdeburg, Leipsic, and Herzberg. When the Philippists regained the ascendency after the death

Le y ser
Liter Poatifloalis	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	470
of Elector Augustus in 1586, Leyser went to Brunswick as vice‑superintendent. Here new struggles awaited him since Superintendent Heidenreich confuted the doctrine of Ubiquity (q.v.) as laid down in the Formula of Concord. The majority of the congregation and preachers took Leyser's part and Heidenreich was deposed to make way for Leyser (1589). Professor Daniel Hoffmann of HelmstAdt, however, renewed the attack, and vehement discussions ensued until Leyser was recalled to Wittenberg (1593) after the death of Elector Christian I. and the rapid overthrow of Cryptocalvinism. He at once became involved in the controversy there over the teachings of Samuel Huber (q.v.). In 1594 he went to Dresden as court preacher and councilor of the consistory.
Leyser's most important works are the edition of the Loci theologici of Martin Chemnitz (Frankfurt, 1592) and his continuation of the same author's Harmonic evangelica (1593). He also wrote commentaries on Genesis, Daniel, the minor prophets, and other books of the Bible. The greatest sensation was stirred up by his polemical treatise against the Calvinists, Ob, wie, and warum man lieber mit den Papisten Gemeinschaf t haben . . . soll dens mit urld zu den Calvinisten, originally an introduction to his Christianismus, Papismua et Calvinismus, dtas ist drey unterachiedliche Aualegungen des Catechismi LutherC (1595; republished by Leyser's successor, Ho?z von Ho6negg, 1620; cf. Tholuck, pp. 115 sqq.).
3. Polycarp Leyser (1L): Elder son of Polycarp Leyser (the Elder), was born at Wittenberg Nov. 20, 1586; d. in Leipsic Jan. 15, 1633. He was professor at Wittenberg and Leipsic and later was entrusted with high ecclesiastical positions. He took part in various theological proceedings and disputes and wrote commentaries on Galatians, on the Augsburg Confession, and on the Formula of Concord; also polemical treatises, sermons, and disputations.
4. Wilhelm Leyser: Younger son of Polycarp Leyser (the Elder), was born in Dresden 1592; d. in Wittenberg Feb. 8, 1649. He was superintendent at Torgau and professor at Wittenberg, and wrote a Summarium locorum theologicorum, a Systems thetico‑exegeticum, a Trifolium verse religionis veteris testamenti Adamitiea, Abrahamiticw, Israeliticce, and other works.
5. Johannes Leyser: Son of Polycarp Leyser (II.) was born at Leipsic Sept. 30, 1631; d. near Paris, 1685. He was for a time pastor and inspector in Schulpforta, Prussian Saxony, and in several writings defended polygamy, which cost him his position.
6. Polycarp Leyser (III.): Grandson of Polycarp Leyser (II.), was born at Halle July 1, 1656; d. at Celle (23 m. n. of Hanover) Oct. 11, 1725. He was assessor of the philosophical faculty at Leipsic, later pastor at Magdeburg, superintendent at Wunstorf and after 1708 general superintendent at Celle. He rendered great services to the memory of his great‑grandfather.
(JOH.UNNEB KUNNZE.).
Brsuooasre:: 1. C. F. Battler, Geschichte des Herzogthums
WVraembov, iv. 74, and appendixes 29‑30, 10 vols.,
Ulm, 170D‑79; C. F. Schnurrer, Erlduteruupen der wfirttemberpiaden Krorchen‑Reformations‑ und Gelehrten‑0eschichte, pp. 234 aqq., Tiibingen, 1798; C. F. von St&lin, Wurt<emberpisehe Gesehichte, iv. 738‑739, Stuttgart, 1870.
2. One of Leyser's own tracts, useful as material, was given by his great‑grandson W. E. Tentsel in Curieuss BibliotheC, 1705, ii. 675‑735; a selection of his letters was issued by another great‑grandson, P. Leyser III., SyY lope epistolarum Leyser, i. 1706; and contemporary material was used by M. Adam, in Vitae theoloporum pp. 379‑381, Frankfort, 1706. Consult P. J. Rethmeyer, Braunsehweipiache Kirdhenhistorie, iv. 23 sqq., ‑55‑149, Brunswick, 1715; A. Tholuck, Der Geist der lutheriachen Theologen Wittenberps, pp. 4‑14, Goths, 1852; a careful sketch, founded on early data, is given in J. A. Gleich, Annals* eccleriattici, i. 439‑609, Dresden, 1730.
L'HOPITAL l8'!pi"t51' (L'HOSPITAL), MICHEL DE: Chancellor of France; b. at Aigueperse (80 m. n.w. of Lyons), Auvergne, 1504; d. on his estate at Vignay, near 1tampes (30 m. s.s.w. of Paris) Mar. 13, 1573. L'HBpital, who was of a noble family from Auvergne, studied law at Padua (152:‑31), where the last year he lectured on civil law as professor extraordinarius. After spending a year in Rome as member of the papal court of justice called " Delta Rota," he came to Paris where for three years he worked hard as a barrister and (1537) gained a seat in the Paris parliament. Henceforth his career became more and more successful. He was sent (1547) as a delegate to the Council of Trent which had been transferred to Bologna. He was appointed (1553) by Margaret, the future duchess of Savoy, first as chancellor of the duchy, then (1554‑59) lord of the exchequer. At last (1560) he became chancellor and keeper of the seal in France. In the first‑mentioned office he had distinguished himself as a fair, impartial judge, and as chancellor (1560‑68), in the midst of the most confused period of the history of France, he displayed the talents of a statesman. He became the leader of the " Moddr6s " who then were very few and he followed inflexibly his own ideals. He formulated the edict (Jan. 17, 1562) by which, although it forbade the Protestants to build churches. they could hold their meetings outside the walls of cities under the protection of the law. This restricted toleration, became the fundamental law, and decided the legal position of Protestants as affected by all other edicts.
He could not prevent the outbreak of the civil war (which began with the massacre of Vassy, 1562), but in the frequent negotiations, as for instance in the Treaty of Amboise (Mar. 19, 1563), his influence was felt. The same influence remained powerful till the Council of Trent, which by its decrees separated definitely the two denominar tions. But through his advice, these decrees were not accepted in France (Feb., 1564) and once more his conciliatory spirit can be traced in the Treaty of Longjumeau (Mar. 23, 1568). From that date he withdrew from his charge as councilor and left the court for Vignay. He was formally discharged from his post as chancellor (Feb. 6, 1573), but all his titles with their income were left to him. Faure and others edited his Epistolm (Paris, 1585); and Dufey his (Euvrm (1624‑26, 5 vols.).
G. BorrET‑MAuay.

471	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Leyeer
		Liter Pontifioalia
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. Bayle, Dictionary, Historical and Crit
	i~c5d,iii. 505‑517, London, 1738; M. J. A. N. Caritat,
	Ty~ de M. l'HBpital. Paris. 1777. ef. his 111m. des Aea
	dErniciene, vol. v., ib. 1799; E. Dupr&Laeslle, in Le
	Droit, March and June, 1858; idem, Michel de I'Hoepdtal,
	Paris, 1899; A. H. Taillandier, Nouroelles recherchea his
	toriquea our la vie de . . . L'HBpital, Paris, 1881; A, F.
	Villemain, htudes d'hiat. moderns; vie de L'H&pital ib.
	1882; P. D. L., Aclairciasement historique et p6nhaioyique
	our L'HBpital et sa famine, Clermont‑Ferrand, 1882; H.
	Amphoux, M. de L'HBpital et la liberM de conscience au'
	xvi. sipcle, Paris, 1900; Lichtenberger, ERR, vi. 388‑374.
	LIAFWINE. See LEBWIN.
	LIBANIUS li‑b6'ni‑us: One of the latest and
most important of the Greek sophists; b. at An
tioch 314; d. there c. 395. He studied for four
years at Athens, then opened a school at Constan
tinople, where his lectures became so popular that
in 343 rival teachers of rhetoric secured his expul
sion from the city on a charge of " magic." After
teaching for five years in Nicomedia he returned to
Constantinople, but, fording his adversaries in the
ascendency, he finally settled in Antioch in 354.
He was an intimate friend of the Emperor Julian,
who corresponded with him. He was a teacher of
Basil the Great and Chrysostom, and maintained
friendly relations with them throughout life. His
works consist of declamations, orations, a life of
Demosthenes, an autobiography, and letters, of
which there are no less than 1,607 extant. The
letters were edited by C. H. Wolf (Amsterdam,
1738), the declamations and orations by J. J.
Reiske (4 vols., Altenburg, 1791‑97). A few of
his writings, including sixteen letters to Julian,
were translated by J. Duncombe and published in
Select Works of the Emperor Julian (2 vols., Lon
don, 1784). His funeral oration on Julian, in Eng
lish translation, is in C. W. King's Julian the Em
peror (London, 1888).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Petit, Eseai eur la vie et la correspon
	danee du sophist Libanius, Paris, 1866; G. R. Sievers,
	Das Leben des Libanius, Berlin, 1868; A. Gardner, Julian
	Philosopher and Emperor, London, 1895; G. Negri, Julian,
	the Apostate, passim, New York, 1903 (valuable).
	LIBELLATICL See LAPSED.
	LEBER COMICUS. See PERICOPE, §§ 5‑6.
	LEBER DIURNUS ROMANORUM PONTIFICUM:
A collection of formularies used at Rome ih con
nection with the principal ecclesiastical functions,
such as the coronation of a pope, the consecration
of the suburbicarian bishops, the granting of the
pallium or of special privileges. Based mainly
upon the letters of Gelasius I. and Gregory I., the
book took shape between 685 and 751. It was
used down to the eleventh century, in fact individ
ual formularies are found from it in the collections
of canons made in the twelfth, as in Gratian; but
after that period, being no longer applicable to the
altered position of the Roman see, it fell into dis
use and oblivion. It was rediscovered by Lucas
Holste (q.v.) in a manuscript belonging to the Cis
tercian library of Santa Croce in Geeuealemme at
Rome. He was preparing to publish it in 1650,
after collation with another version sent him by
Sirmond from the Collgge de Clermont, when the
Roman censorship forbade him, and he died in
1661 without gaining permission. The ground of
this refusal was the " profession of faith " contained in it, to be made by each pope on taking office, which included a declaration of assent to the decrees of the sixth general council and a repudiar tion of the heresies condemned by it, mentioning Honorius I. among the supporters of the latter. The book was published by the Jesuit Gamier in 1680 at Paris, and Mabillon, who on his visit to Rome examined the manuscript found by Holste, and gave extracts from it in his Museum Italicum. Gamier's edition was reprinted by Hofmann (Leipaic, 1733) and Riegger (Vienna, 1762); and an edition meeting the requirements of modern scholarship was published by Eug6ne de Rozi6re (Paris, 1869), including the necessary textual apparatus and the notes of Gamier, Baluze, and Zaccaria. This edition is based on a collation by Daremberg and Renan of the Vatican manuscript, then still supposed to be the only one extant, which according to Mabillon belongs to the latter half of the ninth century. Von Sickelthen published another edition (Vienna, 1889) which contained important new results, denying the unity of the composition and taking somewhat different views as to its date. But he was unaware that the Ambrosian Library at Milan contains another manuscript, so that his conclusions can not be accepted as final.. In the centuries following the eleventh, attempts were made to supply the place of the old book, which was now no longer serviceable, and collections are extant in manuscript under the titles Literce quo in curia domini papa; dari consueverunt and Stylus seriptorum curia' Romance, extending from John XXII. to Gregory XII. and John =II.
(J. F. voN SCHULTE.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Consult, besides the prolegomena and discussions in the editions named in the text, Bickel, Sitzungabarichte der Wiener Akademie, phnZoaophiaeh‑historiache Masse, vol. exvii.; KL, vii. 1881‑88; F. Palackf, Ueber Formelbucher, Prague, 1842.
	LEBER PONTIFICALIS: The Liter pontificalis
contains the history of the popes from St. Peter
down, in the form of biographies. The oldest work
bearing this title, to which it is most properly ap
plied, comes down to Stephen V. (885‑891), with
the omission of the three predecessors of this pope,
John VIII., Marinus II., and Adrian III.; the text
		of the extant manuscripts stops mid
	Original way in the life of Stephen V., so that
	Form. it is not possible to say how it origi
		nally terminated. As to its origin va
rious opinions have been entertained. In the Mid
dle Ages, on the ground of the letters of Damasus
and Jerome appended to it, Damasus was supposed
to be the author. The Humanists (e.g., Onofrio
Panvinio) were more critical, and conjectured
Anastasius, librarian of Nicholas I.; though this
hypothesis was refuted by the Vatican librarian,
Emanuel Schelstrate (in his Dissertatio de antiquis
Romanorum pontificum catalogis, Rome, 1692), as
well as by G. G. Ciampini (Examen libri ponttfi
calia, ib. 1688) and by F. Bianchini in his edition
of the Liter pontxfualis (ib. 1718 sqq.). Duchesne
has proved that the lives were the products of a
gradual evolution; and the only debatable ques
tion is now‑‑as to the date of its original compila‑

Z~bbe~r Vita
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tion. The decision depends on the question of its sources.
The names and dates of the lives are drawn demonstrably from two sources. One is the Cater logua LZaianus, a list of popes ending with Li‑
berius (352‑366). This is a part of
Sources the Chronographua anni 564, the wetl‑
and Date. known Roman state calendar, and is
taken, down to 235 (Pontianus), from the L4bcr yenerationis of Hippolytus, and later from church.calendars.
The second list is handed down in different forms of various length, but these may all be traced back to a single clearly distinguishable archetype (designated by Mommsen as Index). The first compiler adhered in the main to the Catalogue Liberianus, because this is more explicit in relation to the earlier times; and only from Liberius down is the Index the sole source for the dates. At all events, a collation is possible down to Sixtus III. (d. 440), through data from Prospers Chronicon, which exhibits an agreement in dates. The student of papal chronology will naturally turn, not to the Li,'ber ponlificalis but to its sources, as the former is merely a secondary authority. Indeed, even the other historical matter of the older portion is derived from other works. Their number is very great, their value generally very small; so that the historical statements are untrustworthy down to about the time of Anastasius II. (496‑498). A single exception may be made in favor of the enumeration of buildings erected and gifts made by the popes, doubtless dating back to the substance of papal archives, and constituting the best feature of the oldest portion. From Anastasius II. the accounts of the political history of the popes become more trustworthy. In this way there is obtained a criterion for deciding the question as to the age of the first compilation. It is safe to conclude with Duchesne, against Mommsen, that the oldest form of the Liber pontificalis dates from the beginning of the sixth century a deduction favored not only by the fact that the lives of the early sixth century afford superior historical matter, but also by the existence of an extract, ending with the life of Felix IV. (526‑530), the so‑called Catalogue Felicianus. Possibly this may afford ground for referring the original compilation to the time of Boniface II., successor to Felix IV. This first edition then came to serve as pattern for a whole series of others, e.g., an edition closing with the life of Conon (d. 687), the existence of which is attested by an abstract, ending with Conon (Catalogue Cononianus), and by the list of popes, likewise ending with Conon, of the earliest manuscript of the Liber pontificalis, dating. from the dose of the seventh century. Another recension closed with Constantine I. (d. 715), and still others with Stephen II. (d. 757), Stephen III. (d. 772), and Adrian I. (d. 795). From the sixth century down, the biographies were for the most part begun in the lifetime of their subjects. Specially noteworthy in this respect are the lives of Gregory II. (715‑731), Valentine (827), and Sergius II. (844‑‑847). The life of Gregory II. was used by Bede (q.v.) as a source for his chronicle, and thus must certainly
have been begun before the death of this pope. The life of Valentine contains very full particulars of his birth, education, election and virtues; but as he died only a few days after his election, it must have been written, immediately upon his elevation. The life of Seriua II. begins with fulsome praise of his virtues, then suddenly breaks off: the virtuous pope becomes the direct opposite, and exaggerated praise turns to vehement censure; so that we may suppose that the first portion was composed in his. lifetime, the second after his death. Owing to this contemporary composition, the Leer Pontificalis is one of the mgt valuable sources for the history of those centuries. It is true that in consequence of the official character of the compilation‑the biographies are all composed by officers of the papal household‑‑a certain filed terminology is noticeable, especially in the later lives, which notably prevails in the forms of introduction and conclusions as well as in stereotyped phrases for describing the pope's personality; but still the careful student will know how to appreciate the work, despite its defects, as an excellent witness respecting the conceptions and standpoint of the papal court. In this period, if at all, the work of Anastasius Bibliotheearius (q.v.) must have been done.
The old Liber pom,tificalis stops at the close of the ninth century. For the tenth and eleventh, there exist only meager lists of popes. The Hildebrandine epoch produced the great biographies of Leo IX. and Gregory VII. Bonizo of Sutri, in his Liber ad arrlicum, interweaves the history of the popes from Leo IX. to Gregory VII. in the style of the early Liber Pontificalis, summarizes, in the
fourth book of his Decretals, the papal
Continua‑ history to Stephen V., and gives an tions. outline as far as Urban II. Cardinal
Beno writes the history of Gregory VII.; the compilers of Annalea Ro?nani give the history of the years 1044‑73, 1111, 1116‑21. But none of these are continuations of the early Liber Pontificalis. It was not till the twelfth century that definite continuations were undertaken. One of these, described by Ducheane as the Liber pon.. lificatis of Pierre Guillaume (though more correctly termed of Pandulph.from its author, a cardinal of the party of the Antipope Anacletus IT.) is a partizan tract in favor of Anacletus. From Peter to Adrian II. he copies the old Liber pontif cafia: from John VIII. to the end of the eleventh century, a papal catalogue. He takes the biographies of Gregory VII. and Urban ii. from the records of these popes; and only with Paschal II. does he begin a vivid portraiture of his contemporaries: it is probable that the life of Paschal II. is by another (unknown) author, as it shows a different style from that which follows, and especially lacks the peculiar cadence of the papal documents, the so‑called Cur=s Leonirevs, conspicuous in the subsequent biographies. On the other hand, the lives of Gelasius IL, Calixtus IL, Honorius IL, are certainly Pandulph's. Written as a partisan tract, this work fell into oblivion after the death of Anacletus IL; nor was it employed until the end of the fourteenth century, when a Frenchman, Pierre

473	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Libor Pontiffoalia
		Libor Vita
Bohier, transcribed and glossed it, and dedicated
it to Charles V. of France. Of greater literary im
portance is the second continuation, Cardinal Boso's
Liter pontif calia, written c. 1178: This begins where
the older one stopped, with Stephen V., and thus
stamps itself as a direct continuation. By way of
introduction, Boso utilizes the brief outline of the
papal history which Bonizo of Sutri included in the
fourth book of his Decretals. He takes the first part,
from John XII. to Gregory VIL, word for word from
Bonizo's LZer ad amicum, omitting Urban II. and
Victor III. In the case of Paschal II. he draws on
the archives; from Gelasius II. he gives his own
narrative, employing a wealth of documents easily
accessible to him as camerarius of the apostolic
see. This continuation, because incomplete, was
not fused with the early Ltber pontif cabs, but
gained significance in connection with the Liber
censuum of the Church of Rome; for since Boso
had most probably undertaken‑ to write a Liber
censuum, it was a natural supposition that his col
lection of biographies was designed to serve as in
troduction to that work. In this connection; the
work was repeatedly copied, the best‑known edi
tion being that of Cardinal Nicholas Roselli, in the
middle of the fourteenth century, which was dif
fused in countless manuscripts all over the world.
In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, al
though private works in the sphere of papal his
tory for this period are common enough, including
lists of popes, particular biographies (Innocent III.,
Gregory IX., Innocent IV., Gregory X., Celestine
V.), papal chronicles (Bernardus Guidonis, Ptol
emy of Lucca, Amalricus Augerius de Biterris, Pe
trus de Herentals, etc.), there was no thought of
continuing the Liter pontifcalis. Not until the
beginning of the fifteenth century, and anony
mously, was the attempt made; but the author is
thoroughly dependent, copying the work of Pan
dulph, with a continuation taken word for word
from the chronicle of Martinus Polonus, while
from Martin IV. (1281) to John XXII. (1328) he
copies the chronicle of Bernardus Guidonis. A
more meritorious continuation, likewise anony
mous, dates from the middle of the same century.
In general the author copied the work just men
tioned down to 1328; he took the last part of the
life of John XXII. and those of the three follow
ing popes (Benedict XII., Clement VI., Innocent
VI.) from a continuation of Bernardus Guidonis,
and wrote an independent continuation from
Urban V. to Martin V. (1362‑1431). This, how
ever, is rather a history of the great schism than a
Liber pontifcalis. This edition was soon after
ward copied again, and expanded by extracts from
Martinus Polonus and Bemardus Guidonis. Two
other continuations of the fitteenth century were
never combined with the Le7xr pontifcatis, though
their entire scope entitles them to be regarded as
continuations. One extends from Benedict XII.
to Martin V. (1334‑1431), and contains, especially
in respect to the history of Boniface IX., Innocent
VI., and Gregory XII., more ample information
than the continuation dating from the middle of
the fifteenth century, as well as more candid ver
dicts upon the personal characters and transactions
of the popes described. It appears in a Vatican manuscript with the additional biography of Eugenius IV. The second continuation begins with Urban VI. and extends to Pius II. (1378‑1464), evidently an unfinished work.
	Of all these later works, the only ones of literary
importance toward the close of the Middle Ages
were the continuation dating from the middle of
the fifteenth century; and that of Boso. Both
works were soon supplanted by the Liber de vita
Christi ac de Wis summontm ponttiftcum Romanorum
of Platina, librarian of Pope Sixtus IV. (Venice,
1479). He transformed the early Liber gwntifioalis
and its continuations into a book which even Hu
manists could read with pleasure, and thus drove
the other continuations from the field. It was not
until the beginning of the seventeenth century that
attention was again turned to the old Inter pon
tifcalis. At this time it was first printed, and has
since, in its turn, caused Platina's book to be for
gotten. 	A. BRACKMANN.
BIBLIOanAPHT: The two editions which are of superlative worth are (1) L. Duchesne, 2 vole., Paris, 1886‑92, and (2) T. Mommsen, in MGR, heat. Pont. Rom., vol. i., Berlin, 1898. Other editions are mentioned and a list of the best literature prior to 1896 is given in Potthast, Wcpwaiasr, pp. 737‑739 (not to be overlooked). Further matter of importance is to be found in: 1. Chapman, in Revue b€aedi4ine, xviii (1901), 399‑417; T. Lindner, in Forachunpen sur deutachea Geachichte, xii (1872), 235‑250. 656 sqq.; P. Fabre, in METnnpea d'archfolopie et d'histoire, vol. vi., Rome, 1886; idem Atude sur Is Liber cenauum de l'ipliae romaine, Paris, 1892; J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part I., S. Clement of Rome, i. 201‑345, London, 1890; F. H. Glassechrbder in R6mischa Quartalachrift far Afterthumakunde, iv. 125 eqq., v. 178; idem, in Hiatoriachea Jahrbuch der GOtrssapssellechaft, xi (1890), 240‑266; T. Mommsen, in NA, xix (1894), 285‑293, xxi (1896), 333‑357, xxii (1897), 545‑553; SBgmaller, in Hiatoriachea Jahrbuch der GtirresgeseUachaft, xv (1894), 802‑810; F. G. Rosenfeld, Ueber die Kompoaition der Liter pontifualie, Marburg, 1896; 1. Giorgi in Archivio della aocieth Romans di atoria patria, xx (1897,), 247 eqq.; A. Harnack, in Sitrunpsbariehte der Berliner Akademie, 1892, pp. 761‑778; H. Griser, Analecta Romans, Rome, 1899.

LIBER SE%TUS. See CANON LAW, II., 6, J 3.
LIBER VITA (DIPTYCHS): The official register of the members of the congregation, also a list of the clergy, and others. The establishment of such a register was inseparably connected with the rise of the ecclesiastical organization. Baptism, which consummated the entrance into the congregation, occasioned at once the necessity and the right of enrolment; death, voluntary withdrawal, or expulsion by way of discipline, caused erasure. Besides this there were special lists of the clergy and of other persons in the service or under the care of the Church. The more complicated the apparatus of ecclesiastical government and administration became, the more these registers increased in number and in size. A special group was formed by the lists, with the names of the spiritual and temporal rulers, which were read aloud during the supplies, tions, and also by those containing the names of persons who participated in the eucharistic offerings or who deserved mention for some other reason. These may all be included under the general designation " book of life," " book of the living," in which may be seen a connection with expressions

Libor Vitae	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	474
Liberins
in the Bible (of. Rev. iii. 5, xiii. 8; Phil. iv. 3; Ps.
Ixix. 28). Purely external considerations gave rise
to the opposite designation " book of the dead,"
originally referring only to those whose memory
was recalled at the communion service. The de
velopment of worship, both in the Eastern and in
the Western Church, combined with the growing
length of the lists, led to the abandonment or the
restriction of the older custom.
	As to the form of this register, the Greek name
diptychon implies a connection with the wax tab
lets used by the ancients. Two or more of them
were bound together, in the form of a book, the
exterior being of some firm material and forming
the covers, At the same period papyrus rolls were
also used. These covers were probably in most
cases of wood. Nevertheless, in the fourth cen
tury and probably earlier, ivory was used and or
namented with reliefs.
	Probably the oldest (fourth to fifth century?)
Christian example which has been preserved is the
Carrand diptych in Florence with the naming of the
beasts of the field by Adam; but, in general, scenes
from the New Testament predominate.
	The use of diptychs continued in the East far
into the Middle Ages, and the same is true of the
West, especially in the period of Carlovingian art.
Some of the diptych tablets have been preserved
as ornamental parts of book‑covers; for the artistic
ecclesiastical bindings of the Middle Ages were in
spired by the diptychs.
	From these diptychs, with religious representa
tions, in ecclesiastical use must be distinguished
those of the officials, of the emperors, and of pri
vate persons. These should not, however, pass un
noticed since some of them show Christian types,
while others were taken for ecclesiastical use and
were altered for that purpose. In this group the
first place is occupied by the diptych of the Consul
Anicius Probus, from the year 406, in the possession
of the Cathedral of Aosta. One tablet shows the
emperor holding in his left hand the imperial orb
with a winged Victory, and in his right the labarum,
inscribed with the words " In the name of Christ
conquer thou ever." Another important example
is the Barberini diptych in the Louvre, with the
equestrian figure of Justinian. On one leaf of a
diptych in Monza the costume of the consul has
been changed into a priestly vestment and the head
has been given the tonsure; an inscription has also
been added indicating that the figure is that of
Gregory the Great. On the other leaf, the original
figure is untouched and it has been given another
meaning only by means of the inscription " King
David." There is in Bologna a private diptych
Christianized by the addition of an inscription des
ignating the principal figure as Peter and a bust
above this figure as Mark.
	It may also be remarked that the various forms
of the altar‑piece are called diptych, triptych, etc.
		VICTOR SCHULTZE.
Bn3LI00RAPHY: Earlier works still of value are: C. A. Salig,
	Ds diptycAu veterum, Halle, 1731; A. F. Gori, Thesaurus
	vsterum diptYchorum, 3 vols., Florence, 1759; J. O. West
	wood, Description of the Ivories, Ancient and Mediaroal,
	in Ohs South Kensington Museum, London, 1876; R.
	Garrucci, Scoria delta ante erietiana6 vol. vi., Prato, 1880;
T. G. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, glossary
s. v. " diptychs," Oxford, 1896; H. Graeven, Friahchristtiche and mittelalterliche Elfenbeinloerke, Rome, 1898 aqq.; G. Rietschl, Lehrbuch der Liturpik, i. 231 sqq., Berlin, 1900; DCA, i. 560 eqq.; and for the secular use, W. Smith, W. Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, i. 643‑644, London, 1890.
LIBERATUS: Deacon at Antioch and ecclesiastical writer; fl. about 560. He was the author of a work which is an important source for the history of the ecclesiastical controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries, Breviarum causce Nestoricnorum et Eutychianomm (ed. J. Gamier, Paris, 1675; reprinted in MPL, lxviii. 963‑1052). The book utilizes the history of the preceding century to demonstrate that Justinian's condemnation of the Three Chapters (see THREE CHAPTER CONTROvERsy) is false and untenable. The history begins with the ordination of Nestorius, and comes down approximately to 560. The date is shown by the mention of the death of Pope Vigilius (555) and by the fact that at the close of the last chapter Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 566) is referred to as yet alive. The work mentions as sources the Historia ecclesiastics tripartite of Cassiodorus (q.v.), Gesta synodalia, Epastolct= sanctorum patrum, a Gesta de nomine Acacii of Pope Gelasius I. (q.v.), and finally a Grcecum Alexandrite scriptum, which some have identified with the ecclesiastical history of Zacharias Scholasticus (q.v.). The style is concise and not always clear, the tone judicious, and the general treatment trustworthy, notwithstanding its partizan attitude as against the Monophysites.
G. HRtGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fabricius‑Harles, Bibliotheca Graca xii.
685‑692, Hamburg, 1809; DCB, iii. 716‑717; :iL, vii. 1944; Ceillier, Auteurs eacres. xi. 303‑305.
LIBERIA, tai‑bi'ri‑a: A republic on the west coast of Africa, having a coast line of about 350 miles from Sierra Leone to the French colony of the Ivory Coast, and stretching inland to a distance in some cases of 200 miles. The total area is about 45,000 square miles; the population is estimated at 2,000,000, all of African race, the few whites being considered foreigners. It was founded as a colony in 1822 by free blacks sent out by the American Colonization Society. According to the constitution adopted in 1847, when Liberia was declared an independent government, electors must be of negro blood and owners of land. The Americo‑Liberians, numbering about 20,000, hold the chief power, the native races, while not excluded from the franchise, tang little part in political life. At one time it was thought that the Americo. Liberians were dying out, but intermixture with the more civilized aborigines and some immigration from the west has strengthened them. They are all Protestants, connected chiefly with the Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran Churches. There is a Roman Catholic Mission, statistics for which are not available. The earliest missionary work, apart from that connected with the Colonization Society, was begun by the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1831, followed, by the Presbyterian in 1833, the Protestant Episcopal in 1836, and the General Synod of the Lutheran Church in 1859. The Presbyterian Board of For‑

475	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Ziber Vitas
		Liberius
eign Missions withdrew in 1899, transferring all its
property and churches to the presbytery of West
Africa. Educational work has been pushed by all
these Churches, some of their schools being of high
grade. Apart from these, elementary schools are
numerous, and there are a few of secondary grade.
Considerable attention i8 paid to industrial train
ing, notably in the Lutheran Muhlenberg Mission.
It was in Liberia that the Methodist Bishop Taylor
inaugurated his scheme for African industrial mis
sions. The fact that only a comparatively narrow
strip of land along the coast is effectively adminis
tered, and that the inland territory is occupied by
some of the fiercest African tribes, has given much
prominence to the missionary enterprises in the
country. The work is conducted for the most part
by the negroes, on account of the climate and the
general type of life, although there is a considerable
force of white missionaries on the coast. The four
societies report over 5.000 communicant members,
nearly one hundred schools with 5,000 pupils, a con
siderable portion of whom are from the inland tribes.
See AFRICA, II.	EDWIN MUNSELL BLISS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: See the literature under AYRICA.
	LIBERIUS, lai‑bi'ri‑us: Pope 352‑366. He was
of Roman birth and parentage, was the choice of
both factions in the Arian controversy and of the
Emperor Constantius as successor to Julius I., and
was probably consecrated May.17, 352 (cf. LZer
pontifimlis, ed. Duchesne, p. ccl.). The favor of
		Constantius was due to his purpose,
	First steadily entertained since he had be
	Period, come the sole ruler (353), to achieve
	till His the peace of the Church by disavowal
	Exile. of Athanasius and abolition of the
		Nicene Creed (see AwAmSM, § 5), a
result. which obviously hinged on the type of occu
pant of the Roman see. At a synod at Rome con
vened by Liberius, the majority of the bishops de
clared for Athanasius; but, at the synod called by
the emperor at Arles (353), the pope's delegates,
Vincentius and Marcellus of Campania, as a peace
measure, consented to support the decision of the
East against Athanasius. Liberius, dissatisfied
with the action of his own representatives, ad
dressed a letter of urgent remonstrance to the em
peror (Epist. ad Constantium), and furthermore
managed to engage Eusebius of Vercelhe to sup
port him. Nevertheless, the Synod of Milan (355)
completed the victory over Athanasius, and the
bishops who had continued steadfast were driven
into exile. The same fate awaited the pope unless
he yielded. The imperial eunuch Eusebius, who
came to confer with him at Rome, attempted to
move him by argument to subscribe adversely to
Athanasius and to accept ecclesiastical fellowship
with his opponents. Liberius resisted, possibly
relying upon the sentiments of the Roman popu
lace, which ran counter to the imperial endeavors
(Ammianus Marcellinus, XV., vii. 10). Hereupon
the pope was apprehended by night by the prefect
of the city and removed to the imperial court. In
an audience with the emperor, reported by Theo
doret (Hilt. eccl.; ii. 13; NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 77‑79),
he made a spirited appeal for general acceptation
of the Nicene Creed, recall of the exiles, and con‑
vention of a synod in Alexandria to examine the charges against Athanasius. The one consequence was his own exile to Beraea in Thrace, in 355, when Constantius had the Roman archdeacon Felix consecrated as pope (see FELIx II.).
The new pope encountered great opposition, not because of any doubt as to his personal orthodoxy, but rather because people believed him tainted with irregular ordination and ecclesiastical fellowship with the contrary party. While the emperor was in Rome in May, 357, in answer to an appeal by some ladies for the return of Liberius (Theodoret, II., xiv.), the emperor let it appear that negotiations with the exiled pope had led to Acceptance the desired result. Liberius did not
of Homoi‑ return to his congregation, however,
	ousianism.	till the summer of 358. The emperor
		wished that he and Felix superintend
the Church in common; but this was found impos
sible, and Felix had to yield. Various explana
tions have been given of the emperor's change of
mind. Some speak of a collapse on the part of
Liberius, and assert that he reversed his dogmatic
position. But this is not borne out by the report
of Sozomen (Hilt. eccd., iv. 15), who alone reports
on the subject. The sole fact apparent is that,
after somewhat prolonged negotiations, in the spring
of 358 Liberius expressed his willingness to waive
the term homoousios. He had been convinced that
the formula at issue was liable to misunderstand
ing, and declared himself in harmony with the the
ory of the Homoiousians, according to which the
Son is " like " to the Father (of like essence and
attributes). That he rejected the term homoousios,
or that he consented in any degree to the thought
of designating the Son as unlike .the Father (arh
omoios), Sozomen pronounces a malicious inven
tion. Yet it is open to question whether the tone
of Sozomen adequately accounts for the sharp ut
terances of Athanasius (Hiatoria Arianorum, xli.;
NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 284) and Jerome (Chronicon,
and De vir. ill., xevii.) against Liberius, in which
Athanasius states that Liberius grew languid in
exile, and subscribed in dread of threatened death,
while Jerome reproaches Liberius with heresy.
Athanasius and Jerome are supported by four let
ters ascribed to Liberius, preserved in the so‑called
Fragmenta ex opera historico of Hilary of Poitiers;
if these letters are genuine, their contents put the
result in a light unfavorable to the pope, showing
that Liberius acquiesced in the condemnation of
Athanasius and accepted a homoian statement,
the second Sirmian formula of 357. But the gen
uineness of the letters is doubtful, since it is almost
universally conceded that the four letters are not to
be separated one from the others, in which case the
weight of evidence turns against the genuineness
of all the letters by the fact that certain particu
lars in one of the letters (the one which begins:
Studem pact) totally contradict well‑attested his
tory. There is the possibility that during his exile,
under the stress of constant pressure, Liberius may
have used some utterances which seemed to give
occasion to the charge against him. But that he
directly belied his earlier position can be asserted
only on the ground of doubtful documents.

Liberilu Liberty
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Liberiua took no part in the Synod of Ariminum, 359. Several years elapse without note of him in public life. In 363, however, he put forth a brief (Epist. ad cathohcos episcopos Italim) dispensing
pardon to all those who repented of Later Life; their action at Ariminum and re‑
Achieve‑ nounced Arian doctrine. These terms ments. indeed were not agreeable to a more
	austere school of ecclesiastics, even at
Rome; and the resultant opposition led to cleav
ages which were anything but salutary (see HILA
Rius; and LUCIFER OF CALARIS). In 366, as the
representative of orthodoxy, the pope accorded
fraternal reception to the envoys of the Macedo
nians (see MACEDONIUS AND THE MACEDONIAN SECT)
of Asia Minor, on the ground of subscription to the
Nicene Creed; and returned greetings of peace to
those who had authorized their errand (Epist. ad
universes Orientis orthodoxos episcopos). After the
death of Felix (Nov. 22, 365); Liberius readmitted
the clerics of his party to their former stations.
His death (Sept. 24, 366) nevertheless gave the sig
nal for fierce factional conflicts, accompanied by
horrible bloodshed (see URsINus). According to
the Liber pontif calls, Liberius was laid to rest in
the Cemetery of Priscilla, along the Via Salaria.
It is hardly probable that the poem of eulogy dis
covered by De Rossi, on the subject of an unnamed
bishop, refers to Liberius (De Rossi, in Bulletino di
Archeologia Cristiana, 4th ser., vol. ii., 1883, pp. 5
59); but rather to Martin I. (cf. Funk, Kirchenge
schichtliche Abhandlungen, i. 391‑420, Paderborn,
1887). Liberius created a lasting memorial for
himself at Rome by founding the Basilica Liberians
(Santa Maria Maggiore), which, even to‑day, is
important historically in the office for Christ's na
tivity and the season of Advent (cf. H. Usener, Reli
gionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, i. 266‑293, Bonn,
1889.) It was probably here in the year 354 that
the birth of Christ was celebrated for the first time
on Dec. 25. So late as the preceding year Liberius
had consecrated Marcellina, sister of Ambrose, as a
nun on Jan. 6, still observed as the day of the nativ
ity. The pope's address delivered on this occasion
was preserved by Ambrose in a free transcript (De
vargine, iii. 1 aqq.). In the Martyrologium Hierony
miartum. Liberius is celebrated on September 23;
but his name does not appear in the Martyrologium
Romanum. Ever since the sixth century his repu
tation has suffered distortion through apocryphal
tradition, exhibiting him in league with Conatan
tius as a bloody persecutor of the true faith; while
Felix is portrayed as a holy martyr (cf. J. J. I.
von DSllinger: Die Papstfabeln des Mittelalters, ed.
Friedrich, pp. 126‑145, Munich, 1890; Eng. transl.,
of first ed., Fables Respecting the Popes of the Middle
Ages, New York, 1872). 	G. KRtGER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lfber pontiftCalis, ed. Duchesne, i pp cxx.
	cxxvii., ccl. 207‑210, Paris, 1886, ed. Mommsen in MOH,
	(fast. poet. Rom., i (1898)77‑79; Jaff6, Regesta, i. 32‑35;
	B. Jung‑sum, Diaeertationes selects, ii. 31‑33, Regens
	burg, 1881; J. Langen, Geechichte der r6fniechen Kirche,
	i. 460‑494, Bonn, 1881• G. Kroger, Lucifer con Calaris,
	pp. 12 eqq., Leipsic, 1886; H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of
	Arianiam, pp 192 sqq., Cambridge, 1900; C. de Feis,
	Storia di Liberw papa a deUo sciama set Seminariani,
	Rome, 1894; F. Gregorovius, Hist. of the City of Rome, i.
	108‑109, London, 1894; T. Mommsen, in Deutade Zeit‑
schrift far GeacAichta and Wiaeenaehaft, i (1897), 167‑179;
Hefele, Conciliengeechiehte, i. 647 eqq., 681 eqq., Eng•
tranal., i. 199 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i 59‑82; Milman,
Latin Christianity, 1.102‑108. Very recently the genuine
ness of the four letters of Liberius has been maintained by
L. Duchesne, in Wangea d'histoire et d'arcbUogie, xxviii
(1908), 31‑78, and opposed by A. Wilmart, in Revue BJn6
didine, xxiv (1907), 293317, and by F. savio, Nuovi
Studi auUa questions di Papa Liberio, Rome, 1909.
LIBERMAftft, JACOB. See HOLY GHOST, ORDERS
AND CONGREGATIONS OF THE, II., 6.
LIBERTINES: A word used in various senses. 1. The members of a Jewish synagogue at Jerusalem mentioned in Acts vi. 9. They probably possessed a synagogue of their own, though some have held that they worshiped with the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiaties, or at least with the two first named. The meaning of the name is not entirely certain. As there is no certain record of an (African) city or district from which they could take their name, it seems probable that the word denotes " freedmen " (Lat. libertint), meaning the descendants of Jews taken captive to Rome by Pompey, and there later released because their stubborn adherence to their national customs rendered them useless as slaves. While the majority of these freedmen remained in Rome and settled in the regio Tranaliberina (Suetonics, Tiberius, xxxvi.; Taeitus, Annales, ii. 85), others seemed to have returned to Jerusalem and to have formed a synagogue where the name of Libertines, or Roman freedmen, lingered.
(F. SIEFFERT.)
2. A political party led by Ami Perrin, hence known also as Perrinists, which opposed Calvin in his efforts to reform the morals of Geneva. Before the Reformation they had striven for the liberty of the city against the Roman Catholic bishop and the duke of Savoy, and under the rule of Calvin they especially opposed the excommunication by the consistory of those deemed by it unworthy to partake of the Lord's Supper. They also contended against the admission of French refugees as burghers of the city, and in May, 1555, endeavored in vain to lead a violent protest against the influence of these refugees and the French preachers. Some of the leaders fled, others were sentenced to death, and thus the party was completely disrupted. Their significance is in their attitude as liberals opposed to the strict Calvinistic Puritans.
E. CHOISY.
3. A pantheistic antinomian party which flourished about the time of the Reformation. It appeared first in the Netherlands and from there spread into France. Its roots may perhaps reach into the soil of the Brethren of the Free Spirit (see FREE SPIRIT, BRETHREN OF THE), a sect which had not entirely died out, and there may have been conneotions also with the Anabaptists [i.e., with such pan. theistic antipedobaptists as David Joris, q.v.‑A. H. N.]. The adherents gave themselves the name "Spirituals"; "Libertines" being the title given by the opponents of the party. The founder appears to have been named Coppin, who preached at Lille about 1529, whence his teaching was carried into the French‑speaking part of the country, and thence into France by a certain Quintin, by Antoine Poa‑

477	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Liberiuta
		Liberty
quet, once a Roman Catholic priest, and by others.
Their teaching was to the effect that all visible ex
istence is but a manifestation of the one Spirit;
hence nothing can be essentially bad; the regener
ate man is he who recognizes that the distinction
between good and bad is baseless, and consequently
has attained the innocence which Adam had before
he knew good and evil. In France those who held
these views found protection under Margaret,
Queen of Navarre, at N6rac; but they met a stern
opponent in Calvin, whose influence with Margaret
and other measures probably brought about the
extinction of the party. In 1547 Calvin warned
the Christians of Rouen against a Franciscan monk
who expounded the dogma of predestination after
the method of the Libertines. The latter replied
in Boudier de defence, which Farel answered in
Glaive de la parole veritable (Geneva, 1550). Calvin
speaks of two anonymous French writings which
he ascribes neither to Quintin nor to Pocquet, which
seem to be of a mystical Libertine cast. Some
writings of this character were collected by C.
Schmidt,	Traites mystiques ecrits . . . 1647‑lH9
(Geneva, 1876), and by E. Picot, Thedtre mystique
de Pierre Du Val et des Libertins apirituels de Rouen
au 16. 8ibele (ib. 1882; cf. G. Jaujard, Essai sur lea
In'bertins apirituels de Genbve [?], Paris, 1890). See
also LoiaTs.		E. CHolsr.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On 1: $charer, Geachirhte, ii. 65, 431, iii.
	84, Eng. tranal., IT., i. 49, ii. 56‑57, 276; EB, iii. 2793
	2794; DB, iii. 110; and the commentaries on the pae
	eage. On 2: A. Roget, Hist. du peuple de Genwe, vole.
	ii. iv., 7 vole., Geneva, 1871‑84; E. Choiey, La Theo
	Crane h Gen~oe au temps de Calvin, Geneva, 1897. On 3:
	CR, vii. 145, 341; Calvin, Institutes, III., iii. 14; F.
	Treehsel, Die prokstantiedea Antitrinitarier, i. 177, Hei
	delberg, 1839; Hundeshagen, in TS%, xviii (1845), 866
	aqq.; A. Jundt, Hint. du pautheime populaire, Strasburg,
	1875. For further information on 2‑3 consult also the
	works on the life of Calvin given under CALVIN, JOHN,
	e.g., W. Walker, pp. 293‑295, New York, 1906.
		LIBERTY, RELIGIOUS.
I. General Development.
Historical Survey (§ 1).
The Evangelical Spirit, Especially in England (§ 2).
In America (§ 3).
Humanistic Influences
(§. 4).
II. In Germany.
The Theory of Non‑Toleration (§ 1).
The Situation at and During the Reformation (§ 2).
Toleration of Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed (§ 3).
Change in the Political Theory of the Church (§ 4).
Present Legal Statue of Churches (§ b).
Roman Catholic Attitude 0 6).
I. General Development: Religious liberty is, in the fullest sense of the term, unrestricted freedom to believe, practise, and propagate any religion whatever or none.
The Edict of Milan (Bee CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS SONS, L, § 4) issued by Constantine and Liciniua in 313 seems to be the only ancient proclamation by a civil government of absolute religious liberty. The edict grants " both to the Chris‑
tians and to all men freedom to follow :. His‑ the religion which they choose," " each torical one should have the liberty of wor‑
	Snrvey.	ahiping whatever deity he pleases."
		" This has been done by us in order
that we might not seem in any way to discriminate
against any rank or religion." This action was taken
in the interest of Christianity and the edict contains instructions for the restitution of all church property taken from Christians in the Diocletian persecution. Constantine's later policy in relation to non‑Catholic Christian parties and paganism was inconsistent with the declarations of the edict. From this time onward nothing more liberal than toleration appears in civil legislation until modern times. Pleas for religious liberty were frequently made by persecuted minorities; but neither civil governments nor dominant ecclesiastical parties paid heed to them. Luther pleaded for liberty in the most thoroughgoing way (1519‑20); yet when confronted with religious radicalism (1521 onward) he became convinced that only drastic measures of repression could save the situation and urged the rulers to spare not. Humanists and Sociniana argued for a broad toleration, and some of them no doubt would have rejoiced to see absolute liberty of conscience incorporated in the civil constitutions and in the confessions of faith; but they were not optimistic enough even to hope for such a consummation. Balthasar Huebmaier (q.v.), when his life was being sought by the Austrian government and he was in imminent danger, wrote in 1524 a tract " Concerning Heretics and their Burners " (cf. H. C. Vedder, Btzlthasar Hiibmaier, pp. 84‑88, New York, 1905) in which he sought to show the heresy, antichriatian character, and futility of persecution for conscience's sake. Calvin was from the beginning an avowed antitolerationist. Regarding the OldTeatament theocracy as in an important sense a model for the Christian state, he thought it the duty of the church authorities to detect, convict, and denounce heretics and open sinners of every type, and of Christian magistrates to execute Church censures even to the extent of inflicting capital punishment in extreme cases. For the Christian minister or magistrate to allow a heretic to disseminate his errors was as little allowable as it would be to permit a miscreant to go about spreading the pestilence. Calvin had the full sympathy of Melanchthon, Butzer, Bullinger, Knox, and other leading reformers in his antagonism to religious liberty. In this he was followed for more than a century by English and American Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians, and by Reformed and Lutheran Churches in general. The progress of religious liberty has been greatly impeded also by the general conviction that the divergent religious opinions of minorities are malignant and inspired by the devil and that no treatment is too severe for the disseminators of diabolical error; that two forms of religion can not exist in the same state without disastrous consequences; that civil rulers have a right to determine the religion of their subjects (see TERRITORIALI6M); that the established order is of divine right and that innovation is ipso facto evil. The Peace of Augsburg (1555; see AUGSBURG, RELIGIOUS PEACE OF) and the Peace of Westphalia (1648; Bee WESTPHALIA, PEACE OF) each in turn confirmed the states of Europe in territorialiam.
The two lines of influence already mentioned wrought mightily for the breaking down of the intolerance of conservatism, for a long time separately and at last cooperatively, namely the old

THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
Liberty, Reliaioue
Evangelical and the Humanistic. The old Evan
gelical spirit (represented by the Waldenses [q.v.),
Peter of Chelcic, and the Bohemian Brethren [q.v.),
in the Middle Ages, and by the Anabaptists and
the Society of Friends in more recent times) made
		a sharp distinction between the Old
	i. The Testament and the New Testament,
Evangelical making the latter alone an authorita
	Spirit, tive guide in doctrine and polity and
	Especially laying chief stress on the very words
in England. and acts of Christ. Most of them as
		sumed an attitude of passive resist
ance toward civil governments, denying the possi
bility of a Christian state (if all were Christians
there would be no need of civil government), and re
jecting magistracy, oaths, warfare, and capital pun
ishment as inconsistent with the spirit of Christian
ity and with the precepts and example of Christ
and the apostles. To use coercion in connection
with religion seemed to them monstrous. Inter
preting the Sermon on the Mount literally they
thought it wrong to resist evil or to defend them
selves. Only when fired by chiliastic enthusiasm
and convinced that it was the divine will that they
should smite the ungodly and become instruments
for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ on
earth (see TABORITEB; MUENZER, THOMAS; FIFTH
MONARCHY MEN) did they trust in the arm of flesh.
This quietistic form of Christianity, while it pro
duced the noblest examples of self‑sacrificing devo
tion and of evangelistic zeal, was too much out of
accord with the life and thought of the times to
exert a strong influence in favor of religious liberty;
though the Mennonites in the Netherlands became
numerous and wealthy enough to gain the coop
eration of the government in efforts to secure tolera
tion for the persecuted in other lands. It was only
when the old Evangelical type of New‑Testament
Christianity became blended with Calvinistic Puri
tanism that it was able powerfully to influence the
Christian world in favor of liberty of conscience.
Robert Browne (q.v.) reached the conviction, prob
ably under Mennonite influence (1580‑84), that
civil magistrates ought not to punish religious do
linquencies or in any way to interfere with the
rights of conscience. His immediate.Sepamtist fol
lowers failed to grasp the principle and he himself
soon abandoned it. About 1609 a party of English
Separatists led by John Smyth, exiled in Holland,
reached antipedobaptist convictions and at the
same time adopted the old Evangelical principle
of separation of Church and State and liberty of
conscience in the most absolute sense (see BAPTIsTs,
I., H 1‑4). A portion of the company under the
leadership of Helwys and Murton returned to Eng
land (1611 or 1612) and members of this Arminian
antipedobaptist party addressed to the govern
ment and published a series of pleas for absolute
liberty of conscience (1614, 1615, 1620) that influ
enced wide circles of readers (see BAPT18Ts, § 9;
of . Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, Hanserd Knollys
Society, London, 1846). The triumph of the Inde
pendents (Baptist and Congregational) first over
established episcopacy and then over Presbyterian
ism, which sought to become the established Church
and purposed the suppression of all forms of dis‑
478
sent, led to a measure of religious equality under Cromwell (1649, aqq.) for such Congregationalists, Baptists, and Presbyterians as were fizendly to the government and of suitable education and character, all alike being admitted to endowed pastorates when invited by the parishioners; but there was no thought of tolerating Roman Catholics, High‑church Episcopalians, or Unitarians. Toleration of Evangelical dissent has prevailed in England from 1689 and dissenters' disabilities have been gradually diminished; but even now the free Churches of England are struggling valiantly for religious equality which means the disestablishment and the disendowment of the established Church.
In America the early British colonies were formed on an antitolerationist basis, the Calvinistic theocratic idea prevailing in Massachusetts and Connecticut and the Anglican establishment taking control in Virginia and other Southern colonies and
in New York after it was taken from 3. In the Dutch (see UNITED STATES OF America. AMERICA, RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF).
Roger William s (q.v.; also BAPTISTS, IL, §§ 1‑2), having been banished from Massachusetts, established a small colony at Providence on the basis of liberty of conscience (1636) and, in cooperation with John Clarke (q.v.; also BAPTISTS, IL, § 3), the larger colony subsequently known as Rhode Island (1647). The publicationof the pleas for liberty of conscience by Williams and Clarke, and their association in England with the leading statesmen of the Cromwellian time no doubt greatly influenced opinion there. In Maryland Lord Baltimore, the proprietor, tolerated and encouraged a body of Puritans who had been driven from Virginia on aecbunt of their non‑conformity (1643). In Virginia the Baptists, supported to some extent by Presbyterians and freethinkers (Jefferson, Madison, and, others), waged an uncompromising warfare against the established Church (1776‑99) and succeeded in securing its disestablishment and disendowment, and absolute religious equality (see BAPTISTS, IL, § 6). They were also influential in securing the insertion of the clause in the Constitution of the United States that guarantees religious liberty. The triumph of religious liberty in Virginia and the provision for it in the national Constitution led to the removal of all restrictions to the free exercise of religion in Connecticut (1820) and in Massachusetts (1833). The successful experiment of religious liberty on so large a scale soon made its influence felt throughout the Christian world. American influence was a factor in the French Revolution. After the abolition of Christianity by the Terrorists; Napoleon put Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and other recognized forma of religion upon the same basis of state support and state control in France, the Netherlands, and other parts of his empire. Complete religious liberty has recently come about in France through the separation of Church and State (see FRANCE).
Side by side with the influence of the old Evangelical New‑Testament Christianity, the advance of liberal thought under the influence of Humanism has wrought for freedom of thought and liberty of conscience. Skeptical minds not only demand toleration

479	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 	Liberty, Religious
for themselves; but are not so absolutely sure that their own views of religion are exclusively valid as to consider it necessary to force them
4. Hu‑ upon others. The growth of scientific
manistic study and the application of the his‑
	Influences. torical method to the study of religion
		have tended to break down dogma
tism and intolerance. The French freethinking
of the eighteenth century not only prepared the
way for the French Revolution, but covered Europe
and America with its influence. French freethink
ing cooperated with Baptist insistence on separation
of Church and State and equality of rights for all
	religious parties in the American struggle. See
CONVENTICLE ACT; CORPORATION ACT; FIVE MILE
ACT; TEST ACT; TOLERATION ACT OF 1689; UNI
FORMITY, ACTS OF. 	A. H. NEwMAN.
II. In Germany: There is now no German State which does not grant freedom of conscience, both to individuals and to communities which are united by common religious interests. In itself toleration may be observed toward non‑Christian as well as toward Christian bodies, as in Germany toward the Jews; yet in Germany the legislation concerning the Jews has not arisen from motives of toleration but of alien laws, and as it still retains this character it falls outside the limits of the present discussion.
A Church, as such, while loving and patient in pastoral care, can not be tolerant either in dogmatics or ethics. For since an individual Church exists simply because it recognizes a certain concept of Christian revelation as the only correct one, it can not permit divergent concepts within
i. The its fold. This was the actual attitude
Theory assumed before the Reformation, espe‑
of Non‑ cially as the Church then not only con‑
Toleration. trolled both her own members, so that she could exclude irreclaimable heretics from her communion, but also had such power over the State that the latter would punish such heretics, if necessary, with death. The constitution Ad decus of Frederick II. (1220), requiring the death penalty, repeats almost literally the third chapter of the fourth Lateran Council (1215), and is rendered still more strict by the same emperor's constitutions Catharm (1232) and Patarenos (1238). The enforcement of the death penalty by burning, prescribed also by the Sachsenspiegel (Landrecht, II., xiv. 17) and the Bamberg criminal code of 1507 (art. 30), is illustrated by the proceedings against Huss at Constance and by the action of the German princes against the Hussites. This use of power of the pre‑Reformation Church is fully explicable from her point of view. If, as she believed, she was the one visible Church founded by Christ, if every one baptized belonged to her, if she was responsible for their salvation, and if this salvation depended on the obedience of each individual to her authority, there was no reason for her to hesitate to use her influence with the State to gain her such obedience. The Church had developed into a dogmatic system her claim to control the exeeutive means of the State in given cases to her advantage; and as long as this principle was acknowledged by the authorities of the State, its powers were in a sense her own, to be employed when conscience dictated.
	When Luther, at the Leipsic disputation, rejected
the doctrine that the interpretation of the Bible was
to be conditioned by the authority of the Church,
		the latter appealed to the laws against
	2. The heretics. But these were ignored by
	Situation those princes who held that the Church
	at and must be ref ormed and who were in sym
	During the pathy with Luther's views. On the
	Reforma‑ other hand, the ban against Luther and
	Lion. the bull Decet Romanum pontifscem
		(Jan. 3, 1521) led to the Edict of Worms
(Jan. 26, 1521; antedated Jan. 8), which followed
the laws against heretics, declared Luther an out
law, and required the local authorities to imprison
him and his adherents. Other princes, however,
refused to execute the edict, declaring that they
could not reconcile it with their duty to their sub
jects and their land; and in view of the wide‑felt
need of a religious reformation, and in considera
tion of the unsettled religious conditions, the Diet
of Speyer (Aug. 27, 1526) declared that, until a
council should have been held, no prince should be
obliged to obey the edict. This enactment at
Speyer was the first German law of toleration, al
though primarily it was merely a provisional sus
pension of a law which was by no means abro
gated. The next step in advance was the religious
peace of Augsburg in 1555 (see AUGSBURG, RE
LIGIOUS PEACE OF). The most promising, though
unsuccessful, attempt to force the German princes to
obey the Edict of Worms was made in the Schmal
kald War, and the proviso of 1526 now became
definite. Although the old laws against heretics
were still in force, it was no longer possible, by the
laws of the empire; to secure their obedience from
such princes as would not maintain them in their
dominions. A second fruitless attempt to have the
laws against heretics enforced was made by the
Roman Catholics in the Thirty Years' War (q.v.),
but with the Peace of Westphalia (Oct. 24, 1648;
see WESTPHALIA, PEACE OF; and below) the re
ligious peace of Augsburg was confirmed by im
perial law. Nevertheless, this merely gave the
German princes a right which they had not legally
possessed before, permitting them, in so far as they
were unfettered by agreements with their estates,
to enforce or ignore the old laws against heretics.
The empire was accordingly divided, in the eyes of
the Curia, into States " in which the Holy Office is
exercised," and those " in which heretics rage un
punished." But it must be borne in mind that
anything like the modern concept of toleration was
equally unknown to the Protestants as well. The
theory of the Reformers was that the State had re
ceived authority not only to maintain the law in
general, but the law of God, especially as set forth
in the Decalogue, in particular. In virtue of the
First Table, therefore, the State was divinely re
quired to permit only the right worship of God.
The pre‑Reformation relation of Church and State
thus received a theological foundation. Tolera,
tion of any worship which was " not right " was
accordingly excluded, and its prevention was a duty
for which the State was responsible to God‑the
only change was the abolition of the criminal pro
ceedings against heretics, and the substitution of

Liberty B.eligious
Lichtenoger, Fr6deric
police regulation. Since, however, neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant would admit that his opponent also taught true doctrine, it became practically necessary merely to recognize the power of the authority of each country as purely personal, a concept later expressed in the phrase " whose is the land, his is the religion." Nevertheless, the Protestants gained the one point that those who adhered to the Augsburg Confession could only be banished by Roman Catholic princes, and not brought before a criminal court.
A further step was made in the Peace of Westphalia, which, taught by the bitter lesson of the Thirty Years' War, proceeded to real tolerance,
and first officially employed the term. 3. Tolera‑ It enacted that Roman Catholics in tion of Protestant lands, and Lutherans and Roman Reformed in Roman Catholic lands,
Catholics, should be " tolerated patiently" (par
Lutherans, tienter tolerentur) if they rendered due
	and	obedience to the civil authorities
Reformed. and caused no disturbance. They
were likewise granted the right of simple private worship. No other religions than those just mentioned, however, were to be " received or tolerated " in the Holy Roman Empire. Thus arose the distinction long maintained between " received " and " tolerated " religion. The Roman Catholic Church declared these enactments of toleration in the Peace of Westphalia null and void by the bull Zelo domes Dei (Nov. 20, 1648), and in consequence of the strict Lutheran insistence on the " guardianship of the First Table " likewise had cause to refuse obedience, especially as the Protestants came to hold that Roman Catholicism could be tolerated only when civil authority was insufficient to repress it, or when the State was in such condition that the repression could not be effected without civil war and effusion of blood, or when its repression would lead to greater harm than its toleration. This rigid adherence to the " guardianship of the First Table," however, could be carried out only in the narrow domains of the old empire; in lands of more diverse interests a larger spirit was needful. This was first shown in Holland, whence the new movement spread to Germany, especially the rising State of Prussia. When the Lutheran princes of the Palatine Electorate (1560), Bremen (1568), Nassau (1577), Wittgenstein, Solms, and Wied (1577‑86), Tecklenburg and Steinfurt (1588), Anhalt (1596), Hesse‑Cassel (1604), and Lippe (1605) entered the Reformed Church, they obliged their subjects to follow them; but when, in 1614, the Elector John Sigismund of Brandenburg did likewise, he merely permitted the coexistence of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in his territories. This precedent of two " received " Churches side by side was taken by the seventh article of the Osnabr0ck treaty of 1648 as the model of general regulations on the mutual relations of Lutheran and Reformed Churches in one and the same territory. This marks a change from a principle of intolerance to one of tolerance, and of the substitution of a purely political concept of the State for a theological theory.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
480
Since the weakness of the empire and the variety of conditions in the individual States were fatal to any national basis for the State in Germany, the social theory, largely represented at the time by
Dutch views, and aided since the Ren‑
o. Change aissance by the trend of juristic and
in the political tenets, formed the necessary Political substitute. The State being regarded
	Theory	as a congeries of interests united by so
	of the	cial contracts, and its authority being
	Church.	derived from a contract to obedience,
		two theories of the Church became
possible. Either it might be assumed, with Hugo
Grotius, that the maintenance of the Church as
an institution was a function of the State, and that
the administration of the Church was essentially ad
ministration of the State, this being Territorialism
(q.v.). Or it could be supposed that the conditions
of religious freedom which had preceded the rise
of the State had not been abrogated by the con
tract of the State. By the latter hypothesis,
termed Collegialism (q.v.), first developed by Samuel
Pufendorf (q.v.), religion remained a matter of indi
vidual freedom, even under the State, and entitled
to the protection of the State. Territorialism had
been in use for ages, with the substitution of polit
ical for theological premises. Collegialism was the
way in which the State began the restoration of
the social independence inherent in both the Ro
man Catholic and the Protestant Church. View
ing both Churches as unions of religious interests,
the State could without prejudice determine under
what conditions, based on its general interests, it
could and would permit a plurality of such unions
of religious interests to coexist. Thus the State
reached the standpoint of modern tolerances, as it
now prevails in Germany. Yet this point of view
was reached only gradually. The Elector John
Sigismund of Brandenburg, mentioned above, per
mitted the Arminians to hold private worship in
1683, and three years later alloWed the Reformed
refugees from France to have public religious serv
ices. But what was allowed by the empire to
Prussia was forbidden in the smaller States. Thus
when Count Ernest Casimir of Runkel and Isen
burg promised religious freedom to all who should
settle at Biidingen (Mar. 29, 1712), even though
they might not be either Roman Catholics, Lu
therans, Or Reformed, he was fined and obliged to
retract his offer. Prussia, however, continued in
her course, and Frederick the Great granted relig
ious freedom to Mennonites, Socinians, Arians,
Schwenckfelders, and other sects. On the other
hand, he never issued any law of toleration, nor did
even the Roman Catholic Church gain full equality
with the two Protestant bodies during his reign.
The example of Frederick, who was more influenced
by Voltaire and the Encyclopedists than by Pufen
dorf and Thomasius, was followed in the edict of
toleration promulgated by Joseph II. of Austria
(Oct. 18, 1781) and by the Elector Clement
Wenzel of Treves in 1783. Finally, by the re
ligious edict of 1788 and the general Prussian
statute of 1794 the Roman Catholic Church
received equal
the Reformed. Privileges with the Lutherans and

481	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Liberty Religious
		Lichtenberger, Fr6deric
	In France Protestantism was again recognized
by Louis XVI. in Nov., 1787, and two years later
the French Revolution declared for entire liberty
of worship, a position retained under Napoleon.
As a result of the extension of this legislation to the
German territories west of the Rhine which had
come into the possession of France in exchange for
districts east of the same river, religious toleration
was granted to the Protestants in the archdiocese
of Cologne and the dioceses of Miinster and Pader
born. A like course was followed by Bavaria (Aug.
21, 1801), and by Cleve‑Berg, the grand duchy of
Frankfort, and the kingdom of Westphalia. But
while the German Act of Confederation (Jan. 8,
1815) granted toleration to Roman Catholics, Lu
therans, and Reformed, it referred everything re
garding the development, administration, and or
ganic life of the Churches to special legislation.
Accordingly, in the legislation of both Bavaria
(May 26, 1818) and Baden (Aug. 22, 1818) the right
of private worship was extended to others than
members of the three great ecclesiastical bodies.
The only. further step now possible was the exten
sion of this privilege to public worship; and this
was granted by laws of Baden (Feb. 17, 1849) and
Prussia (Jan. 31, 1850), these and similar laws fol
lowing the Frankfort statutes of 1848. The last
vestige of religious discrimination was removed by
the law of the German Confederation of July 3,
1869, which granted complete civil equality to the
various confessions.
	Since the beginning of the nineteenth century the
German theory of the legal status of the Church
passed through the entire revolution possible from
				the stage after bare existence. Begin
	s. Present ning with the exclusion of adherents
		Legal	of unfavored religious bodies from full
	Status of civil rignts, it advanced to the per
	Churches. mission of private worship, either with
				out clergy (" simple ") or with them
(" qualified "). The next step was the right to hold
public worship, which was " private " when the re
ligious community in question was not essentially
privileged, and "public" when it was so privileged
by the State. This later came to be construed as the
granting of corporation‑rights to a Church, which,
in such States as Oldenburg, Waldeck, and Prussia,
can be done only by the passage of a law, as was
done in Prussia in 1874 and 1875, for example, for
the Baptists and Mennonites. Religious communi
ties can secure the rights of a corporation, unless
objected to by the State, by being entered in the
register kept by the local authorities; though where
a special law is necessary for the acquisition of such
rights, the need of such laws is not thereby abro
gated. The Imperial Criminal Code (§ 166) grants
any religious body with corporation‑rights within
the empire special protection against public insults
to its institutions and usages; and special privi
leges are also accorded the clergy of such bodies.
Since the Peace of Westphalia, therefore, tolera
tion has been extended from the Roman Catholics,
Lutherans, and Reformed to all religions, so that.
the minimum accorded to any religious body is
now " private " public worship.
	The Roman Catholic Church maintains her pre
			VI.‑31
Reformation attitude toward toleration by the State, as protested against both by the papal
nuncio Chigi (Oct. 26, 1648) and the 6. Roman bull Zelo domus Dei (Nov. 20, 1648),
	Catholic	on the ground that the State has no
	Attitude.	authority to issue such regulations.
		Similar protests have repeatedly been
made by the Curia, as by the briefs of Pius VII.
against the toleration of Protestants in Bavaria
(Feb. 13 and Nov. 19, 1803), the encyclicals
Mirari vos of Gregory XVI. (Aug. 15, 1832),
Pius IX. (Dec. 8, 1864), and Leo XIII. (Nov. 1,
1885). Nevertheless, this church does not con
demn those who, for the promotion of great good
or the avoidance of grave scandal, tolerate the ex
istence of various cults in the State. At the same
time she insists that no one may be forced to accept
the faith against his will, although this is construed
as applying to non‑Christians, and not to baptized
Protestants, the latter being regarded as heretics,
and hence subject to compulsory conversion by
the secular arm. Leo XIII., while maintaining this
position, declared that a State tolerating heretics
should not be incontinently condemned, but should
be temporized with as circumstances should de
mand. The official Roman Catholic rejection of
the principle of toleration accordingly remains un
changed in essence, and it is, therefore, her endeavor
and hope that the State may some time be con
vinced of the justness of her attitude, and again
adopt the policy of non‑toleration.
(E. FRIEDBERG.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A large number of documents dealing with the progress of the idea in England are contained in Gee and Hardy, Documents. Consult: J. Locke, Three Letters on Toleration, reprint, London, 1876 (on the act of 1689); J. Milton, Essay ore Toleration, in his Works, 8 vols., London, 1867, etc.; J. L. Balmes, European Civilization; Protestantism and Catholicism, chaps. xxxiv.xxxvii., London, 1855 (Roman Catholic); A. Hess, Ueber religiose and aittliche Tolcranz, St. Gall, 1884; P, Brooks, Tolerance, New York, 1887; E. Lefbvre, La Liberte religieu8e, Verviers, 1888; P. Schaff, Progress of Religious Freedom as Shown in the Hist. of Toleration Acts, New York, 1889; F. Hement, Enlretiens sur la liberte de conscience, Paris, 1890; L. Marillier, La Liberte de conscience, ib. 1890; F. Pollock, Religious Equality, in Oxford Lectures, London, 1890; G. Canet, La Liberle de conscience, as nature, son histoire, Lyon, 1891; H. Fiirstenau, Daa Grundrecht der Religionafreiheit, Leipsic, 1891; J. J. 1. von Dbllinger, in his Essays on Historical and Literary Subjects, London. 1894; 111. Creighton, Persecution and Tolerance, ib. 1895; A. D. White, Hiat. of the Warfare of Science and Theology, 2 vols., New York, 1896; F. Dl. Holland, Liberty in the 19th Century, ib. 1899; G. BonetMaury, Hist. de la liberle de conscience en France depuis Z'Cdit di Nantes juaqu'au 1870, Paris, 1900; H. Hello, Les Libertca modernes d'apri•s lea encycliques, ib. 1900; F. Ruffini, La liberth religiosa, Turin. 1900; R. Oertel, Entwickelung des Grundsatzes Glaubigerbefriedigung, Leipsic, 1901; S. H. Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America, New York, 1902; H. M. King, Religious Liberty, Providence, 1903; E. S. P. Haynes, Religious Persecution, London, 1904; A. Matagrin, Hist. de 1a tolerance religieuse, Paris. 1905; J. Mackinnon, A Hist. of Ifodern Liberty, vols. i.‑iii., New York, 1906 sqq. (to be in 8 vols.); E. Rousse, La Liberte religieuse en France 1880‑1894,, Paris, 1904; Cambridge Jfodern History, v. 324 sqq., New York, 1908; and the literature under the articles referred to in the text.
LICHTENBERGER, lia'ten‑barg'er, FREDERIC AUGUSTE: French Protestant theologian; b. at Strasburg Afar. 21, 1832; d. at Paris Jan. 7, 1899.

Lichtenberger Liebner
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
He was the descendant of an old Alsatian family; attended the Protestant gymnasium of Strasburg; studied theology there and at several German universities; spent considerable time at Paris; returned to Strasburg where he became bachelor of theology (1854), licentiate (1857), and doctor (1860). In 1864 he was appointed professor of systematic and practical theology in the theological faculty of Strasburg, but his activity was interrupted by the war of 1870. His sympathies were on the side of the French, and he nursed the sick during the siege of his native town. After the war, the German administration offered him as well as his colleagues a place in the newly organized university, but while most of his colleagues accepted the offer, he together with Colani and Sabatier declined. Lichtenberger went to Paris where he was at first employed by the Lutheran eonsistory as assistant preacher of the Church of Redemption then he worked six years with great devotion in the service of the tglise libre in the Chapelle Taitbout. Chiefly owing to the efforts of Lichtenberger and Auguste Sabatier, Gambetta finally (1877) fulfilled the promise to renew the Strasburg theological faculty in Paris, and for seventeen years Lichtenberger was the efficient dean. During the time between 1871 and 1877 Lichtenberger found ample time to devote himself to his literary works. His was not an original mind, but he could clearly and forcibly reproduce the thoughts of others. His principal works are: Histoire des ides religieuses en Allemagne depuis le milieu du dix‑huiti&ie siiscle jusqu'a nos jours (3 vols., Paris, 1873; Eng. transl., History of German Theology in. the 19th Century, Edinburgh, 1890), and the French Protestant counterpart to Herzog, EncycloP4die des sciences religaeuses (Paris, 1877‑82, 13 vols.). It was also owing to his efforts as 6onseil gi=n6ral des facultks and as member of the Conseil sup6rieur de 1'instruction publique that the bond between the Protestant faculty and the other faculties of the university became so close that all attempts to sever it failed. Lichtenberger's personal views on theology and the Church were influenced by Alexander Vinet. As a thorough individualist he inclined toward the ideas of a free Church combating conventionalism in church and theology. In 1895 a chronic disease permanently laid him aside. His valedictory sermon L'Alsace en. deuil (1871,10th ed.,1873) preached at Strasburg after the war of 1870, achieved an unprecedented popularity.
(EUCIEN LACHENMANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The funeral address by Sabatier is in Revue chretienne, 1899, pp. 122‑127. Consult Lichtenberger, ESR, xiii. 120‑121.
LIDDON, HENRY PARRY: Church of England;
b. at North Stoneham (7 m. s.w. of Winchester) Aug. 20, 1829; d. at Weston‑super‑Mare (20 m. s.w. of Bristol) Sept. 9, 1890. He was educated in the school at Lyme Regis, continuing at King's College, London, and Christ Church, Oxford. He graduated B.A. in 1850, and the next year won the Johnson theological scholarship, and was made a
student of Christ Church. In 1852 he was ordained deacon in 1853 priest. For the first two months of 1852 be was curate at Wantage (21 m. n.n.w.
482
of Reading), then for a little while did duty at Finedon (12 m. n.e. of Northampton). In 1854 he became first vice‑principal of the theological college at Cuddesdon (6 m. s.s.e. of Oxford), which had just been established by Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford, but his High‑church views excited so much opposition and exposed his bishop to so much criticism that he was compelled to resign on Dec. 29, 1858, and he left the following Easter. Almost immediately he became vice‑principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford. There his position was more congenial by far, and he quickly became a power in the university by the Sunday‑evening lectures on the New Testament, which he carried on with great success until 1869 and again from 1883 till the close of his life. But in 1862 illness forced his
resignation of the vice‑principalship. In 1864 he became examining chaplain to Walter Kerr Hamilton, bishop of Salisbury, with whose Anglo‑Catholic views he was in full accord. In 1865 he was chosen Bampton lecturer, and produced the volume by which he is best known, The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (London, 1866, .14th ed. 1890). In 1870 he became Ireland professor of exegesis of Holy Scripture at Oxford, and so remained till 1882, when he resigned because, as he said, he could not do justice to the office and at the same time meet his other engagements. In 1870 he became a canon of St. Paul's, London. He was now a preacher of established repute, and held the attention of vast crowds, although his sermons were inordinately long. He was always tremendously in earnest, full of spiritual fervor, simple in his language, and clear in his argumentation. He read his sermons closely because the strain of addressing such large audiences was felt by him and he did not wish to be under the additional strain which extempore speech would have entailed.
He maintained some extreme positions. Thus he defended John Purchas, who had been condemned for ritualism, and likewise the Reverend Thomas Pelham Dale and the Reverend Richard William Enraght, the ritualists who had refused to obey the judgment of the court of arches, going so far as to question its authority. His conservatism came out in his defense of the continued use of the Athanasian Creed; in his assertion that the higher criticism of the Old Testament impugned the infallibility of Jesus Christ and was, therefore, to be rejected; and in his contention against the archbishop of Canterbury, that the presence even of a bishop of the Church of England in Jerusalem was an intrusion on the diocese of the patriarch of Jerusalem.
Christ College, Oxford, was his home when not in residence in St. Paul's, and to that university he gave much of himself. In 1866‑70 he was active in the founding of Keble College, and in 1883‑84 of Puaey House, both at Oxford, and both established by the friends of the High‑church party.
His preaching was practically limited to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and as canon of St. Paul's, London, and his publications were almost exclusively sermons and a large part of the life of Pussy. He was asked on several occasions to accept an episcopal appointment, but he would not consider it. In

483	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lichtenberger
		Liebner
1886 he did accept the chancellorship of St. Paul's car
thedral. He was, as might be expected, deeply inter
ested in the Old Catholic movement, and attended
the Bonn conference of 1875, took a leading part
in it, and translated the record of its proceedings.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The principal biography is by J. O. John
	ston, Life and Letters of Henry Parry Liddon, London, 1904.
	Others are by A. B. Donaldson, ib. 1905; G. W. E. Russell,
	ib. 1909, and in DNB, xxxiii. 223‑228.
	LIDWINA (LIDWIGIS, LIDIA), SAINT: Dutch
virgin; b. at Schiedam (4 m. w. of Rotterdam)
Mar. 18, 1380; d. there April 14, 1433. Born of
prosperous parents she was of so great beauty that
she was besieged with suitors from her thirteenth
year. She had no desire for marriage, however,
and prayed to God that he would make her so
loathsome that no man could look upon her with
pleasure. Coming from church on Candlemas day,
1394, she slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and
for the rest of her life underwent terrible sufferings,
which she endured with such incredible patience
that she has been said to hold the same place in
the dispensation of the New Testament that Job
does in that of the Old. She had an altar erected
in her chamber and during the last years of her life
partook of holy communion every few days. She
had many ecstatic visions, beholding hell, heaven,
and purgatory. Pilgrims flocked to her bedside
ancbmany wonderful cures were said to have been
performed. Her day in the Roman Catholic calen
dar is Apr. 14.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early Vito are collected in ASB, Apr.,
	ii. 270‑365. One of them is in Fr. transl. by J. Bruch
	man, Besangon, 1840, and in Dutch by G. A. Meyer,
	Nimeguen, 1890. Consult: W. Moll, J. Brugmann en het
	godsdienetig seven . . in de 16. eeuw, Amsterdam, 1854;
	KL, vii. 1974‑79 (where other literature is given).
	LIE: Any false statement made with intent to
deceive, also any reservation, equivocation, or con
cealment of the truth for the purpose of misleading
our neighbor. It is in this comprehensive sense
that the divine command, " Thou shalt not bear
false witness against thy neighbor," is to be inter
preted. Christ designates the devil as the source
of the lie and as the father of liars (John viii. 44);
and after he had established the kingdom of truth
upon earth (John xviii. 37) his disciples combatted
falsehood with might and main (cf. Eph. iv. 25;
Tit. i. 12‑14). John expressly states that liars are
excluded from the city of God (Rev. xxi. 8, xxii.
15). Attempts have been made to adduce Bib
lical examples of the " white lie," or " necessary
lie " (Nothige), but the prevarications of Abraham
about Sarah (Gen. xii. 11‑13, xx. 2), and the de
ceptions of David (I Sam. xxi. 2, 13, xxvii. 10) do
not come under this category, not to speak of the
lies of Sarah (Gen. xviii. 15) and Jacob (xxvii. 19).
However, the Old Testament seems to endorse to
a	certain extent the kind of necessary deception
employed by Rahab to save the spies in Jericho
(Josh. ii.), and in a similar case by Michael (I Sam.
xix. 13‑17). Perhaps such deception is justifiable
where a human life is at stake, or where a lie seems
necessary to the accomplishment of some higher
good; but even then it should be possible to sur
mount the difficulty without lying.
		(KARL BURGERt.)
LIEBNER, lfb'ner, KARL THEODOR ALBERT: German Lutheran theologian, of importance in the history of the newer constructive theology; b. at Schkblen, near Naumburg, Mar. 3, 1806; d. in Switzerland June 24, 1871. Along with the consciousness that in the modern critical period a special task was laid upon theological science, he found his life‑work in the conviction that in order successfully to meet the ever‑growing opposition there was requisite a wider development of the Christian ethical content; and that the first requisite was to give full play to the radically decisive ethical faofor in Christianity and give it in contemporary ecclesiastical and scientific consciousness the place which it holds by intrinsic right in the Christian scheme.
After the completion of his education at Leipsic (marked by special attention to Kant) he was influenced by his further studies in Berlin (under Schleiermacher, Hegel, Neander, Marheineke), and by his reception into the Wittenberg Theological Seminary (under Heubner and Richard Rothe). It was here that he wrote his first book: Hugo von St. Victor and die theologischen Richtungen seiner Zeit (Leipsic, 1832), which is valuable for its exposition of the union of mysticism and gnosis before the Reformation in the school of St. Victor, and for its bearing on the struggles and aims of our time. This theme is continued in the treatise (in the TSK) Ueber Gersons mystische Theologie, which he composed in his first pastoral charge (Kreisfeld, near Eisleben), 1832, as well as in the academic treatise Richardi a S. Victore de contemplatione doctrina, which, along with some treatises on practical theology (1843‑44), and some sermons, he published at G6ttingen, whither he had been called in 1835 as professor of theology and university preacher.
Called in 1844 to Kiel, to succeed Domer as professor of systematic theology, he wrote there his principal work, Die christliche Dogmatik aus dem chrastologischen Princip dargestellt (GSttingen, 1849). In Christ the God‑man, Liebner finds the solution of the spiritual struggle of our time. Here, where the divine dwells in the human in bodily substance, he discerns the truth and fulness of religion, personally absolute religion; the ethical appears to him as the inmost and profoundest essence of Christianity, as its absolutely deepest and richest content, in fact the center‑point of all things divine and human, the principle governing all manner of being and thought, in the immanent and permanent vital process in God and in the world. By the aid of this thought he sees how the conceptions men have of God and religion correspond; how subordinate and one‑sided ideas of God can beget none but subordinate and partial ideas of religion: the physical conception of God as being, causality, and the like, begetting a mere physical conception of religion (feeling of dependency, of the infinite in the finite); the logical conception, a merely logical religion (perception knowledge of the divine, etc.); the exclusively ethical conception of God, an exclusively ethical conception of religion (external positivism and moralism, formal orthodoxy and rationalism). In view of these partial ideas which

Liebner
Lightfoot
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
dilute, if not disintegrate and dissolve, the essence of Christianity, Liebner brings to bear the entire force of contemplative and speculative reasoning in order to conceive as a whole the organic cooperation of the physical, logical, and ethical, and thereby to maintain the full, unmaimed, and undiluted effect of Christianity.
Starting from the principle of the Incarnation, Liebner now more lucidly exhibits the relation of faith and knowledge, showing how the one postulates and presupposes the other; how faith can as little be void of thought as can God; and how Christianity is a redemption both for mind and heart. Participation in the life of salvation is also participation in the ideas of salvation which are inseparably connected with it, every divine gift and grace is at the same time a task to be worked out by human effort; so we are to work out, as the proper content of thought, the salutary ideas immanent in the facts of salvation, under constant and formative guidance of God's word and of the Spirit who leads into all truth. As faith without works is dead, so is it also dead without knowledge. On the ground of such faith rests, for Liebner's theology, the certainty that theology itself, as the scientific self‑consciousness of Christianity, must also find its scientific principles in its own peculiar content, the Gospel, with full confidence that the vital Christian fund of faith is susceptible of scientific elaboration. In this consciousness, his theology disarmed prejudices against faith on the one hand and knowledge on the other, by showing in the relation between God and the universe, Creator and creature, God and man, spirit and nature, freedom and necessity, etc., how the atomistic conception of diversity is unable to discern or comprehend the idea of unity; how it severs and dismembers unity, and is in the last analysis a conception of death and decay. He shows equally how the monistic conception of unity loses sight of and confounds diversity: whereas faith, when comprehended in its vital truth and depth, manifests itself as the deepest ground and motive for a truly organic philosophy, which does justice to both diversity and unity. These fundamental ideas are especially expanded in his Introductio in dogmaticam christianam (Leipsic, 1854‑55), which he wrote at Leipsic, whither he bad been persuaded to go after declining calls to Marburg and Heidelberg.
In 1855 he was appointed court preacher and vice‑president of the Superior Consistory of Saxony. The manner in which he embraced this position as an opportunity to increase his already richly blessed labors appears from his writings: Ueber dal Wesen der Kirchenvisitation, a memorial to the official visitors (1857); Ueber den Stand der christlichen Erkenntnis in der deutschen evangelischen Kirche, an address before the Conference at Eisenach in 1859, incidentally describing the constructive work of the new era (Dresden, 1860); his Reformation sermon in 1864; a second volume of sermons, Predigt‑Beitrdge zur Ferderung der Erkenntnis Christi in der Gemeinde (1861), and the JahrNicher fur deutsche Theologie which he founded in conjunction with Dorner, Ehrenfeuchter, and others, for the support of his constructive theology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. bI. Ruling, Zur Erinnerursp an . T. ,4, LieLmer, Dresden, 1871; C. 6chwarz, Zur Geeeh'ichte
der neuesten Theologie. PP. 371 sqq.. Leipsie. 1884; A.
Mucke, Die Dogmatik des 19. Jahrhunderta, pp. 280 sqq..
Gotha, 1867.
	LIETZMANN, lits'mdn, HAMS: German Prot
estant; b. at Duaseldorf Mar. 2, 1875. He was ed
ucated at the universities of Jena (1893) and Bonn
(1894‑97; sic. theol., 1896), and after teaching in
a gymnasium at Bonn in 1898‑99, became privat
docent at the university in the same city in 1900.
Since 1905 he has been professor of church history
at Jena. He has edited Kleine Texte fur theologische
Vorlesungen xcnd Uebungen (Bonn, 1902 sqq.; Eng.
transl., Materials for the Use of Theological Lecturers
and Students, Cambridge, 1902 aqq.) and Hand
buch zum Neuen Testament (in collaboration with
H. Gresamann, E. Klostermann, F. Niebergall, and
P. Wendland; Tiibingen, 1906 aqq.), and has writ
ten: Der Menschensohn (Ttibingen, 1896); Catenen,
Mitteilungen fiber Are Geschichte and handschrif Lliche
Ueberlieferung (1897); Apollinaris von Laodieed and
seine Sehule, i. (1904); and Das Leben des heiligen
Simeon Stglites (Leiplie, 1908).
LIFE AND ADVENT UNION. See ADVENTISTS, 4. LIFTINIE, SYNOD OF: The second Australian synod held during the reign of Carloman, apparently in 743, at Liftinae, in the sixteenth century called Lestines, the modern Eatinnes (7 m. s4 of Mons), Belgium. Many things occur in its acts which do not really belong there, and others have scant independent value, being mere confirmations of the first Australian synod of the previous year. It marked an important step in advance, however, in that the principles of church government already fixed in the earlier synod were now more accurately defined as an adherence to primitive usage. Direct dependence on the canons of the earlier Fathers (i.e., the ecumenical councils) was expressly postulated and the attitude assumed toward unlawful marriages prepared the way for the entrance of the Roman code into the kingdom of the Franks. Still more important was the legal aspect, which was equally momentous for Church and State, inasmuch as it involved the moot question of the enormous secularization of the eighth century. They seem to have begun chiefly with Charles Martel, who invested laymen with bishoprics. After the death of Charles the process of restitution began in Australia, when the newly consecrated bishops were reinstated in the possessions of the Church, although the greater portion still remained in the hands of laymen as precarice. In Neustria, on the other hand, those who held ecclesiastical estates retained their illegal property until the accession of Pepin, who gradually put an end to this state of affairs, partly by actual restitution and partly by the system of precari.ce which he could revoke at pleasure, even though secularization was still practised to some extent both by him and Carloman.
The provisions of 742 and 743 are important as inaugurating a real, though limited, restitution and as guaranteeing a regular mode of procedure. At the synod Carloman reached an agreement with the bishops. Those who had received ecclesiastical
I fiefs from the king held them only for life, the

485	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Liebaer
		Lightfoot
	bishoprics reverting to the Church at death, while
	the incumbents were required to pay taxes and to
	keep the buildings in repair. Even in case of re
	version, however, the king could, if obliged by
	necessity, again grant a bishopric as a precaria, the
	clergy being obliged in the great majority of cases
to obey the royal will. Yet the synod secured
	better conditions for the German Church than pre
	vailed in Neustria, and neither the bishops nor the
	pope protested. In the latter years of his life
	Pepin promised that both the secular and regular
	clergy should retain their property, although this
	made no material change, the fiefs remaining in the
same hands and the provisions for reversion being
	disregarded. Even at the end of the ninth century
a great part of the property of the Church was in
	the hands of the king and had then been considered
	practically his own for a hundred years. The ap
	plication of secularized ecclesiastical property, as
	established at Liftinw, contributed in no small
measure to the extension of the system of benefices,
	and this synod thus became important in its bear
	ing on the development of the feudal system of the
	Middle Ages.	(A. HAUCg.)
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: The decisions are given in MGH., Leg.,
		sectio ii, 1, p. 26, no. 11. Consult: G. Waitz, Deutsche
		Verfassungsgeschichte, iii. 35 sqq., 8 vols., Kiel, 1844‑78;
		P. Roth, Geschichte des Benefizialwesens, Erlangen, 1850;
		idem, Feudatitdt and Unterthanenverband, Weimar, 1863;
		idem, in Munchner historisches Jahrbuch, i (1865), 275;
		Hefele, Conciliengeachichte, iii. 525; Rettberg, KD, i. 306.
		LIGGINS, JOHN: Protestant Episcopalian; b.
	at Nuneaton (9 m. n.e. of Coventry), Warwickshire,
	England, May 11, 1829. He was educated at the
	Episcopal Academy, Philadelphia, and the theo
	logical seminary at Alexandria, Va. He was or
	dered deacon in 1855 and ordained priest two years
	later. After being curate at the Church of the As
	cension, New York City, for a short time in 1855,
	he went to China as a missionary, remaining in that
	country until 1859. He then spent a year in Japan,
	where he was the first Protestant missionary. Be
	cause of impaired health he returned to America in
	1860, and has since devoted his energies to literary
	work. In addition to contributing to The Spirit
	of Missions from 1862 to 1900 and to the American
	Church Sunday School Magazine since 1885, he has
	written: One Thousand Familiar Phrases in Eng
	lish and Japanese (Boston, 1860); Missionary Pic
	ture Gallery (1870); Oriental Picture Gallery (1870);
	England's Opium Policy (New York, 1883); Gems
	of Illustration from the Sermons and Writings of Rev.
	Dr. Guthrie (1885); and The Great Value and Suc
	cess of Foreign Missions (1889).
		LIGHTFOOT, JOHN: English Biblical critic
	and Hebraist; b. at Stoke‑upon‑Trent (38 m. n. by
	w. of Birmingham), Staffordshire, Mar. 29, 1602;
	d. at Ely, Cambridgeshire, Dec. 6, 1675. After
	completing his education at Christ's College, Cam
	bridge, he taught at Repton, Derbyshire, for two
	years and then took orders. Appointed curate of
	Norton‑in‑Hales, Shropshire, he became chaplain
	to the Hebraist Sir Rowland Cotton, who urged
	him to study Hebrew and other Semitic languages.
	He accompanied Cotton when he removed to Lon
	don, and then became rector of Stone, Staffordshire,
	for about two years, but in 1628 changed his resi‑
dence to Hornsey, Middlesex, in order to be able to consult the rabbinical collections at Sion College, London. During his residence at Hornsey he wrote his first work, dedicated to Cotton and entitled Erubhin, or Miscellanies, Christian and Judaical, penned for Recreation at vacant Hours (London, 1629). In the following year he was presented to the rectory of Ashley, Staffordshire, which he held twelve years, after which he settled in London and became rector of St. Bartholomew's. Presbyterian in his sympathies, he took the parliamen. tary side in the Civil War and was a member of the Westminster Assembly. After a year at St. Bartholomew's, he was appointed rector of Great Munden, Hertfordshire, and held it for the remainder of his life. In 1650 he was chosen master of St. Catharine Hall, Cambridge, and four years later became vice‑chancellor. He again sided with the Presbyterians in the Savoy Conference of 1661, but accepted the Act of Uniformity in the following year. In 1667 he was appointed a prebendary at Ely. His Oriental library was bequeathed to Harvard College, but was burned in 1769.
Lightfoot was a prolific writer and is noteworthy as the first Christian scholar to call attention to the importance of the Talmud. His chief works, in addition to the one already mentioned, are as follows: A Few and New Observations on the Book of Genesis (London, 1642); A Handful of Gleanings out of the Book of Exodus (1643); Harmony of the Four Evangelists among themselves and with the Old Testament (3 vols., 1644‑50); Harmony, Chronicle, and Order of the Old Testament (1647); The Temple Service as it stood in the Days of our Saviour (1649); The Temple, especially as it stood in the Days of our Saviour (1650); Harmony, Chronicle, and Order of the New Testament (1655); and the work which has done most to preserve his fame, Horse Hebraicte et Talmudicte (6 vols., Cambridge and London, 16581678). The first edition of his collected works, those originally in Latin translated into English, was edited by G. Bright and J. StIType, 2 vols. London, 1684; and a Latin edition, including those at first written in English, was prepared by J. Texellius, 2 vols., Rotterdam, 1686. A complete edition of his writings was made by J. R. Pitman, 13 vols., London, 1822‑25. It should also be noted that Lightfoot revised the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch for Walton's Polyglot Bible.
BIBLIOGRAPIiY: A Life is prefixed to the Works, ed. of 1684, and one may be found in vol. i. of the Pitman edition; D. M. Welton, John Lightfoot, the English Hebraist, London, 1878. Consult further: W. :ll. Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, Edinburgh, 1878; A. F. Mitchell The Westminster Assembly; its History and Standards, London, 1883; DNB, xxxiii. 229‑231.
LIGHTFOOT, JOSEPH BARBER: English ecclesiastic and scholar; b. at Liverpool Apr. 13, 1828; d. at Bournemouth (6 m. s.w. of Christchurch), Hampshire, Dec. 21, 1889. He was the son of an accountant, and entered Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1847. In 1849 he became scholar of Trinity; 1851, B.A., senior classic, and chancellor's medalist; in 1852, fellow of Trinity; 1854 M.A., and was ordained deacon; 1854, was one of the founders of the Journal of Classical and Sacred
Philology; 1857, tutor of Trinity; 1858, was or‑

Lightfoot Liguori
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
dained presbyter, and became select preacher in Cambridge; in 1861, Hulsean professor of divinity at Cambridge, and chaplain to the prince consort; 1862, was appointed examining chaplain to Bishop Tait of London, and honorary chaplain in ordinary to the queen; 1866 and 1869‑79, examining chaplain to Tait, who had now become archbishop of Canterbury. From July, 1870, to Nov., 1880, he acted as one of the revisers of the English New Testament; from 1871 to 1879 was canon of St. Paul's, and in 1874 and 1875 select preacher at Oxford. In 1875 he gave up the Hulsean professorship and became Lady Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, with which was combined the rectory of Terrington St. Clement's, Norfolk; in 1875 he was made deputy clerk of the closet to the queen. On Apr. 25, 1879, he was consecrated bishop of Durham.
Lightfoot was shy and reserved, yet was very successful as a professor. The students flocked to his lectures and he held them by his rich thoughts, his wide knowledge, and his sympathetic and inspiring style of address. As a preacher in St. Paul's the same characteristics secured him a hearing. The fact is moreover not to be overlooked, that his four volumes of sermons are as good when read as when heard. In 1870 he showed his liking f or church history by founding three scholarships, on the subject " in itself and in connection with general history." As bishop he gathered six or eight students at a time around him in his palace at Bishop Auckland, where the chaplains instructed them. He made it his aim to preach in every church in his diocese.
His work as canon of St. Paul's and his coaneotion with Tait had prepared him for the charge of a diocese, and Durham was a very important one He did all he could to prepare for the long‑needed division of the diocese, and the necessary funds were at length secured for the foundation of the see of Newcastle; J. W. Pease, a Quaker, made the munificent gift of the estate of Benwell Tower as a residence for the new bishop. Then Lightfoot set to work to build the churches still needed in his diocese. At a meeting at Durham he declared that twenty‑five churches and mission‑rooms were needed and he subscribed a large sum himself; nearly X30,000 were subscribed in that meeting, and in five years twenty‑five churches or mission chapels were built or building. As a thank‑offering after the first seven years of his episcopate, he himself founded a church in the town of Sunderland. He furthered strongly the creation of a diocesan fund to unite all the foundations for church purposes in the diocese, for churches, schools, insurance, pensions for clergymen, and the like; his own share in it was £500 a year, and besides he left the greater part of his property to it. He increased the number of the rural deans, and appointed a second archdeacon in 1882. When at Terrington he had in 1878 and 1879 spent £2,140 to renew the chancel of the church, and at Durham he spent much money in beautifying the episcopal palace. He furthered in every way the temperance and White Cross movements.
In the year 1865 his commentary on Galatians came out (10th ed., London, 1892). Philippians came out in 1868 (10th ed., 1891), and Colossians
486
and Philemon 1875 (3d ed., 1890). These volumes
contained the Greek text, a very full commentary,
and important special essays. His Clement of
Rome appeared in 1869, an appendix with the new
matter from Bryennios in 1877 (again in 1890 in
two volumes). The Apostolic Fathers came out
in two parts (Part I., vols. i., ii.; Part II., vols. i.
iii., 1885‑1890). AS a reviser he wrote A Fresh
Revision of the New Testament, 1871 (2d ed., 1872,
New York, 1873, 3d ed., with new appendix, Lon
on, 1891). He was against a half‑hearted revision
and opposed vigorously the use of the younger
Greek text. His essays against Cassels' Super
natural Religion (see SUPERNATURAL RELIGION) ap
peared as a book in 1889. Five volumes of ser
mons, essays and notes have been published since
his death. 	CASPAR REND GREGORY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bishop Lightfoot (anonymous), London, 1894; DNB, xxxiii. 232‑240; J. S. Stone, in Church Review, lxiii. 173 sqq.; F. W. Farrar, in Contemporary Review, Ivfi. 170 eqq., reproduced in Magazine of Christian Literature, i. 360; W. Sanday, in English Historical Review, v. 209 sqq.
LIGHTS, USE OF, IN WORSHIP: From very early times during service the altar has been lighted, even in day‑time, at first generally by lamps, later by candles. In the fourth century the custom of giving distinction to religious functions by means of illumination appears to have been general. The reading of the Gospels, baptism, the celebration of the Lord's Supper, festivals such as Easter and Pentecost, the consecration of churches, the installation of bishops, etc., gave regular or extraordinary occasion therefor. The vigils especially offered a favorable opportunity. Indeed, even at an early period, the institution of the " eternal light " appears, indicating a still earlier date for the origin of the custom. The practical requirements of the early morning services, the primitive custom of celebrating the Eucharist in the evening, the employment of lamps in the cerembnies at the sepulchers in the catacombs, the religious significance given to light in the Bible and the example of the seven‑branched candlestick rendered light a constituent of the liturgy as early as the third century. At first the altar was surrounded by candlesticks and hanging lamps; not until the twelfth century were the candlesticks placed upon the altar itself. There were in the Roman churches at an early period candlesticks of varied forms and of great material and artistic value. Paulus Silentiarius (ed. Becker, Bonn, 1837) describes the brilliant lighting of the St. Sophia in the time of Justinian. At the services for the dead also the use of lights was introduced at an early period.
In the medieval church this custom increased and became more definite, especially in the placing of candles before pictures and reliquaries, a custom which had its beginnings in Christian antiquity; in the Easter candles, in the so‑called Tenebrte lights during Holy Week, and in the death lamps. The festival of Candlemas was created especially for the consecration of candles.
The lamps found in so great numbers in the catacombs were for private use; they are almost all of clay and were given an elongated form from

487	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lightfoot
		I,igROTi
the fourth century on.	The base is ornamented
in relief, both of a secular and religious character
	(V. Schultze, Archdologie der allchristlichen Kunst,
pp. 292 sqq., Munich, 1895; M. Bauer, Der Bid
derschmuck fruhchristlicher Thonlampen,	Greifs
wald, 1907).	On the other hand the bronze lamps,
	preserved from Christian antiquity and distin
	guished by more graceful forms and a more artistic
	conception, must, in part, have served for ecclesi
	astical purposes. A complete change shows itself
	in the Middle Ages; lamps were not indeed entirely
abandoned, but candlesticks, brackets, and can
	delabra took their place. The forms reflected the
influence of Roman and Gothic art.	The candle
	sticks with several, sometimes even with seven,
	branches are more impressive. For a brighter
	illumination of churches chandeliers were used at
an early period.	Prominent examples of this style
are found in Hildesheim, Combourg, Aix‑la‑Char
	pelle, and other places. In the Gothic period the
	candelabra and chandeliers became more orna
	mental and more subject to the influence of archi
tectural form;	the Renaissance secularized the
	traditional forms. At the present day, in sympathy
	with the reaction in favor of medieval architecture,
there is a return to the older designs.	The Re
	formed Churches, from the beginning, rejected the
use of altar‑lights as papistical, while the Lutheran
Church maintained the,custom as it was.
	VICTOR SCHULTZE.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bipgham, Origin", VIII., vi. 21, XI., iv.
	14; XIL, iv. 4; XVI., iv. 17; XX., viii. 5; XXIII., ii. 6;
	F. Bock, Der Kronleuchter dea Kaisers Friedrich Bar
	barossa, Leipsic, 1864; W. Mtihlbauer, Geschichte and
	Bedeutung der Wachelichter bei den kirchlichen Funktionen,
	Augsburg, 1874; C. Cahier, Nouveaux melanges d'arch&
	ologie, pp. 188‑228, Paris; 1875; V. Schultze, Die Kata
	komben, pp. 488 sqq., Leipsic, 1882; H. Otte, Handbuch
	der kirchlichen Kunstarchdolopie, i. 156 sqq., Leipsic, 1883;
	C. Rohauh de Fleury, La Messe, vi. 1‑58, 8 vols., Paris,
	1883‑89; V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der katholischen Litur
	gik, i. 666 sqq., Freiburg, 1887; S. Beissel, Kunst and
	Liturgie in Ztalien, pp. 247 sqq., Freiburg, 1899; H. Theilar,
	The Candle as a Symbol and Sacramental in the Catholic
Church, New York, 1909; DCA, ii. 993‑998, 1564.
	LIGUORI, if"gu‑o'rf, ALFONSO MARIA DI, AND
THE REDEMPTORIST ORDER.
I. Alfonso Maria di Liguori.
Early Life (§ 1).
	Foundation of the Redemptorist Order (§ 2).
Episcopate and Later Life (§ 3).
Moral, Pastoral, and Ascetic Works (§ 4),
	Dogmatic, Apologetic, and Homiletic Works (§ 5).
1'I. The Redemptorist Order.
Early History (§ 1).
Spread in Northern Europe (§ 2).
Present Status (§ 3).
Redemptorists in America (§ 4).
I. Alfonso Maria di Liguori.	Alfonso Maria di
	Liguori, commonly known as St. Alphonsus, the
	most influential Roman Catholic moralist of the
	eighteenth century, was born at Marianella, a
	suburb of Naples, Sept. 27, 1696, and died near
Nocera (8 m. n.w. of Salerno) Aug. 1, 1787.	The
	third son of well‑born and pious pa
r. Early	rents, he received an excellent educa
Life.	tion at the hands of the Oratorians.
	His progress in philosophical and legal
	studies was such that he took his doctor's degree
	at the age of seventeen, and began to practise law
with every prospect of a brilliant career; but he deserted it in 1723 to prepare for the priesthood, which he received on Dec. 21, 1726, after a year spent in the Neapolitan house of the Propaganda. In 1729 he entered the Chinese College under the same direction, and devoted himself to the life of a missioner in southern Italy, founding pious associations to be directed by catechists appointed by himself. This part of his life was marked by visions and revelations, one of which, through a nun at Scala near Amalfi, directed him not to return to Naples, but to remain where he was for the purpose of founding a new order of mission‑priests in aid of neglected souls. In pursuance of this admonition he proceeded (Nov. 9, 1732) to found the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.
The new order was confined to the small town of Scala for two years, and its very existence was threatened by attacks from various quarters. The
Propaganda expelled Liguori as a rest‑
z. Founds‑ less innovator, and the archbishop of tion of the Naples spoke unfavorably of the new Redempto‑ undertaking. Only two of Liguori's rist Order. original companions remained steadfast; but he went forward undiscouraged, and soon was able to establish a second house at Villa. Schiavi in the diocese of Cajazzo, and a third (1735) at Ciorani in that of Salerno. The vows were first solemnly taken on July 21, 1742, when Liguori was unanimously elected superiorgeneral for life. Papal confirmation was given by Benedict XIV. (Feb. 25, 1,749), though the Neapolitan government refused to accept the brief. The order made rapid progress, especially in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, where the founder was unwearied in missionary labors, h18 influence being seen not only in the foundation of new houses, but also in the winning of various classes of the community‑the clergy, secular and regular, the nobility, the laboring classes, and even the prisoners in the jails‑to participation in his spiritual exercises. He won his power over them partly by his ardent devotion and by the skilful tactics employed in his missions, and partly by mild treatment of penitents in the confessional, together with the habit of encouraging them to frequent reception of the Sacrament, both of which points were contrary to the rigorist practise of that part of the Italian clergy which was inclined to Jansenistic views.
In 1762, much against his will, Liguori was named by Pope Clement XIII. to the bishopric of Sant' Agata de' Goti. He turned over the direction of his congregation to a vicar‑general, Andrea Villani,
and applied his zeal to the care of his
3. Episco‑ diocese, using every means to promote pate and piety and education within it for thir‑
	Later.Life.	teen years, until, on the ground of fail
		ing health, Pius VI. relieved him of
the burden of the episcopate in 1775, after which he
lived in ascetic retirement and poverty, refusing his
episcopal pension, in the house of his order at San
Michele de' Pagani near Nocera. His later years
were troubled by a division in his order arising from
the discord between the liberal Neapolitan govern‑

Liguori Lilith
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
ment and Pius VL, and he did not live to see the reunion of the two branches into which it split. Nine years after his death the title of " Venerable " was conferred upon him by Pius VI.; he was beatified by Pius VII. in 1816, and canonized in 1839 by Gregory XVI.; while Pius IX. added his name to those of the doctors of the Church in 1871, and his works were specially commended by Leo XIII. in a brief of Aug. 28, 1879. It is easy to see why Liguori's teaching has been so acceptable to modern ultramontanism: the " learning and piety " commended in these papal utterances are closely allied to the Jesuit type of devotional literature and probabilist ethics, and he takes a strong stand in favor of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. His works are nevertheless characterized, as might be expected from the rapidity of their production, by gross carelessness and inaccuracy in citations, as well as by unthinking acceptance of traditional errors and superstitions, as has been admitted by strict Roman Catholic critics in both the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries.
The theological works of Liguori may be divided into four principal groups: moral; pastoral and ascetic; dogmatic and apologetic; and homiletic. The principal work of the first class appeared first as a new edition of H. Busenbaum's Medulla theo‑
logice moralis, with notes by Liguori
4. Moral, (Naples, 1748); the second edition, re‑
Pastoral, vised and greatly enlarged (2 vols.,
and Ascetic 1753‑55), bears his name as authorWorks. Theologia moralis, concinnata a R. P.
Alphonso de Ligorio . . . Per appendices in Medullam R. P. H. Busenbaum. Nine editions in all appeared during Liguori's life, and the nineteenth century saw a large number of reprints, condensations, translations, etc., so that in one form or another the work is used as the basis of moral instruction in many Roman Catholic institutions. Other works in moral theology were the practical instructions for confessors, published first in Italian, Istruzione a pratica per un eonfessore (3 vols., Naples, 1757), and then in Latin, Homo apostolicus, instructus ad audiendas confessiones (Bassano, 1759); and certain controversial treatises in defense of his system, which until 1762 was simple probabilism, later developing into equiprobablllsm (see PROBABILIBM).
To the class of pastoral and ascetic theology belong, besides the Homo apostolicus, which may be classed under this head, the Instructio ordinanN dorum (Naples, 1758); Institutio catechistica (Bassano, 1768); La vera sposa di Gesu Cristo, for nuns (Venice, 1781); and a number of small vernacular tractates on devotion to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, the Way of the Cross, etc. The best‑known work of this class, much admired by Liguori's adherents and sharply attacked from the other side, is Le Glorie di Maria (2 vols., Naples, 1750), in which he follows the Jesuit Pepe in teaching what amounts to the thesis that the help of Mary is necessary to salvation, and supports it by a vast mass of uncritically accepted stories.
The earliest of the dogmatic and apologetic wri‑
488
tinge of Liguori was the Breve dissertazione contro gli errori dei moderni inereduli, written in 1756 and directed against the pantheism of Spinoza and the philosophy of Berkeley, Leibnitz, Wolf,
5. Dogmat‑ etc. A more extensive work along the ic, Apolo‑ same lines appeared a year later under getic, and the title Evidenza delta fede, ossia verHomiletic it& delta fede. In 1767 he published a
	Works.	new edition of this in three books, in
		which besides materialism and English
deism the French philosophers Helvetius and Vol
taire were attacked, and in 1772 a fourth book was
added against the deists. At short intervals ap
peared another series of polemical works: a Latin
treatise (under the pseudonym Honorius de Honorio)
against N. von Hontheim, Vindiciee pro suprema
Romani pond, ficis potestate contra Justinum Febronr
ium (Naples, 1768), defending not only the pri
macy but the infallibility of the pope; Opera domr
matica contro gli eretiei pretesi riformatori (1769), a
defense of the dogmatic decrees of the Council of
Trent; the Trionfo della chiesa (3 vols., 1772), a
history and refutation of heresies; and a work com
mending unity of religious belief in nations, en
forced if necessary by their rulers, with special
praise of the example of Louis XIV., La Fedelta
de' vassalli verso Dio li rende fedeli anehe al loro
principe (1777).
As a homilist Liguori began the publication of sermons for every Sunday and greater festival, in Italian, in 1769, and extended the series to four volumes, besides other smaller collections. As a religious poet and composer Liguori enjoyed some reputation. His " Recitative and Duet between the Soul and Jesus Christ" and " Passion Cantata " have recently been published, the former in Stimmen aus Maria‑Laach, xlix. 441, and the latter at Paris in 1900.
II. The Redemptorist Order. The ascetic practises originally prescribed by Liguori for his followers were partially mitigated in the constitutions drawn up by him after 1742, but not a little of the primitive rigor remained in force. In common with the Jesuit order, from whom he borrowed a number of points, he prescribed a fourth vow in addition to the usual ones of poverty, chastity, and obedience‑not to accept any dignity or ben‑
r. Early efice outside of the congregation ex‑
	History.	cept by the express command of the
		pope or the superior‑general, and to
remain in the congregation until death unless dis
pensed by the pope himself. The unconditional
obedience to the infallible pope here expressed and
taught in Liguori's writings led to difficulty in the
later years of his life and brought about the division
already alluded to. The Neapolitan branch was
required by the government to submit to certain
changes in the rule. No overt resistance was made,
except by a few fathers who left their house at
Illicetto and migrated to the Papal States. Pope
Pius VI., however, required strict adherence to the
statutes, and went so far as to declare the Neapoli
tan branch excluded from the congregation and de
prived of its privileges, while Liguori himself was
sentenced to deposition from his office as superior
and to expulsion from the order. This harsh decision

489	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	hng rf.
was obeyed in the Papal States and Sicily, while most of the Neapolitan members proved recalcitrant. Liguori himself yielded meekly and counseled obedience; but the breach was not healed until an accommodation was reached between Rome and Naples three years after the founder's death. In the autumn of 1790 the Neapolitan government for the first time recognized the bull of Benedict XIV. confirming the statutes, and in the next year Pius VI. sanctioned the reunion of the order.
Before Liguori's death, the extension of the congregation beyond the limits of central and southern Italy was planned out, and carried into effect
under the auspices of Clemens Maria
2. Spread Hoffbauer, who is justly considered in Northern as the second founder of the order.
Europe. He was born at Tasswitz in Moravia
Dec. 26, 1751, and was at first a baker, but got a taste for theology and the beginning of his education at the Premonstratensian house of Bruck where he was employed, and after two years among the hermits of Muhlfrauen and a period of combined work at his trade and study in Vienna went to Rome, where, with two companions, he joined the Redemptorists in 1782. In 1785, having been ordained priest, he was sent to Vienna to found a house there, but on account of the Emperor Joseph's hostility went to Warsaw, where the congregation soon had two churches and before the end of the century twenty‑five members. The work spread, and Hoffbauer was named vicar‑general for Germany and Poland in 1792; but the Napoleonic wars destroyed what had been done, and Hoffbauer was obliged to go to Vienna, where at the time of the Congress he was the rallying‑point of the reviving Catholicism, and contributed largely to keeping it Roman in opposition to the attempt to found an independent German Church. He died Mar. 15, 1820, and in the same year the order established a college and obtained possession of a church in Vienna under the guidance of Joseph Constantin Passerat, a Frenchman, Hoffbauer's most gifted disciple. The order continued to grow in Austria, and besides numerous houses for men began to establish some for women. The female branch is traced back to the early years of Liguori's ministry at Scala (see above), where the community under his guidance obtained papal confirmation in 1750; and he had founded a second house in 1766 in his see city of Sant' Agata. The Redemptorist nuns increased in number under Passerat's care and spread to Belgium, Holland, and France. The male order gained a rapid extension in the German states, especially in Bavaria, where it took the place of the Jesuits who had been expelled. It spread also to Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, France, England, and the United States. Their resemblance to the Jesuits, which in spite of some fundamental distinctions is an obvious one as to purpose and methods, brought about the exclusion of the Redemptorists from Germany during the Culturkampf from 1873 to 1894, when, on the motion of the Bavarian government, made after consulting the aged Dollinger, who declared that there was no essential connection between the two, and that the reasons which made the
Jesuits dangerous to the State did not exist in the case of the younger order, the prohibition was removed. No other important obstacle to their growth came up in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
The congregation now numbers about 150 houses, divided into twelve provinces‑three in Italy (Roman, Neapolitan, Sicilian); two Germ. Present man (northern or Rhenish‑Westphalian
	Status.	and southern or Bavarian, the former
		with colonies in South America); one
Austrian; one Belgian (with colonies in Canada and
the West Indies); one Dutch (with a colony in
Surinam); one French, including Spain and the
western states of South America; one English, in
cluding Scotland, Ireland, and Australia; and two
North American (Baltimore and St. Louis). The
Paulist Fathers (see PAUL THE APOSTLE, CONGRE
GATION OF) may be considered an offshoot of the
Redemptorists, the separate organization (estab
lished in 1858) having been intended to meet more
closely special American conditions.
(O. ZOCKLERt.)
	The first	Redemptorist convent in the United
States was established in Detroit in 1832, and such
has been the development of the order that at
present (1909) it comprises two independent prov
inces, viz., that of Baltimore and that of St. Louis.
There are 38 convents and 2 colleges besides 2
		novitiates and 2 houses of study. The
4. Redemp‑ total number of the fathers is 338, of torists in the professed students and novices 111, America. lay brothers 124, lay novices and postulants 51. The Redemptorists have convents in most of the large cities, and, although parishes are generally conducted in connection with these houses, the fathers make a specialty of preaching‑missions or retreats in parishes throughout the country. There are two vice‑provinces of the order in the Dominion of Canada, viz., one attached to the Belgian province, the other to that of Baltimore; convents 9, fathers 68, novices 21, lay brothers 52.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Collections of the Works in Italian have been published: Monza, 1819; Venice, 1830; Naples, 1840; and 3 vols. at Turin, 1887 sqq.; in French at Tournai, 1895 sqq.; in German in 42 vols., Regensburg, 18421847; and in English in 22 vols., at New York, 1887‑95 (vols. xxiii.‑xxiv. contain the Life). A very complete collection of the " Letters " was made at Rome, 1887 sqq. On the life of Liguori consult the works by K. Dilgstrom, 2 vols., Regensburg, 1887 (the best); A. M. Tannoja, 3 vols., Naples, 1798‑1802 (by a scholar of Liguori); Villecourt, 4 vols., Tournai, 1813; P. V. A. Gratini, Rome, 1815; Jeancard, Louvain, 1829; Rispoli, Naples, 1839; M. A. Hugues, Munster, 1857; Saintrain, Tournai, 1879; 0. Gisler, Einsiedeln, 1887; G. Schepers, Mainz, 1887; A. Capecelatro, 2 vols., Rome, 1893; A. de Meffert, Mainz, 1901; A. des Retours, Paris, 1903 A. C. Berthe, St. Louis, 1906; KL, vii. 2023‑52; and Encyclopedia Britannica, xiv. 634‑639.
On the order consult: K. Mader, Die Kongregation des heiligeten Erlosers in Oesterreich, Vienna, 1887; F. Ratte, Der heilige Alphonaua and der Redemptoristen‑Ordexi, Luxemburg, 1887; A. Zapf, Die Redemptoristen, Erlangen, 1894 F Dumortier, Les Premieres RMemptoristines, Live, 1884; M, A. Hugues, Die Klosterjrauen Maria Vie. toria and Marianna, Freiburg, 1883; Heimbucher, Orden and Kongregationen, ii. 313 sqq., 331 sqq., 498; Currier, Religious Orders, pp. 466 sqq., 673 sqq.

LILITH.	See DEMON, I., §¢ 3‑‑4.

Lillie
Lindsay
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
LILLIE, JOHN: American Presbyterian; b. at Kelso (38 m. s.e. of Edinburgh), Roxburgbshire, Scotland, Dec. 16, 1812; d. at Kingston, N. Y., Feb. 23, 1867. He was graduated at the University of Edinburgh (1831; D.D., 1855); studied theology, and taught until 1834, when he emigrated to America. He then finished his theological studies at New Brunswick, N. J., and was ordained minister of the Reformed (Dutch) Church at Kingston, where he labored until he accepted the presidency of the grammar‑school of the University of the City of New York (Aug., 1841). He had charge of the Broadway, afterward Stanton Street, Reformed (Dutch) Church (1843‑48), and, in addition, edited the Jewish Chronicle (1844‑48). He labored upon the revised version of the American Bible Union (1851‑57); and in 1857 he reentered the pastorate, taking charge of the Presbyterian Church of Kingston. Lillie, who was acknowledged to be one of the best Biblical scholars in the United States, prepared for the Americap Bible Union valuable new versions and philological commentaries upon I‑II Thessalonians, I‑III John, II Peter, Jude, and Revelation (also on I Peter and James; but these were never printed). He wrote Lectures an the Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York, 1860); and translated, with additions, C. A. Auberlin and C. J. Riggenbach upon Thessalonians (in the Lange Commentary, 1868). His Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter, with a Biographical Sketch by Dr. Schaff and James Inglis (1869) were published posthumously.
LIMBORCH, lim'borH", PHILIPPUS VAN: Dutch Remonstrant theologian; b. at Amsterdam June 19, 1633; d. there Apr. 30, 1712. He was the son of a lawyer, Frans van Limborch, and Geertruida Bischop, a niece of Episcopius, and was educated at Leyden and Utrecht for the law, afterward, when he had made up his mind to become a Remonstrant minister (see REMONSTRANTS), studying under Vossius and Barkeus in Amsterdam. In 1657 he accepted a call to Gouda, and ten years later he returned to Amsterdam‑ but after a few months of pastoral ministry be became a professor in the Remonstrant seminary (Apr. 19,1668). Here he held a position of influence for forty‑five years, and his deep theological learning attracted many students. He was the leading Remonstrant theologian of the seventeenth century. His fame rests chiefly on his Theologia Christiana ad praxin pietatis ac promotionem pacia ehristiante unite directs (Amsterdam, 1686; Eng. transl., A Compleat System, or Body of Divinity, 2 vols., London, 1713, republished, Macclesfield, 1807). He had a remarkable conversation with Isaac Orobio, a Spanish Jew who had been obliged to flee from the Inquisition and had established himself in Amsterdam as a physician, and published a report of it under the title De veritate religionis christiance, amicd collatio cum erudito Judwo (Gouda, 1687). Against the Roman Catholics he maintained the right of freedom in religious investigation, and himself showed a moderate and tolerant spirit toward those who differed from him. He shows little sympathy with the philosophy of his age‑at least with Descartes and Spinoza ‑though he was much attracted by Locke's works
490
and exchanged interesting letters with him. He
wrote an excellent biography of Episcopius, and a
short history of the Synod of Dort, as an introduc
tion to the letters of the English delegates Hales
and Balcanqual, besides editing the second part of
the theological writings of Episeopius, the whole
Opera theologica of Curcelheus, and the Prmtnn
tium ac eruditorum virorum epistolce theologicce et
ecclesiastiece. 	H. C. RoaGEt.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the works mentioned in the teat, Limborch wrote Historia Inquroeitionros, 2 parts, Amsterdam, 1692, Eng. trawl. by S. Chandler, London, 1731. The funeral oration by J. Le Clerc was published Amsterdam, 1712, and is found in the trawl. of the Theolopia Christiana, ut sup. Consult: A. des Amone van der Hoeven, Diasertatso de Phil. a Lbmborch, ib. 1843; Nlceron, M&moires, id. 39 eqq.; C. F. St><udlin, Geschichte der theologischen Wissenschaften, i. 297 sqq., ii. 87 sqq., Gbttmgen, 1810‑11, Eng. trawl., Hsst. of Theological Knowledge and Literature, Edinburgh, 1835.
LIMBUS: A name applied in Roman Catholic theology to a place of detention for such souls as are incapable, through no fault of their own, of entrance into heaven. Outside of hell (see FUTURE PUNISHMENT), the prison of those who have died in stubborn enmity against God, it is taught that there are three places of detention: Purgatory (q.v.) for those who are in process of purification to render them fit for heaven; the Limbua patrum, or place where those who died before the Atonement were detained; and the Limbos infantium (or puerorum), where the souls of infants dying without baptism are. It is taught that there is no actual suffering in the two latter places, and thus, although the souls therein are excluded from the Beatific Vision, they are at the opposite extreme of the " under‑world " from hell‑on its border (limbos). The Limbos patrum is held to have ceased to exist when Christ " went and preached unto the spirits in prison " (I Pet. iii. 19; see DESCENT OF CHRIST INTO HELL). The state of infants in the Limbua infantium is regarded as one of complete natural happiness; of the supernatural bliss bf heaven they have not been made capable by baptism. See INFANT SALVATION.
BrswooRAPHY: The subject is treated in the literature under the articles to which reference is made in the text
‑FUTURE PUNISHMENT; PURGATORY, etc.
LINCg (LINK, LINCK VON COLDITZ), WENCESLAUS (WENZEL, VINCILAUS): Lutheran preacher and theologian; b. at Colditz (25 m. s.e. of Leipsic) Jan. 8, 1483; d. at Nuremberg Mar. 12, 1547. In 1498 he entered the University of Leipsic, then joined the Augustinian friars, and in 1503 went to Wittenberg to continue his studies, where, six years later, he lectured on the " Sentences " of Peter Lombard, and was dean of the faculty when Luther took his doctor's degree in 1512. In the following years he was temporary prior of the Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg while Luther was its subprior; and the sermons which he preached at that time were praised by Luther for their popularity and fertility of imagination. When his activity at Wittenberg terminated in 1516, Linck accompanied his patron Staupitz on several tours of visitation, and in 1517 was called as preacher to Nuremberg. The sermons which he delivered there, especially on Palm Sunday and in Advent,

491
1518, show the consciousness of the Reformation struggling to gain expression. All Linek's work was done in Luther's spirit, and the monastery of the Augustinians at Nuremberg became one of the earliest strongholds of the new creed, while he himself took an active part in the negotiations between Cardinal Cajetan and Luther. When Staupitz resigned as vicar‑general of the German Augustinians in 1520, Linck was chosen to fill his place, and in this capacity made visitations in Thuringia and Saxony. In spite of his rather delicate position, he remained faithful to Luther and his cause. In 1521 he started from Munich on an extensive visitation, in the course of which he became acquainted with Albrecht Durer in Antwerp. On his return he found the public mind agitated over the question of monasticism which the fanatics wished to reject altogether. In his perplexity Linck asked the advice of Luther, and the latter sought to defend his point of view by appealing to the Gospels, although he did not approve of the lawless methods of the innovators. In 1522 Linck convoked a chapter at Wittenberg in which Luther's standpoint was generally adopted, since it was maintained that the Bible transcended human authority and tradition, and that each one might leave the monastery at his own will, while other anti‑Catholic teachings were also adopted. A second chapter was convoked by Duke George a few months later at Grimmer to restrict the measures adopted at Wittenberg, but it was too late. Whole convents were in a state of dissolution, and Linek was powerless to stay the tendency of the time, while he was forced to bear the responsibility, For the Wittenberg resolutions, thus rendering his position as provincial more and more untenable. At this time Elector Frederick offered Linck the position of Evangelical preacher at Altenburg, and after long hesitation he resigned his position as provincial and entered upon his new calling in 1523. The Roman Catholics still predominated in Altenburg and the churches were in their hands, so that Linck could not execute the regular functions of the ministry, but was obliged to content himself with preaching. Within a short time, however, the Evangelicals had acquired the right to share in the use of the Church of St. Bartholomew, while in 1523 communion was celebrated in both kinds and the first Lutheran baptism in the German language took place. Linck, who in the mean time had married, did all in his power, by sermons as well as by treatises, to further the Lutheran cause, so that other churches were soon ceded to the Lutherans and he began to organize a regular system. He paid special attention to the reform of education, the relief of the poor, and the suppression of begging. In 1525 he was called as preacher to Nuremberg, his second period of activity here lasting almost twenty‑two years. In the beginning he was involved in the question of the remarriage of clergymen who were widowers, then agitating Luther and other Evangelical theologians. Provost Dominican Schleupner of St. Sebald in Nuremberg had married again after the death of his first wife, and his action had caused some sensation. In Nuremberg twenty‑eight anonymous theses attacked him, and Luther was asked
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Lindsay
to reply, his own treatise on the subject, ere well as one by Osiander and Linek, being circulated widely throughout the city. Linck's arguments were noteworthy for their clear and moderate tone and laid stress upon the theory that ministers have no requirements of morality and sanctity other than those binding on the Christian laity.
In 1524 Nuremberg had broken definitely with the Roman Catholic Church, and in Mar., 1525, the Lutherans held a conference which closed the monasteries and issued calls to Evangelical preachers. At first Linck preached at the monastery of St. Catherine, but was called within the same year (1525) to the position of first preacher in the Church of the Holy Ghost. There again, as in Altenburg, he manifested much zeal in strengthening the Evangelical cause. Sermons for children were introduced in his church, and the rooms of the Augustinian monastery were changed into a high school. At the same time Linek took an active part in polemical writings against the Anabaptists and against non‑Lutheran interpretations of the Lord's Supper. He was also involved in repeated disputes with Osiander, but his friendship with Luther always retained its old intimacy. In 1539 Linck received a call to Leipsic, but declined it, on the advice of Luther. In the following year, after his reconciliation with Osiander, the pair took part in the colloquies of Hagenau and Worms, but Osiander again went too far in his vehemence and invectives, so that he was immediately recalled, and both were reprimanded at their return.
Among the numerous writings of Linck, special mention may be made of the following: Artikel and Positionen (Grimmer, 1523), a pamphlet dating from the time of his activity at Altenburg and containing a concise summary of his teachings; Vom Reiche Gotten (1524); Unterrichtung der Kinder, so zu Gotten Tische gehen wollen (1528), Das Are Maria, wie mans christlich gebrauchen and die Kinder lehren Boll (1531); Bapslsgesprew; aus dem CeremonienrBueh (Strasburg, 1539); and Auslegung den Alter Testaments (1543‑45). (R. BENDIXENt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Dr. W• R,eindell began the collection of Linck's TVerke, vol. i., Marburg, 1894, and has also written Doktor Wenzealaua Linck van Colditz, part i., ib. 1892. The life by H• W. Caselmann is in M. Meurer, Leben der Alh voter der Lutheriachen Kirche, Leipaie, 1863. A very rich list of literature is given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xi. 505‑b118.

LINDSAY, THOMAS MARTIN: United Free Church of Scotland; b. the son of Rev. A. Lindsay, 1843. He received his education at the University of Edinburgh; became examiner to the same institution, where he was later assistant to the professor
of logic and metaphysics; became professor of church history in the Free Church College, Glasgow, 1872; and principal of the United Free Church College, Glasgow, 1902. He was also for fifteen years convener of the Foreign Mission Committee of the Free Church of Scotland. Among his publications are handbooks on Acts (Edinburgh, 1884‑35), Mark (1884), Luke (1887), and on the Reformation (1882); Luther erred the German Reformation (1900); The Church anal the Ministry in the Early Centuries (Cunningham lectures, London, 1902); and History of the Reformation (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1906‑07).

Lindsey Lipsins
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
LINDSEY, THEOPHILUS: English Unitarian; b. at Middlewich (21 m. e. of Chester) June 20, 1723; d. in London Nov. 3, 1808. He was educated at Leeds and at St. John's College, Cambridge, where he was elected fellow in 1747. He became curate of a chapel in Spital Square, London, and shortly afterward was made chaplain to the duke of Somerset, to whose son, the future second duke of Northumberland, he was tutor from 1750 to 1753. He was then presented to the rectory of Kirkby Wiske, Yorkshire, but resigned three years later to become rector of Piddletown, Dorset. In 1762 he declined the proffered chaplaincy to the duke of Northumberland and in the following year accepted the rectory of Catterick, Yorkshire. Meanwhile the latitudinarianism which had hitherto characterized him had become Unitarianism, largely through the influence of his wife's stepfather, Archdeacon Francis Blackburne. On Nov. 28, 1773, he preached his farewell sermon at Catterick and went to London, where he began to preach Unitarianism, a permanent chapel being opened for him in 1778; he remained there until his resignation in 1793. His chief works are: The Book of Common Prayer Reformed (London 1774); Apology on Resigning the Vicarage of Catterick, Yorkshire (1774); A Sequel to the Apology (1776); The Catechist, or an Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Scriptures concerning the Only True God (1781); Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship (1783); Vindicim Priestleyance (2 parts, 1784‑90); Conversations on Christian Idolatry (1792); and Conversations on the Divine Government (1802).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. Belsham, Memoirs of Revd. T. Lindsey, Centenary Volume, London, 1873; DNB, xxxiii. 317, 318.

LINES, EDWIN STEVENS: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Newark, N. J.; b. at Naugatuck, Conn., Nov. 23, 1845. He was educated at Yale (A.B., 1872) and at Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn., from which he was graduated in 1874. He was ordered deacon and priested in the latter year, and was then rector successively of Christ Church, West Haven, Conn. (1874‑79), and of St. Paul's, New Haven, Conn. (1879‑1903). In 1903 he was consecrated bishop of Newark.

LINGARD, JOHN: Roman‑Catholic historian; b. at Winchester Feb. 5, 1771; d. at Hornby (9 m. e.n.e. of Lancaster), Lancashire, July 13, 1851. He studied at the English College at Douai from 1782 to 1793, but fled from France on account of the Revolution and returned to England as tutor in the family of Lord Stourton. There he remained until, in 1794, he went to Crookhall, near Durham, where some of those driven from Douai had gathered, and completed his theological studies. He was ordained priest in 1795, and, having declined a flattering call to London, taught natural and moral philosophy in Crookhall, where he was also vice‑president and prefect of studies. In 1808 the college was removed to Ushaw, Durham, and he accompanied it. In 1810 he was chosen president, but in the following year retired to Hornby, where he spent the remainder of his life, devoting himself to historical studies and declining both the profes‑
sorship of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew at the Royal College of St. Patrick at Maynooth and the presidency of the seminary at Old Hall Green. In 1817 and 1825 he visited Rome and was received with great distinction, some believing that his appointment as a cardinal was reserved in petto.
The chief works of Lingard were as follows: Antiquities of the Anglo‑Saxon Church (2 vols., Newcastle, 1806; 3d ed., practically a new work, under the title The History arid Antiquities of the Anglo‑Saxon Church, 2 vols., London, 1845); Collection of Tracts on several Subjects connected with the Civil and Religious Principles of the Catholics (London, 1813); History of England, from the first Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688 (8 vols., 1819‑30; 6th ed., 10 vols., 1854‑55); Supplementum ad Breviarvum Romanum adjectis ofciis Sanctorum Angliw (1823); A new Version of the Four Gospels (1838); and Cateehetical Instructions on the Doctrine and Worship of the Catholic Church (1836). His History is characterized by accuracy, care, and impartiality, although he was charged by extreme Protestants with perversion of the truth and by extreme Roman Catholics with undue concessions to the Protestants.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Gillow, Bibliographical Dictionary of Eng. Catholics, iv. 254‑278, London, n. d.; DNB, xxxiii. 320‑
323 (with citation of scattered references).
	LINUUS: The immediate successor of St. Peter
according to all lists of Roman bishops, although
the duration of his office is very uncertain. In his
church history, Eusebius counts twelve years, but
fourteen in his chronicle; the Catalogus Liberianus
assigns him twelve years, four months and twelve
days, and Jerome eleven years. The date of the
beginning of his pontificate is also differently fixed
according to the varying calculations of the death
of St. Peter. As the Roman Church knew nothing
about an episcopal constitution in the beginning of
the second century, Linus, if ho actually existed,
was simply a presbyter of the Church, but when,
to combat heresies, a continuous succession of
bishops was assumed from the Apostle Peter, he
was made a bishop in the later sense, and identi
fied with the Linus of II Tim. iv. 21. His alleged
epitaph is generally recognized as possessing no
historic value. 	(A. HAucs.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. A. Lipsius, Die Papstverzeiehniase den Eusebius and der von ihm abhtingigen Chronisten, Kiel, 1869; idem, Chronologie der romischen Bisch6fe, ib. 1869; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 1., S. Clement of Rome, i. 201 eqq., London, 1890; Harnaek, in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1892; idem, Litteratur, 11, pp. 70 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i. 4‑5; DCB, iii. 726‑729.
LINZ, lints, PEACE OF: A treaty concluded Dec. 16, 1645, at Linz (98 m. w. of Vienna) between the Emperor Ferdinand III., as king of Hungary, and George Rakoczy, prince of Transylvania. It is important as forming one of the legal bases of the Evangelical Church in Hungary. The Protestant Rakoczy, who aimed to secure the Hungarian throne, formed an offensive and defensive alliance with Sweden and France in Apr., 1643, against Ferdinand, and was aided by the Sublime Porte, of which he was a vassal. Alleging the grievances of his countrymen and especially the oppression of the

493	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lindsey
Lipsiuo
Protestants, he levied a large army, which he placed under the leadership of Johannes Kemenyi, while Sweden sent him troops led by Dugloss and France supplied him with funds. Despite success at first, Rakoczy found it advisable to open negotiations with his opponents in Oct., 1644. In December Ferdinand won the Turkish government over to his side, and Rakoczy succeeded in inducing Ferdinand to accept his terms, which dealt chiefly with the unrestricted liberty of the Hungarian Church, the treaty being confirmed by Rakoczy at Weissenburg Oct. 20, 1646. By its terms he bound himself to withdraw from the Franco‑Swedish alliance, to remove his forces from the imperial domains, and to restore the districts and cities which he had taken. In return, he and his sons received two heritable counties and five for life. The most important portion of the treaty, however, was the granting of religious freedom to the Evangelical Church in Hungary. The unrestricted use of their churches, bells, and burial‑places was granted to the Protestants; those who had ‑been compelled to accept Roman Catholicism were to be permitted to return to their former beliefs; pastors and preachers could no longer be expelled from their charges, and those who had been driven out might either be reinstated or replaced by others of their own persuasion. Churches which had been confiscated from the Protestants were to be restored, but this clause, affecting 400 buildings, roused such opposition on the part of the Jesuits that the Protestants were obliged to content themselves with ninety. Supplementary articles in the treaty enacted a fine of 600 florins for violations of its provisions concerning the Protestants. The diet which considered the final details of this treaty, so important for the Protestants of Hungary, did not adjourn until July 17, 1647. (K. KLDPFELt.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Katona, Historia critics regum Hungarid, xxii. 232 aqq., 42 vols., Budapest, 1779‑1817; J. Dumont, Corps universal diplomatiqw du droit des gene, vi. 1, pp. 331 sqq., 8 vols., The Hague, 1726‑31; J. Mailath, Die Religiomurirren in Ungarn, i. 30 aqq., Regensburg, 1845; Gewhichte der evangeliachen Kirche in Ungarn, pp. 199 sqq., Berlin, 1854; Szilagyi, Actes et documents pour aervir h Miatoire de raldiance de G. Racoczi avec lea Frargaie el lea Su6doia, Budapest, 1874; S. Linberger, Geachichte des Evangelimna in Ungarn, pp. 57 sqq., ib. 1880.

LIPPE, lip'pe (LIPPE‑DETMOLD): A principality of northwestern Germany; capital Detmold; area 469 Square miles; population (1905) 145,577, of whom 139,127 were Reformed or Lutherans, 5,477 Roman Catholics, and 735 Jews. Lippe became Christian in the time of Charlemagne, and, like other German states, it was dominated throughout the Middle Ages by the papacy. Some of the cities of the principality early accepted the Reformation, particularly Lemgo, which adopted the Brunswick church order in 1533; and in 1538 a church order that had been worked out by two Lutheran clergymen at the instance of the regents of Lippe was accepted by the nobility and the cities. Through the Interim (q.v.) the reform movement suffered a reverse; but in 1571 Count Simon VI. introduced a new church order which recognized as binding the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, the Schmalkald Articles, and Luther's catechism. Later Count Simon went over to the Reformed faith.
Throughout the country and in the cities, with the
exception of Lemgo, the Heidelberg catechism
now replaced that of Luther; and in 1584 a Re
formed church order was introduced. The Re
formed Church, which numbers forty‑one parishes,
now has a modern synodal constitution. The Lu
theran Church, with five parishes, is under the
state consistory at Detmold, forming a synodal dis
trict of its own. The Roman Catholic Church num
bers ten congregations, which are under the bishop
of Paderborn. There are all together some fifty
beneficent institutions in the principality, includ
ing the Sophienhaus at Salzuflen, the Rettungs
haus at Griinau, and the state Diakonissenanstalt
at Detmold. There are gymnasia at Detmold and
Lemgo, a Realschule at Salzuflen, and a seminary
for teachers at Detmold, as well as several city
high schools for girls. There are 126 Evangelical
elementary schools, eleven Roman Catholic schools,
and ten Jewish schools 	(F. H. BRANDIES.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 0. Preuse and A. Faikmann, Lippiache Regesten, 5 vols., Detmold, 1860 aqq.; H. Clemen, Beitr4ge zur Kirchengeachichte in Lippe, Lemgo, 1860; A. Dreves, Geachichte der Kirchen . . . des lippiochen Landea, ib. 1881; A. Falman, Beitrage zur Geachichte des Ptiratentume Lippe, Detmold, 1902; J. Freisen, Stoat and katholische Kirche in Lippe, Stuttgart, 1906.
LIPSCOMB, lips'cum, ANDREW ADGATE: American Methodist Protestant divine and, educator; b. at Georgetown, D. C., Sept. 6, 1816; d. at Athens, Ga., Nov. 24, 1890. He was licensed to preach in 1834, and remained in the ministry till 1849 when failing health compelled him to resign. He then opened an academy for young ladies at Montgomery, Ala. He was president of the Female College at Tuskegee, Ala. (1856‑59), chancellor of the University of Georgia (1860‑74), and professor of art and criticism in Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. (1874,85). Among his works are: The Social Spirit of Christianity (Philadelphia, 1846); Studies in the Forty Days between. Christ's Resurrection and Ascension (Nashville, 1884); and Studies Supplementary to the Studies in the Forty Days between Christ's Resurrection arid Ascension (Nashville, 1885).
LIPSIUS, lip'si‑us, FRIEDRICH REINHOLD: German Protestant; b. at Jena Oct. 3, 1873. He was educated at the universities of Leipsic and Jena from 1893 to 1897 (lic. theol., Jena, 1898); was assistant pastor at Weimar (1897‑98) ; privatdocent for systematic theology at the university of Jena (1898‑1906); became in 1906 pastor of St. Martini‑Kirche, Bremen. He has edited R. A. Lipsius' Glauben and Wissen (Berlin,‑1897), and has written Vorfragen der systematischen Theologie (Freiburg, 1899) ; Kritik der theologischen Erkenntnis (1904) ; and Die Religion des Monismus (Berlin, 1907).
LIPSIUS, RICHARD ADELBERT: German Protestant theologian; b. at Gera (34 m. s.s.w. of Leipsic) Feb. 14, 1830; d. at Jena Aug. 19, 1892. He descended from a family of Saxon theologians, and received his early education from his grandfather, A. G. W. Lipsius preacher in Bernstadt, and in the " Thomana " of Ixipsic where his father was teacher of religion. In 1848 he entered the University of Leipsic. Though he came successively under the influence of Fichte, Hegel, and Kant, the teachings of Schleiermacher and Rothe and the

Idp~lneYIdtsn
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tenets of the Congregation of Brethren kept him from a one‑sided moralism and induced him " to preserve a place for religious mysticism in the sanctuary of his heart." While Lipsius during the time of his studies stood for the views of the " mediating theology," he later followed the tendencies of historical criticism. The spirit of free investigation which he inherited from his father and his study of the writings of Baur exercised an irresistible influence upon him, although he was not a slavish follower of the latter. In 1855 he established himself as privat‑docent at the University of Leipsic, and four years later was appointed adjunct professor there; in 1861 he was called to Vienna as professor of systematic theology, and in 1863 became a member of the Austrian Council of Education; in 1864 he was chosen deputy of the faculty to the first general synod and cooperated in the establishment of a liberal church constitution. The obdurate refusal of the government to incorporate the theological faculty in the univer‑
I		ity induced Lipsius in 1865 to accept a call to Kiel.
	t the Kiel assembly of 1867 he showed himself a
champion of the Prussian Union. A polemical en
counter with Bishop Koopmann, the head of the
Holstein Lutherans, induced him to give up his
position in Kiel, and to accept in 1871 a call to
Jena, where he remained until his death. Besides
his studies, he took a prominent part in the prac
tical questions of the day, and was one of the
founders of the Evangelical Alliance.
He devoted himself to the study of the documents of primitive Christianity and published numerous works on them. It was not as a historian, however, that he became the acknowledged leader of Jena theology, but as a systematic theologian. In his theological system he starts from the standpoint of the critical (though not unreservedly Kantian) theory of perception. He admits that perception of objects is subjectively conditioned, but rejects Kant's dualism of phenomena and " things‑in‑themselves "; he rather holds that by thought an objective order of law is grasped, and, applying the same contrast in the sphere of the philosophy of religion, he distinguishes between final and absolute being. The latter receives a positive content only through religious experience. The truth of religious concepts can not be demonstrated philosophically, but the unity of the human spirit demands the blending of the scientific and religious perceptions into a harmonious whole. In this connection metaphysics as a theory of the universe is indispensable, but the harmonious blending of those two perceptions can succeed only approximately, as may be seen from the idea of God; the scientific definitions remain here always negative, and the religious definitions figurative. No supernatural interference breaks the coherent development of the world, and that which on the basis of an inner need becomes for the religious man a divine revelation, represents for science nothing but a psychic phenomenon‑ The relation between God and man remains a holy " mystery." Hence it is evident that dogmatics is not a science without presuppositions, but can represent faith only from the standpoint of faith, although in a purified form.
494
Among the works of Lipeius may be named: Die pauliniache Rechtfertipunpalehre (Leipeie, 1853); De Clementis Romani episWla ad Corinthioa priors disquiaitio (1855); Ueber dae Verhtiltnia der drei avriachen Briefs des Ignatioa zu den 2ibripen Recenaionen der Ipnatianischen Litteratur (1859); Der Gnoaticiamua, win Weaen, Uraprung and Entwickelungapanp (1880); Zur Quellenkritik des EPiphanioa (Vienna, 1885); Die Papatverzeichniaae des Euaebioa and der von ihm abhangigen Chronisten kritiach unfereucht (Kiel, 1868); Chronolopie der r6mdachen Biechli~e Us zur Mitts des vierten Jahrhunderta (1869): Die Piiatua‑Aden kritiach unteraucht (1871); Glaube and Lehre, Theologische Streitachrzften (1871); Die Quellen der romiachen Petrua‑sage kritiach unteraucht (1872); Die Quellen der alteaten Kefzerpeachichte (Leipaic, 1875); Lehrbuch der evangelisch‑proteatantiachen Dogmalik (Brunswick, 1876); Dopmatiache Beitr6ge zur Yertheidigung and ErlZfuterunp meinea Lehrbuchea (Leipeie, 1878); Die edeaseniache Abgar‑sage kritiach untersucht(Brune‑
wiek, 1880); Die Apokryphen, Apoatelgeachichten and APoatellependen (1883‑90); Philosophic and Religion (Leipaie, 1885). In connection with Die Apokryphen, APoatelgeachichb
en, Lipsius edited together with M. Bonnet the Greek and Latin texts (Acts apoatolorum apocrypha, part i., Ads Petri, Pauli, Petri et Pauli, Pauli et Theclae, Thaddaei, Leipaic,1891, by Lipsius alone). He further published Hauptpunkte der chriatlichen Glaubenalehre (2 ed., Brunswick, 1891) end Glau‑
ben and Wiesen (ed. F. R. Lipaius, Berlin, 1897). He founded in 1875 and edited the Jahrbiicher far proteatantiache Theolo‑
gie, and from 1885 was editor of the Theolopiacher Jahrea
bericht. 	(F. R. LIPSIITg.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Richter and F. Nippold, Zwel GedrieAh
niareden, Jena, 1893; A. Neumann, Grundlagen and Grundziige der Weltanschauung von . . . Lipsiua, Brunswick, 1896; E. Pfennigedorf, Vergleich der dogmatiachen Sya‑
teme von . . . Lipsius and . . . Ritachl, Goths, 1896; U. Fleiaeh, Die . . . Grund7agen der dogmatiachen Syateme von A. E. Biedermann and . . . Lipaius, Berlin, 1901; H. LGdemann, in Addition to Miinchereer allpemeine Zeitung, xcii., no. 200: Eeke, in Kirchliche Moreataachrift, xciv. 798‑817. Further references are given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, xi. 520.
LITANY.
Greek Church (¢ 1). Roman Catholic Church (§ 2). Churches of the Reformation ($ 3).
The Litany is a prayer of supplication, especially in responsive form. With the Greeks litaneia denotes a processional prayer, an act of prayer connected with the procession, or the procession itself. The term is used in the first sense by Chrysostom, Eustratius (6th cent.); Simeon of Thessalonica (d. 1429), and Codinus, while it denotes the procession in the C)zronicon Paschale, Malalas,
z. Greek Georgius Cedrenus, and Michael Glycas.
	Church.	In the acts of the fifth Council of Con
		stantincple, as well as in Philotheus,
Simeon of Thessalonica., and Theodorus Lector, it
designates the prayer connected with the procession,
which here implies not only the procession outside
the church but also the‑ passing of light‑bearers,
priests, deacons, and choristers to the narthex,
where the litany was recited, a usage established as
early as the Council of Constantinople in 536. This
custom still continues, and in this minor procession
the litany is recited at the close of the great ves
pers before the chief feasts, and also in such pro
cessions as those of burial. This litany, also called
ectene, or " deacon's litany," is essentially the
prayer for the whole Church found in the ancient
Oriental liturgies (Apostolic Constitutions, viii., and

496	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Lipeiue
		Litany
the liturgies of Mark and James) and is recited as
a	Bidding Prayer (q.v.) by the deacon, the con
gregation responding with the ejaculation Kyrie
eleison, " Lord have mercy " (see LITuRmcs, III.,
§ 5). The processional litany is distinguished from
the ectene of the mass by its invocation of the Virgin,
St. John the Baptist, the Apostles, the great high
priests, and all saints, as well as by the very fre
quent repetition of the ejaculation " Lord, have
mercyl " The litany is recited by the deacon and
the response is sung by the choir.
	In the Roman Catholic Church the term litany
has several connotations. The invocation Kyrie
eleison, Christe eleison and the supplications in the
ancient liturgy made at the bidding of the deacon,
corresponding to the Greek ectene, are both called
		litany, although the latter was tech
z. Roman nically known as the deprecation.
	Catholic The term litany was frequently ap
	Church.	plied to the processions of supplica
		tion, and a distinction was accordingly
drawn between the " greater litany " on St. Mark's
Day (Apr. 25) and the " lesser litanies " which are
recited on the three Rogation Days (q.v.). The
word was likewise employed with extreme fre
quency in its modern connotation of the responsive
prayer beginning with Kyrie eleison, and this use
finally gained supremacy, the term litany as a
designation of a circuit with prayer being super
seded by " procession " about the twelfth century.
The older designation of the processions as litanies
was retained, however, in the " greater litany "
and the " lesser litanies," the former being a sub
stitute for the pagan robigalia or festival of. Apr. 25,
and apparently instituted by Pope Liberius (352
366) rather than by Gregory the Great, and the
latter the survival of the Roman ambanvalia or
procession around the fields. The custom of proces
sions, which had almost fallen into desuetude, was
revived by Mamertus about 470, while Leo III.
(795‑$16) reorganized the spring rogations accord
ing to Gallic usage and introduced them throughout
the Catholic Church. The name " greater " and
" lesser," the former denoting a procession of one
day and the latter of three, is explained by the rela
tive antiquity of the two.
	The origin of the form of prayer now known by
the name of litany is uncertain. It is usually as
sumed that it is a development and transforma
tion of the Greek ectene, although the hypothesis
has been advanced that its long lists of saints and
its response " pray (or, intercede) for us," are sur
vivals of the formula recited by the Pontifex Maxi
mus according to the indigitamenta, or old books
of direction for worship, so that they can not be
older than the fourth century; but no correspond
ing formularies can be cited from the indigitamenta.
It is not impossible that the Western procession (in
contradistinction to the oriental) was not a devel
opment of the prayer called litany, but had an inde
pendent origin, which seems to have been derived
from pagan models. Later the processional litany
was amplified from the "deacon's litany" and was
separated from the procession, although this litany
was most tenacious in places where a procession
once actually existed. The litany usually began
with the invocation Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, or "Christ, hear us," which preceded the invocation of the saints, the people responding after each name "pray for us." Certain perils and dangers were then enumerated, to which the congregation responded with the deprecation "Lord, deliver us," and these were followed by a series of petitions for blessings with the response "hear us, we beseech thee," the whole concluding with the Agnus Dei (q.v.) and the Kyrie eleison. This general scheme was modified in many ways. The names of the saints invoked varied according to place and circumstance, and the litany, according to the number of times each was invoked, was termed ternary, quinary, and septenary.
The litany was essentially penitential, and it never lost this character, whence it was frequently connected with the seven penitential Psalms. It was extraordinarily popular and was used on the most varied occasions, such as the blessing of the baptismal water on Holy Saturday, the dedication of a church, ordination, coronation, baptism, confession, visitation of the sick, extreme unction, and the ordinal. It originally opened the mass, as is shown by the Constitutions of Cluny and the Stowe Missal, the same usage prevailing at Milan. It is clear, in the light of all evidence, that the Kyrie which now follows the Introit in the ordinary of the mass is a remnant of the processional litany. The popularity of the litany resulted in the composition of many new ones, some of them in metrical form and occasionally deviating widely from the model and spirit of the Church. The public use of new litanies was consequently made conditional on ecclesiastical approbation, and the only litanies now officially sanctioned in the Roman Catholic Church are the Litany of the Saints (approved 1601), the Litany of Loreto (approved 1587), the Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus (approved 1862), and the Litany of the Sacred Heart (approved Apr. 2, 1899). The Litany of the Saints, in its present form, is the liturgical litany par excellence, and is used on such occasions as the conferring of major orders, the blessing of the font on Holy Saturday and Whitsun Eve, as well as on the Rogation Days and St. Mark's Day. The form adopted was fixed in 1596, with a few additions made in 1683 and 1847, and contains sixty‑three invocations of saints with the response "pray for us." The Litany of Loreto is devoted to the Virgin and receives its name from the fact that for centuries it has been sung on Saturdays in the Holy House of Loreto. Each penitential recitation of it gives an indulgence of 300 days, and its repetition on five designated feasts of the Virgin confers a plenary indulgence. The Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, which, according to the Roman Catholic view, originated in the fifteenth century, likewise gives an indulgence of 300 days. These three litanies are also used in liturgical services and processions, but are sung only in Latin. There are in addition a number of litanies with episcopal sane. tion, such as those for brotherhoods, which are recited in the vernacular at non‑liturgical public devotions.
In the first period of the Wittenberg Reforms.

i ttietJonn
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
tion processions and litanies were retained, although they were discarded by 1525. Four years later, however, a revised litany was restored in Evangelical worship by Luther himself, the immediate occasion being a threatened inz. Churches vasion of the Turks. He evidently of the Ref‑ published a separate German version ormation. of this litany, although no copy of this edition is known to be extant, but there is no ground for assuming that he issued the Latin text of it as he proposed to do. The German litany was also appended to the third edition of his smaller catechism, but was later omitted, although it then found its way into the hymnals, doubtless with its author's approval. The Latin version, in like manner, was almost certainly contained in the hymnal of Klug published in 1529 and no longer extant. It may well have included the German version as well, like the later editions of the work and a number of other hymnals of the same period. The extension of the litany through middle and north Germany by means of the hymn‑books was rapid, but it was comparatively rarely found, on the other hand, in southern or southwestern German hymnody. There, however, it was spread by the church orders, the more important ones all containing it. The original Lutheran litany was closely similar to, the Roman Catholic Litany of the Saints, except that all invocations of the saints, as well as petitions for the pope and the dead, were omitted. On the other hand, the petitions are more specialized and more concrete than. in the older litany, which is, nevertheless, far the richer.
In the northern and central parts of Germany no uniformity whatever prevailed in the time of the recitation of the litany. Wednesday and Friday were, on the whole, the favorite days, although it might also be recited on Tuesday, Sunday festivals, and at vespers on Saturday. Local usage in many cases prescribed it for special days, while numerous church orders required it to be said occasionally, although no special day was designated. The place which the litany occupied in the North and Middle German liturgy likewise varied. It might be recited alone, either in the morning or the evening, after the lesson, epistle, or sermon, and before or during the communion. An equal lack of uniformity prevailed in southern and southwestern Germany, but there the litany, in harmony with the intention of Luther, retained its original character oa penitential prayer more than in the north, so that in Strasburg it followed the confession and absolution. The litany was subject, furthermore, to numerous local modifications, petitions being inserted or omitted practically at pleasure.
In Wittenberg the German litany was chanted by the choir‑boys, while the congregation sang the responses, although ultimately one part of the choir chanted the petitions and the other responded. The Latin litany was sung only in the latter fashion. In the seventeenth century the Latin litany was discarded altogether, and in case there was a trained choir, the pastor, kneeling or standing with his face toward the altar, intoned the petition, while the congregation, led by the choir, sang the responses. If for any reason the litany was not sung, it might
498
be recited or read. These modes of repeating the litany gradually supplanted the singing of it, but on the whole, though it is still retained in almost all modern German liturgies, it has lost its hold in great measure on the congregations because of its monotony.
The Reformed Church had little sympathy with the litany, and rejected it almost without exception, so that wherever Calvinism gained supremacy over Lutheranism, the litany was abolished.
The Moravians have two litanies, the " Church Litany " and the " Litany of the Life, Passion, and Death of Jesus Christ." The former is used in a double form, a shorter version having been made in 1873, while the latter is derived from the " Litany of Wounds " composed by Zinzendorf in 1744.
(P. DREWS.)
The litany of the English Book of Common Prayer was originally intended to be a distinct office. A rubric in the first prayer‑book (1549) ordered it to be said on Wednesdays and Fridays, before the communion‑office. It was then placed after the communion‑office, and in 1552 put in the place it now occupies, with the direction that it was to be
used upon Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and at other times when it ahalh,be commanded by the ordinary." The clause in Edward's prayerbook, " From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities," was omitted in 1559.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On litanies, in general consult: Bingham,
	Oripenes, XIII., i. 10‑12; E. Martbne, De antiquis eeclesia•
	ritibua, Antlterp, 1763; M. Gerbert, Vitue liturgia Ale
	manniai, parts ii. iii., San Bias, 1776; idem, Monumenta
	veteris liturgics Alemanniew, part ii., ib. 1779; A. J.
	Binterim, Denkufirdipkeiten, iv. 1, pp. 555 eqq., Mainz,
	1827; C. W. Augusti, Denkwfirdigkeiten, x. 26 eqq., Leip
	eic, 1829; T. F. D. Kliefoth, Liturpiache Abhandlunpen,
	v. 301 eqq., 373 sqq., 398 sqq., vi. 152 aqq., 225 sqq., 298
	eqq., viii. 66 sqq., 8 vols., Schwerin, 1858‑69; J. M.
	Neale, Essays on Liturpiolopy and Church History, Lon
	don, 1863; A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions, chap.
	xii., New York, 1881; G. Rietschef Lehrbuch der Litur
	pik, i. 200‑201 et passim, Berlin, 1900; F. Spitta, in
	Monatachrift ffkr Gottesdienst and kirchliche Kunst, vi
	(1901), 375 eqq.; L. Duehesne, Christian Worship, pas‑
,	sim, London, 1904.
	On the Lauretanian Litany consult: J. Sauren, Die
lauretanische Litanei, Kempten, 1895; A. de Santi, Le
L itanei Lauretane, Rome, 1897; J. Braun, in Stimmen aus
Maria Laach, Iviii (1900), 418‑437. On thd litany of the
Brethren cf. J. T. MMer, in Monatechrift far Gottesdienst
and kirchliche Kunst, vii. 1902. On the Anglican Litany
consult: J. H. Blunt, Annotated Book of Common Prayer,
London, 1903; J. N. McCormick, The Litany and the Life,
Milwaukee, 1904; F. Procter and W. H. Frere, New Hiet.
of the Book of Common Prayer, London, 1905. No small
part of the literature cited under LrroR(3y necessarily deals
with the litany.
LITHUANIA. See RUssIA.
LITTLE, CHARLES EUGENE: Methodist Episcopalian; b. at Waterbury, Vt., Apr. 7, 1838. He was graduated in 1860 from the theological department of Boston University (then at Concord, N. H.), was ordained deacon (1862) and elder (1864), and has held pastorates at Dannemora, N. Y. (1860‑61), Clintonville, N. Y. (1862‑63), Fair Haven, Vt. (1865‑67), Newmarket, N. J. (1867), Eighth Avenue Church, Newark, N. J. (1868‑70), Hackettstown, N. J. (1871, 1875‑77), Nyack, N. Y. (1873‑74),

497	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Litany
		Littletohn
	Park Church, Elizabeth, N. J. (1878‑.80), Cente
	nary Church, Newark, N. J. (1881,83), Calvary
	Church, East Orange, N. J. (1884‑86), Grace Church,
	Port Richmond, Staten Island (1887‑91), Lafayette
	Church, Jersey City, N. J. (1892‑96), West Side
	Avenue Church, Jersey City (1897‑1901), Arling
ton, N. J. (1902‑05), Hackensack, N. J. (1905), and
	Verona, N. J., since 1905. He has written: Biblical
	Lights and Side Lights (New York, 1883); Histor
ical Lights (1886); and Cyclopedia of Classified
	Dates (1900).
		LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, THE: A
	religious order of women which had its origin in
	Saint Servan, near the coast town of St. Malo in
	Brittany. In 1840 the village priest, M. le Pailleur,
	first interested Jeanne Jugan, a humble servant
	girl, and a few other pious women in the case of
some of the aged poor people of the locality, and
	in 1842 a house was bought to serve as a refuge for
	the same. The work, though undertaken without
	any definite or far‑reaching plan, and utterly with
	out resources, save the alms contributed by a far
	from opulent surrounding population, developed
	with an unlocked‑for rapidity. The spirit of pov
	erty and the unselfish devotedness which charac
	terized the founders of the work soon made them
	very popular, and in the course of a few years they
	were organized on the lines of a religious congrega
	tion which in twenty years spread to most of the
	cities of France, and even to Belgium and England.
	The object of the organization is the establishment
	and maintenance of permanent homes for the des
	titute aged and infirm of both sexes without dis
	tinction of creed or nationality. To be admitted
	to these homes the applicants must be " respecta
	ble," i.e., of good moral character, and, as a rule,
	they must be over sixty years of age. They are
	supported and cared for personally by the sisters
	who depend entirely on charity for their mainte
	nance. The rule of the community, which is based
	on that of St. Augustine, received the solemn ap
	probation of the Holy See July 9, 1854. The order
	was legally recognized by the French government
	in 1856, and it finds place among the few congrega~
	tions which survived the legislation enacted against
	the religious communities in France in 1905 and
	1906.
		The order was introduced into the United States
	in 1863 when their first home was opened in Brook
	lyn, and in 1907 the American membership num
	bered 800 sisters with two provincial headquarters,
	one in Brooklyn and the other in Chicago. They
	conduct fifty homes for the aged in the various
	cities of the Union, chiefly in those of the East
	and Middle West, the total number of inmates being
	over 9,000.	JAMES F. DRISCOLL.
	BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. P. Migne, Encyclopedic th&Wique, vol.
		xxiii.; Dietionnaire des ordres religieux, Vol. iv (under
		" Petites Soeurs des Pauvres '), Paris, 1859; L. Aubi
		neau, Lebenebeschreibungen. Die kleinen Schmestern der
		Armen, ReLensburg, 1871; Nouveau dictionnaire d'his
		toire et de geographic, ib. 1874; G. Ratzinger, Gesehithte
		der kirehlichen ArmenpJ(ege, pp‑ 518 sqq., Freiburg, 1884;
		0f"ial Catholic Directory for ate United States, Milwaukee,
		1909; Baunard, E, Lelipvre et les Jondations des Petites
		Sans‑ des pauvres, Paris, 1904; Heimbucher, Orden and
		Kongregationen, ii. 388‑389.
			VI.‑32
	LITTLEDALE,	RICHARD FREDERICK:
Church of England; b. in Dublin Sept. 14, 1833;
d. in London Jan. 11, 1890. He studied at Trinity
College, Dublin (B.A., 1854; M.A., 1858; LL.D.,
1862; D.C.L., Oxford, 1862). He was curate of
Thorpe Hamlet, Norfolk (1856‑57), then of St.
Mary the Virgin, Soho, London. (1857‑61); but,
being compelled by ill‑health to abandon parochial
work, he devoted himself to religious literature, and
became a voluminous writer. As an opponent of
the Church of Rome, he attracted much attention.
Among, his works may be mentioned: Religious
Communities of Women in the Early Church (Lon
don, 1862); Ofces of the Holy Eastern Church
(1863); The Mixed Chalice (1863); The North Side
of the Altar (.'t3,^‑•.1); Catholic Ritual in the Church
of England (1865); The Elevation of the Host (1865);
Early Christian Ritual (1867); Commentary on the
Psalms (in continuation of Dr. Neale's, vols. ii.
iv., 1868‑74); Commentary on the Song of Songs
(1869); Religious Education of Women (1872);
Papers on Sisterhoods (1874‑78); Last Attempt to
reform the Church of Rome from within (1875); Ul
tramonlane Popular Literature (1876); An Inner
View of the Vatican Council (1877); Plain Reasons
against joining the Church of Rome (1879); A Short
History of the Council of Trent (1888); The Petrine
Claims: a Critical Inquiry (1889). He contributed
to the Encyclopwdia Britannica (9th ed.); edited
Anselm's Cur Deus Homof (1863); and shared in
editing The Priests' Prayer‑Book (1864); The Peo
ple's Hymnal (1867); Liturgies of SS. Mark, James,
Clement, Chrysostom, and Basil (1868‑69); The Chris
tian Passover (1873); and The Altar Manual (1877).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, xxxiii. 364‑365; O. C. H. King,
	The Character of Dr. Littledale as a Controversialist, Lon
	don, 1888. Further literature is indicated in Richardson,
	Encyclopaedia, p. 634.
LITTLEJOHN, ABRAM NEWKIRK: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Long Island; b. at Florida, N. Y., Dec. 13, 1824; d. at Williamstown, Mass., Aug. 3, 1901. He was educated at .Union College (B.A., 1845) and at Princeton Theological Seminary. He was ordained deacon in 1848 and priest the following year. While deacon he officiated at Amsterdam, N. Y., and at Meriden, Conn. He was rector of Christ Church, Springfield, Mass. (1850‑51); St. Paul's Church, New Haven, Conn. (1851‑60); and Church of the Holy Trinity, Brooklyn, N. Y. (1860‑69). During his rectorate in New Haven he was professor of pastoral theology in the Berkeley Divinity School at Middletown, Conn. He was consecrated as the first bishop of the new diocese of Long Island (Jan. 27, 1869), having previously been elected bishop of Central New York,
but declined the position. He had oversight of the American Protestant Episcopal churches on the Continent (1874,86). His principal works are: Ctmciones ad Clerum (New York, 1881); Individualism: its Grotvth arid Tendencies (1881; lectures
before the University of Cambridge) and The Christian Ministry at the close of the 19th Century (1884; lectures on the Bishop Paddock foundation, General Theological Seminary, New York).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in America, p. 195, New York, 1895.

Liturgies
T. Fundamental Principles.
Importance and Delimitation of Liturgy ($ I).
Theory of Liturgy ($ 2).
Relation of Liturgy to Doctrine ($ 3).
Exemplification by the Lutheran Liturgy ($ 4).
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
LITURGICS.*
Christian Use of the Term ($ 5).	TII. Liturgical Formulas.
TI. Historical Development.
	Service in Temple and Synagogue
	Development of the Christian Serv‑
ice (§ 2).
Medieval Elaborations ($ 3).
After the Reformation (§ 4).
I. Fundamental Principles: Proclamation of the Gospel, prayer, and the administration of the Sacraments belong to the essence of the Church and of public worship as well. If the body of Christ is to be truly edified, the officiating ministers and every
member of the congregation moat be r. Impor‑ quickened continually by the Spirit of fence and God. The precise manner, however, Delimits‑ in which the principal elements of di‑
tion of vine service are combined into a
Liturgy. harmonious whole is of less vital im‑
portance. Nevertheless, side by side with ecclesiastical wisdom and orthodox belief, a certain sense of the value of constant types and modes of confessional expression is a factor of moment, which, in its turn, reflects a common need that finds its support in the force of historic tradition. Thus arises the liturgy, or the form of worship in ecclesiastical communities. In a restrictive sense, the I idea denotes the composite aggregate of the permanent elements of worship outside the sermon; that is, the parts which, in harmony with the principles of religious logic, are comprised in the official Church manual, or liturgy proper. By an extension of the liturgical idea, the entire order of public worship, including the sermon, is thus designated. In the latter case, however, only the relative position of the sermon, and not its content, is considered, the theme and style of the sermon being independent of fixed definition (see HOMILETICS; PREACHING). Equally outside the realm of liturgies is the fact that the communion is celebrated according to Christ's institution; but the questions as to whether the words of institution shall be recited, whether a formula, of distribution shall be employed, and whether an altar or a table shall be used, are distinctly liturgic. Indeed, it was only through the liturgy that the consecration itself became an integral element of the divine service. At the same time, in virtue of its peculiar solemnity, the Lord's Supper (q.v.; see also EUCHARIST; MASS) became the central point of liturgic arrangement, so that the term " liturgy " found its principal application in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist.
The result of a liturgy was reached neither by divine revelation nor by canonical enactment.
The worship of the early Church rez. Theory veals an exuberance of spiritual life of Liturgy. and a great diversity of spiritual gifts,
but in so amorphous a state that Paul found himself obliged to urge uniformity in worship (I Cor. xiv.). Though Paul by no means established a working principle for the regulation of public
'~ This article should be read in connection with the articles MASS (for the Roman Catholic development), AGENDA, EUCHARIST, and Loan's SUPPER (for the Protestant aide).
498
Amen (§ 1).
The Doxologies (§ 2).
Alleluia ($ 3).
Hosanna ($ 4).
Kyrie Eleieon (§ 5).
Pax vobiscum, Dominos vobiecum
worship, the liturgical tendency was inherent in the factor of historic conservatism which began to exert itself from the very first, as is shown, for instance, by the custom, derived from the synagogue custom (see below, IL, § 1), of congregational response to the prayers of thanksgiving. The tendency to create some permanent order, the significance of which should reach beyond the local and transient, implanted itself with formative and regulative power in the administrative organism of the spii•itual life. Nevertheless, this process never gained the character of a law; nor were liturgical elaborations so abstract that spontaneously personal elements could not find a place in the official prayers. It is obvious that the composers of particular liturgical forms must remain in the background. But notwithstanding all this, each liturgy is characteristic of the ecclesiastical community to which it appertains; nor must it be forgotten that the phraseology of the sermon has a decided influence upon liturgical expression. Moreover, this festal robe of ceremonial practise, woven by custom, receives its interwoven warp and woof of symbolism and artistic ornament. This is not to be adjudged worldly or unevangelical; since here, too, is discerned rather a vital impulse, proceeding from the divine cosmic dispensation and influencing advantageously the domain of spiritual benefits. The same tendency, in a narrower sense, has given artistic adornment to such liturgical objects as the altar, the pulpit, and the sacred vessels, and has employed special colors in a symbolic scheme to emphasize the proper nature of the festival seasons (See PARAMENTA; SYMBOLISM). A redundancy of these subsidiary devices, to the repression of what is essential to worship, is, however, reprehensible. The Reformation rightly returned to simplicity in this respect, the Reformed Church more decidedly than the German, though even Luther, for all his unrestrained appreciation of the artistic and symbolic, contrived to observe the requisite bounds. See WORSHIP.
In considering the relation between the liturgy of the Church and its doctrine, it is clear that modifications of doctrine can not remain without influence upon the liturgy, as is attested
3. Relation by the history of worship at every
of Liturgy turn. The more the comprehension
to Doctrine. of the salvation wrought by the death of Christ recedes into the background, the shallower becomes the substance of the Eucharistic prayers. The more strictly the Reformation returned to the Scriptures and to Christ's purpose in the institution of the Eucharist, the more distinctly was this reflected in the revision of Evangelical liturgies. On the other hand, if the true character of an ecclesiastical community is to be

499	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	iitareies
truly known, liturgy as well as doctrine must be considered. It may be laid down as a general principle that the closer the adherence to the simple sense of the Scriptures, the fewer will be the liturgical elaborations in question. The question as to what is essential to a liturgy is not abstract, but should be answered with reverent regard for historic and conservative forms. For even if historic usage were abandoned and a course of absolute innovation were adopted, nevertheless, the new forms thus created would themselves exhibit a marked tendency to resist subsequent innovations.
The present status of the Lutheran liturgy shows evidence of the influence of the principles of conservative reform. In some respects there has been
a reaction as regards Luther's altera‑
¢. Exem‑ tions in the Deutsche Messe, in favor
plification of still older forms. To the introit of
by the the Mass there corresponds in the
Lutheran Evangelical order of worship, after
Liturgy. the opening hymn, an antiphon in
Scriptural phraseology adapted especially from the Old Testament. In this the distinctive character of the feast or the church season concerned must be reflected from the very first. The Confiteor, instead of remaining a priestly act of preparation, became a congregational confession of sin‑again a return to the pre‑Lutheran liturgy. The Kyrie and Gloria following the Confateor were incorporated in the Lutheran liturgy. The salutation Dominus vobiscum, together with the response Et cum spiritu tuo, both omitted by Luther, were very early restored in the Evangelical liturgies. The reading of Scripture has no longer for its mission the familiarization of the congregation with the Bible, but is designed solemnly to remind them of this treasure, with the accompaniment of responses which may be freely supplemented on occasion. The " voice of Scripture " is followed by the "voice of the Church," the recitation of the Apostles' Creed for which, however, a hymn of like purport, such as Luther's Wir glauben all an einen Gott, may be substituted. In the communion service, Luther still spared the ancient Preface, and also accepted the Agnus Dei. But even in this domain, a refined liturgical sense decided largely in favor of earlier ecclesiastical usage. For instance, the Lord's Prayer was reinstated in its rightful place, before the Pax and the distribution, while the form of distribution was again duly honored. In every direction there was careful insistence upon historic connection, in harmony with Protestant tenets.
With reference to the application of the term " liturgy " to the sphere of divine service, the Christian use of the word is based on the Septua‑
gint, which translates the Hebrew
g. Christian `aboda, in relation to the Temple serv‑
Use of the ice, by leitourgia. In the New Testa‑
Term.	ment) however, the word does not
occur in connection with ceremonial affairs, but indicates the service which the Christian renders to God in faith and obedience, as in Heb. viii. 2, 6; Phil. ii. 17; Rom. xv. 16; or with reference to brotherly support as in Rom. xv. 27; Phil. ii. 25, 30; lI Cor. Ix. 12. The relation to ceremonial practises recurs most closely in Acts xiii. 2; though
here, too, the idea of ceremonially regulated usage is to be rejected. The ecclesiastical use of the term reverts principally to the Old Testament, significantly implying a transfer of pre‑Christian legalism to the Christian dispensation. Hence the current expressions for Levitical and priestly acts were applied to divine worship, especially in order to designate the central and sacrificial act. Moreover, leitourgia and leitourgein were once more employed in the ceremonial sense. The Western Church early borrowed the term to designate the Eucharist. The Evangelical confessions gave preference to the term canimonia; and it was only under the influence of Humanism (q.v.), beginning with the sixteenth century, that the word liturgic came into current use, first among the Roman Catholics, and later among the Protestants. The term is now often used in a widened sense, and the phrases baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and burial liturgies are loosely employed. For the history of Lutheran liturgies see AGENDA.
HERmANN HERING.
II. Historical Development: The first Christians, being members of the Jewish Church, followed naturally the Jewish manner of worship. The services to which they were accustomed were those of the Temple (q.v.) and of the Synagogue (q.v.). The temple service was elaborate, and was
for the purpose of worship; the synaI. Service gogue service was simple and was for in Temple the purpose of instruction. The temand Syna‑ plc contributed to liturgical developgogue. ment the tradition of a noble service,
in a stately building, with vested clergy, with prayers accompanied by the symbol of Incense (q.v.), with praises sung from the book of psalms, with an altar, and with the varied interest and significance of an ordered sequence of feasts and fasts. The fact, however, that the temple was in Jerusalem, and that it was destroyed and its services ended forever in 70 A.D., gave its liturgical precedents a minor part in the making of the primitive Christian devotions. These were patterned mainly upon those of the synagogue. The synagogue was a plain building, having a platform at the further end. On the platform were seats for church officials, and in the midst was a pulpit. Over the pulpit hung an ever‑burning lamp, and back of the pulpit, behind a curtain against the wall, was a chest containing the rolls of the sacred books. The ordinary service began with the Shema, a habitual, daily devotion, like the Lord's Prayer, consisting of three passages of Scripture, Deut. vi. 4‑9, xi. 13‑21; Num. xv. 37‑41. After this came the Shemoneh esreh, or eighteen benedictions, each with a recurring phrase or refrain, followed by' an Amen as a congregational response. This was succeeded by the first lesson, taken from the Law, read in
seven parts by seven readers, each pronouncing a few verses, the verses being translated into Aramaic, with explanation, comment, and application. The second lesson was a single reading from the prophets, translated and explained as before (cf. Luke iv. 16 sqq.). With a collection for the poor, and a benediction perhaps with some singing of psalms, the service ended.

Liturgics	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	500
To this service the Christians added a Liturgy of Christ in the Holy Communion; and a Liturgy of the Holy Ghost in the short‑lived enthusiasm of the speaking with tongues, and a Liturgy of God the.Father in the agape, or love‑feast,
z. Develop‑ which assembled the faithful as the meat of the family of God to the enjoyment of his
Christian	blessings. (See AGAPE; EUCHARIST;
	Service.	LoRD's SvrpER). The synagogue
		service grew into the homiletical in
troduction to the Holy Communion, called the
Mieaa. Catechumenorum, with the reading of pas
sages from the Epistles and the Gospels, followed
by a sermon. It affected also the daily prayers.
These daily devotions, which came to be called the
Divine Office, had their beginning in the observ
ance of hours of prayer. Two such hours were sug
gested by the natural instincts of the religious life:
the morning, at cock‑crowing, called matins; the
evening, at candle‑lighting, called vespers. These
were at first observed in private or as times for
family worship; but presently they were kept in
the consecrated quiet of the church, people com
ing in at these seasons and saying their prayers,
each person by himself. Gradually, other seasons
of devotion began to be observed. First, the vigil,
which in its original form was a night of prayer
before Easter, and then came to precede ordinary
Sundays, and then to be a time of spiritual prepa
ration for saints' days. On these occasions the
morning prayer was in two parts, one in the night,
called matins or nocturns; the other at dawn,
called lauds. Then, to meet the eagerness for the
privilege of prayer, three hours were kept in the
day: the. third hour, nine o'clock, called terse, re
membering the disciples on the Day of Pentecost;
the sixth hour, twelve o'clock, called sext, remem
bering St. Peter on the housetop; the ninth hour,
called none, remembering how Peter and John
went into the temple at the hour of prayer. Thus
there were six times for daffy prayer: matins, lauds,
terse, next, none, and vespers. The next step was
to make these individual devotions public and con
gregational, and to have them led by the clergy.
Of course, for busy people, such a continual exer
cise of prayer was impossible. For them, as is
common to‑day, the daily devotions were for the
most part the private prayers which they said at
the cock‑crow and at the candle‑lighting. The
faithful who went to church six times a day were
mainly ascetics, whose chief interest and occupa
tion in life was the act of prayer. Presently, these
devout persons were gathered into groups and so
cieties, and disappeared from sight in monasteries.
There they added to the six daily services two
more: Prime, as the prayers before the daily chap
ter meeting, and Compline, before going to bed.
Thus the cycle was completed. It had never had
much place in the experience of the ordinary lay
man. It was understood to be intended for the
clergy and for the members of religious orders.
The heart of the daily services was the book of psalms. To recite or sing these psalms was the purpose for which the faithful met at the appointed hours. The pealter was arranged to be gone over in a week. To the psalms were added Scripture
readings, and a few prayers, with versicles and responses. The Latin Church introduced hymns in meter, and lengthened lauds and vespers with commemorations of the saints. And the saints,
3. Medieval in rapidly increasing numbers, claimed
Elabora‑ their rights in the services, having
	tions.	lessons and prayers appropriate to
		their virtues. And the Little Office of
the Virgin paralleled all the eight services with an
order of its own. These enrichments came to their
'fulness in the thirteenth century. They made it
necessary to use a great number of books in the
conduct of the service: the psalter, the antiphonal,
the hymnal, the Bible, the collect book, the pro
cessional; ' and for direction, the consuetudinary,
the ordinal, and the directorium. With the rise of
the Franciscans in the thirteenth century, and the
free movement of persons committed to the life of
religion, it became necessary to bring this liturgical
library into some condensed, compact and portable
form, and the Breviary (q.v.) was the result. The
order for the Holy Communion bad been similarly
enriched and was correspondingly simplified in the
Missal (see MASS).
As the era of the Protestant Reformation came on, the need of further liturgical revision was felt by many, and steps in that direction were taken both with and without ecclesiastical authority. Thus in 1535, Cardinal Quignon at the
4. After request of Pope Clement VII. under‑
the Refor‑ took are vision of the breviary. Clem‑
	mation.	eat died before the completion of this
		work, and it was dedicated to Pope
Paul III., who formally permitted the secular clergy
to substitute it for the breviary unreformed. Quig
non altered some things and some he added; he
removed some legends from the lectionary; he ar
ranged to have the Bible read at length and not,
as had come to be the usage, in detached frag
ments; he arranged the psalter so as to be read
in course and not interrupted by substituting special
psalms. Also he took out two‑thirds of the saints'
days and all the offices of the Virgin, and omitted
a great number of versicles, responses, invitationes,
and antiphons. In a second edition, however, he
restored the antiphons by request of the theological
faculty of Paris. This was the authorized breviary
of the Western Church until it was superseded in
1588 by the present book, made by a commission
of the Council of Trent. In 1543, Archbishop Her
man of Cologne (see HERMAN op WIED) published
a directory of public worship, in sympathy with
the Reformation. This was composed at his re
quest by Butzer and Melanchthon, on the basis of
a form compiled by Luther, called the Nuremberg
Liturgy. The book contained forms of prayer and
a litany, with directions for the administration of
the sacraments, and for other services, with many
explanations. One of its characteristic features was
the addressing of exhortations to the people. This
book was disallowed by the Church, and the arch
bishop was expelled. These two liturgical revisions
were in the hands of Archbishop Cranmer during
the preparation of the English Book of Common
Prayer, and he made great use of both. For the
history of this work see ConIMox PRAYER, Boos oh.

601	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Liturgies
Meanwhile, both in England and on the Continent
the conditions of ecclesiastical strife were inducing
among many a liturgical reaction. The Lutheran
Church, indeed, held to many of the traditions of
devotion, but the Calvinistic churches of Switzer
land and France, and the Puritan churches of
England and Scotland, abandoned the old forms
and adopted for the most part an extemporaneous
worship. This was an incident in a bitter con
tention, and proceeded not so much from a dislike
of the ancient prayers as from a dislike of the people
who insisted on them. This dislike the course of
time has mitigated, and at present there is a gen
eral return in most of the Protestant churches to
the liturgical treasures which the fathers left
behind. 	GEORGE HoDGEs.
III. Liturgical Formulas: Under this head it is convenient to group together several traditional phrases frequently used in divine worship, and appearing again and again in the most various liturgies.
The Hebrew amen, when used adverbially in the Scriptures (e.g., Num. v. 22; Dent. xxvii. 15; Ps. xli. 13), has the force of strong affirmation or assent, usually to the words spoken by another, although it may also be used as a pre‑
	i. Amen.	liminary affirmation of the speaker's
		own, occurring frequently in this sense
in the words of Jesus. Its liturgical use is the
former. It is thus found in the Jewish rites, as an
assent by the congregation to the content of a
prayer. The Christian Church borrowed this usage,
keeping the Hebrew form, the meaning of which
was always familiar to theologians, though perhaps
not always to the people at large, for whom a
translation was sometimes appended, as in the
Coptic liturgies. Its primitive use as conveying
the assent of the whole congregation to the prayer
of any member (of. I Cor. xiv. 16) remained when
the utterance of the prayer became the office of a
distinct clerical class, as is shown by nearly all the
Eastern liturgies. An exceptional case is the
liturgy contained in the eighth book of the Apos
tolic Constitutions, where the " Amen " is assigned
to the congregation after three prayers only‑the
Trisagion (q. v .), the prayer of intercession, and the
formula of administration. In the modern Greek
Church, the " Amen " is taken from the congrega
tion and given to the choir‑and then in compara
tively few places. In some Eastern baptismal
rites, as still among the Nestorians, it seems to have
been customary for the congregation to say Amen
after each part of the baptismal formula; in the
present Eastern Church it is thus pronounced by
the priest, having lost its original meaning and be
come a mere concluding word. The most obvious
retention of the old usage in the West occurs in the
Mozarabie Liturgy (q‑v.), where some of the re
sPonses are indeed assigned to the choir, but the
congregation is bidden to answer in other cases,
especially with " Amen." In the present Roman
rite, the " Amen " belongs either to the assistants
or to the choir, or is pronounced by the priest him
self, as in the formula of administration at com
munion and at the end of the Lord's Prayer in the
mass. Luther interpreted the " Amen " in the
sense of his own doctrine of faith, as " an expression of firm and hearty belief," and the Reformation restored the use of it in a number of cases, though not in all, to the congregation. In the Anglican Book of Common Prayer it occurs at the end of every prayer as the response of the people, except after the first Lord's Prayer in the Communion Office.
In continuation of the old synagogal custom, the primitive Christians closed every important liturgical prayer with a doxology, and the custom was extended to sermons also. The simplest form was " to thee (or " to whom") be glory throughout all ages " (cf. Rom. xi. 36; Phil. iv. 20; Didache ix. 2, 3; Apostolic Constitutions II.,
a. The xxii. 11). A number of formulas grew Doxologies. up in the course of time, differing socording to the influence of the dogma of the Trinity. While from the second to the beginning of the fourth century the form " to thee be glory in the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ " was usual, when it became possible to suspect Arianism in such a phrase, it was changed to one which completely coordinated the three Persons, " Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost." The Gloria Patri, known as the lesser doxology to distinguish it from the Gloria in exceleis, was slow to find its way into all the Eastern liturgies. Thus it is not found in the Clementine liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions or in that of St. James, and even the ninthcentury liturgies of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil do not contain it. It is of frequent occurrence, on the other hand, in the Nestorian and Armenian liturgies and in the present liturgy of St. Chrysostom, as well as less often in the various Jacobite rites. The second half, " As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen," does not occur in the East, and is probably of Roman origin. The Synod of Vaison (529) asserts that its use was universal in Italy and Africa, and directs its introduction into Gaul. It is not in the Mozarabic liturgy, where the formula runs " Glory and honor to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost throughout all ages." In the Eastern rites the doxology was used in many different places. The Roman liturgy, on the other hand, lays down fixed rules for its use. It occurs regularly at the end of each psalm, and the first half of it in the responsories of the day and night hours; in the Mass it occurs in the preparation, after the Introit or anthem sung at the beginning of the communion service in the Roman
Catholic Church, ancj after the Lavabo psalm. The
custom of using it thus at the end of psalms or
parts of psalms is first attested by John Cassian
(before 426), and next by Pope Vigilius (d. 555).
The assertion of medieval liturgiologists that the
practise was introduced by Pope Damasus is pos
sibly true. As the Gloria Patrz hay a more or less
festival or triumphant character, it is wholly or partly omitted on occasions of mourning, as in Holy Week and in services for the dead; in the latter case the Greeks still use it. Luther seems to have

ignored the Gloria Path.', although modern Lutheran liturgies put it after the introit. The Gloria in ez‑

Liturgics	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	602
celsis, or Greater Doxology, by an unknown author, occurs in the Eastern liturgies, which vary in the position assigned to it, and also forms the opening of a service for morning prayer found in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIL, xlvii.), the pseudo‑Athanasian De virginitate, and the Codex Alexandrinus. The Latin version used in the Mass, said to have been made by Hilary of Poitiers, is slightly altered from the original. According to the Liber pontifi.calis, Pope Telesphorus (q.v.) prescribed the use of the angelic hymn as found in Luke ii. 14 for the Christmas service, and Pope Symmachus (q.v.) of the expanded form for all Sundays and feasts of martyrs. It was then to be used only by bishops; priests might recite it only at Easter and in their first Eucharist. At the end of the eleventh century its use was permitted to priests at all times when it was liturgically prescribed. By the present Roman use, it is omitted on all days not of a festal character. Luther retained it in his Formula missee, but does not mention it in his Deutsche Messe, though this may be because it was taken by many as going with the Kyrie. Most of the Lutheran service‑books retained it, and so did the Reformed; Zwingli provided that it should be intoned by the minister in German, and then taken up by the men and women of the congregation alternately. In the Anglican Book of Common Prayer it was removed from the beginning to the end of the communion service; and in the American it was also permitted to be used as an alternative to the Gloria Patri after the psalms.
The Hebrew formula halleluyah, " praise ye Yahweh," which was frequently used in Jewish worship, passed over untranslated into the Christian services. The earliest indication of this use is Rev. xix. 1‑8. In the earliest definitely liturgical use it occurred after the reading of the
3. Alleluia. epistle and at the time of communion. In the Eastern Church it is still used even in penitential seasons and in services for the dead. For the West the earliest evidence is Tertullian, De oratione, xxvii. Here, with the stronger emphasis laid on ecclesiastical seasons, it is not surprising that in the African Church it became customary to omit it in Lent (Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmos cx. cxlviii.), while another passage of Augustine (Episl. ad Januarium, Iv.) implies that in his day it was regularly sung between Easter and Pentecost, and occasionally at other times. According to Sozomen (Hist. eccl., VIL, xix.), it was sung at Rome only on Easterday, and this statement is accepted by Cassiodorus (c. 570) and supported by a mention of Vigilantius (c. 400) in Jerome (Contra Vigilantium, i.), although Johannes Diaconus, in the fifth century, speaks of its being used at Rome during the whole paschal season. According to the most probable interpretation of a passage in Gregory the Great's letters (MPL, lxxvii. 956), it would seem that in the pontificate of Damasus (366‑384) the eastern custom of singing Alleluia throughout the year found footing in Rome, and that in the fifth century it began to be restricted to the paschal season, while Gregory permitted a wider use. This may be reconciled with the statement of Sozomen by supposing
that he referred to a special anthem containing the word " Alleluia," and not to the word itself. According to present Roman usage, the word is omitted altogether from Septuagesima to Easter, being replaced at the beginning of the choir offices by " Praise to thee, O Lord, King of eternal glory." In the paschal season, on the other hand, it is frequently used, being appended to antiphons, versicles and responses, and to the gradual and offertory in the Mass. Luther retained it in the Formula missce with the gradual, and in the later Lutheran services it is usually placed after the epistle, except in Passion‑tide‑although Luther prescribed it even here.
Hosanna as a word of praise occurs in the ancient liturgies only in the anthem known as Benedictus (Matt. xxi. 9); and here it is absent from all the liturgies belonging to the Egyptian type and from many of the Syrian class; it was 4. Hosanna. unknown at Antioch in Chrysostom's time, at Jerusalem in Cyril's, and in the Byzantine liturgies of the fifth to the eighth centuries as reconstructed by Brightman. It is found, on the other hand, in the Didache (x. 6) and correspondingly in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIL, xxvi. 1; also VIII., xiii. 3); in the Byzantine liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom; in the liturgy of St. James; in the Armenian and Nestorian liturgies, and in the ninth‑century Byzantine. Except in the two first‑named sources, it occurs uniformly after the Trisagion or Sanctus. There is reason to believe, however, that this is a later innovation, and that the primitive usage is preserved in the Clementine liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, where it occurs immediately before the administration, following the proclamation " Holy things to holy persons." It is even possible that just as the Jews sang Ps. cxviii. 25 sqq. after the Passover meal, so the Christian Benedictus was originally sung at the conclusion of the whole service; and this theory is supported by the fact that in the Armenian liturgy and that of the Coptic Jacobites the phrase " Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord " is placed after the communion of the peoplo. In the West the Benedictus is found in all the most various types of liturgical production, almost without exception in connection with the Sanctus. The only noteworthy variant phenomenon is that in the Gallican liturgy it seems not to have been sung by the choir, as the Sanctus was, but to have more often formed the beginning of a collectio post Sanctus recited by the priest‑or perhaps, having been already sung, it was repeated by him to connect the prayer with what had gone before. Luther retained both Sanctus and Benedictus in his Formula miss(e, but placed them after the words of institution; in the Deutsche Messe he does not mention the Benedictus. In the later Lutheran service‑books the Sanctus and Benedictus usually follow the preface. The Anglican Prayer‑Book retains the Sanctus but omits the Benediclus; it is very frequently, however, at the present time, sung immediately before the consecration, as is the Agnus Dei after.
The prayer "Lord have mercy upon me " or " us " (Gk., Kyrie eleeson me or hbmas) occurs a

503	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	Liturgics
number of times in the Old and New Testaments, and probably formed a recognized part of the Jewish ritual, from which it passed over into the Chris‑
tian. The way in which it is men‑
g. Kyrie tioned by the authorities for the sec‑
Eleison. and half of the fourth century‑the
Apostolic Constitutions (VIII., vi. 1, 2, viii. 3), Chrysostom, and the Peregrinatio Silvio (ed. Gamurrini p. 78, Rome, 1888)‑implies oldestablished and wide‑spread use. Prayers in the form of litanies seem to have grown up, in which this response was made by the people to the deacon; they were frequently of an intercessory character. The use of the Kyrie eleison as an independent prayer seems to have been later. In this way it is used twelve times in the liturgy of St. James, and three times in that of St. Mark and the Alexandrian liturgy of St. Basil, before the act of communion; it also occurs in the preparation and the dismissal, and was used sometimes in solemn processions. The Greek form is preserved throughout in the Coptic, Abyssinian, and Syriac liturgies. As for Western usage, it may be inferred from the Peregrinatio Silvio that the Latin form Miserere Domine but not the Greek was familiar to her Gallic fellow countrymen. The same inference may be drawn from the next oldest witness, also Gallic, the second Synod of Vaison (529), which prescribes the " more frequent use " of the Kyrie eleison at mass and morning and evening prayers. It was familiar to the Gallic monks, as is shown by the Regula ad monachos of Bishop Aurelian of Arles (d. 550), where it appears as an independent prayer, sung three times, so also in the rule of St. Benedict. This development on different lines from the East is shown again by a passage in Gregory the Great's letters (IX., xii), from which the conclusions follow that the Latins, unlike the Greeks, had by this time the response Christe eleison; and that Gregory was thinking not of the response to the deacon's bidding‑prayer, but of an independent formula repeated a definite number of times. This number is first positively fixed by a ninth‑century ordo published by L. Duchesne (Origines du culte chretien, p. 442, Paris, 1889), in which it is directed to be sung nine times, three for each invocation, as it is to‑day in the Roman mass. Before the discovery of this ordo, Honorius of Autun (d. 1120) was the oldest witness known for the ninefold Kyrie. In the Milanese liturgy the Kyrie appears after the Gloria in excelsis, after the Gospel, and at the end, three times in each place. In the Mozarabic liturgy it occurs only in one mass, where it is probably due to Roman influence. In a word, the general use of the prayer probably grew up in
Rome and spread thence throughout the West. In the Eastern form of a response to the deacon it occurs in the African liturgy, in the Celtic as exhibited in the Stowe Missal, and in a Lenten litany at Milan. Luther retained the Kyrie eleison nine times in the Formula miss,, but only three times in the Deutsche Messe; and thus it remains (in either German, Latin, or Greek) in nearly all Lutheran service‑books. The Reformed liturgies dropped it altogether, and the Anglican ritual while retaining it in the Litany, the Visitation Of
the Sick, and the Churching of Women (omitted in the latter place by the American book), substituted in a corresponding position the recitation of the Commandments with the response after each "Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law." In the American ritual, however, the Kyrie is to be said if the summary of the Decalogue (Matt. xxii. 37‑40) is substituted in the Ante‑Communion for the Decalogue itself.
The Jewish form of salutation " Peace be unto you," used by the risen Christ to his disciples (John xx. 19, 21, 26), passed into liturgical usage as the
greeting of the bishop to the congre6. Paz gation at the beginning of public wor‑
vobiscum, ship. In the form eirene pasin, " peace
Dominus be to all," it is found in nearly all
vobiscum. Eastern liturgies, usually with the
response "And to thy spirit." The formula was frequently used at the beginning of a new division of the service; thus it occurs ten times in the liturgy of St. Mark. In the West Pax vobis or vobiscum is attested by Augustine, Optatus of Mileve, and Ambrose, but it was gradually replaced by Dominus vobiscum (derived from II Thess. iii. 16), probably originating at Rome, and originally used in the introduction to the Preface, where it appears in the Canones Hippolyti (in Greek), in the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries, and in the first Ordo Romanus, as well as in the oldest Milanese liturgy. It is likewise found in the Ethiopic and Egyptian liturgies, and, in an extended form, in the Mozarabic, but does not occur in the Syrian or Byzantine rites. In the Roman Mass of to‑day the old custom of the kiss of peace, though preserved only in a symbolic form, is accompanied by the phrase " the peace of the Lord be always with you," with the response " And with thy spirit." The Dominus vobiscum is used regularly before collects, both in the mass and in the choir offices; when the latter are recited by laymen without a priest, the versicle and response " 0 Lord, hear my prayer " " And let my cry come unto thee " are substituted; just as in the early Middle Ages a distinction was made between Fax vobiscum as the episcopal and Dominus vobiscum as the priestly salutation.
	In the Formula miss, Luther retained the Pax
vobiscum and the response before the Preface, but
not after the Gloria, while in the Deutsche Messe he
ignored it entirely. The majority of Lutheran
liturgies of the sixteenth century, like Zwingli, on
the other hand, retained it after the Gloria, but not
before the' communion. Modern Lutheran litur
gies likewise place it after the Gloria before the
collect. In the Anglican Prayer‑Book the Dominus
vobiscum and its response are placed after the Creed
in morning and evening prayer, and it is also used
in confirmation. 	(P. DREW$.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: T: 11.: Much literature that is pertinent will be found cited under BREVIARY; COMMON PRAYER, BOOS OF; EUCHARIST; LITANY' LORD'S SUPPER; MA8Bi
and WORSHIP, A vast body of sources and discussions is indicated in the three sections of the British Museum Catalogue devoted to liturgies, the entries being admirably arranged for consultation under convenient captions, making reference easy. The following list comprises principally later works. Lists of Mss. are: W. H. J. Weale, Biblio‑
graPhica liturgica catalogue tnissalium ritus Latini, London,

Liturgics	THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG	504
Liudger, Saint
1886; H. Ehrenaberger, Bibliothem liturgica, Carlsruhe,
1889; Bibliotheca musico‑‑liturgica, London, 1894 (a list of
musical and Latin liturgical manuscripts of the Middle Ages).
	Among the sources may be named: James Brogden,
Illustrations of the Liturgy and Ritual of the United Church
of England and Ireland during the Seventeenth Century,
London, 1842; W. Palmer, Originea Liturgioa; or, An
tiquities of the English Ritual, 2 vols., ib. 1845; P. Hall,
Fragments Liturgica, Documents Illustrative of the Liturgy
of the Church of England, 7 vols., Bath, 1848; W. Trol
lops, The Greek Liturgy of St. James, Edited with an Eng
lish Introduction and Notes; together with a Latin Version
of the Syriac Copy, and the Greek Text restored to its orig
inal Purity and accompanied by a literal English Trans
lation, 8 vols., Edinburgh, 1848; The Eastern Liturgy of
the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, aimplifled and supplemented
by James Ferretti of Damascus, London, 1866; The Book
of Common Order of the Church of Scotland, commonly
Known as John Knox's Liturgy and the Directory for the
Public Worship of God Agreed upon by the Assembly of
Divines at Westminster; Notes by G. W. Sprott and T.
Leiahman, Edinburgh, 1868; S. C. Malan, Divine Liturgy
of the Armenian Church of St. Gregory, London, 1870;
F. E. Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church,
8 vols., New York, 1882; J. M. Neale, The Liturgies of
St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chryaoatom, St. Basil
and the Church of Malabar, translated with Introduction
and Appendices, London, 1883; C. A. Swainson, The
Greek Liturgies, chiefly from Original Authorities. With
an Appendix containing the Coptic Ordinary Canon of the
Mass from two Manuscripts in the British Museum, ed.
and transl., Dr. C. Bezold, ib. 1884; The Divine and
Sacred Liturgies of John Chryaostom and Basil the Great,
with an Eng. transl., ed. J. N. W. B. Robertson, ib. 1886;
A. Maltsev, Die gdttlichen Liturgien Johannes Chry8oa
tomos, Basilioa des Groeaen and Gregorios Dialogos, Ber
lin, 1890; idem, Die Liturgien der orthodox‑katholischen
Kirche des Morgenlandes, Berlin, 1894; H. A. Wilson,
The Galasian Sacramentary, Liber aacramentorum Ro
manor eecleaim, ed. with Introduction, critical Notes, and
Appendix with two Facsimiles, New York, 1894; C. E.
Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1896;
F.	E. Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante‑Nicene
Church, London, 1897; F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq, Mon
uments ecclesiae liturgica, Paris, 1900; E. C. N. Barfoed,
Oldkirkens Liturgier, Copenhagen, 1902; Benedictional of
Archbishop Robert of Rouen, ed. H. A. Wilson in Publica
tions of the Henry Bradshaw Society, vol. xxiv., London,
1903; V. Staley, Hierurgia Anglicans; Documents and
Extracts illustrative of the Ceremonial of the Anglican
Church after the Reformation, edited by Members of the
Ecclesiastical Society, ib. 1903; Die nestorianische Tauf
liturgie ins Deutsche iibersetzt van G. Daettrich, Giessen,
1903; A. Baumstark, Liturgia Romana a liturgia dell'Esar
cato. 11 rito detto Patriarchino ale origini del Canon Miasat
Romano, Rome, 1904; A. Schoenfelder, Liturgiache Biblio
thek; Sammlung gottesdienatlicher Bflcher aus dem deutachen
Mittelalter, Paderborn, 1904; C. Wordsworth and H. Little
hales, Old Service Books of the English Church, London,
1904; The East Syrian or Nestorian Rite, trend. by A. J.
Maclean, ib. 1905; Ordo Romanus primua, with Introduction
by E. G. C. F. Atchley, ib. 1905; Rituals Armenorum, the
Administration of the Sacraments and the Breviary Rites of
the Armenian Church, edited by F. C. Conybeare, Oxford,
1905; The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Apostolic Church of
Armenia, Translated by two Armenian Priests, London,
1908; D, Levi, The Form of Prayers for the New Year, Day
of Atonement, Feast of the Tabernacles, etc., according to the
Custom of the German and the Polish Jews as read in their
Synagogues and used in their Families. Carefully revised
by 1. Levi, 6 vols., London, n.d.
	Discussions of the subject are: F. Ehrenfeuchter,
Theorie des christlichen Cultue, Hamburg, 1840; T. Klie
foth, Theorie des Cultus der evangelischen Kirche, Lud
wigslust, 1844; idem, Liturgische Abhandlungen, 8 vols.,
Schwerin, 1854‑62; C. W. Baird, Eutaxia, or, The Presby
terian Liturgies: Historical Sketches, New York, 1855, re
printed under the title, A Chapter on Liturgies: His
torical Sketches, with an introductory Preface and an Ap
pendix by Rev. Thos. Binney, London, 1856; H. Alt,
Der chriatliche Kultus nach semen verachieden.en Ent
wickelungafor»ren and aeinen einzelnen Theilen, 2 vols.,
Berlin, 1860; Ivan Borovnitsky, Origin and Composition
of the Roman Catholic Liturgy, and its Difference from that
of the Orthodox Church, London, 1863; J. M. Neale, Essays
on Liturgiology and Church History: with an Appendix
on liturgical Quotations from the Isapostolic Fathers by J.
Moultrie, 8 vols., ib. 1867; F. Probst, Liturgie der drei
ereten chriatliehen Jahrhunderte, Tilbingen, 1870; H. C.
Romanoff, The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chryaoatom, ib.
1871; T. Bernard, Coura de liturgic romaine, Paris,
1884‑93; P. L. P. Gudranger, Institutions liturgiques, ib.
1885; idem, The Liturgical Year, Worcester, 1895; H.
Hering, Hfllfabuch zur Rinfiihrung in das liturgische
Studium, Wittenberg, 1888; P. Freeman, The Principles
of Divine Service, London, 1889; H. M. Luekock, The
Divine Liturgy, ib. 1889; F. Probst, Liturgic des vierten
Jahrhunderts and deren Reform, Miinater, 1893; V. Thal
hofer, Handbuch der katholiachen Liturgik, Freiburg, 1894;
L. Clugnet, Dictionnaire grec franFaia des nor" liturgiquee
en usage dens 1'egliae grecque, Paris, 1895; A. Ebner,
Quellen and Forachungen zur Geachichte des Misaale Ro
manum im Mittelalter, Freiburg, 1896; F. Magani, L'An
tica liturgia Romana, Milano, 1897‑99; J. Comper, A
Popular Handbook of the Origin, Hiat., and Structure of
Liturgies, London, 1898; G. Rietaehel, Lehrbuch der
Liturgik, 2 vols., Berlin, 1899; F. Cabrol, Le Livre de to
prilre antique, Paris, 1900; idem, Dietionnaire; J. W. Legg,
Some Local Reforms of the Divine Service Attempted on
the Continent in the Sixteenth Century, London, 1901; L.
Duchesne, Christian Worship, a Study of the Latin Liturgy
up to the time of Charlemagne, ib. 1904; Nerses Ter
Mikaelian, Daa armenisehe Hymnarium. Studien zu seiner
geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Leipsie, 1905; F. Cabrol, Les
Originea liturgiquea, Paris, 1906; P. C. Yorke, The Roman
Liturgy, a Hist. and Explanation of the Ceremonies and
Prayers, San Francisco, 1906; P. Drews, Die clementini
ache Liturgie in Rom, Tiibingen, 1906; W. H. Frere, The
Principles of Religious Ceremonial, London, 1906; V.
Staley, Studies in Ceremonial: Essays illustrative of Eng
lish Ceremonial, London, 1907; H. Bhuerle, Liturgic;
Theorie des rbmisch‑katholischen Kultus, Regensburg,
1908; C. P. A. Burnett, Ritual and Ceremonial, London,
1908; L. Duehesne, Origines du cults chretienne, Paris,
1908; J. Braun, Die liturgische Gewbndung im Occident and
Orient nach Ursprung and Entwicklung, Verwendung and
Symbolik, Freiburg, 1908; Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der byzan
tinischen Liturgie, Berlin, 1908.
III.: For the Amen the most notable contribution is in Cabrol, Dictionnaire, fasc., vi., cola. 1554‑73. Consult also: Bingham, Originea, XV., iii. 26; Thalhofer, ut sup., i. 512 sqq.; H. W. Hogg, in JQR, ix (1896), 1‑23; E. F. van der Goltz, Daa Gebet in der aaltesten Christenheit, pp. 157 eqq., Leipsic, 1901; DCA, i. 75‑76. On the Doxology consult: Chase, in TS, i. 3 (1891), 168 eqq.; Bingham, Origines, XIV., i. 8, ii. 1‑2; V. Thalhofer, ut sup., i. 490 sqq., ii. 77 aqq.; E. C. Aehelis, Lehrbuch der praktischen Theologie, i. 394, Leipsic, 1898; E. F. van der Goltz, ut sup., pp. 157 sqq.; DCA, i. 577‑579. For Alleluia consult: Cabrol, Dictionnaire, fasc. v., cola. 12261246; Bingham, Origines, XIV., ii. 4; V. Thalhofer, ut sup., i. 515 aqq., ii. 100 sqq.; O'Mahony, in Dublin Review, cxx (1897), 345‑350; L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, London, 1904; DCA, i. 55‑56; DB, ii. 287; EB, ii. 1943‑44. On the Hosanna consult: V. Thalhofer, ut sup., ii. 185; Bingham, Originea, II., ix. 3, XIV., ti. 5; DCA, i. 785; DB, ii. 418‑419; EB, ii. 2117‑20; DCA, i. 749751. On the Kyrie eleison consult: V. Thalfhofer, ut sup., i. 495‑500; E. C. Achelis, in Monataschrift fur Gotteadienst and kirchliche Kunst, iv. 161 aqq., 211 aqq.; L. Duchesne, Christian Warship, London, 1904. On the Pax vobiscum consult: Bingham, Originea, XIII., viii. 13, x. 8, XIV., iv. 14, XV., iii. 2; V. Thalhofer, ut sup., i. 503 sqq„ ii. 82, 85, 422; DCA, i. 572.
LIUDGER, Iod'ger (LUDGER), SAINT: Missionary to the Frisians and first bishop of Munster; b. in Frisia, probably between 740 and 750; d. at Billerbeck (15 m. w.n.w. of Munster) Mar. 26, 809. He was educated at Utrecht, and thence went, about 767, to York, where for a year he enjoyed the instruction of Alcuin and was ordained deacon. After remaining there for some time longer, he returned to Frisia and was employed as a missionary among his fellow countrymen by

505	RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA	htnrgics
		Lindger, l9sint
Alberic, the successor of his old teacher Gregory.
When Alberic was consecrated bishop of Utrecht
at Cologne in 777, Liudger was ordained priest and
spent seven years at Dockum, although he passed
the autumn of each year at Utrecht as a teacher
in the school of that city. An invasion of the
Saxons under Widukind in 784 forced him to leave
Frisia, and he went to Rome and Monte Cassino,
where he spent two and a half years in the famous
monastery, although he himself did not become a
monk. On his return, Charlemagne, to whom he
was recommended by Alcuin, gave him as a new
sphere of activity the five Frisian districts of Hug
merchi, Hunusga, Fivilga, Emisga, and Federitga,
as well as the island of Bank. There he worked
with eminent success, extending his labors as far
as Fosetesland (Heligoland), his center of admin
istration being the abbey of Lotusa (doubtless the
modern Zele, 14 m. e. of Ghent). After the country
of the Saxons had become so far pacified that the
establishment of bishops became feasible, Liudger,
who seems previously to have declined the bishopric
of Treves, was consecrated to the see of southern
Westphalia with his episcopal seat at Mimigerna
ford, the modern Munster, his diocese including
the five Frisian districts in which he had formerly
labored. The precise date of this event is un
certain, but in Jan., 802, a document terms him
abbot, the first to designate him bishop being dated
Apr. 23, 805. Of his episcopal activity little is
known. He built a cathedral at Mimigemaford
and probably erected a church of the Virgin at
Ueberwasser. His chief foundation, however, was
the monastery of Werden on the Ruhr, but here
END OF VOL VI.
_,
again the date is unknown, although a document of May 1, 801, shows that the relics which he had brought from Rome were already there. The only literary work of Liudger was his biography of his teacher Gregory (ASB, Aug., v. 254).
	Later tradition made Liudger a Benedictine and
asserted that he baptised Widukind, calling him
by his own name. A reminiscence of this legend
is found in the third " adventure " of the Nib&
ungenlied, where the Saxon duke is called Liude
gAr. He is also connected traditionally with the
diocese of Halberstadt, of which his brother Hilde
grim, really bishop of Cllfilons and rector of Werden,
is said to have been bishop, while Liudger himself
is described as establishing the Liudgeristift in
Helmstadt, although this seems to have been merely
a colony from We rden, founded in the beginning
of the tenth century with Liudger as its patron
saint. 	(G. UHLHO&N t.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Special study has been made of the sources by W. Diekamp, who has collected the early Vitca in Gaschichtsqusllen des Buthuma Maneter, vol. iv., Monster, 1881, also published separately, ib. 1882. The Vito are collected with less completeness, with commentary, in ASB, Mar., iii. 826‑661; in MPL, acig. 789‑798; and ed. G. H. Pertz, in MGH, Script., ii (1829), 403‑425. Modern discussions are: C. Krimphove. Leben and Wirken du heiliyen Ludgerua, Monster, 1860; idem, Der heilipe Ludperus, ib. 1886; A. Hiking, Der heilips Laudger, ib. 1878; L. T. W. Pingsmann Der heilige Liudgerua, Freiburg, 1879; K. F. von Riehthofen, Unterauchunpen eber "sische Recht8geschiehte, ii. 1, pp. 376 eqq., 398 aqq., Berlin, 1882; G. F. Maelear Apoatlee of Medimml Europe, pp. 143‑150, London, 1888; E. Knodt, Storm, Anapar, Liudper, Gutersloh, 1900 Hiatoire lit*aire de 14 France, iv. 359‑362, v. 659‑661; Hauck, %D ii. 317 eqq., 369 sqq.; DCB, iii. 729‑731; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 79‑81; Ceillier, Autaura aacr6s, mi, 218, ziii. 66.