1. Nature, Place and Function.

Polemics is that department of theology which is concerned with the history of controversies maintained within or by the Christian Church, and with the conducting of such controversies in defense of doctrines held to be essential to Christian truth or in support of distinctive denominational tenets. It is, however, a question whether polemics belongs to the special departments of dogmatics, ethics, or practical theology, or whether it constitutes an independent branch of study. Christianity has had, from the first, to battle with scientific weapons against Jews, heathens, heretics, and sehismatics, so that a rich and varied controversial literature was early developed in all branches of theology; though the means and the methods have varied according to the nature of the subject under discussion and the persons engaged.

Theoretically there is no distinct department of theological polemics; but practically there is a very real need of an independent branch of this nature. Theological polemics, therefore, scientifically combats erroneous conceptions and mistaken attitudes toward Christianity in its various phases, with the aim of defending the position of the communion to which the controversialist belongs. As the ancient Church had to fight against the classes of opponents already named, so modern polemics must defend the spirit of Christianity against nonChristian philosophies, sectarianism, indifferentism, and separatism. The problem next arises as to what place is occupied by polemics in the general field of theology. Schleiermacher divided theology into "philosophical," "historical," and "practical," and subdivided "philosophical theology" into " polemics " and " apologetics," apologetics being directed outwardly, and polemics inwardly. This division, however, is unsatisfactory. In the first place, polemics is applied dogmatics, for the polemic starts with certain dogmatic presuppositions. Again, it is applied symbolics, since dogmatic conceptions develop best in the orderly growth of a communion fully conscious of its distinctive organization. Theologically, therefore, polemics finds a place after dogmatics and apologetics. If, in addition to questions of doctrine, it takes into consideration the conduct of life, it becomes related to ethics, and may extend to organization and law, as well as to liturgics, missions, science, and art. The limits of the subject depend upon practical circumstances, the needs of the period, and the disposition of the controversialist.

2. Pre-Reformation and Roman Catholic Polemics.

False doctrines were combated by the apostles, and the Church Fathers followed along the same lines, so that polemic literature has existed since the time of Justin Martyr (q.v.) though his work "Against all Heresies " has been lost. Extant polemic literature begins with the "Against Heresies" of Irenaeus (q.v.). The  and De pr�scriptione h�reticorum of Tertullian (q.v.) followed; and Hippolytus (q.v.) continued in the third century with his work on heresies. The dogmatic theology of the Greek Church was strongly polemic from the fourth to the eighth century; and during the same period the theology of the west assumed a polemic character through its strife with Donatism, Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, and Manicheism, a large number of Augustine's writings being of this character. The polemic literature of the Middle Ages against heretics, Jews,

3. Protestant Polemics

The Protestants, in their turn, were no less active polemically from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. Here special mention may be made of Martin Chemnitz, Examen concilii Tridentini (Frankfort, 1565); Konrad Schl�sselburg, H�reticorum catalogus (1597-99); Nicolaus Hunnius (d..1643), Diaskepsis de fundamentali dissensu doctrin� Lutheran� et Calvinian� (Wittenberg, 1616); Abraham Calovius, Synopsis controversiarum (1685); and Johann Georg Walch, Einleitung in die polemische Gottesgelehrtheit (Jena, 1752). Interest in polemics ceased with Friedrich Samuel Bock's Lehrbuch f�r die neueste Polemik (1782). In the Reformed wing mention should be made of Rudolf Hospinian, Concordia discors (Zurich, 1607); Daniel Chanier, Panstratia catholica (4 vols., Geneva, 1626) ; Johann Hoornbeck, Summa controversiarum, (Utrecht, 1653); Francesco Turretini, Institutio theologise elenchtic� (Geneva, 1681-85); and various writings of Friedrich Spanheim, the elder and the younger (qq.v.).

4. The Modern Phase.

Polemics entered upon a new phase with Schleiermacher, whose classification of polemics among the branches of theology has already been described. He was followed by Karl Heinrich Sack, with his Christliche Polemik (Hamburg, 1838), who defined polemics as that branch of the ology which detects and refutes errors that endanger Christian faith and the purity of the Christian Church; and by Johann Peter Lange, whose Christliche Dogmalik (3 parts, Heidelberg, 1849-52) calls polemics and irenics "applied dogmatics." Theoretically, since the middle of the nineteenth century, polemics has not been regarded as a distinct department of theology. Practically, however, a new era in polemics was begun by the sharp critiques of Protestantism by Roman Catholic scholars of recent times. This movement was inaugurated by Johann Adam M�hler's Symbolik (Mainz, 1832), essentially a polemic against Protestantism from an idealistic Roman Catholic point of view; and this work was followed by the great historical polemic of Johann Joseph Ignaz von D�linger, Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung und ihre Wirkungen /I> (3 vols., Regensburg, 1846-18). The ultramontane spirit there displayed was equally manifest in Johannes Janssen's Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters (8 vols., Freiburg, 1877-94; Eng. transl., Hist. of the German People, 12 vols., St. Louis, 1896-1907), and Heinrich Suso Denifle's Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwickelung (2 vols., Mainz, 1904-10). The Protestants replied vigorously to these attacks with Ferdinand Christian Baur's Gegensatz des Katholicismus and Protestantwmus nach den Prinzipien and Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegrife (T�bingen, 1834), Carl Immanuel Nitzsch's Protestantische Beantwortung der Symbolik Dr. M�hlers (Hamburg, 1835), and a number of other works. While the books just mentioned are necessarily limited in scope, a thoroughgoing, though purely negative, discussion of the chief points of difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism was supplied by Karl August von Hare's Handbuch der protestantischen Polemik gegen die romisch-katholische Kirche (Leipsic, 1862, 7th ed., 1900, Eng. transl., London, 1906) which discusses the Church (clergy and papacy), salvation (faith, works, sacraments), and accessories (ritual, art, science, literature, politics, nationality). Paul Tschackert followed this with his Evangelische Polemik gegen die r�mische Kirche (Gotha, 1885; 2d ed., 1888), which not only criticizes the Roman Catholic system in detail, but also affords a substitute for each point criticized by presenting the Protestant teaching on the tenet in question. Finally, mention should be made of the anti-Roman Catholic propaganda carried on by the Schriften des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte (Halle, 1883 sqq.) and by the Evangelischer Bund zur Wahrung der deutsch-protestantischen Interessen (founded in 1886).

(PAUL TSCHACKERT.)

5. In great Britain and America.

In Great Britain and America polemics has taken a different course from that which it assumed on the continent. Several causes have contributed to this. Theological encyclopedia has been far less exact in its divisions, and and where polemics has not been recognized as a separate discipline, it has been in corporated into the body of theological construction. There has, moreover, been but little interest in the history of this branch of theological discussion. Again, toleration has been a marked feature of English and American religious thought (cf. Milton, Areopagitica; and Jeremy Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, which unfortunately he did not exemplify later). Still further, the edge of the controversial spirit has been dulled by the practical nature of the Anglo-Saxon mind, the disposition to compromise, the lack of thoroughgoing intellectual consistency, together with a rationalizing tendency which has tempered criticism of the positions of others. Polemics has appeared quite as often in apologetics as in doctrinal discussions. Only a few of the historical occasions of polemics and names of the chief persons involved are here indicated. (1) The deistic controversy (1648-1775; see DEISM), in which among the pamphleteers and

C. A. BECKWITH.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. B. Crooks and J. F. Hurst, Theological Encyclopaedia and Methodology, pp. 437 eqq., New York, 1894; P. Schaff. Theological Prop�deutic, pp. 411-412, ib. 1904; J. B. R�hm, Protestantiaehe Polemik, Hildesheim, 1882; W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, i. 15, New York, 1891; S. J. Hunter, Outline of Dogmatic Theology, 6, 84, ib. 1894; A. Cave, Introduction to Theology, pp. 521 sqq., Edinburgh, 1896 L. Emery, Introduction a l'�tude de la theolopie protestante, pp. 182-183, Paris, 1904; and the literature under THEOLOGY AS A SCIENCE.

POLEHZ, GEORGE OF. See GEORGE OF POLENZ.

POLIANDER, JOHANNES (JOHANN GRAMANNN, GRAUMANN): German Reformer; b. at Neustadt on-the-Main (42 m. s.e. of Frankfort) July 5, 1487; d. at Kbnigsberg Apr. 29, 1541. Educated at the University of Leipsic (B.A., 1506; M.A., 1516), he was first teacher and then rector at the Thomasschule in the same city. In 1519 he acted as amanuensis of Eck at his disputation with Luther and Carlstadt, and in consequence of Luther's argument he went to the University of Wittenberg in the autumn of the same year, where he was intimately associated with Luther and Melanchthon. Returning to Leipsic in the following year, he lectured on the Bible on the Wittenberg model. His success as a scholar and teacher brought Conrad, bishop of W�rzburg, to cause his appointment as cathedral preacher at W�rzburg in 1522, where he came into conflict, in 1524, with the monastic preachers because of his views on the veneration of the saints with the result that he was relieved of his position. He was then preacher to the Poor Clares (see CLARE, SAINT, AND THE POOR CLARES) at Nuremberg and preacher at Mansfeld. In 1525 he accepted the call of Duke Albrecht of Prussia to K�nigsberg, where he became pastor of the Altatadt, and together with his friends Paul Speratus and Johann Briesmann (qq.v.), the two other "evangelists of the Prussians," he established Protestant foundations in Prussia. Besides preaching he lectured publicly on the Bible. He also composed "Nun lob mein Seel den Herren" and probably the " Fr�lich muss ich singen," thus being one of the first Protestant hymn-writers. It is probable that he took part in compiling the first two collections of Protestant hymns for K�nigsberg (1527). In consequence of his pedagogical experience, Albrecht entrusted him with the organization of the new Protestant schools; and in 1531 he was one of

(DAVID ERDMANN�.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY. For sources consult: T. Kolde, in Beitr�ge zar bayerischen Kitchengeschiehte, vol. vi., parts 2 and 5, Erlangen, 1899; P. Tsahackert, Pubtikationen aus den k�nigl. preuss. Saatsarchiven, vols. aliii.-zlv., Leipsic, 1890-91. Consult farther: F. W. E. Rost, Memoria Poliandri. Leipsic, 1808; idem. Was hat die Leipsiger Thomasschule f�r die Reformation gethan ib. 1817; J. C. Cossck. P. Speratus Leban and Liedar, pp. 77 sqq., Brunswick, 1881.

POLITI, LANCELOTTI See CATHARINUS, AMBROSIUS.

POLITY, ECCLESIASTICAL.

I Introduction:

The emphasis in this discussion falls upon the developments which have occurred within the modern period, and upon the grounds of induction relative to the probable future of a church polity which are supplied by these developments. The Roman and Greek types in their pre-Reformation form were the product of a lengthened historical evolution, and only by sweeping dogmatic assumptions can they be identified with the primitive constitution of the Church. Some germs of them doubtless were on hand at an early date, but as they appeared at the opening of the sixteenth century they were remote from anything that was outlined by Christ or known to his immediate followers. It is to be noted that, while forms of polity may appropriately be named after certain leading characteristics, they are not likely to be adequately described by the titles thus affixed. In a theoretical point of view it makes a great difference whether a given polity is supposed to subsist by divine right, or simply on the basis of human discretion. Practically it is of large account whether a given polity is operated independently, or in close connection with the State. Furthermore, it is of consequence in judging a given polity to observe whether it is appreciably modified by the incorporation of some element from a different type. The subject is obviously one of great complexity.

II. Monarchical Type (Roman Catholicism)

1. Papal Authority Absolute

Since the promulgation of the decrees of the Vatican Council (q.v.) and the acceptance of those decrees as having ecumenical authority, it can not be denied that the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church is emphatically monarchical. Prior to the Vatican legislation it was permissible to assume that in the general body of the episcoIn pate there resided an authority at least coordinate with that of the pope. This assumption was widely current in the early part of the nineteenth century. But reaction from the disintegrating work of the French Revolution, powerfully seconded by pope and Curia, prepared for the enthronement of the opposing ultramontane theory. This result was consummated at the Vatican Council. The two decrees of that council relative to the papal office the one declaring that the pope possesses the fullness of the supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, together with the right of immedlate exerciseof it over all the faithful and the other asserting his indendent infallibility together constitute a formidable declaration of undivided and irresponsible rule. In the light of these decrees" one may express the outcome in the equation: In point of authority the pope plus the Church equals the pope minus the Church. As complete in itself and exempt from all lawful restriction or arrest, the authority of the pope rules out the very notion of a supplement. Roman apologists, it is true, disclaim the application of the term " absolute " to the papal monarchy. By divine ordinance, they say, bishops have a place in ecclesiastical administration. The pope is bound by this fixed element in the constitution. Furthermore, he is bound by the ex cathedra decrees of his predecessors on matters of faith and morals. Consequently, the papal moarchy is not of the absolutist type. But while the pope must consent to the existence of bishops, no bishop can enter upon his office without the permission of the pope, from whom, or through whom, comes all power of jurisdiction, and who has also the right either to appoint bishops or to determine the mode of their appointment. No bishop in office can go counter to the expressed will of the pope without being guilty of a misdemeanor. No bishop can remain in office against the will of the pope. No council of bishops can be assembled contrary to the will of the pope, and no assembled council can pass any authoritative decree against his judgment. As respects the ex cathedra decrees of predecessors the pope alone interprets them with full authority, and no one has the legal pre-rogative to gainsay his interpretation. The pope is absolute in the same sense in which the divine head would be absolute if visibly enthroned over the militant Church. Roman orthodoxy accepts in their full significance these words of Palmieri, "The jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff is the vicarial jurisdiction of Christ.

2. Roman Doctrine of Church and State.

Roman Catholic deliverances in recent times on the proper relation between Church and State show a very scanty abatement from the medieval platform (see CHURCH AND STATE, �� 3-8). The separation of Church and State is declared to be normal. The most that is conceded is that the scheme of separation can be condoned for the time being where the conditions are such as to make it practically necessary. " The Church," says Philipp Hergenrdther, " rejects on principle the system of the separation of Church and State "; and in saying this he but expresses the plain import of the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX., the encyclical on the Christian Constitution of States of Leo XIII., and the encyclical, Pascendi gregis of Pius X. Recent teaching promulgated by pontiffs, canonists, and theologians pronounces that Church and State are not related as equals, but that the Church, as representint the supernatural order and being the infallible guardian of morals, has a preeminence of rightful authority. The authority of the Church, it should be observed in this connection, means the authority of the hierarchy. As Phillips wrote near the middle of the last century, "the clergy is the sanctifying, the teaching, the ruling Church; the laity is the Church to be sanctified, to be taught, to be ruled." Very recently Pius X. in his encyclical against Modernism (q.v.) has strongly emphasized this sentiment by classing among reprehensible errors the contention that a "share in ecclesiastical government should be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity," and by ordaining, as a condition of the assembling of congresses of priests, " that absolutely nothing be said in them that savors of Modernism, Presbyterianism, or Laicism." Herein the pontiff undoubtedly speaks in perfect conformity to the postulates of the Roman system.

In the practical exercise of ecclesiastical sovereignty the Roman Congregations constitute an important factor. At a recent date they numbered nineteen. The scheme of reorganization put forth by Pius X. in 1908 provided for reducing them to eleven.

III. Aristocratic Type (Eastern Church):

In one point of view it is more appropriate to speak of the Orthodox Eastern Churches than of the Orthodox Eastern Church (see EASTERN CHURCH, I.). While those who claim the title of " Orthodox " hold a common creed, make use of the same liturgy, and acknowledge bonds of intercommunion, they constitute in respect of government a number of independent bodies (in 1907, sixteen, namely, the churches of the four patriarchates of Congtantinopie, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem: the national churches of Russia, Greece, Servia, Montenegro, Roumania, and Bulgaria; the church of Cyprus; the churches of Carlowitz, Hermannstadt, Czernowitz, and Bosnia-Herzegovina within the Austro-Hungarian monarchy; the monastery of Mount Sinai). The model of church constitution which the Orthodox Eastern Church brought down to the modern period was that recognized by the ecumenical councils of the fourth and following centuries, which knows no eccelesiastcal monarch. The highest dignitaries are patriarchs set over the major provinces of the Christian world. The sole legitimate authority standing above them is the ecumenical council. Among the patriarchs of the. eastern division the one resident at Constantinople was understood to be vested by conciliar decrees, especially those of Chalcedon, with a certain primacy. Mohammedan conquests interfered not a little with the working of the patriarchal constitution, but in its general framework it survived to the modern era. The power which has wrought most effectively to modify this constitution has been the example and the influence of Russia. Since more than four-fifths of the entire membership of the Orthodox Eastern Church is included within that empire, naturally the ecclesiastical scheme espoused and supported by Russia claims the right of way. The Russian state has eliminated within its territory the jurisdiction of an outside party like the patriarch of Constantinople. In 1589 it instituted the patriarchal office at Moscow. In 1721 it did away with the patriarchate and organized the Holy Synod (made up now of eight or nine bishops with the addition of two priests) to serve as the supreme ecclesiastical authority, being entrusted with oversight of doctrine, worship, and matters of administration. Again, the policy of the Russian state was to keep a firm hand upon the managment of church affairs. And this is done through provisions which secure that the Holy Synod shall not antagonize the will of the sovereign. The czar appoints a part of the members and controls in no small degree the selection of the rest. In the meetings of the synod he is represented by a lay official styled the chief procurator. The Russian code recognizes him as the overlord in preserving good order in the Church and directing its legislation. While he is not credited with power to make dogmas, it falls within his prerogative to bring measures before the synod, and the conclusions of that body are subject to his judgment. In Greece and the other national churches in the domain of Eastern Orthodoxy both of these features-the independent relation to the patriarch at Constantinople and the prominence of State authority-the Russian model is largely followed. In all the branches of the Eastern Church the former feature is exemplified. Outside of his patriarchate proper in European Turkey and Asia Minor the patriarch of Constantinople enjoys at most some trivial tokens of an honorary primacy.

The hierarchy of the Orthodox Eastern Church is not widely distinguished as to its enumeration of ranks from the Roman Catholic, except that it stops short of monarchy. It includes patriarchs, metropolitan bishops, ordinary bishops, priests, and deacons. Below the deacon are the four minor orders of subdeacon, reader, exocist, and door keeper. A distinguishing feature is that the title "metropolitan" is in most instances simply honor-ary. Only a few metropolitans have suffragans. Another point of contrast with the Roman system is that the diaconate is not treated as a mere stepping-stone to the priesthood. Many deacons remain such all their lives and serve as curates in the parishes.

IV. Consistorial Type (Lutheran):

1. Luther's Doctrine of the Church.

While divine right is claimed both in Roman Catholic and in Orthodox Eastern theory for prominent features of the hierarchical system, Luther repudiated the notion of the jus divinum in the domain of church polity. He was disposed to regard polity as resting upon human election and having its sanction in practical demands. It was contrary to his emphasis on the universal priesthood of believers to exalt the pastor over the congregation as either a necessary medium of grace or embodiment of sovereignty. Aptness to teach he rated as the great pastoral cedential, and the ministration of Word and sacrement as the great pastoral function. Ordination meant for him simply a solemn public recognition of ministerial standing. On these points-the optional character of church polity and the non-sacerdotal standing of the Christian minister-Luther supplied a permanent standard to his followers (see CHURCH, THE CHRISTIAN, IV., � 2; LUTHER, MARTIN, �1 6, 14). With his stress upon the primacy of the Evangelical message in the Church Luther could easily have reconciled himself to any form of external arrangements compatible with normal opportunity for that message. He had no objection to episcopacy as such. Had a larger proportion of the bishops been friendly to the Evangelical movement, episcopacy might have had a fair chance to survive in the Lutheran domain. As it was, it maintained only a transient existence in any part of Germany. The Scandinavian countries took an exceptional course in uniting Lutheranism with the episcopal form of administration.

2. The Prince and the Consistory.

It was not long before Luther's somewhat idealized conception of the Church as essentially a teaching institute, governing and molding men by the power of the Word, submitted to practical modification under the presure of circumstances. The disturbances wrought by the Peasants' War, the ignorance and wildness of the people, and the readiness of the nobles to make spoil of church property emphasized the need of a directing and disciplining power. The one power available for the exigency seemed to be the Evangelical prince, the secular ruler who had espoused the Reformatation. So he stepped into the position of control, and theory was speedily accomodated to his actual standing by his being rated as heir, within his own territory, to the old episcopal authority. The resulting type of polity was distinctly Erastian. The government of the Church became very largely a matter of territorial sovereignty. The prince was not indeed expected to assume the spiritual office of administering the Word and the sacraments, but in the general ecclesiastical management he was accorded a preeminent function. The foremost organ of administration, under the temporal ruler, came at an early stage to be the consistory. Composed of theologians and jurists appointed by the State this body served as a constant tribual to pass on disputed points of administration, to supervise property and educational interests, and to render judgement in the major cases of discipline. In the next grade of official importance came the superintendents who were usually pastors, selected by the secular government to exercise a species of oversight over neighboring pastors. In the settlement of the pastors the deciding voice belonged to the State and to the local patron. The prerogative of the congregation was usually limited to the right of objecting to a presented candidate. The development, on the whole, may be described as being toward an emphatic preponderance of State, athority, it being understood that the consistory was very largely the instrument of the State. Such germs of presbyterial or synodal organization as were witnessed by the first generations of Lutherans were in no wise fostered and brought to maturity.

A serious and partially effective attempt to modify this consistorial polity was first made in the later part of the nineteenth century. An incentive in this direction was derived from the wide-spread movement toward the principle of constitutional rule which was started in 1848. Enlarged prerogative on the part of the general body of citizens naturally suggested enlarged privilege on the part of the membership in the government of the Church. The result was an extension of the rights of the local congregation in the management of its own affairs, and the granting of more or less important functions to representative bodies or synods meeting at stated intervals.

V. Episcopal Type (Church of England, Protestant Episcopal Church)

Among the communions which emerged from the Reformation movement the Established Churrch of England was specially distinguished by the extent to which it conserved the medival polity . It retained the hierarchical constitution, only cutting off the papacy at one end of the official line and the orders below the diaconate at the other rend. Also in the scheme for the parishes, the cathedral chapters, and such aids to diocesan administration as archdeacons and rural deans much of the old system was retained. It is noticeable, however, that English Churchmeen did not in the earlier period claim divine right, or exclusive validity, for their polity as against that of other protestand communions. The statements of such eminent representatives as Jewel, Hooker, and Whitgift amount to a disclaiming of that right. The wide currency which is now accorded to the theory of a necessary episcopal organization and apostolical succession is attributable in large part to Laud and other Carolinian divines, to the Nonjurors (q.v.), and to the Tractarians (see TRACTARIANISM). The royal "supremacy " over the Church of England as originally asserted in the reign of Henry VIII. included a full complement of substantial prerogatives. In the succeeding period also, so long as the Court of High Commission subsisted, the sovereign was capable of interposing very efficiently in the management of the Church. For the most part since the revolution of 1688 the royal supremacy has signified little else than a chief share in dispensing ecclesiastical dignities. As for the lay body in general, outside of the function of parliament in relation to the establishment, it has had very scanty recognition in the plan of government of the Church of England. It has been wholly shut out from the houses of convocation (q.v.), which however cannot perform any real work of ecclesiastical government without being favored with "letters of business" from the sovereign. In the view of not a few thoroughly devoted members of the Church of England the situation calls for remedy. It is urged that in order to be inspired with due interest in the Church laymen must be associated with the clergy in the management of affairs in parish councils, diocesan councils, and the houses of convocation. Only when the lay element comes to this measure of recognition, it is argued, will the nation have any disposition to grant the Church due autonomy by enlarging the prerogatives of its own proper assemblies. This feature has become well-established in the daughter communions. In the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States the laity has been representedd from the start in the house of deputies, which, with the coordinate house of bishops, forms the General Convention, which constitutes the hihgset legislative authority in that Church (see PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH). Laymen have seats also in the diocesan conventions with equal right of voice and vote. Usually laymen help to make up the diocesan committee which serves the bishop as an advisory body; they have also a large function in the settling of pastors and in determining the period of their incumbency. Thus in the polity of this communion episcopalianism has been united with a considerable Presbyterian element. Partly owing to the influence of the American example a similar politv has gained wide curreny in, the churches afiliatated with the Church of England. Laymen have been members of the governing assemblies of the Episcopal Church of Ireland- since 1871. The same has been true of the Scottish Episcopal Church since the revision of its constitution in 1876. The principal colonial churches--in Canada, South Africa, and Australia-as they enjoy practical autonomy have adopted in like manner the plan of governing assemblies composed Jointly of clergy and laity.

VI. Presbyterian Type:

1. Rise and Extension

This form of polity, which received its initial impulse from Calvin and the Genevan model, was represented before the end of the sixteenth century in Poland, various parts of Germany, Holland, France, and Scotland, and gained a standing later as an appreciable factor throughout the English-speaking world. The Calvinian conception of the Church from which the Presbyteriaan type proceeded has some points of distinction from the original Lutheran conception. In the former a less exclusive stress was placed upon the Church as a channel of grace through the saving ministry of the Word. Prominence was also given to the office of the Church as an ms rumen or promoting the rule of God in the world. Proceeding from this standpomt; the Calvinian communions naturally made larger account of discipline than did the Lutheran, and were somewhat more ready to carry, a militant spirit into their religion. The training of the elect to give practical effect to God's sovereign right was relatively a conspicuous feature in their ecclesiastical scheme. In the Calvinian theory State and Church were rated as coordinate powers, having each its own province.The extent of the alliance which might be consummated be tween them was regarded as determined by the possibilities of mutual serviceableness. At Geneva Calvin thought it appropriate to give considerable scope to the prerogatives of the State in ecclesiastical management as being best suited to achieve the aim of the Church the practical rule of God over the community. In Holland also Presbyterianism made connection with the State, and in Scotland it has held the status of an "established" religion. It received legal establishment in England under the Long Parliament, but did not have opportunity to enter largely into the standing assigned in the legislation. Generally. a rather Jealous attitude toward State interference has been characteristic of Presbyterian bodies. In the American versionof the Westminster Confession the legitimate function of civil mazistrates in relation to ecclesiastical matters is defined to be the impartial protection of all denominations of Christians.

2 Divine Right; Characteristics.

The claim of divine right for their plolity has had considerable currency among Presbyterians. Its advocates, however, have never meant by this claim what is asserted for the papal constitution in the bull Unam Sanctam (see BONIFACE VIII.) and implied in the anathemas of the Vatican Council. It has not been held at any period that the acceptance of presbyterial rule is a condition of salvation. In the Westminster Assembly there were stanch Presbyterians, and enough of them to constitute a respectable minority, who opposed the theory of the jus divinum In later declarations it has often been affirmed that the presbyterial form of church government is agreeable to and founded on the Word of God. But no violence is done in construing these statements in the sense of this declaration in the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church South (1879): "The scriptural doctrine of presbytery is necessary to the perfection of the order of the visible Church, but is not essential to its existence." The central feature of Presbyterian church constitution is a series of governing assemblies constituted on the principle of representation in which series the decisions of a lower assembly are subject to revision by a higher, up to one vests with sureme jurisdiction though not free in its exercise from certain consitutional restrictions. A second prominent feature is the parity of ministers, or the exclusion of all hierarehirel graduations. A third feature is the union of ministers and Iaymen in the governing assemblies. According to a typical arrangement the governing assemblies are of four kinds, namely, church session, Presbytery, synod, and general assembly. The first, which is entrusted with the supervision of the spiritual interests of the local church, is composed of the pastor and the lay

The presbyterian type obtains in the Dutch Reformed and the German Reformed communions (see REFORMED [DUTCH] CHURCH; REFORMED [GERMAN] CHURCH) as well as in the numerous bodies bearing the Presbyterian name. The polity of Lutheran communions in this country is essentially Presbyterian. There is some distinction, however, as respects the legal authority of the highest assembly. While in the Iowa Synod it may approach the Presbyterian standard, it is very much below that standard in the Synodical Conference, and also below it in theory in the General Synod, the General Council, and the United Synod of the South. In the "Meetings" of the Friends-yearly, quarterly, and monthly-the scheme of a hierarchy of assemblies is illustrated. Still the divergence of their polity from the usual Presbyterian type is by no means slight, since they have no general assembly, and all the meetings are democratic in composition.

VII. Congregational Type:

1. Distribution.

While the distinctive features of the Congregational polity were anticipated in some measure by the Anabaptists (q.v.) on the continent, was in England at the extreme of the Puritan reaction against prelacy that this polity began in the more positive sense its record in modern history. From the days of Robert Browne, Jeremiah Burroughes, John Greenwood, and John Robinson (qq.v.), in the latter part of the sixteenth century, it has had a continuous succession of earnest adherents. The pilggrims brought it to Plymouth in 1620, and it remained the distinctive form of church order in blew England during the entire colonial period. The Baptists in all fields have been almost universally its stanch advocates. It is represented furthermore by the Disciples of Christ , the Christian Connection, the Unitarians, and most branches of the Adventists (qq.v.). The polity of the Universalists lies between the Congregational and the Presbyterian form.

2. Essentials; Divine Right of Church and State.

The most pronounced feature of Congregationalism is the autonomy of the individual church. The various churches of a communion may- have, very appropriately, means of fellowship and interaction, such as councils associations, or conventions. But none of these are properly accorded any legislative or judicial authority over the local church. They are assemblies for conference, and their action is ever advisory rather than mandatory. Ecclesiastical sovereignty begins and ends with the local church. [Congregationalists hold as a second fundamental of their polity the fellowship of the churches as exercised in the conventions, associations, and councils referred to.] Within the individual congregation, according to the original Church New-England scheme, the proper officers were the pastor, the teacher, the ruling elders, and the deacons. The second and third, however, were not long retained. At present, within communions of the Congregational order, the regular officers are very commonly enumerated as simply pastors and deacons. The principle of the separation of Church and State was contained in initial Congregationalism as represented by the teaching of Robert Browne (q.v.). Baptists have always been earnest advocates of that principle. The peculiar conditions, however, in New England, where at first the company of citizens and that of church members were substantially identical, led to a somewhat intimate connection between Church and State. While in important respects the churches continued to exercise the functions of self-governing societies, State patronage and control ran through no insignificant range (cf. W. Walker, in American Church History Series, iii. 249, New York, 1894). The last remnant of this scheme of Congregational "establishments" disappeared in 1833.

In recent years there has been relaxation in the advocacy of the divine right of Congregational polity. Representative writers of the Congregationalists repudiate the notion that an exclusive right can be asserted for any given form of church constitution, and affirm that their own polity is happily conformed to New-Testament principles. Among Baptists the teaching is not uniform. The question occurs whether communions which adhere to the Congregational polity have been able to maintain the scheme of direct democracy, or autonomous local churches, without substantial modification. One indisputable fact is that within the last century instrumentalities for giving expression to the collective sentiment and enterprise of the whole group of churches of like name have been greatly multiplied. Very frequently the advocates of the Congregational polity declare that the style of collectivism which has thus been evolved works no detriment to the -Congregational principle, since the councils or associations which have been instituted are engaged to respect the autonomy of the local church. On the other hand, some admit that the introduction of these bodies and the enlargement in various respects of their functions amount to the intrusion of a Presbyterian element into the actual administration.

VIII. Ecelectic Types (Methodist Churches)

1. Constituent Elements.

Among commnunions which illustrate a union of Presbyterian and Episcopalian elements a prominent place is occupied by the Methodist Episcopal Churches (see METHODISTS). There is also a union of Presbyterian and Episcopalian elements in the church order of the -United Brethren in Christ, of the Evangelical Association, and of the Unity of the Brethren (qq.v.). The Congregational element (in certain features of local self-government) discoverable in the churches mentioned is relatively inconspicuous. Recent developments in these comumnions have been largely in the direction of enlarging the sphere of popular government. By the last part of the nineteenth century all had come to include laymen in the higher governing assemblies. The same kind of development has been illustrated in non-episcopal Methodism, as, for instance, among the English Wesleyans (see METHODISTS, I., 1, �� 6, 8). In the Methodist Protestant Church lay delegation has been a feature from the start (see METHODISTS, IV., 3).

2. Resultant Forms of Government

Within the principal Methodist churches the list of assemblies includes quarterly, annual, and general conferences. Between the first and the seconcd the district conference is often interposed. Where existing it assumes various functions which otherwise would fall to the quarterly conferences. The latter are made up of the officials of the individual church--its resident ministers, local preachers, trustees, stewards, class leaders, Sunday-school superintendent, etc. The district conference consists of Ministerial and lay delegates. The annual conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church is (1910) a ministerial body; that of the Methodist Episcopal Church South includes, besides the ministers, four laymen from each presiding elder's district. The general conferences of both churches are made up of ministers and laymen in equal numbers. Among the United Brethren in Christ (q.v.) laymen are accorded a place in all the governing assemblies. The general conference is the supreme trbunal in the entire group of communions under consideration. Within certain constitutional limitations it exercises full legislative and judicial authority. A special feature in the constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church South is the provision that the board of bishops may challenge the constitutionality of a rule or regulation passed by the general conference, and hold it suspended until it has been approved in the use of the regular method for amending a "restrictive rule" (that is, one of the cardinal limitations imposed by the constitution). As a Presbyterian element finds illustration in the governing assemblies of the Methodist economy, so an Episcopalian element is exemplified in its ministerial ranks. In that economy deacon and elder (or presbyter) are related much as they are in the Church of England and in the Protestant Episcopal Church (q.v.). Methodist episcopacy, on the other hand, has a special character as being non-diocesan. It is also free from the aristocratic assumptions often connected with the episcopal form of organization. Methodist bishops are simply the formost executives in their respective communions. In the Book of Discpline of the Methodist Episcopal Church a note prefixed to the form of episcopal consecration implies that bishops represent a distinct office rather than a distinct order. It remains true, nevertheless, that in the larger Methodist bodies very weighty official (executive, not legislative) responsibilities are devolved upon the bishops. The legal prerogative is with them to station all the ministers (outside the limited circle of general conference appointees), though the advice of the presiding elders and the preferences of the individual churches are practically of great moment. Methodist communions generally which have an episcopal organization, as also the United Brethren in Christ and the Evangelical Association (qq.v.), make use of a kind of subepiscopate embodied in presiding elders or district superintendents, who are placed over divisions of the territory of the annual conferences. Among the Unity of the Brethren the Presbyterian feature is prominent, the bishops, aside from the function of ordaining, having ex offcio no administrative significance, and coming in practise to possess such significance only as being customarily elected to the governing boards and conferences.

Connection with the State has been foreign to Methodist history, and the same is true of the doctrine of the divine right of a specific form of ecclesiastical polity. On this theme Methodists stand with Lutherans, and only insist that in its spirit ecclesiastical administration is obligated to be conformable to the demands of the New-Testament conception of Christian citizenship.

IX. Conclusion:

In view of the enthronement of an extreme dogma as respects ecclesiastical monarchy in the Roman Catholic Church, and the propagation of a radical type of sacerdotalism through a considerable section of the Church of England, it can not be said that recent movements in the field of church polity have been uniformly in a single direction. There has been an undeniable advance in the line of the most pronounced Highchurch assumptions. But some rather significant tokens of reaction are already apparent. The universal movement toward constitutional rule in the secular sphere tends to make men restive under the demands of a pretentious sacerdotalism. In the ecclesiastical sphere generally, outside of the specified domains--not to mention the comparatively stationary Orthodox Eastern Church--the development in recent times has been almost uniformly in favor of popular government. Whether it has been in the interest of the specifically democratic form of ecclesiastical polity, with its emphasis on the autonomy of the local church, is a question which is likely to elicit different answers. Probably the balance is not on that side, but rather on the side of some form of representative government, though in constructing this form it may not be out of place to give a larger scope to the proper Congregational element than is done ordinarily in Presbyterian communions or in those which combine Presbyterian with Episcopalian characteristics.

On a couple of points the development has been quite pronounced. The doctrine of divine right, in anything like a stringent form, has been consigned to a diminishing constituency. A close union of Church and State, or one which makes either essentially a dependency of the other, has become through a widening circle a matter of distinct opposition.

HENRY C. SHELDON.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Richard Hooker, Eclesiasical Polity, London, 1594-1982, best ed. by J. Keble, 3d ed., 3 vols., 1845 (frequently republished); Bingham, Origines (these two books are standard and with their constant citation of historical sources may not be overlooked). Consult further the works on church law (Kirchenrecht) by P. Hergenr�ther, Freiburg, 1905; G. Phillips, Regensburg, 1845-89; J. Winkler, Lucerne, 1878; R. Sohm Leipsic, 1892; J. B. Sllgmtiller, Freiburg, 1904; and E. Friedberg. 8th ed., ib. 1909 (contains an extensive and classified list of works, pp. 5-12) Also: S. Davidson, Ecclesiastical Polity of the N. T. Unfolded and its Points of Coincidence or Disagreement with Prevailing Systems Indicated, London, 1850; F. Wayland, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, New York 1857; T. Harnack, Die Kirche, ihr Amt, ihr Regiment, Nuremberg, 1882; W. Cunningham; Discussions on Church Principles, Edinburgh, 1883; O. Meier Die Grundlagen des lutherischen Kirchenregiments, Rostock, 1864; W. L. Clay, Essays on Church Polity, London, 1868; T. Witherow, The Apostolic Church, which is it? An Inquiry . . . whether any existing Form of Church Government is of Divine Right, new ed., Belfast, 1869; G. A. Jacob, Ecclesiastical Polity of the N T., London, 1871; W. Pierce, Ecclesiastical Principles and Polity of the Wesleyan Methodist., ib. 1873; E. M. Goulburn, The Holy Catholic Church; its divine Ideal, Ministry, and Institutions, New York, 1875; C. Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, ib. 1878; E. Hatch, Organisation of the Early Christian Churches, London, 1881; G. T. Ladd, The Principles of Church Polity, New York, 1882; A. A. Pelliocia, The Polity of the Christian Church of Early, Mideval, and Modern Times, London, 1883; E. D. Morris, Ecclesiology, ib. 1885; W. D. Killen, The Framework of the Church; a Treatise on Church Government, Edinburgh, 1890; D. Palmieri, Tractatus, de Romano pontifce, Rome, 1891; F. Markower Die Ver assung der Kirche von England, Berlin, 1894; W. J. Seabury, An Introduction to the Study of Ecclesiastical Polity, New York 1894; A. Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Tsars and Russians part 3 ib. 1896; C. Gore, Essays in Aid of the Reform of the Church London, 1898; K. Ricker, Grunds�tse reformierter Kirchenverfassung, Leipsic, 1899; E. L. Cutts, A Handy Book of the Church of Enqland, London, 1900; G. M. Boynton , The Congregational Way, New York, 1903; H. Gallwitz, Die Grundlaqen der Kirche, Eisenach, 1904; J. J. Tigert, A Constitutional Hist. of American Episcopal Methodism, Nashville, 1904; E. C. Dargan, Ecclesiology, Louisville, 1905; H. H. Henson. Moral Discipline in the Christian Church, London, 1905; A. Fortesque, The Orthodox Eastern Church, ib. 1907; W. F. Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches, pp. 132-146, 325-354, 404-433 New York, 1908; H. C. Sheldon, Sacerdotalism in the 18th Century, ib 1909. For the details of polity the reader is referred to the Books of Discipline and Church Order issued by the various ecclesiastical bodies, and to the literature under the articles to which reference is made in the text, especially the bibliographies attached to the various denominational articles.

¹ In connection with the following treatment the reader should consult the articles on the various churches and denominational bodies of which mention is made in the course of the discussion, which articles usually contain accounts of the principles and the details of church government prevailing within the several bodies. See also such articles as CHURCH, THE CHRISTIAN; CHURCH GOVERNMENT; CHURCH AND STATE; COLLEGIALISM; TERRITORIALISM; BISHOP; DEACON; EPISCOPACY; and ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH.

POLLOCK, BERTRAM: Church of England bishop; b. at Wimbledon (7 m. s. of St. Paul's, London) Dec. 6, 1863. He received his education at Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1885; M.A., 1889; B.D., 1902; D.D., 1903); was made deacon in 1890 and priest in 1891; was assistant master at Marlborough College, 1886-93; master of Wellington College, 1893-1910; and became bishop of Norwich in 1910. He served also as select preacher at Cambridge in 1895, and at Oxford in 1907-08; examining chaplain to the bishop of Litchfield, 1900-10; and chaplain in ordinary to the king, 1904-10.

POLLOK, ALLAN: Presbyterian; b. at Buckhaven (15,} m. s.w. of St. Andrews), Fifeshire, Scotland, Oct. 19, 1829. He was educated at the University of Glasgow (M.A., 1852), was sent by the Colonial Committee of the Church of Scotland to Nova Scotia, where he was minister of St. Andrew's, New Glasgow (1852-75), professor of church history and practical theology in the Presbyterian College, Halifax (1875-1904), acting also as principal (1886-1904). He still lectures occasionally in the college, and in theology is a " moderate Calvinist, holding the doctrines of the Westminster Confession in all essentials." He has written Lectures on the Book of Common Order (New York, 1897), and Studies in Practical Theology  (Edinburgh, 1907).

POLLOK, ROBERT: Scotch poet; b. at North Moorhouse, Eaglesham Parish (8 m. s. of Glasgow), Renfrewahire, Oct. 19, 1798; d. at Shirley Common, near Southampton, Sept. 18, 1827. He graduated at Glasgow University (M.A., 1822); and studied theology at Union Secession Hall and Glasgow University (1822-27). He is famous for The Course of Time, a religious poem, projected on a stupendous scale, in ten books, on the destiny of man (London, 1827; seventy-eighth thousand, 1868; many editions in the United States). He was the author, also, of Helen of the Glen (Glasgow, 1830), The Persecuted Family (3d ed., Edinburgh, 1829), and Ralph Gemmell (1829); the three republished separately and together under the title, Tales of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 1833; later ed., 1895).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Pollok, The Life of Robert Pollok, with Selections from his Correspondence, Edinburgh, 1843; a Memoir prefixed to later issues of The Course of Time�and DNB, xlvi. 89-70.

POLYCARP: Bishop of Smyrna and martyr; b. in the second half of the first century; d. at Smyrna Feb. 23, 155. He is first mentioned in the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians (xxi. 1; Eng. transl., ANF, i. 58) and to the Magnesians (xv.; Eng. transl., ANF, i. 65) and to Polycarp. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, however, is a letter written to accompany the transmission of the letters of Ignatius and was requested by the Philippians (xiii.; Eng. transl., ANF, i. 36). Those who dispute the letters of Ignatius as genuine would have to reject this also as an interpolation; yet it should not be overlooked that Ireneeus had this letter in mind as a witness of Polycarp's faith and his preaching of the truth (H�r., iii. 3-4, Eng. transl., ANF, i. 416). The charge that it was falsified together with the letters of Ignatius is excluded by the peculiar character of the epistle and the charge of interpolation is contradicted by the use of I Clement, equally distributed throughout all the parts. The desire of Ignatius expressed in " To the Smyrneans," xi. (Eng transl., ANF, i. 91) and "To Polycarp," viii. (Erg. trans]., ANF, i. 100) throws light on the letter or letters of the Philippians to be transmitted to the Syrians mentioned in xiii. of Polycarp's letter. This letter of Polycarp was therefore written at the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius in the reign of Trajan (98-117). It is preserved in Greek only together with the Epistle of Barnabas as far as ix. 2; the remainder, in an inaccurate Latin translation (ix. and xiii. also in Eusebius, Hist. eccl, III., xxxvi. 13-15; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 168-169). The points of recognition of the letter through Ireneeus are substantiated by the contents: Christ, who has suffered for us and as the risen one is exalted, will also raise us if we do the will of God. Its admonitions deal plainly with the Christian walk in life, in reliance upon the New-Testament Scriptures, especially I Peter. The apostasy of a presbyter Valens is deplored (xi.). He writes of the Smyrnean congregation, whose representative he and the presbyters in whose name he writes are, that (in contrast with the Philippians) in the time of Paul they knew not yet God (xi.; Eng. transl., ANF, i. 35). This does not show that he and the presbyters lived at that time, but that the Philippians turned to him, and Ignatius considers his intercourse with him as worthy of mention and writes to him personally, inasmuch as Polycarp must have been by 110-115 a widely known personage.

This is corroborated by the letter which the Smyrnean congregation directed to the congregation at Philomelium and all the congregations of the Catholic Church concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, less than a year later (xviii. 2; Eng. transl., ANF, i. 43), which points not only to the esteem in which he was held in his own congregation but to his fame also outside of the Church (xvi., xii.; Eng. transl., i. 43; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 188-193). The accounts of his martyrdom have received confirmation from inscriptions discovered since 1880 (cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, i. 613 sqq.) which also prove the reliability of the additional chapter xxi. not known to Eusebius; for they prove Philip the asiarch (xii.) and high-priest of Tralles (xxi.) to have been asiarch in 149-153, and highpriest and agonothete at Tralles since 137 for life. From this additional chapter, the Acts of Pionius, and the ancient martyrology it is seen that Polycarp was martyred Feb. 23, on a greater Jewish Sabbath (viii. 1, xxi.; perhaps feast of Purim; cf. Lightfoot, ut sup. 692 sqq.) during the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus, fixed by Waddington, using the representations of the rhetorician Aristides, at 154-156, during which the 23d of February occurred as a Sabbath only in 155. W. Schmid attempts to show that the Quadratus of Aristides, evidently Avillius Urinatius Quadratus the consul suffectus of 156, was proconsul in 165-166 under Marcus Aurelius, in accordance with the chronicle of Eusebius delivered by Jerome, Feb. 23, 166, being also on a Sabbath. In all probability, however, the Statius Quadratus of the time of Polycarp's martyrdom is identical with the consul of that name in 142, who, in the course of advancement, must have been the proconsul in 155. The Asiarch Philip also would have been too aged to be high-priest and asiarch in the time of Marcus Aurelius. At the time of his martyrdom Polycarp had been a Christian for eighty-six years (ix.; Eng. transl., ut sup., i. 41). Iren�us relates how and when he became a Christian and in his letter to Florinus (Eusebius, V., xx.; Eng. transl., i. 238-239) stated that he saw and heard him personally in lower Asia; in particular he heard the account of Polycarp's intercourse with John and with others who had seen the Lord. Iren�us also testifies (H�r., iii. 3-4; Eng. transl., ANF, i. 415-417) that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, made a bishop, and had intercourse with many who had seen the Lord. He repeatedly emphasizes the very old age of Polycarp (ut sup.). If the supreme recognition of Polycarp was due to his old age and former intercourse with the apostles, so were likewise his presence in Rome under Anicetus and his success in the conversion of heretics (154). In the disagreement with Anicetus, Polycarp appealed for authority to his intercourse with John and other disciples (Eusebius, V., xxiv. 16, Eng. transl., i. 415-116). Iren�us makes mention of several epistles to neighboring churches and individual Christians which are not extant (Eusebius, V., xx. 8, Eng. transl., i. 239). The Vita Polycarpi auctore Pionio, knowing chapter xii. and many letters and homilies of Polycarp, is corrupted with so many fables that to extract the historical is impossible. Feuardentius, in his notes to Irenaus, Hmr, iii. 3 (Cologne, 1596), gives several fragments ascribed to Polycarp which were preserved in a catena of Victor of Capua in his Liber responsorum, to which T. Zahn (Forschungen, vi. 103, Leipsic, 1900) admits the possibility of a partial genuineness. The statements of the learned Armenian Ananias of Shirak (600-650) in his " Epiphany of our Lord " also must speak for themselves. See PAPIAS.

(N. BONWETSCH.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The editions of Polyearp best worth noting are those of T. Zahn in Gebhwdt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patrum apostolicorum opera, ii. 109-133, Leipsic, 1878; F. X. Funk, ra patrum apostolicorum ed., T�bingen, 1901; J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 1885, 2d ed., 1889, with Eng. transl.; and A. Hilgenfeld, Berlin, 1902. The Eng. transl. most available after that of Lightfoot, is in ANF, i. 33-38. For eds. of the Martyrium consult ASB, Jan., ii. 705 sqq.; E. Amblineau in PSBA, x (1888), 391-417; the eds. of Zahn, Funk, and Lightfoot ut sup.; R. Knopf, Augsew�hlten Martyracten, T�bingen, 1901; and O. von Gebhardt, Acta martyrum selecta, Berlin, 1902. Eng. transls. are by Lightfoot, ii. 1057-67, ed. of 1885; and in ANF, i. 39-44. The Vita Polycarpi of the 4th or 5th century by Pioniw (said by Funk to be "worthless") has been edited by L. Duchesne, Paris, 1881; J. B. Lightfoot, ut sup., ii. 1005 sqq., 1088 sqq.; and F. %. Funk, ut sup., ii. 291 sqq.; and is in ASB, Jan., ii. 695 sqq. A detailed list of literature is in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 7-10. Discussions of the first importance are in the editions and translations noted above, either as preface, prolegomena, or notes. Consult further: Iren�us, H�r, III., iii., Eng. transl. ANF, 1. 416; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV., xv., Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 188-193; Jerome, De vir. ill., xvii., Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 367; A. Riteehl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, pp. 284 sqq., 584 sqq., Bonn, 1857; J. Donaldson, Hist. of Christian Literature, i. 154-200, iii. 306-310, Oxford, 1864-66� idem, Apostolical Fathers, pp. 191-247, ib 1874; T. Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochen, pp. 494 sqq., Gotha, 1873; idem, Forsehungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, iv. 249 sqq., vi. 72 sqq., 94 sqq., Leipsic, 1891-1900; [Cassels], Supernatural Religion, i. 274-282, ii. 267-271, iii. 13-15 London, 1875; B. F. Westcott. General Survey of the Hist. of the Canon of the N. T., pp. 36-40, ib. 1875; T. Keim, Aus dem Urchriatenthum, pp. 90-133, Zurich, 1878; G. A. Jackson, Apostolic Fathers, pp. 7787, New York, 1879� F. Piper, Lives of the Leaders of Our Church Universal, ed. H. M. MacCracken, pp. 1422, Philadelphia, 1879; A. H. Charteris, Canonicity, passim, London, 1880 (references are very numerous); J. Nirsehl, Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik, i. 121-131, Mainz, 1881; W. F. Adeney, in British Quarterly, lxxxii (1886), 31-67; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altchriatlichen Literatur, i. 146 sqq., u. 615-616, Freiburg, 19021903; E. Schwartz, De Pionio et Polycarpo, G�ttingen. 1905; O. Pfleiderer, Dos Urchristentum, ii. 256 sqq., Berlin, 1902, Eng. transl., Christian Origins, London, 1906: H. Muller, Aus der UeberlieferunpspeschichtedesPolykarpMartyrium, Paderbom, 1908; Harnack, Geschichte, i. 69-74, 817, ii. 1, pp. 325 sqq., 334-356, 381-4118, ii. 2, pp. 303, 466 467; Kr�ger, History, pp. 25 sqq, 380; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacr�s, i. 392-398, 406 sqq., DNB, iv 423-431; the literature under IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, and the church historians on the Post-apostolic period, e.g., Schaff, Christian Church i. 109-111, 299, 335, 465, 661, 677, 680. On the date of the martyrdom consult: R. A. Lipsius, in JPT, 1878, pp. 751-768; K. Wieseler, Christenverfolgungen. pp. 3487, G�tersloh, 1878; idem in TSK, liii (1880), 141-165; T. Randell, in Studia Biblica, pp. 175-207, Oxford, 1885; W. M. Ramsay in Expository Times, Jan., 1907. pp. 188-189.

POLYCHROME BIBLE. See BIBLE TEXT, I., 3, � 4.

POLYCHRONIUS: Bishop of Apamea; flourished in the first half of the fifth century. Of his life nothing is known except that he was the brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia (q.v.), that he was bishop after 428, and that he was one of the most distinguished exegetes of the Antiochian school. Though never expressly anathematized, Polychronius was regarded as a heretic in later times, so of his exegetical works only fragments have been preserved in various catenas. It may be regarded as certain that Polychronius wrote exhaustive commentaries on Job, Daniel, and Ezekiel. The greater part of the fragments preserved are from Daniel, which he interpreted as referring to Antiochus Epiphanes instead of Antichrist, and saw in the fourth monarchy of the world the Macedonian empire, and in the ten heads the Diadochi. He sought always to establish the historical meaning and polemized against allegorical exegesis, as well as against the theory of a twofold sense. As a critic, however, he seems to have been more conservative than his brother. His knowledge of philology, antiquities, and history was considerable, but he shows a comparatively slight acquaintance with the Semitic languages. . His Christology was apparently that of his brother, though probably less pronounced.

(A. HARNACK.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:  Theodoret, Hist. eccl., v. 39, Eng. transl. NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 159; O. Bardenhewer, Polychronius Bruder Theodors, Freiburg, 1879; Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Gr�ca, viii. 638-669, x. 362-363, Hamburg, 1802-1807; , iv. 434-436; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr�s, x. 60.

POLYCRATES, pe-lic'ra-t�z: Bishop of Ephesus; flourished in the second century. He is known only bration of Easter (about 190) [to whom he wrote a letter, given in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V., xxiv., Eng, transl. in NPNF, 2 ser., i. 242-244]. The controversy, according to Eusebius, took place under Commodus (d. Dec. 31, 192), and to Maximin of Antioch (whom Serapion succeeded in 190-191) letters are said to have been directed. At this time he had been a Christian sixty-five years, coming of a Christian family which had already furnished seven bishops. Victor had requested him to can a synod to decide the Easter problem (see EASTER); but this synod, led by Polycrates appealing to the usage of Asia Minor, decided in favor of Nisan 14th, whereupon the pope made an unsuccessful attempt to excommunicate the church of Asia Minor.

(N. BONWETSCH.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V., xxii., xxiv., Eng. transl., NPNF 2 ser., i. 240-244 (cf. note 9 on V xxiil,); Harnack, Litteratur, i. 260 ii. 1 p. 323; T. Zahn , Forschungen zur Geschichte der neutestamentlichen Kanons, iii. 187 vi. 162-163, 169 sqq., 208 sqq., Leipsic, 1890-1900; O. Bardenhewer, Geschicte der altkirchlichen Literatur, i. 580 Frelburg, 1902; DNB, iv. 436-437; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr�s, i. 535, ii. 542-543.

POLYGLOT BIBLES. See BIBLES, POLYGLOT.

POLYTHEISM.

• I. Scope and Definition.
1. Meaning in Scripture (� 1).
2. Lapse from Monotheism (� 2).
• II. Classification.
1. Fetishism (� 1).
2. Animism (� 2).
3. Sabaism (� 3).
• III. Development.
1. A Corruption of Monotheism (� 1).
• IV. Ethical Estimation.

I Scope and Definition:

1. Meaning in Scripture.

Polytheism or the doctrine and belief that there are more gods than one is the more scientific term for what is otherwise known as idolatry and heathenism, and refers to those religions which are in contradistinction to the monotheism of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism. It is based on the natural tendency of man to seek religious relations with deity in the light of the revelation of natural religion alone. In the evolutionary process nature proceeds from plurality to unity, and even pantheism appears as a philosophical elaboration and inspiration of primitive polytheism. The verdict of both the Old atld the New Testament on the nature and value of polytheism is essentially the same. Polytheism is the lapse from the living God to the worship of vain idols and the perversion of divinely revealed truth in order to smuggle in falsehood, darkness of spirit, and association with demons. The gods of the heathen are powerless (Jer. ii. 28; Isa. xli. 29, xlii. 17, xlvi. 1 sqq.), and made by man from perishable material (especially Isa. xli., xliv.; Ps. cxv. 4 sqq., cxxxv. 15-18). So far as they really exist, they are demons (Deut. xxxii. 17; cf. Deut. x. 1.7, xxxii. 17; Ps. xcvi. 15, cvi. 27). In the New Testament idols are vain, and are not really gods (Acts xiv. 15, xix. 26; I Cor. viii. 5; Gal. iv. 8), and he who eats of their offerings eats the meat of demons (I Cor. x. 19-21; Rev. ix. 20).

2 Lapse from Monotheism.

In considering the origin of polytheism, the usual development of pantheism from an earlier polytheism, illustrated in India by Brahmanism and in Greece by the Eleatic and Stoic systems, would naturally lead one to consider the primitive form of all religion to consist in the worship of a plurality of gods from which even Biblical monotheism was developed. Never theless, neither the Pentateuch nor the prophetic writings contain any traces whatsoever of an earlier polytheism, and the Old Testament very definitely regards the polytheism of the heathen as caused by a fall from primitive monotheism in the account of the tower of Babel (Gen. xi. 1 sqq.). The gradual development of polytheism from an original monotheism is supported by the history of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 18-20; Josh. xxiv. 2Gen. xxxi. 19-20, xxxv. 2-3); of Joseph, who married the daughter of an Egyptian priest of the sun (Gen. xli. 50), and of Moses who was able to keep his people true to the God of the covenant only by bitter struggle against the paganism of Egypt and Midian (cf. Num. xii. 1 sqq.; Deut. xxxii. 15 sqq.; Amos v. 25-26). Similar views are presented in the New Testament, as in Rom. i. 21 sqq.; Acts xiv. 16, xvii. 29.

II. Classification:

Granted that the theory of evolution is legitimate in the domain of natural science, the question arises whether it applies as well to this sphere in view of the facts of religious history. From the time of David Hume (q.v.) and the English deists and of the German G. L. Bauer, the theory of the origin of monotheism from polytheism has passed through three definite stages: gods were derived either from fetishes, dead ancestors or other spirits, or from the heavenly bodies. These three theories may conveniently be termed fetishism, animism (with its varieties of spiritism, Shamanism, q.v., ancestor worship, hero cult), and Sabaism.

1. Fetishism.

The theory of Fetishism (q.v.), dating from the period of Voltaire and Hume, was essentially established by Charles De Brosses in his Du cults des dieux f�tiches (Paris, 1780), and was further developed by Auguste Comte (especially in the fifth volume of his Cours de philosophie positive (Paris, 1830-42), who assumed that from the worship of rude objects of a childlike superstition in magic, or fetishes, was developed first the polytheism of more civilized pagan nations, while from the latter was evolved monotheism as the highest ethical form of religion. This has become a favorite dogma of positivists in France, England, and North America as well as Germany, as illustrated by Lord Avebury's Origin of Civilization (London, 1870); S. Baring Gould's Origin and Development of Religious Belief (1889); C. Meiners, who held, in his Allgemeane kritiache Geschichte der Religionen (Hanover, 1808), that fetishism was not only the oldest but also the most general form of worship; G. P. C. Kaiser in his Biblische Theologie (Erlangen, 1813-21); Hegel in his Vorlesungen fiber Philosophie der Religion (Berlin, 1832) maintaining that magic, constantly changing its objects of worship in the form of fetishism, creates the first and lowest type of religion; and T. Waitz, in his Anthropologie der Naturvolker (Leipsic, 1859-85). The fetishistic theory was developed into a formal system by F. Schultze in Der Fetischismus, ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie and Religionsgeschichte (Leipsic, 1871), in which an interpretation of the individual tendencies of fetishism is attempted, on the assumption that the rudest fetishism of modern aborigines is necessarily the closest in approximation to the primitive type of all religions. This theory of fetishism has exercised more or less influence on historians of civilization like K. Twesten and F. von HellwaId, natural philosophers like C. Sterns, E. Haeckel, and investigators of religions like A. Wuttke, whose Geachiehte des Heidentums (Breslau, 1852-53), while proceeding from a rigidly monotheistic basis, regards fetishism as the oldest and most primitive type of religion known to history; and G. Roskoff in Geschichte des Teufels (Leipsic, 1889) and Religionswessen der rohesten Natur�lker (1880). In opposition to the frequent assumption after Darwin that there are numerous primitive peoples without any trace of religion, so that absolute atheism is alleged to be the real basis and starting period of the entire religious and ethical development of mankind, Roskoff, in the latter work, marshaled an array of facts confirmed by a company of scholars; but he falls in also with the naturalistic view, regarding magic as the prototype of all religious activity. The theory of fetishism is scientifically false. The fetish is not, according to De Brosses and the other naturalists, an enchanted and therefore prophetic object (as if from fari, fanum, or fatum), but is something artificially made (Portuguese, feiti�o-Latin facere) especially for religious purposes, such as an amulet, cross, or idol. Properly speaking, fetishes are devotional or cultic objects which imply a relatively developed stage of religion, and are even typical of an incipient decay of religious life. They are invariably relics of an older and more perfect concept of the deity; for some sort of an idea of a higher being to be invoked must have been present before steps could be taken to make a fetish. The atone, block, bone, or rag, which forms such a magic idol for the African, was never anything but an idol capriciously adapted to a long developed, even though rough and vague, concept of God. The worship of fetishes forms a rude parallel to the veneration of relics and objects of superstition like the tooth of Buddha in Ceylon, Mohammedan talismans, GrecoRoman amulets, or the teraphim or earthern serpents of the peoples with whom the Israelities came in contact. Far from belonging to the childhood of religion, as Meiners, Hegel, Lord Avesbury, and others have held, on the ground of the puppet shape of the fetishes and the childish homage of dances and drummings in their honor, fetishism is decadent, even as senility frequently assumes an appearance of childishness. Neither fetishism nor the primitive atheism assumed by Avesbury can rationally be made the foundation of religious development either of mankind as a whole or of individual stocks or peoples (cf. J. Happel, Die Anlage des Menschen zur Religion, pp. 112, 134 sqq., Leyden, 1877; O. Pfleiderer, Religionephilosophie, pp. 318-319, 742-743, Berlin, 1878; F. M. M�ller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, especially vol. ii., London, 1878; P. Schanz, Apologie des Christentums, 2d ed., ii. 37, 297, and passim, Freiburg, 1887-88; and C. von Orelli, Allgemeine Religionsgeschichte, pp. 15, 285-288, 841842, Bonn, 1899). [For another view of the subject, see FETISHISM.]

2. Animism.

The animistic hypothesis, or soul-cult, as the source of all religious development is considerably later than that of fetishism. As introduced into comparative religion by E. B. Tylor in his Primitive Culture (London, 1871; new ed., 1903) and Anthropology (1881) animism denotes a belief, wide-spread among the primitive peoples throughout the world, in more or less powerful souls or spirits dwelling in material objects, in a word, " spirit worship " (cf. J. Lippert, Der Seelenkult nach seinen Beziehungen zur hebraischen Religion, Berlin, 1881; O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, pp. 339-377, Berlin, 1901). Logically, this form of religion is a grade higher than fetishism, regarding its cultic objects as filled with, or possessed of, certain spiritual beings, which human magic can cause to appear and become operative. At the same time, cruder fetishistic views and usages are found in animism, especially in the magic character of the priests of both types. Three forms of animism may be distinguished: physiolatric, anthropolatric, and patriarcholatric. Physiolatric animism is the worship of certain nature spirits residing in wells or rivers (nymphs, nixies), in hills or rocks (cobalds), in trees (hamadryads), or in animals, and the like, the two chief subdivisions being the two last, phytolatry and zoolatry, the latter comprising ophiolatry. Anthropolatric animism is the worship of the dead, whether regarded as being in some inanimate medium or in some living animal from simple inhabitation to metempsychosis; this type is the darkest of spiritism issuing in necromancy and fanatical Shamanism. Patriarcholatry, or ancestor worship, is the worship of the ancestors of special families or entire stocks, this frequently passing over among wild tribes into totemism, in which the ancestors are held to have been certain beasts or birds, which thus become fixed emblems of the families or stocks in question. All attempts to make any or all of these types of animism the source of the development of religion have failed. Ancestor worship in particular, defended by H. Spencer in his Principles of Sociology (London, 1876,82), J. Lippert (ut sup.), and others, is rendered nugatory because the pious regard of ancestors presupposes too long a development and too ripe a civilization to be regarded as the primitive source of religion; as, for instance, the Chinese cult and the Pitris and Rishis of India and the Greeks. See COMPARATIVE RELIGION, VI., 1, a, �J 1-6; HEATHENISM, �� 2-4, 6.

3. Sabaism.

The Sabaistic theory, or the assumption that the cult of the heavenly bodies is the source of religion, seems to go back, strictly speaking, to such Church Fathers as Clement of Alexandria, and Firmicius Maternus, who held that, while monotheism was the original religion, the stages of decline had begun with the worship of the heavenly bodies. They were closely followed by Moses Maimonides (q.v.), and, among more recent students, by those who investigate mainly religions possessing an astronomical basis, as the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Phenician. A chief exponent of this theory was the French astronomer C. F. Dupuis, who, in his Origine de tous les cultes ou religion (12 vols., Paris, 1795), sought to prove that worship first of the sun and then of the other heavenly bodies was the point of departure for all religious evolution. Similar attempts were made by J. A. Kanne in Neue Darstellung der Mythologie der Griechen (Leipsic, 1805), J. G. Rohde in Versuch �ber das Alter des Tierkreises and den Alter der Sternbilder (Breslau, 1809), E. von Bunsen in his Einheit der Religion (Berlin, 1870) and Die Plejaden and der Tierkreis (1879), and C. Ploix in La Nature des dieuz (Paris, 1888), in which he blended Sabaism and fetishism. If, however, a stellar cult developed into adoration of the zodiac, the planets, and other celestial objects, it presupposes a degree of culture which is incompatible with the primitive period of mankind. The truly primitive forms of worship of the heavenly bodies seem rather to be monotheistic, the divine element being regarded not so much as the sun, moon, or " host of heaven," as the heaven itself as the symbol or manifestation of the highest beneficent power, in comparison with which the, individual stars constituted mere subdeities. A number of adherents of primitive monotheism have accordingly regarded Sabaism as the mediate stage through which man passed in his decline from monotheism to the baser forms of polytheism. Criticism of Sabaism leads necessarily to the positing of a primitive monotheism though not in its absolute form.

III. Development:

1. A Corruption of Monotheism.

A relative monotheism, consisting of a theistic basis with pantheistic elements, was assumed as the basis of all religious development by Schelling in Philosophie der Metologie and Ofenbarung (Stuttgart, 1856-59), and he was followed by many others. This relative monotheism of the earliest historic period was termed kathenotheism or henotheism by Max M�ller; and though restricted by him only to certain characteristics of the Vedic religion, yet it may well be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the earliest periods of the religion of various other peoples of similar antiquity. This henotheism is defined by M�ller as a naive faith in individual powers of nature which alternately appear as supreme. The religion of the Chinese seems to be an unfolding of the cult of heaven, and early Iranian religious records show similar traces of a relatively pure primitive monotheism, since between the supreme creator of the universe, Ormazd, and his subordinate deities, the six Amshaspands, a considerable interval is held to exist. The oldest religious concepts of the other Indo-Germanic peoples were richer in polytheistic elements, though even in them the aky god was dominant. Among the religions of south western Asia, the ancient Arabs and the Phenicians had a basis of primitive monotheism, consisting in the worship of a supreme god of the light or of the sun (Ilhh or Shamah in North Arabia, Bel among the Sabeans of South Arabia, and Baal Hamman among the Phenicians), though even in the earliest records this basis had received many accretions of stellar polytheism. The same statements hold good of the religion of ancient Babylonia. The most ancient supreme sky-god Anu must early have received by his side a Bel and an Ea, their number later being increased by various younger nature deities, such as the moon-god Sin and'the sun-god Shamash, as well as the five planetary deities Marduk, Ishtar, Adar, Nergal, and Nebo. Many of the most competent Egyptologists agree in placing at the head of the development of the Nilotic religion a creative celestial " king " or " father " of the gods, who was called Amon-Ra by the Thebans and Ptah at Memphis; and Le Page Renouf, in his Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, p. 119 (London, 1880), declares: " The sublimer portions [of the Egyptian religion] are not the comparatively late results of a process of development or elimination from the grosser. The sublimer portions are demonstrably ancient; and the last stage of the Egyptian religion, that known to the Greek and Latin writers, was by far the grossest and most corrupt."

It must not be supposed, however, that this process of degeneration from monotheism everywhere took the same course or passed through the same phases. In like manner, various motives entered into the creation of early myths; and neither the one-sided interpretation of myths as personifications of meteorological phenomena nor the one sided anthropology of the euhemerists nor the operation of diabolical forces as held by early orthodoxy is in accord with the actual state of affairs.

IV. Ethical Estimation:

Regarding the relation of polytheism to morality, the stern judgment must hold which the Old and the New Testament alike pronounce upon idolatry without distinction of its various forms or grades. Idolaters are evildoers punished by the law with the severest penalties, and upbraided by the prophets for their enormities. In the New Testament sinners and heathen are parallel (Matt. xviii. 17; Gal. ii. 15; I Cor. v. 1), while idolatry is classed among the "works of the flesh," being placed between lasciviousness and sorcery (Gal. v. 20), and repeatedly designated as belonging to the worst abominations (Romans ii. 22; Rev. ii. 15, 20, ix. 21, xvii. 4-5, xviii. 22) and as leading to the gravest sensuality (Rom. i. 24-28). And this judgment not only holds true of classical antiquity, but of modern primitive peoples as well.

(O. Z�CKLER �.)

The conclusions reached by the author of the preceding article are not those of the modern school of comparative religionists. Every line of evidence exhaustively examined by these students leads to results that are in complete accord with the science of anthropology, which regards man himself as a development. Religion appears distinctly and unmistakably as a growth, in which monotheism is the choicest fruit, not the root. Wherever the history of religion can be traced for long periods, as in Babylonia and China, and now in Greece, the farther back one searches the more diffused is the worship, until the gods are lost in spirits or demons. This is confirmed by the study of primitive religion, where the objects of worship are spirits, not gods, with rare exceptions, and these exceptions afford no support to the theory of monotheism as original. Similarly in the organized religions, the irrational and animistic elements, for instance of ritual (in which are always preserved longest the traces of origin), are clearly derivable from the earlier stages and point to polytheism or animism, never to monotheism. While there may be reversion of a people from monotheism to polytheism (as in the decadent period of Jewish history), the case can always be shown to be reversion and not degeneration. The background of Hebrew religion is now recognized by the entire critical school as not only polytheistic but animistic. A case of this is the action of Jacob in anointing the stone (an act of worship) on which he slept while he saw his vision (Gen. xxviii. 18), which action was precisely that which Arab tribes directed to the stone deities which they worshiped (Smith, Red. of Sem., passim). The first commandment is an explicit recognition of the existence of other deities.

The conclusions of comparative religionists as to the order of development in religion are briefly indicated in COMPARATIVE RELIGION (q.v., especially VI., 2, d).

GEO. W. GILMORE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Much of the best literature is named in the text, and many of the works given under COMPARITIVE RELIGION and FETISHISM are of first importance: use also the literature under separate lands, as Africa, China, Japan, etc. Consult further: A. Wuttke, Geschichte des Heidentums, 2 vols., Breslau, 1852-53; K. Werner, Die Religionen und Kultur den vorchristlichen Heidentums, Schaffhausen, 1871; E. L. Fischer, Heidentum and Offenbarung, Mainz, 1878; J. Legge, Religions of China, London, 1881; E. G. Steude, Ein Problem der allgemeinen Religionswiesenschaft, Leipsic, 1881; G. Rawlinson, The Religions of the Ancient World, London, 1882; C. F. Heman, Der Ursprung der Religion, Basel, 1888; W. Schneider, Die Naturv�lker, 3 vols., Monster, 1885-91; idem, Geachichte der Religion im Altertum, 2 parts, Gotha. 1895-98; K. von Orelli, Allgemeine Religionsgeschichte, Bonn, 1899; G. Stoeeh, Das Heidentum als religi�ses Problem, G�ttersloh, 1903; W. Mundt, V�lkerpsychologie, Leipsic, 1904 sqq.; W. Bouaset, What is Religion? New York, 1907; A. Bros, La Religion des peuplea non civilis�s, Paris, 1907; F. X. , Kortleitner, De polytheismo universo et quibusdam eias formis apud Hebr�os finitimasque gentes usitatis, Innsbruck, 1908; G. Foucart, La Methode comparative dans l'histoire des religions, Paris, 1909; L. Frobenius, The Childhood of Man, London, 1909; A. Le Roy, La Religion des primitifs, Paris, 1909; J. H. Leuba, Psychological Origin and Nature of Religion, London, 1909; S. Reinaeh, Orpheus. Hist. g�n�ale des religions, Paris, 1909, Eng, transl., Orpheus, London, 1909; W. St. C. Tisdall, Mythic Christs and the True: a Criticism of some modern Theories, London, 1909; H. G. Underwood, Religions of Eastern Asia, New York, 1910.

POMERIUS, JULIANUS: Galilean presbyter of Moorish descent; d. about 490. He is said by Cyprian to have been the teacher of famous Caesarius of Arles (q.v.), and according to the spurious addition to Gennadius' De vir. ill. (xcviii.) and Isidore's De scriptaribus eccleaiasticis (xv.), he wrote a dialogue De anim� nature (or De nature animie et qualitate eras) in eight books and a treatise De vita contemplative (or De contemptu mundi) in three books. The first book of the latter work (MPL, lix. 415-520) treats of the value of the contemplative life, the second of the active life of the Christian, and the third of vices and virtues. The entire works are full of the spirit of Augustine. The similarity of the latter treatise to the.eschatological meditations of St. Julian, bishop of Toledo, early led to Julian's identification with Pomerius, who flourished fully two centuries before him. Julian, a convert from Judaism, was archbishop from Jan. 29, 680, to Mar. 8, 690, and was zealous in defending and extending the faith and reformation of the clergy, at the same time maintaining a firm attitude toward Benedict II. when the pope criticized his creed. His apology addressed to Benedict, together with some of his other works, has been lost; but his Prognosticorum futuri seculi libre tres (Leipsic, 1535); De demonstratione sext� �tatis (Heidelberg, 1532); and Historia Wamb� regis Toletani (MPL, xcvi.) are extant. He probably took part in the final redaction of the old Spanish liturgy and of the Visigothic canon law.

(O. Z�CKLER �.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Histoire litteraire de la France, ii. 885-875; J. Niraehl, Lehrbuch der Patrologie and Patristik, iii. 285 sqq�, Maine, 1881; F. Arnold, C�sarius -von Arelate, pp. 80-84, 124-129, Leipsic, 1894; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, p. 540, Freiburg, 1901, Eng transl. St. Louis 1908; O. Z�ckler, Die Tugendlehre den Christentums, pp. 93-95, G�tersloh, 1904. On Julian of Toledo Consult: Patrum Tolelanorum . .Opera, ed. F. Lorenzano, pp. 3-385, Madrid, 1785; J. de Mariana, Histori� de rebus Hispania, vi. 248-249, Mainz, 1805, Eng. transl., The General Hist. of Spain, 2 parts, London, 1899; P. B. Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien,

PONCE DE LEON, LUIS DE. See LEON, LUIS DE.

POND, ENOCH: Congregationalist; b. at Wrentham, Mass., July 29, 1791; d. at Bangor, Me., Jan. 21, 1882. He was graduated from Brown University (1813), studied theology under Nathaniel Emmons (q.v.), was licensed (1814), and ordained pastor of the Congregational Church in Ward (now Auburn), Mass. (1815). He was editor of The Spirit of the Pilgrims (Boston), an orthodox religious monthly which played an important part in the Unitarian controversy (1828-32); professor of systematic theology in the Bangor Theological Seminary (1832-58); professor of ecclesiastical history, lecturer on pastoral theology, and president from 1858 till his death. He was active in the building up of the institution and was a voluminous writer. Among his works are: Christian Baptism (Boston,1817); Morning of the Reformation (1842); The Mather Family (1844); Swedenborgianism Examined (New York, 1861); The Ancient Church (1851); Lectures on Pastoral Theology (Andover, 1866); Lectures on Christian Theology (Boston, 1868); and A History of God's Church from its Origin to the Present Times (Hartford, 1871).

PONTIANUS: Pope probably from July 21, 230, to Sept. 28, 235. During his pontificate the circular letter of Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, condemning Origen, was approved by a synod at Rome (see ORIGEN; and ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES). Pontianus, together with the antipope Hippolytus, was exiled to Sardinia under the persecution of Maximmus Thrax, where he resigned.

(A. HARNACK.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, vol. i., Paris, 1888, ed. T. Monamsen, in MGH, Gest. pont. Rom..  i (1898), 24-25; Harnack, Geschichte, i. 848, ii. 1, pp. 107 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i. 22-23; Plating, Popes, i. 43-45; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 80.

PONTIFICAL: In the literal sense of the term, all that pertains to the bishop, especially his vestments and those functions that he alone may perform; more specifically, the term applied by the Roman Catholic Church to the book containing the ritual of those rites which may be celebrated only by bishops or by priests especially delegated by them to act as their representatives. At an early period the Roman Catholic Church took particular pains to prevent any deviations in specifically episcopal functions from the forms usual at Rome; and on Feb. 10, 1596, the new Pontificale Romanum  was approved, while at the same time all previous pontificals were declared to be superseded. Since, however, this edition was not free from errors, Urban VIII. ordered a new official edition (June 17, 1644) which should be the definitive model for all subsequent copies. The Pontifical was enlarged by Benedict XIV. in 1752. The standard edition authorised by Leo XIII. is entitled Pontificale Romanum a Benedicto XIV. et Leone XIII. recognitum et castigatam (Regensburg, 1898). The Pontifical consists of two parts, the first part containing those rites which relate to persons, and the second those which relate to things.

E. SEHLING.

PONTOPPIDAN, pon-top'p�-d�n, ERIK: Danish bishop; b. at Aarhus (on the eastern shore of Jutland) Aug. 24, 1898; d. at Copenhagen Dec. 20, 1764. He was educated at Fredericia (171(3-18), after which he was a private tutor in Norway, and then studied in Holland, and at London and Oxford, England. In 1721 he became informator of Frederick Carl of Carlstein (later duke of Pl�n), and two years later morning preacher in the castle and afternoon preacher at Nordborg. From 1726 to 1734 he was pastor at Hagenberg, where he so protected the pietists as to find it advisable to defend his course against the Lutherans with Dialogus; oder Untterredung Severi, Sinceri, und Simplicis von der Religion and Reinheit der Lehre (1726) and Heller Glattbensspiegel (1727). During this same period he laid the foundation of his later topographical and historical works in Memories Hafni� (1729); Theatrum Danice (1736); and Kurzgefasste Rejormationshistorie der d�nischen Kirche. Pontoppidan became successively pastor at Hiller�d and castle preacher at Frederiksborg (1734), Danish court preacher at Copenhagen (1735), professor extraordinary of theology at the University (1738), and a member of the mission board (1740), meanwhile writing his Everriculum fermenti: veteris (1736) and B�se Sprichw�rter (1739).

In 1736 Pontoppidan was directed by royal rescript to prepare an explanation of the catechism and a new hymnal, and through these two works Wahrheit zur Gottesfurcht (1737) and the hymn book (1740)-the pietistic cause in Denmark received powerful assistance. He likewise continued his historical investigations in his Marmora Danica (3 vols., 1739-41; a collection of noteworthy epitaphs and ecclesiastical monuments) and his uncritical Annales ecclesi�; Danica: (4 vols., 1741-52); and also wrote a novel, Menoza (3 vols., 1742-43), a critique of the religious conditions of Denmark and other countries. In 1747' he was appointed bishop at Bergen, where he introduced many educational reforms, and wrote Glossarium Norvagicum (1749) and Versuch einer nat�rlichen Geschichte Norwegens  (Copenhagen, 1752-53), while his pastoral letters formed in part the basis of his later Collegium pastorale practicum  (1757). The antagonism which Pontoppidan roused at Bergen, however, obliged him to go in 1754 to Copenhagen, where he became prochancellor at the university in the following year. But all his plans in this capacity were thwarted by his opponents, and he sought consolation in writing, the results being his Origines Hafnienses (1760) and the first two parts of his Den danske Atlas (1763-67), of which the last five volumes were edited posthumously. He was also active as a political economist, being the editor of Danmarks og Norges �konomiske Magozin (8 vols., 1757-64).

(F. NIELSEN �.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The literature (in Danish) is indicated in Hauck-Herzog, RE, xv. 551.

POOLE, MATTHEW: B. at York, Eng., 1624; educated at Emmanuel College, in Cambridge; he became minister of St. Michael-le-Quernes, London, in 1648, and devoted himself to the Presbyterian cause. In 1654 he published The Blasphemer Slain with the Sword of the Spirit, against John Biddle, the chief Unitarian of that time. In 1658 he published a Model for the Maintaining of Students, and raised a fund for their support at the universities. In the same year he published Quo warranto; or, a moderate Enquiry into the Warrantableness of the Preaching of unordained Persons. In 1662 he was ejected from his charge, for nonconformity, and devoted himself to Biblical studies. The fruit of these was produced, in 1669, in the Synopsis Criticorum (5 vols., folio), a monument of Biblical learning which has served many generations of students, and will maintain its value forever. Many subsequent editions have been published at Frankfort, Utrecht, and elsewhere. He was engaged, at his death, on English Annotations on the Holy Bible, and proceeded as far as Isa. lviii. His friends completed the work; and it was published (London, 1685, 2 vols., folio), and passed through many editions. Poole also took part in the Romish controversy, and published two very effective works: The Nullity of the Romish Faith, or, A Blow at the Root, etc. (London, 1666), and Dialogues between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant (1667). On this account he was greatly hated by the Papists, and his name was on the list of those condemned to death in the Popish Plot. He retired to Amsterdam, and died in Oct., 1679. Few names will stand so high as Poole's in the Biblical scholarship of Great Britain.

C. A. BRIGGS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. I. Wood, Athena Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, ii. 205, 4 vols., London, 1813-20. A sketch of his life and writings appears in the English Annotations, ut sup., vol. iv., Edinburgh, 1801; S. Palmer, Nonconformist's Memorial, i. 167, London, 1802; DNB, xlvi. 99-100.

POOR CLARES. See CLARE (CLARA), SAINT.

POOR LAWS HEBREW: Poverty was unknown in the earliest Hebraic age. The nomad has few needs, and those are provided for by the tribe, since pasture-land is common property. Even after the conquest of Canaan there was at first no necessity for legal provision in behalf of the poor. But as soon as the people settled in the cities, the usual results of urban development followed. As the old simplicity disappeared, especially after Saul and David, national independence came in, politics began to have force, property became private, social distinctions arose, and with them the need of protecting the weak from those having the advantage in wealth.

The first efforts in that direction are found in the ancient law known as the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.). Very significant are the injunctions regulating the relation between debtor and creditor. To take usury from any of the people was forbidden (Ex. xxii. 25). A garment taken as pledge was to be returned before the sun set for the debtor to use as a covering (Ex. xxii. 26-27). The Hebrew slave was to be set free in the seventh year together with his wife and children (Ex. xxi. 2 sqq.). Field, vineyard, and olive-grove were to lie fallow the seventh year, and all that grew of itself during that year belonged to the poor (Ex. xxiii. 10-12). These enactments were no doubt observed by the right-minded in Israel, but there are reasons for believing that selfishness knew how to evade them. But even where they were observed, they did not suffice to check poverty. Under Solomon Israel began to engage in commerce. The riches which came into the country influenced all conditions of life. Prophets like Hoses, Amos, and Isaiah complained of the luxury of the rich, of their greediness, and of their usurious oppression of the poor. The rich land-owners joined house to house and field to field, till there was no place for the poor (Isa. v. 8, 22 sqq.; Mic. ii. 1 sqq.), and the usurer was not afraid to sell the poor for a trifle (Amos ii. 6-7, cf. iv. 1 sqq., v. 11, viii. 4). Naturally under these circumstances the well-meaning in Israel sought to find new means for the protection of the poor. So the law-book known as Deuteronomy came into existence during the later regal period and its author belonged to the prophetic school of thought. The legislation of Deuteronomy is in part social. Humaneness to the weak, consideration for widows, orphans, Levites, and strangers, are fundamental in the book. Former protective enact, merits are repealed, new ones are added (cf. Deut. xiv. 28 sqq., xv. 2 sqq., 12 sqq., xxiii. 20, 25-26, xxiv. 6, 10). The great priest-code, which obtained canonical authority after the exile, continued this effort to give protection and relief to the poor (Lev. xix. 9, xxiii. 22, xxv.). But with the decline of the monarchy, the executive authority to carry out these and like regulations vanished, and it is no wonder that they became a dead letter. Aside from laws which were impracticable (Deut. xv. 2 sqq., Lev. xxv. 2 sqq.) other laws were ignored. Such a law was the prohibition of usury, probably often kept, but just as often neglected. Though the immediate result of this legislation was not great, it must not be overlooked that the ideals which it expressed were not in vain. They produced their effects and promoted the knowledge that poverty and riches are differences which do not prevail before God but which as realities afford a field of labor for the highest ethical forces. The declaration of Jesus that the poor (in spirit) are blessed had its root in this legislation, which propounded the principle that the poor in spite of his poverty is a member of the people of God, and on account of it enjoys God's special protection.

(R. KITTEL.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. Cassel, Die Armenverwaltung in alten lsrael, Berlin, 1887; F. E. Kobel, Die sociale . . . Gesettpebunp des A. T., Stuttgart, 1891; W. Nowaek, Die socialen Problems in Israel, Strasburg, 1892; idem, Arch�ologie, i. 350 sqq.; C. H. Comill, Das A. T. and die Humanit�t, Leipsic, 1895; E. Schall, Die Staatsverfassung der Judea auf Grund des A. T., ib. 1898; E. Day, Social Life of the Hebrews, New -York, 1901; C. F. Kent, Students' O. T., iv. 129-133, ib. 1907; DB, i. 579-880, iv. 19-20, 27-29, 323-326, Extra volume, pp. 357-359; EB, iii. 3808-11; DCG, ii. 385-386; JE, iii. 667-671.

POOR MEN OF CHRIST: Name assumed by the followers of Norbert (see PREMONSTRATENSIANS) and by the Waldenses (q.v.)

POOR MEN OF LYONS. See WALDENSES.

POOR RELIEF. See SOCIAL SERVICE OF THE CHURCH.

POPE, PAPACY, PAPAL SYSTEM.

• I. Development of the Papacy.
1. Roman Catholic Theory of the Papacy (� 1).
2. Papacy in Pre-Carolingian Times (� 2)
3. In Merovingian and Carolingian Periods (� 3).
4. Tendency to Absolutism Checked (� 4)
5. Spiritual and Temporal Supremacy Claimed (� 5).
6. Primacy of Jurisdiction (� 8).
7. Primacy of Honor (� 7).
• II. Election of the Pope
1. Development of Present Method ($ 1).
2. The Conclave (� 2).
3. The Election (� 3).
4. Procedure after Election (� 4).

I. Development of the Papacy:

1. Roman Catholic Theory of the Papacy.

Pope (Gk., pappas, " father ") designates the bishop of Rome in his position as supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church. According to the doctrine of that church, when Christ founded the Church as a visible institution, he assigned to the Apostle Peter the precedency over the other apostles-making Peter his vicar, and constituting him center of the Church in that he conveyed to him alike the supreme priestly authority (see KEYS, POWER OF THE), the supreme doctrinal authority, and the supreme direction of the Church (Matt. xvi. 18, 19; Luke xxii. 32; John xxi. 15-17). But since the Church is a perpetual institution, Peter must needs have a successor, and the ecclesiastical succession is to be secured in that position for all futurity. On account of Peter's connection with the bishopric of Rome, which he is held to have established, this succession, with its derivative rights and titular primacy, is permanently attached to the Roman see; though not, perforce, to its local site in the city of Rome. The succession devolves upon the actual bishop of Rome; and so Peter as vicar of Christ lives on in the Roman bishops, the popes. The doctrines thus outlined are dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church; and therefore they become immutable and fundamental principles of its formal constitution.

2. Papacy in PreCarolingian Times.

But in the light of objective historical contemplation, the pope's primacy appears to be solely the product of evolutionary centuries. It is not to be denied that even from the second century and in the third century the Roman congregation and the Roman episcopal see enjoyed a significant and positive esteem in the West. The Roman church not only stood accepted as founded by the Apostle Peter, but was also the sole church in the West which could boast of apostolic establishment, let alone the fact that its site was the pivot of the ancient world, and thus facilitated a vast range of communication with the other churches and congregations. Yet though even so early as in the third century the peculiar distinction and the precedency of the Roman church were based in Rome upon succession to the rights of Peter; nevertheless, not even the Council of Nic�a knows of a Roman primacy over the whole Church. But what really proved of decisive influence in winning legal prerogatives for the Roman bishop were the issues of the dogmatic controversies that agitated the Church from the fourth century forward; since in these controversies the position of the bishop of Rome was of determining weight for the very reason of the high respect enjoyed by his church, because Rome supported the due maintenance of orthodox doctrine. The Synod of Sardica (343) permitted a bishop who had been deposed by the metropolitan synod to appeal to the bishop of Rome. Just as this implied a right of supreme jurisdiction on the part of that dignitary to uphold which appeal could soon be made to the Council of Nicma, because the decrees of Sardica became consolidated with the canons of that council, so did Innocent I. (404) lay claim to a supreme right of adjudication in all "the more grave and momentous cases"; and about the same time, he claimed the right of issuing obligatory regulations for the several districts of the Church. At the outset, however, these were mere assumptions; nor could the bishops of Rome bring them to practical effect beyond Italy or in such countries as Illyria and southern Gaul, where the local situation happened to be favorable, and where there happened to be voluntary overtures in behalf of close connection with Rome. As a matter of fact, in the year 445, Leo I. obtained of Valentinian III. by an imperial law (Novell� Valentiniani, iii.. tit. 16), recognition of primacy, in particular that of the supreme judicial and legislative right of the Roman see. However, this law was binding only on the West; and it involved neither a renunciation of the emperor's right of exercising the imperial prerogative to legislate in ecclesiastical affairs, nor any abolishment of the rights of councils convened under imperial authority. It was not by legislation, but principally by interfering in this or that special, important concern that, both before and after this law, the Roman bishop was able to substantiate his assumed supreme control of the Church, and even in the fifth century to play a deciding hand in affairs of the Fast. Still more significant becomes the status of the Roman bishop from the close of that century, when the Germans found separate kingdoms in Italy. But, at the same time, his local sphere of power became narrowed by the establishment of the Germans in Gaul, Spain, and England; a condition that arrested the progress of the centralizing process already started in those countries.

3. In Merovingian and Carolingian Periods.

Especially in the most notable of these new states, in Merovingian "France," the direct control of ecclesiastical affairs through the Roman bishop was legally debarred. Anything of that kind could come about only subject to royal approbation, and though the pope was acknowledged to be the first bishop in Christendom, and the preservation of communion in the faith with him was accounted in dispensable. But the king alone possessed the deciding authority respecting the law of the Church, jointly with the royal or national synod by him convened, the decrees of which could become bind ing on the state only by the king's approbation. A change in this respect did not set in till in course of the eighth century; when the Carolingian majordomos, closely allied as they were with Boniface, endeavored to cooperate in his project of reorganizing and effectually reforming the secularized Frankish church. The same situation persisted under Charlemagne. In the universal Christian commonwealth, such as his empire came to be regarded, he exercised not only the chief temporal sovereignty but also the control of ecclesiastical affairs, though he evinced even greater zeal than his predecessors in assimilating the order of the Frankish church to the Roman canons and praxis. For Charlemagne, the pope ranks merely as the first bishop of Christendom and of the emperor's dominion, who possesses certain prerogatives above the other bishops, and is especially called, in view of his station, to watch over the spiritual side of the Church and over the proper maintenance of its canons and doctrine; yet who may not assume, independently of the emperor, any right of control over the church of the Frankish realm. Several things conspired to bring about a transformation of the earlier situation. These were the weakness of Charlemagne's successors; the political complications provoked through the struggles in the family of Louis the Frank; and the strifes among the Frankish bishops. The imperial and royal power was no longer in a position to preserve intact its ecclesiastical leadership, while the essentially moral influence exercised hitherto by the pope, merged into an encroachment upon ecclesiastical and political ground in proportion as he became repeatedly invoked by the wrangling parties themselves to decide the issue, while they sought to strengthen themselves through his authority. Above all, it was Nicholas I. (858-88') who contrived to employ all these conditions to the furtherance of his policy of subordinating princely and temporal power to the Church, of quashing autonomy of the ecclesiastical primary courts in the various countries, and of vesting deciding control in the bishop of Rome.Pope Nicholas I. found material support for his efforts in the opportunely originated Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (q.v.) just then coming to the front.

4. Tendency to Absolutism Checked.

But the dissolution of the Carolingian empire and the resulting confusion which involved even Italy, together with the comparative decline of the papacy, soon hindered the prosecution of that policy. To raise the papacy out of its degradation, there needed nothing less than to the renovation of the German empire under Otto I. Indeed, the empire, even as late as the eleventh century, did wield its own sovereignty over the pope and the Church, and at the same time endeavored to reform the Church internally, being supported in this by the bishops whom it had independently invested, who were therefore subservient to the imperial will. The dynasty of Otto did not, indeed, reassert the maxim of the Carolingian civil code, that the supreme authority or power in ecclesiastical matters, especially in legislation, belonged exclusively to the emperor. On the contrary, the house of Otto took practical cognizance of the theory then already established, that just as the universal State had its apex in the German emperor, so the universal Church had its center in the pope. In fine, the emperors disposed of momentous measures in Church administration, such as the creation of new. bishoprics, the revival of earlier canon laws, and the execution of reforms in accord with the pope, largely through synods that were held with the pope conjointly. By this policy the emperors cooperated in speeding the way to the general recognition of the pope's primacy in the Church, and to that course of events -which began to prevail shortly after the middle of the eleventh century.

5. Spiritual and Temporal Supremacy Claimed.

About that time there loomed up in Rome the domination of a party in the Church which sought to free it from the influence hitherto exercised by the temporal power; not only to place the guidance of the Church in the and hands of the pope, but also to subject the temporal rulers, above all, the German emperor, to the papacy as being the directive secular force, the definitive world power. This party's principal exponent, Hildebrand (see GREGORY VII.), assumed as a privilege of the pope to be subject to no judge, and even claimed the right to depose emperors, to bear the imperial insignia, to decree new laws, to hold general councils, to erect new bishoprics, to divide and combine the same, to depose bishops, translate them, consecrate clerics of all churches, receive appeals in all cases, and to have sole decision in all weighty matters of every Church. Under Gregory's leadership of the Curia, and his subsequent pontificate, the influence of the Roman nobility and people upon the papal election became debarred; the imperial right of nomination, with attendant right of confirmation, was abolished; while ecclesiastical, reform was accomplished through successive synods convened by the pope alone, and composed of his own loyal supporters. These synods acted as a papal senate, and did away with the imperial synods. Gregory also repeatedly decreed the deposition of bishops, and ultimately annulled the emperor's antecedent right of appointment or investiture to the episcopal sees, over which the conflict issued between the German empire and the papacy (See INVESTITURE), and this terminated in the emancipation of the papacy from the imperial overlordahip. So the papacy became the court of last resort in the concerns of the Church, and also strove to win authoritative and leading power in the contemporary civil fabric of Europe. This was achieved under Innocent III.; though at the same time and by the same process the independence or autonomy of the local church tribunals, in particular the episcopal, was broken. Yet the bishops themselves had, for the most part, promoted the policy inaugurated by the Curia in the middle of the eleventh century, although with the undermining of the imperial and princely power they forfeited the essential support of their own freedom in relation to the papacy. The pope, who thereafter was regarded as the vicar of God, or of Christ, and from the time of Innocent III. designates himself as Such, laid claim to the supreme sovereignty over the Church and the world alike, though the temporal rule is committed for practical execution to the emperor and other princes subject to the pope's control. In the Church the pope alone commands the supreme and summary power which exalts him above all accountability before any human judge and above and before a general council. This was claimed not in virtue of the ancient canons, but solely through the dogma of divine right. The pope claimed a general right of dispensation and absolution; he alone could translate and remove bishops; whereas the archbishops and such titular bishops as he consecrated were required to render an oath of obedience patterned after the vassal's oath of allegiance. He heard cases of appeal from all quarters of the Church, and even decided primary cases. He reserved benefices for his own disposal; he assessed particular churches and the clergy for general ecclesiastical objects; and he sent abroad his delegates to all parts of the contemporary Roman Catholic world to carry out his rightful behest, overruling the ordinary local church tribunals. These theories reach their high tide at the beginning of the fourteenth century, are collectively termed the " papal system, and found their classic expression in the much-quoted bull of Bonifacius VIII., Unam sanotam ecdesiam (q.v.; text in Reich, Documents, pp. 193-195; Eng. transl. in Thatcher and McNeal, Source Book, pp. 314-317). At the same period, and primarily in France, the temporal power began to react against the excessive stretch of papal power, and its encroachments upon the temporal jurisdiction, while toward the close of the same century, evoked by the great schism (see SCHISM) which began in 1378, there cropped out a new trend, the so-called "episcopal" system, canceling or denying the " papal," which was dogmatically rejected by the Vatican Council of 1869-70, and that deliverance has been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as complete and final.

6. Primacy of Jurisdiction.

The present canon law doctrine distinguishes the pope's rights under two heads,"primacy of jurisdiction" and "primacy of hoor." In virtue of the primacy of jurisdiction, there acrues to him the supreme power over the Church in government and leadership; and in the execution of his charge he is bound only by dogma and the divine right. As touching any other law that has force in the Church, he is to respect the same so long as it exists. The most important rights in volved in the primacy arc the supreme right of legislation; the supreme direction and final decision of matters affecting ecclesiastical offices; the supreme judicial competency in cases of dispute, correction, discipline; regulation of the various religious institutions, particularly the orders and congregations; the supreme control of the ecclesiastical exchequer and assets of property; the right to uphold unity in the liturgy, as also in the administration of the sacraments and use of sacramentals; to direct the festivals in the Church at large; the right of beatification and canonization; the right of according indulgences and regulating fasts; and that of reserving for himself the absolution from sins pertaining to the sphere of conscience. Fur thermore, the primacy carries with it the supreme doctrinal authority. And when the pope voices his decisions in this respect, speaking or publishing ex cathedra; when in virtue of his apostolic authority as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines a proposition affecting faith or morals in the interests of the whole Church, his pronouncements are then informed with infallibility by reason of divine assistance, without need of any further assent on the part of the Church, as in a general council (in the Constitutio Vaticana of July 18, 1870, the bull Pastor �ternus, iv.). It is in virtue of this doctrinal authority that he can issue, spiritual decrees in the cause of enlarging the dogma, and of defining questionable dogmatic subjects; that he can condemn errors of doctrine, institute and direct missions, found educational establishments, and watch over the instruction therein dispensed. According to this " Vatican Constitution " the pope is not only empowered to exercise all these rights which his primacy conveys, in the manner of a supreme court, but he is also, by virtue of the same primacy, the universal bishop in all the Church. That is, he has an immediate, complete and cknonical episcopal power over all churches, dioceses, and believers. For although it is an exaggerated statement to say, as do the Old Catholics, that under this Vatican dogma the bishops have become legally dwarfed into mere vicars or attorneys of the pope, yet the Ultramontanists may deny that any change whatever has been brought about in the status of the bishops by force of the Vaticanum. While the Vatican Council by no means put aside the episcopal office as a distinct, or "independent" office, yet the bishops are in fact reduced to the same position as the vicars dependent on the pope directly. Owing to his supreme directive authority over the Church, the pope also represents the Church abroad, particularly in relation to civil governments, and this with a standing recognized in international law. But this is not to imply that, even in the states where Roman Catholics are in the majority, he enjoys a sovereignty over Roman Catholic citizens on like terms with the civil power; nor that his position in respect to civil governments is to be deemed equivalent to that between two independent sovereigns and states.

7. Primacy of Honor.

The pope's " primacy of honor " finds expression as follows: (1) In certain specified designations, titles, and forms of address appertaining to him alone: such as papa, pontifex maximus, or  or ; and in the forms of address, Sanctitas tua, or vestra, or sanctissime pater. (2) In the insignia of the papal dignity: the tiara, a headdress evolved from the combination of miter and crown, with three golden bands about the miter; the pedum rectum (straight pastoral staff); and the pallium, which, in distinction from the archbishops, he wears at all times and places, when officiating at mass. (3) The pope is entitled to the so-called adoratio, the homage due to him by the faithful in genuflection and kissing the papal foot. now restricted solely to ceremonious audiences antiformal acts of homage; while with ruling princes, it consists merely in kissing his hand. Apart from his position as leader of all the Church, the pope is coincidently bishop of Rome, also archbishop of the church province of Rome, primate of Italy, and patriarch of the West. Finally, the pope was also temporal sovereign of the Papal States (q.v.), while they existed, and as such he occupied, in view of international law, the highest rank among Roman Catholic princes.

II. Election of the Pope:

1. Development of Present Method.

In early times the bishop of Rome, like the diocesan of any other see, was chosen by the local clergy and people, assisted by neighboring bishops. Later the Roman emperors and the Ostrogothic kings exercised an influence, particularly in deciding disputed elections. After the fall of the Ostrogothic kingsdom in Italy, vacancy of the see of Rome was formally announced to the exarch at Ravenna, and a new pope was elected, usually on the third day after the burial of the former pontiff, by the clergy, the nobles, and the people of Rome. The exarch, after receiving the official report of the election, secured the approbation of the emperor, whereupon the newly elected pope was duly consecrated. During the decline of Lombard power in Italy, secular rulers exercised no supervision over papal elections, and at the Lateran synod of 769 the laity were restricted to mere acclamation of an election made by the clergy and to confirming-the protocol. While the story that Adrian I. conferred on Charlemagne the privilege of filling the papal throne is now acknowledged to be untrue, it is still a moot question whether the Frankish kings and emperors were merely informed by a new pontiff of his election and consecration, or could confirm the election and require an oath of fealty. It is certain, however, that after 824 a new pope was usually consecrated only after taking the oath of allegiance to the emperor, while the Roman council of 898 enacted that a pontiff should be consecrated only in the presence of imperial envoys.

With the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire (q.v.) by Otto I. the Romans were obliged to promise that no pope should be elected or consecrated without the approval of himself or his son, thus giving the emperors an influence on papal elections which was hitherto unprecedented. Though the old forms were preserved, the election became a mere form of choosing the candidate designated by the emperor, this power being held, despite all efforts of the Roman nobility, until the death of Henry III. in 1056. At the Roman Synod of 1059, however, Nicholas II. issued a decree which placed the election in the hands of the cardinal bishops, aided by the other cardinals, while the remaining clergy and the laity were allowed only the privilege of acclamation. The king, on the other hand, received from Nicholas the right of confirming subsequent elections, or at least of vetoing undesirable candidates before election. This arrangement proved impracticable, however, and at the third Lateran council, in 1179, Alexander III., tacitly presupposing in the abrogation of imperial prerogatives the absence of any share of clergy and laity in papal elections, enacted that the vote of two-thirds of all the college of cardinals was necessary for the lawful election of a pope. This forms the basis of the present laws governing papal elections, the principal supplements and modifications being enactments of the second council of Lyons (1274) and Clement V. (1311?), and the constitutions of Clement VI. (1351), Julius II. (1505), Pius IV. (1562), Gregory XV. (�terni patris of 1621, and the C�remoniale in electione Romani pontificis obseruandum of the same year), Urban VIII. (1626), and Clement XII. (1732).

2. The conclave.

Until the most recent regulations under Pius X. (q.v.), after the pope's death, the next ten days are devoted to preparations for the funeral ceremony and to preliminaries of the election; especially to the institution of the conclave. This interim serves at the same time to enable cardinals at a distance to reach Rome for participation in the election. The conclave, an apartment in which the cardinals must proceed with the election guarded and excluded from the outer world (which they are not allowed to leave before the election is completed), is made ready in the Vatican, and comprises a chapel (for the elective transaction), together with a suite of halls in which cells are fitted up for the cardinals' and the conclavists' lodgings. The conclavists are persons who have to attend the cardinals in the conclave; such as their servants, two physicians, a sacrist, two masons and carpenters, and others. The cardinals and conclavists occupy this apartment on the eleventh day, after a solemn high office. Hereupon the constitutions on papal election are read forth, and sworn to by the cardinals, and the conclavists are sworn in. At evening, all unauthorized persons must leave the conclave; and now the entrances are all walled shut except one, through which food for the persons in the conclave is daily introduced; and this one entrance is strictly guarded.

3. The Election.

For participation in the election, only those cardinals are of qualified authority who have received consecration to the diaconate. Neither is such a one debarred by excommunication, suspension, or interdict. Absentees can deliver their vote neither by letter nor by substitute. Theoretically every Catholic male Christian, even a layman, who has not lapsed into heresy, is eligible. But since Urban VI. (1378-89), previously archbishop of Bari, none but a cardinal has been elected (cf. G. Berthelet, Muss der Papst ein Italiener sein? Leipsic, 1894). The states of Austria, France, and Spain have the right, for each state as affecting one candidate, of declaring a cardinal passively ineligible; but the election of an " excluded " candidate can not be challenged. In regard to the election itself, it is forbidden, under penalty of forfeited vote, to engage in " electioneering." Every cardinal present is bound, under pain of excommunication, to take part in the business of election,, which is in order twice a day, forenoon and afternoon, till the result be achieved. Where voters are sick and unable to leave their cells, their vote is of necessity sent for, and this by the hand of cardinals expressly selected for the purpose by lot. The only admissible kinds of election are (a), the electio quasi per inspirationem, election by acclamation; (b) the electio per compromissum, in which the cardinals, instead of electing the pope in a body, unanimously transfer the elective prerogative to a specified quorum of their colleagues (two at least), and then instruct them in detail as to the steps next to be observed in the matter: for instance, whether unanimity or simply majority shall be required save that no unlawful forms, e.g., election by lot, are allowed to be adopted; (c) the electio per scrutinium or by ballot. In this case all the electors must write the name of their candidate on one of the specially prepared voting tickets, containing printed directions and to be folded; which ballots they must deposit in order in a chalice upon the altar, within view of the three appointed scrutineers. Next follows the counting of the ballots. Should their number fail to tally with that of the cardinals present, the balloting must be stopped, and the votes are burned. Otherwise the result of the voting is reckoned up, and the election is ended -provided a candidate has received more than the requisite two-thirds majority. Should it so happen, however, that he has received only just that majority, it is ascertained by opening his ballot whether he has not cast his vote for himself; which is against the rules and nullifies the election. Ballots containing the names of several candidates are void. Where the balloting fails to yield the prescribed majority for some one of the candidates, a special procedure is still in order, the so-called accessus, with the object of testing whether a contingent of the voters will not surrender their candidates and declare themselves for one of the others. This amounts to a supplementary balloting to the first ballot: in other words, the votes already cast stand effectual, and the accessit votes are counted with them. In order that a result may be reached by this process, and yet that the vote of the individual voter shall not be twice counted for his candidate. the following regulations are in force with the ,i>accessit balloting. No one is allowed to repeat his vote in the accessit, in favor of the candidate whom he has already named in the ballot, but he can retain his choice by writing on his ticket, Accedo nemini. Nor can any one receive a vote of accessit who has not yet been nominated in the original balloting. If the accessit yields no result, the whole act of election stops, and the balloting must be begun anew at the next elective session. More than one accessit is inadmissible.

Pius X., who was elected in consequence of employment of the exclusiva (see EXCLUSION, RIGHT OF), through the constitution Commissum nobis of Jan. 20, 1904, prohibited the cardinals, under penalty of excommunication, to allow in the future the veto of any government, even though expressed merely in the form of a wish. Thus the exclusiva is abolished. It is not yet known what attitude the affected states will take in the matter. Through the constitution Vacante sede, apostolica of Dec. 25, 1904, this pope regulated the entire course of papal election and at the same time introduced the following innovations: the funeral rites for a deceased pope are to last nine days, after which the cardinals shall enter the conclave. But on the day after the death of the pope the first session of the Holy College is to be held, the rules for papal election in the conclave are to be read, and the oath of the cardinals and conclavists is taken. If the balloting leads to no result, there takes place no accessory meeting, but a second balloting, under the came conditions as the first. Simony no longer nullifies election. Directions concerning the feeding of conclavists are wanting, hence the rule of Leo XIII. concerning the erection of kitchens within the conclave chambers remains unchanged. Secrecy after the end of the conclave in respect to official affairs is specially enjoined.

4. Procedure after Election.

The elected candidate, upon confirmation of the result of the election, is solemnly asked by the subdean whether he accepts the election. With the acceptance, he receives the papal office. At the same time, and in accordance with a custom constantly in effect since the eleventh century, he an anounces what name he will bear as pope. Thereupon the elected candidate is robed with the papal vestments, and now begins their first adoration on the part of the cardinals. Meanwhile the sealing of the conclave has been canceled, and the first cardinal deacon forthwith proclaims to the people the proper name and papal name of the new pope. In the afternoon of the same day there ensues first in the Sistine Chapel and then in Saint Peter's the second and third adoration on the cardinals' part, this time in public. If the pope elect is not as yet dignified with the episcopal consecration, but only with one of the lower grades of consecration, he receives the orders which are still owing to him inclusive of the priestly consecration, by the office of one of the cardinal bishops. The episcopal consecration, which in former times was performed coincidently with the coronation, is now usually appointed on a Sunday or festival preceding. It is consummated by the dean of the college of cardinals. If the pope elect was of episcopal rank already, then a benediction takes the place of consecration. After the consecration or benediction, there follows the coronation by the dean of the cardinal deacons with the triple crown in Saint Peter's, and on some subsequent day the formal occupancy of the Vatican. Incumbency of the papal chair by any other process than that of election by the cardinals is not recognized by the present positive canon of the Roman Catholic Church; and in particular it is held to be unlawful for the ruling pope to appoint his own successor; although attempts of that kind repeatedly came about in former centuries, and although the competency of the pope to alter the prevalent law in this respect can hardly be doubted.

F.SEHLING.

COMPLETE LIST OF THE POPES.

According to the claim of the Roman Catholic Church the Apostle Peter was the first pope and reigned from 41 to 67.

• (67-79?) ...............Linus
• (79-91?) ...............Cletus, or Anacletus
• (91-100?) .............Clemens I.
• (101-109?)............Evarestus
• (109-119)..............Alexander I.
• 119-128................Sixtus I.
• ? 128-137.............Telesphorus
• ? 138-142 ............Hyginus
• ? 142-156 ............Pius I.

? 157-187 ............ Anicetus

? 188-178............. Soter

? 177-189............. Eleutherus

?190-202.............. Victor I.

202-217................ Zephyrinus

218-222................ Calixtus or Callistus I. (Hippolytus, Antipope)

? 222-230............. Urbanus I.

? 230-235............. Pontianus (resigned in exile)

235-238................ Anterus

238-250................ Fabianus, Martyr

? 251-252............. Cornelius (in exile)

? 251................... (Novatianus, Antipope)

252-253................ Lucius I.

? 253-257............. Stephen I.

? 257-258............. Sixtus II.

259-289................ Dionysius

289-274................ Felix I.

275-283................ Eutychianus

283-298................ Caius

298-304................ Marcellinus

307-309................ Marcellus

? 309................... Eusebius, d. Sept. 28 (?). 309

310-314................ Miltiades (Melchiades)

314-335................ Silvester I.

338...................... Marcus

337-352................ Julius I.

352-355................ Liberius

355-366................ Felix II, Antipope

366...................... Ursinus. Antipope

366-384................ Damasus

384-398................ Siricius

398-402................ Anastasius

402-417................ Innocent I.

417-118................ Zosimus

418, Dec. 27......... [Eulalius, Antipope]

418-422................ Boniface I.,

422-432................ Celestine I.

432-440................ Sixtus III.

440-461................ Leo I.

461-468................ Hilary

468-483................ Simplicius

483-492................ Felix III.

492-496................ Gelasius I.

496-498................ Ansatasius II.

498-514................ Symmachus

498, Nov............... Laurentius, Antipope

514-523................ Hormisdas

523-526................ John I.

526-530................ Felix IV.

530-532................ Boniface II.

530, Sept. 17........ Dioscorus. Antipope

532-535................ John II. Mercurius

535-538................ Agapetus I.

538-538................ Silverius (exiled)

537-555................ Vigilius

555-560................ Pelagius I.

560-573................ John III.

574-578................ Benedict I.

578-590................ Pelegius II.

590-604................ St. Gregory I. (the Great)

604-606................ Sabinianus

607..................... Boniface III.

608-615................ Boniface IV.

615 618................ Deusdedit

619-625............... Boniface V.

625-638................ Honorius I.

640...................... Severinus

640-642................ John IV.

642-649................ Theodorus I.

649-655................ St. Martin I. (exiled in 654)

654-657............... Eugenius I.

657-672................ Vitalianus

672-678................ Adeodatus

676-678................ Donus or Dommus I.

678-681................ Agatho

682-683................ Leo II.

684-685............... Benedict II.

685-686................ John V.

686-687................ Conon

687-692................ Paschal, Antipope

687...................... Theodorus, Antipope

687-701................ Sergius I.

701-705................ John VI.

705-707................ John VII.

708...................... Sisinnius

708-715................ Constantine I.

715-731................ Gregory II.

731-741................ Gregory III.

741-752................ Zacharias

752 (3 days) ........ Stephen II.

752-757................ Stephen III.

757-767................ Paul I.

767-788................ Constantine II.

768-772................ Stephen IV.

772-795 ............... Adrian I.

795-816................ Leo III.

816-817................ Stephen V.

817-824................ Paschal I.

824-827................ Eugenius II.

827 (40 days) ....... Valentinus

827-844................ Gregory IV.

844-847................ Sergius II.

847-855................ Leo IV.

855-858................ Benedict Ill.

855...................... Anastasius

858-867................ Nicholas I.

867-872................ Adrian II.

872-882................ John VIII.

882-884................ Marinus

884-885................ Adrian III.

885-891................ Stephen VI.

891-896................ Formosus

896 (15 days)........ Boniface VI.

896--897............... Stephen VII.

897 (4 months)...... Romanus

897...................... Theodorus II.

898-900................ John IX.

900-903................ Benedict IV

903 (1 month)........ Leo V.

903-904................ Christopher

904-911................ Sergius III.

911-913................ Anastasius III.

913-May, 914........ Lando

914-929................ John X.

928-929................ Leo VI.

929-931................ Stephen VIII.

931-936................ John XI.

936-939................ Leo VII.

939-942................ Stephen IX.

942-946................ Marinus II.

946-955................ Agapetus

955-964................ John XII t

963-965................ Leo VIII.

964-965................ Benedict V.

965-972................ John XIII.

973-974................ Benedict VI.

974-983................ Benedict VII.

983-984................ John XIV.

984-985................ Boniface VII.

985-996................ John XV.

996-999................ Gregory V.

997-998................ John XVI.

999-1003.............. Silvester II.

1003.................... John XVII.

1003-1009............ John XVIII.

1009-1012............ Sergius IV.

1012-1024............ Benedict VIII.

1012.................... Gregory VI., Antipope

1024-1033............ John XIX.

1033-1045............ Benedict IX. (deposed)

1045-1046............ Silvester III.

1044-1046............ Gregory VI.

1046-1047............ Clement II.

1048.................... Damasus II.

1049-1054............ Leo IX.

1055-1057............ Victor II.

1057-1058............ Stephen X. (deposed)

1058-1059............ Benedict X.

1059-1081............ Nicholas II.

1061-1073............ Alexander II.

1061................... Cadalus (Honorius II), Antipope

1073-1085............Gregory VII. (Hildebrand)

1080-1100............Wibertus (Clement Ill.)

1086-1087............Victor III.

---

* d. in prison after supersession

t removed 983.

1088-1099............. Urban II.

1099-1118............. Paschal II.

1100..................... Theodoricus, Antipope

1102..................... Albertus, Antipope

1105-1111............. Silvester IV., Antipope

1118-1119............. Gelasius II.

1118-1121............. Gregory VIll., Antipope

1119-1124............. Calistus II.

1124..................... Theobaldus Buccapecus (Celestine), Antipope

1124-1130.............. Honorius II.

1130-1143.............. Innocent II.

1130-1138.............. Anacletus II.

1138...................... Victor IV., Antipope

1143-1144.............. Celestine II.

1144-1145.............. Lucius II.

1145-1153.............. Eugeniua III.

1153-1154.............. Anastasius IV.

1154-1159.............. Adrian IV.

1159-1181.............. Alexander III

1159-1184.............. Victor IV.. Antipope

1164-1188.............. Paschal III. Antipope

1188-1178.............. Calixtus III., Antipope

1178-1150.............. Innocent III., Antipope

1181-1185.............. Lucius III.

1185-1187.............. Urban III.

1187-1191.............. Gregory VIII.

1187...................... Clement III.

1191-1198.............. Celestine III.

1198-1218.............. Innocent III.

1218-1227.............. Honorius III.

1227-1241.............. Gregory IX.

1241...................... Celestine IV.

1243-1254.............. Innocent IV.

1254-1281.............. Alexander IV.

1281-1284.............. Urban IV.

1285-1288.............. Clement IV.

1271-1278.............. Gregory X.

1278...................... Innocent V.

1278...................... Adrian V.

1278-1277.............. John XXI.

1277-1280.............. Nicholas III.

1281-1285.............. Martin IV.

1285-1287.............. Honorius IV.

1288-1292.............. Nicholas IV.

1294...................... St. Celistine V. (abdicated)

1294-1303.............. Boniface VIII.

1303-1304.............. Benedict XI.

1305-1314.............. Clement V.¹

1318-1334.............. John XXII.Clement VII.

1334-1342.............. Benedict XII.

1342-1352.............. Clement VI.

1352-1382.............. Innocent VI.

1382-1370.............. Urban V.

1370-1378.............. Gregory XI.

1378-1389.............. Urban VI.

1378-1394.............. Clement VII.

1389-1404.............. Boniface LX.

1394-1423.............. Benedict XIII. deposed 1409)

1404-1406.............. Innocent VII.

1406-1415.............. Gregory XII. (deposed 1409)

1409-1410.............. Alexander V.

1410-1415.............. John XXIII. (deposed)

1417-1431.............. Martin V.

1417...................... Clement VIII

1431-1447.............. Eugene IV.

1439-1449.............. Felix V.

1447-1455.............. Nicholas V.

1455-1458.............. Calixtus III.

1458-1484.............. Pius II.

1484-1471.............. Paul II.

1471-1484.............. Sixtus IV.

1484-1492.............. Innocent VIII.

1492-1503.............. Alexander VI.

1503...................... Pius III.

1b03-1513.............. Julius II.

1513-1521.............. Leo X.

1522-1523.............. Adrian VI.

1534-1532 ............. Clement VII

1534-1549.............. Paul III.

1550-1555.............. Julius III.

1555..................... Marcelus II.

1555-1559.............. Paul IV.

1559-1565.............. Pius IV.

1566-1572.............. Pius V.

1572-1585.............. Gregory XIII.

1585-1590.............. Sixtus V.

1590...................... Urban VII.

1590-1591.............. Gregory XIV.

1591...................... Innocent IX.

1592-1605.............. Clement VIII.

1605...................... Leo XI.

1605-1621.............. Paul V.

1621-1623.............. Gregory XV.

1623-1644.............. Urban VIII.

1644-1655.............. Innocent X.

1655-1687.............. Alexander VII.

1687-1689.............. Clement IX.

1670-1678.............. Clement X.

1678-1689.............. Innocent XI.

1689-1691.............. Alexander VIII.

1691-1700.............. Innocent XII.

1700-1721.............. Clement XI.

1721-1724.............. Innocent XIII.

1724-1730.............. Benedict XIII.

1730-1740.............. Clement XII.

1740-1758.............. Benedict XIV.

1758-1789.............. Clement XIII.

1789-1774.............. Clement XIV.

1775-1799.............. Pius VI.

1823-1829.............. Pius VII.

1800-1823.............. Leo XII.

1829-1830.............. Pius VIII.

1831-1848.............. Gregory XVI.

1848-1878.............. Pius IX. (longest reign)

1878-1903.............. Leo XIII.

1903 ..................... Pius X.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the details of the development of the papacy as for a mass of literature the reader is referred to the articles on the various popes and the bibliographies attached. The chief sources are indicated, as well as the leading treatises, in vol. i., pp xxii.-xxiii, of this work, where are noted the histories of the popes by Mann, Pastor, Creighton, Von Ranks, Nielsen, Gregorovius, Bower, Milman, and Mirbt: not to be overlooked is the literature under such articles as INFALLIBILITY; INVESTITURE; TRENT, COUNCIL OF; and ULTRAMONTANISM. The sources are in the Liber pontificalia;  Jaff�, Regesta;  J. M. Watterich Romanorum pontifcum vit�:, 2 vols., Leipsic. 1882; A. Potthast, Regesta pontificum Romanorum. Parts i.-xii.,Berlin, 1873-75; Regesta Pontihcum romanwrum, ed. P, F. Kehr, vols., i.-iv., Berlin, 1908-09; and the various collections of bulls, briefs, and the like. A fine lot of original documents is massed in Reich Documents, pp, 127, 245, and others are scattered in other parts of the work; translations of many of these are found in Thatcher and McNeal, Source Book, pp. 83_258, 309-340; also, in Hendeison, Documents pp, 287 sqq.; and in F. A. Ogg, Source Book of Medieval History, pp, 78 sqq., 281 sqq., 380 sqq. For the history of the papacy in its various relations consult: F. Maasaen, Der Primat des Biachofs von Rom and die alten Patriarchalkirchen, Bonn, 1853; T. Greenwood. Cathedra Petri: a Political History of the great Latin Patriarchate, 8 vols, London 1858-72; A. Westermayer, Das Papstthum in den ersten 500 Jahren, Schaffhausen, 1887-89; A, von Reumont, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, 3 vols., Berlin, 1887-70; R. Baxmann, Die Polatik der Papste, 2 vols., Elberfeld, 1588-89; E. Dumont, La Popaute, les premiers empereurs chritiens et les premiers conciles generaux, Paris, 1877; P. Lanfrey. Hist. politique des papes. new ed.. Paris 1850; B. Jungmann, Diasertstiones selectas, 5 vols.. Regensburg, 1880-85; A. R. Pennington. Epochs of >the Papacy, London. 1881; F. Roequain, La Papaute au moyen age, Paris. 1881; W. von Gieselbreeht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, 8 vols., Brunswick 1881 sqq.; J. Langen, Geschichte der romischen Kirche, 4 vols., Bonn 1881-93; F. Gregonpvius, Geschichte den Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, 8 vols., Stuttgart, 1888-98, Eng transl.. London 1895-1902; M, Souchon, Die PsPatwahlea von Bon%faz VIII. bin Urban VI .,  Brunswick, 1858; H. Doplfel. Kaisertum and Papstwechsel unter den Karolvngern, Freiburg, 1889; R. F. Littledale, The Petrine Claims, London, 1889; J. J. I, von D�llinger.

Das Papstthum, new ed., Munich, 1892; H. Wilfrid, Die Geschichte der P�pste, Basel, 1894; G. Goyau, Le Vatican, les papes et la civilisation, Brussels, 1895; W. Bright, The Roman See in the Early Church, and Other Studies, London, 1896; C. Locke, Age of the Great Western Schism, New York, 1896; M. R. Vincent, The Age of Hildebrand, New York, 1896; L. Duchesne, Lea Premiers Temps de l'�tat pontifical, 764-1076, Paris, 1898; Eng. transl., The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes, 754-1075, London, 1908; L. Rivington, The Roman Primacy, A.D. 430-451, London, 1899; T. F. Tout, The Empire and the Papacy, 918-1273, London, 1899, new ed., ib. 1901; F. Fournier, Le Papaut� devant l'histoire, 2 vols, Paris, 1899-1900; F. Nippold, Papacy in the 18th Century, New York, 1900; F. W. Pullen, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, London, 1900; K. D. Beste, The Victoriesof Rome and the Temporal Monarchy of the Church, London, 1901; H. Bouvier, Le Government de l'�glise de Rome de la fin du premi�rs si�cle jusqu'au milieu du trois�me, Mont�beliard, 1901; W. Miller, Medi�val Rome, 1078-1600, London, 1901; F. von Bach, Geschichte der Papste vom Beginne . . . bis zu Gregor XVI, Bamberg, 1902; W. Barry, The Papal Monarchy from Gregory the Great to Boniface VIII., 690-1306, London. 1902; A. D. Greenwood, Empire and Papacy in the Middle Ages, London, 1902; J. Maitre, Les Papes et la papautb d'apris la prophdie attribu4e a Saint Malaehie, Paris, 1902; Cambridge Modern History, vol. 1, vi. 536 sqq., Cambridge 1902-09; W. Norden, Das Papsttum and Byzans, Berlin, 1903; F. von Thudiehum, Papsttum and Reformation im Mittelalter, 1143-1617, Leipsic, 1903; B. Labanca, Il Papato. Sua origine, sue lotte a vicende, suo avvenire, Turin, 1905; G. Kr�ger, Das Papsttum. Seine Idee and ihre Tr�ger, T�bingen, 1907, Eng. transl., The Papacy, London, 1909; J. Turmel, Histoire du dogma de la papaut� des origines a la fin du quatri�ma si�cle, Paris, 1908; J. J. Walsh The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science during the Middle Ages and down to our Time, New York, 1908; G. Bartoli, The Primitive Church and the Primacy of Rome. London, 1909; T. S.. Dolan, The Papacy and the First Councils of the Church, St. Louis, 1910; A. C. Jennings, The Mediaval Church and the Papacy, London, 1909; W. J. Simpson, Papal Infallibility and its Roman Catholic Opponents, London, 1909; G. F. Young, The Medici, 2 vols., New York, 1910; W. E. Beet, The Rise of the Papacy, A.D. 386-461, London, 1910; , H. Koch, Cyprian and der r�mische Primat, Leipsic, 1910; J. Schnitzer, Hat Jesus das Papsttum gastiftei, Augsburg 1910; J. S. Vaughan, The Purpose of the Papacy London, 1910; and the works on church history, e.g., Schaff, Chrislian Church, ii. 154 sqq., iii. 299 sqq., iv. 203 sqq., v. passim, vi. 252 sqq. On elections consult: W. C. Cartwright, On Papal Conclaves, Edinburgh, 1868; R. Mpffell, Die Papstwahlen und die mit ihnen im n&aunl;chsten Zusammenhange stehenden Ceremonien in ihrer Entwickelung, G�ttingen, 1872; O. Lorenz, Papetwahl and Kaiserthum, Berlin, 1874; M. Heimbucher, Die Papstwahlen unter den Karoiingern, Augsburg, 1889; A. R. Pennington, The Papal Conclaves, London, 1897; H. J. Wurm, Die Papstwahl. lhre Geschichte and Gebr�uche, Cologne, 1902: G. Berthelet, Conclavi pontefici e cardinali nel secolo, Turin, 1903; P. Here, Papsttum und Papstwahle im Zeitalter Philipps II., Leipsic, 1907 (important).
 

¹ *Clement V, moved the papal see to Avignon in 1309; and his successors continued to reside there for seventy years, till Gregory XI. After that date arose a forty-years' schism between the Roman popes and the Avignon popes.

POPE, WILLIAM BURT: Methodist; b. at Harton, N. S., Feb. 19, 1822; d. at Hendon, London, July 5, 1903. He studied theology at Richmond College, England; was a Methodist pastor (1841-67); and professor of theology in Didsbury College, Manchester, from 1867. He published The Words of the Lord Jesus, a translation from the German of R. E. Stier (10 vols.; Edinburgh, 1855, and later); Discourses on the Kingdom and Reign of Christ  (London, 1869); The Person of Christ (Fernley Lecture, 1875; later ed., 1899); A Compendium of Christian Theology (3 vols.; 1875-76); Discourses, chefly on the Lordship of the incarmate Redeemer (1880); Sermons, Addresses, and Charges of a Year (1878); and A Higher Catechism of Theology (1883).

PORDAGE, JOHN: English mystic; b. at London 1607; d. there Dec., 1681. He studied theology and medicine at Oxford, probably without taking a degree, at least in course. In 1644 he became curate of St. Lawrence, Reading, and in 1647 was made rector of Bradfield, Berkshire, being apparently recommended chiefly by his knowledge of astrology. He soon began to examine English translations of Jakob B�hme, and on, the night of Jan. 3, 1651, received a number of visions, to the reality of which his wife testified. A band of about twenty quickly gathered around the two visionaries, and for some three weeks there was no cessation of apparitions. Under the Commonwealth, Pordage was accused of heresy, the charges involving a sort of mystical pantheism, but he was acquitted on Mar. 27, 1651. The accusations were renewed, however, by the Presbyterians John Tickel and Christopher Fowler, and on Dec. 8, 1654, Pordage was ejected as " ignorant and very insufficient for the work of the ministry." He was reinstated in 1663, but about 1670 seems to have retired to London, where he spent the remainder of his life.

About 1652 Pordage became acquainted with Jane Lead (q.v.), introducing her to B�hme's mysticism, and being won in turn as her adherent by her own visions. In Dec., 1671, he received new revelations, in which his spirit, detached from sense and reason, was translated to the mountain of eternity; and this experience evidently formed the basis of his system of mysticism. Though deeply influenced by astrology and alchemy, Pordage, like B�hme, sought to make room in his speculative system for everything essential in Biblical revelation. In God he recognizes the being of all beings, and the primal cause of all causes. The Father is the generator of the Son, or Word, who constitutes the center, or heart, of the Trinity. The Holy Ghost is the life and force which executes the will of the Father through the Son. Next comes the cosmic sphere of eternity 'with three distinct categories of space: outer court, sanctuary, and holy of holies. In the center of this sphere, God's residence proper, dwells the eye that represents God himself; in the outer court it is closed; in the sanctuary, open; in the holy of holies, revealed with full splendor. The body of God, moreover, is eternal cloud, and its outline that of Noah's ark.

An important place is assigned in Pordage's scheme to a kind of intermediate being termed Sophia, or heavenly wisdom, which he regarded as the radiance from the eye of eternity, and as the consort and attendant of the Trinity. He likewise affirmed a series of emanations or spirits possessed of the same substance as the Godhead. A lower sphere is occupied by the eternal spirits of angels and men; but while Adam's eternal spirit bore the spirits of his sons, the souls and bodies of angels and men are not immediately from God, but created from the essence of eternal nature. This eternal nature was not born of God, as was the eternal world, but was created by him from the divine chaos which concealed within itself the forces of the worlds. He also taught a coalescence of the inner man with the transfigured person of Christ, and had no sympathy with conditions in the Church of his time.

The principal works of Pordage were as follows: Truth appearing through the Clouds of undeserved Scandal (London, 1655); Innocency appearing through the dark Mists of Pretended Guilt (1655); A just Narrative of the Proceedings of the Commissioners of Berks . . . against John Pordage (1655); and the posthumous Theologia Mystica, or the Mystic Divinitie of the �ternal Indivisible (anonymous; 1683). From his manuscripts was translated Vier Tract�tlein . . . Von der Aeusaeren Gebuhrt und Fleiachwerdung Jesu Christi . . . Von der Mystischen and innern Gebuhrt . . . .Vom Geiste des Glaubens ... Experimentale Entdeckungen von Vereinigungder Naturen, Essenzen, Tinduren, Leiber (Amsterdam, 1704). A number of other works never published in English are mentioned in an advertisement appended to Jane Lead's Fountain of Gardens (London, 1697; cf. DNB, xlvi. 151).

A. R�EGG.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The primal sources for a biography are Pordage's own writings, ut sup., ef. C. Fowler, D�monium meridianum. Being a . . . Relation of the Proceedings of the Commissioners . . . against J. Pordage With some Animadversions . . . upon a Book of . . J. Pordage, London, 1655. Consult further: G. Arnold, Unparteyische Kirchen- and Ketzorhistorie iv. 915, Frankfort, 1715; P. Poirot, Btbliotheca mysticoram selecta, p. 174, Amsterdam, 1708; A. � Wood, Athen� Oxonisnsse, ed. P. Bliss, iii. 1098, iv. 405, 715, 4 vols., London, 1817-20; DNB:, xivi. 150-151.

PORETE, MARGARETA.  See FREE SPIRIT, BRETHREN OF THE, � 3.

PORPHYRY: Bishop of Gaza; b. at Thessalonica c. 347; d. at Gaza Feb. 26, 420. After spending five years in the Scetic desert in Egypt, he passed an equal period in Palestine under privations which impaired his health, visiting the sacred sites and living in Jerusalem, where Bishop Praylius ordained him presbyter and made him custodian of the wood of the cross. Early in 395 he was consecrated bishop of Gaza, where he increased the scanty number of Christians, but at the same time met with bitter pagan opposition, so that he twice appealed to the court to close and destroy the heathen temples first (398) through his deacon Marcus, and second (401-402) in person together with the archbishop of Caesarea. The temple of the god Marnas was especially offensive to the Christians, and on his second appeal the intervention of the Empress Eudoxia secured the destruction of the shrine. On the site was erected a magnificent church, the Eudoxiana.

(E. HENNECKE.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Vita, by the deaoon Marcus was edited with commentary by M. Haupt for the Berlin Academy, in the Abhandlungen, 1874, pp. 171-215, and published separately, 1875; it is also in ASB, Feb., iii. 643-461; MPG, xxxv. 849-694; and ed. by the Bonn society for philology, Leipsic, 1895; the dissertation of A. Nuth De Marci diaconi vita Porphyrii, Bonn, 1897, is important; cf. Dreaeke, in ZWT xxxi (1888), 352-374. Consult further: Tillemont, M�moires x. 703-716; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr�s, vi. 329-330; DNB, iv. 444-145.

PORPHYRY THE NEOPLATONIST.  See NEOPLATONISM, III., � 1.

PORST, JOHANN: German Pietist and hymnologiat; b. at Oberkotzau (28 m. n.e. of Bayreuth), Dec. 11, 1668; d. at Berlin Jan. 10, 1728. After completing his education at the University of Leipsic, he became private tutor at Neustadt-on-the-Aisch in 1692. Becoming deeply interested in the writings of Spener (q.v.), three years later he removed to Berlin, where he attended the lectures of the distinguished Pietist. In 1698 he was called to be pastor of Malchow and Hohen-Schonhauaen near Berlin, and six years later he became second preacher at the Friederich-Werdersche and Dorotheenst�dtische Kirche, in both positions remaining true to the principles of Spener, and being a forerunner of certain later tendencies of the Inhere Mission. In 1709 be became the chaplain of Sophie Louise, the second wife of Frederick I, and the king invited him in 1713 to become provost of Berlin. After some hesitation, Porst accepted, and became at the same time senior of the Berlin clergy and inspector of the Gray Friars Gymnasium.

Porst's independent literary work was inferior in value to his practical activity as preacher and pastor., Although twenty-four books of his have been enumerated, many of these were only sermons, and others excerpts from larger works written by himself. He devoted much energy to the collecting and editing of edicts and enactments is the interests of church government. At the same time, he wrote several larger works, especially the Theologia practica regenitorum (Halle, 1743), and Theologia viatorum practica (1755), both ascetic treatises conspicuously Pietistic in tendency. Porst is best known, however, for the hymnal, prepared originally for Berlin but later used throughout Brandenburg, which is one of the chief repositories of hymns breathing the Pietism of Spener and the earlier Halls school. The hymnal first appeared anonymously with the title Geistliche liebliche Lieder (Berlin, 1708), containing 420 hymns. A second edition, with 840 hymns, including a special rubric " on the hope of Zion," pertaining to hymns of Chiliastic import,was issued as the Nun vermehrtes geistreiches Gesangbtuch (1711). The third edition, Geistliche and liebliche Lieder (1713), Porst issued in his own name. It contained 906 hymns. The latest revision was that of J. F. Bachmann , of the edition of 1728 (1855; last edition, 1901) from which sixty-two hymns of a false subjectivity were dropped, and as appendix containing 210 earlier or later good hymns was affixed.

(E. IDELER.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A sketch of the life of Porst was furnished by Staudt to his ed. of one of Porst's smaller works, G�ttliche f�rung der Seelen, Stuttgart, 1850. Consult further: J. F. Bachmann, Zur Geschichte der Berliner Gesangb�cher, Berlin, 1856; idem, Die Gesangb�cher Berlins, ib. 1857; E. E. Koch, Geschichte des Kirclesnlieds, vol. iv., Stuttgart, 1888.

PORT-ROYAL:

Foundation: Ang�lique.

St. Cyran and the Male Community.

In 1633 Zamet opened a nunnery near the Louvre for the perpetual adoration of the blessed sacrament, of which the archbishop of St. Cyran Paris made Ang6lique mother superior. Shortly afterward Jean du Vergier de Hauranne became chaplain and confessor; he had been abbot of St. Cyran since 1620, and was accordingly known as St. Cyran (see DU VENGIER, JEAN). A close friend of Jansen since his student days, an equally uncompromising foe of the Jesuits and admirably adapted to be a confessor, he was a man of com manding personal influence. In 1633 a small book of Agnes, the sister of Ang�lique, the Chapelet secret du St. Sacrement, discussing eighteen virtues of Christ, was condemned by the Sorbonne. Zamet, however, approved it, as did Saint Cyraa and Jansen- In gratitude for his aid, Zamet introduced St. Cyran into the nunnery of the Blessed Sacrament, whose inmates had been much offended by the book; and through his influence the seculari zing tendencies of Zamet vanished more and more until, May 16, 1638, this nunnery was abandoned and its property and privileges were transferred to Port-Royal. In 1636 Ang�lique returned to PortRoyal, where her sister Agnes was chosen abbess. St. Cyran became here, too, the spiritual guide. Under his influence not only was there a marked renewal of the deepest Roman Catholic piety in the nunnery of Port-Royal, but a community of male ascetics was formed, among whom were the three brothers, Antoine Lemaistre, Louis Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy (q.v.), and Simon de S�ricourt, and also Robert Arnauld d'Audilly (see ARNAULD). The last was the eldest brother and the three brothers were nephews of Ang�lique. The community numbered only twelve in 1646, when it was at its height. These new anchorites, who did not sever themselves utterly from the world, alternated between their annual duties and diligent study of the Bible and Church Fathers (especially Augustine) together with meditations and conversations on religious themes. Great attention was devoted to the education of the young; and in 1646 regular schools were opened in Paris, and in 1653 in the country. The entire number of pupils can not have been more than 1,000. In 1660, however, the schools were suppressed, and from 1670 to 1678 only young girls could be educated. The method was characterized by individual training with moral and religioxis emphasis, leading to the happiest results. The aim was to awaken and promote the minor powers and to conquer evil propensities. The discipline was marked by vigilance, untiring patience, gentleness, and prayer. The divine image and the human fallibility of the pupil were to be constantly kept in view. Racine was the most distinguished pupil and the " Petites �coles " made a famous contribution to pedagogical history.

Conflict

The prominence of Port-Royal could not fail to expose it to opposition. A book on virginity, which exhibited independence of thought, caused Richelieu to imprison St. Cyran on May 14, 1638. in the tower of Vincennes; where, directing his followers uninterruptedly in his correspondence, he remained until his release on Feb. 6, 1643, two months after Richelieu's death. His great achievement during this period was his conversion of Ang�lique's youngest brother, Antoine Arnauld (1612-94; q.v.), the greatest theologian of Port-Royal. In 1643 Arnauld's De la frequents communion (Paris, 1843), with its protest against careless communing, its in sistence on repentance, and its warning against the opus operntum, was a practical application of Jansenistic principles and the manifesto with which Port-Royal openly declared war on the Jesuits. Amauld was cited to appear at Rome, but he did not go, remaining for several years in concealment. The period of 1648-56 was that of the greatest prosperity for Port-Royal. During the warfare of the Fronde, the monastery was on the royal side; but when, in his bull of May 31, 1653, Innocent X. condemned five theses of Jansen (see JANSEN, CORNEILIUS, JANSENISM) the war on Port-Royal as the French citadel of Jansenism broke out. Arnauld, expelled from the Sorbonne, Sacy, Fontaine, and Nicole sought hiding in Paris. The community obeyed the command to retire from Port-Royal, but the threatened blow was averted by Pascal's defense of Jansenism in his Lettres provinciales (see PASCAL, BLAISE) and by the miracle of the holy thorn, four days after the retirement, which was the alleged cure of an ulcer in the eye of Marguerite Perier, Pascal's niece, effected by touching the holy thorn, and which was exalted by PortRoyalists as a confirmation of their faith and by the wonder-struck Jesuits as a new divine respite for the Jansenists. The following years formed a period of peace; but upon his accession in 1660, Louis XIV. determined to annihilate both Janaenism and protestantism in France, and in April of the following year both monasteries were compelled to dismiss their pensioners, postulants, and novices. Antoine Singlin, superior of the nuns, barely escaped the Bastile and again sought hiding with Arnauld in Paris. On June 8, 1661, the first pastoral letter that by equivocations was to make subscription possible appeared; which, not without severe inner struggles, the nuns signed. On Aug. 6 Angdlique died at Paris. Port-Royal was obliged to accept the Molinist Louis Bail as superior, and neither Arnauld, Pascal, nor Singlin dared to return. Bail's rigid examination of the nuns one after another in both convents from July 11 to Sept. 2, 1661, resulted in finding no support for the allegations against them. Nevertheless, on Nov. 28, 1661, they were forced to sign the formula unreservedly. The controversies of Louis XIV. with the Curia now gave a brief respite to Port-Royal, but an attempt to reach a peaceable understanding was thwarted by the stubbornness of Arnauld. With the enthronement of H. de Pt=rtsfixe as archbishop of Paris in 1664, the persecutions were reopened, and on Aug. 21 he denied the nuns the reception of the Eucharist. Twelve of the nuns were then scattered in other nunneries and nuns were brought from these convents to PortRoyal in Paris. On Nov. 29 more nuns were removed; and a few days after the archbishop excommunicated the entire monastery of Port-Royal des Champs. Sacraments were denied; no novices could be received; the sound of bells and common worship ceased; and there was forced seclusion from outside friends, until, early in 1669, Pope Clement IX., by permitting an apparent ambiguity in the subscription, enabled most of the Jansenist party, including Arnauld, De Sacy, and Pierre Nicole (q.v.), to sign the formula. The nuns were finally persuaded to sign a petition of surrender repudiating the five theses, to the archbishop of Paris, and, Mar. 3, 1669, the interdict was formally raised. Thus ended the long controversy in the humiliation of Port-Royal, and its financial ruin soon followed. Port-Royal de Paris and PortRoyal des Champs were separated, the former securing two-thirds of the properties.

Decline.

Until 1679 Port-Royal enjoyed tolerable peace, and the polemics of the leaders of the party were now directed against Protestantism. Amauld and Nicole published their La PerpetuiM de la Joi de l'�glise catholique touchant l'Eucharistie (Paris, 1669), and Arnauld also thoroughly approved the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. During this period of peace the nunnery again increased in numbers; the hermits returned; Pascal wrote his Pens�s, and Nicole his Essais de Morale (25 vols., Paris, 1741, 1755). When, however, in 1677 Nicole implored Innocent XI. to condemn the lax teachings of the casuists, the king regarded his act as a violation of the truce; and in the bitter controversy over the regalia he was offended that the Janseniste aided with the pope. Arnauld and Nicole were forced again to flee from France, and on June 17, 1679, Archbishop Harlay brought the royal mandate to dismiss the pupils and the hermits and to admit no more nuns until the number had fallen to fifty. When this took place, the privilege was, however, denied; the monastery began to die out; and in 1706 the last abbess of Port.-Royal des Champs, Elisabeth de Ste. Anne Boulard, died. The bull Virceom Domini  of Clement XI. (July 15, 1705), with its summary condemnation of Jansenism, hastened the catastrophe. The nuns signed it only with a reservation. They were forbidden to receive novices or to elect a new abbess. On Nov. 22, 1707, the convent was again excommunicated, and the king secured the issuance of a papal bull on Mar. 27, 1708, which permitted the dispersion of the nuns. On July 11 of the following year a decree of the archbishop of Paris declared the convent of Port-Royal des Champs suppressed and gave its estates to Port-Royal de Paris. On Oct. 29 the remaining twenty-two nuns, ranging in age from fifty to upward of eighty, were expelled by military force; and, being thus dispersed, all subscribed to the bull except two. The royal disapproval extended even to the buildings of Port-Royal; and by a mandate of Jan. 22, 1710, the convent and church were destroyed and even the dead were removed and interred in a neighboring cemetery.

(EUGEN LACHENMANN.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. A. Sainte-Beuve, Port Royal, 5 vols., Paris, 1840-59, new ed., 7 vole., 1908 (the best work, though unsympathetic); Fontaine, M�moires . . . de Port Royal, 2 vols, Utrecht, 1738; Du Foss�, M�moires . . . de Port-Royal, Utrecht, 1739; P. LeClerc, Vies int�rassantes . . . des religieuses de Port Royal, 4 vols., Utrecht, 1750; idem, Vies int�rassantes , , , des amia de Port-Royal, ib, 1751; J. Besoigne, Hist. de l'abbaye de Port-Royal, 8 vols., Cologne, 1754-53; P. Guilbert, M�moires historiques � sur l'abbaye de Port-Royal vols. i., iii., Utrecht, 1752-59; H. Gr�goire, Les Ruines de PortRoyal. Paris. 1809: H. Reuchlin, Gieschichte von PortRoyal, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1839; J. M. Neale, Hist. of the so-called Jansenist Church of Holland, Oxford, 1855; Mrs. M. A. Schimmelpenninck, Select Memoirs of Port Royal, 5th ed., London, 1858; J. Stephen, Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography, pp 279-336, 4th ed., London, 1880; C. Beard, Port Royal 2 vols., London, 1881; C. Clemencet, Hist. litt�raire de Port-Royal, vol. i., Paris, 1887; A. Richard. Les Premiers Jans�nistes et Port-Royal,  Paris. 1883 E. Fenot, Port-Royal et Magny, Paris, 1885; L. 8&ebb Les Derniers Jans�nistes (1710-180), 3 vols., Paris, 1891; R. Allier, La Cabale des d�vots 1627 - 1666, pp. 159-192, Paris, 1902; W. R. Clark, Pascal and the Port Royalists, London, 1902; A. Malvault R�pertoire alphab�tique des peraonnes et choses de Port-Royal, Paris, 1902; Ethel Romance The Story of Port Royal, London 1907; A. Gazer Abr�g� de l'histoire de Port Royal d'apr�s un manuscrit pr�par� pour l'impresaion Par Jean-Baptiste Racine, Paris, 1908; M. E. Lowndes, The Nuns of Port Royal as seen in their own Narratives, New York,1909; the literature under PASCAL, BLAISE.

PORTANOVA, GENNARO: Cardinal. b. at Naples Oct. 11, 1845; d. at Rome Apr. 25, 1908. He was educated at the Jesuit College in his native city, and at the archiepiscopal lyceum of Naples, where he was professor of theology, 1877-83, besides being professor of philosophy in various Neapolitan institutions 1875-83. In 1883 he was consecrated titular bishop of Rosea and appointed bishop coadjutor of Ischia, to which see he succeeded on the death of his diocesan two years later. In 1888 he was translated to the metropolitan see of Reggio di Calabria, of which he was archbishop till his death. He was likewise apostolic administrator of the diocese of Bova from 1889 to 1895 and of Oppido in 1898-99. In 1899 he was created cardinal-priest of San Clemente in Rome. He wrote Errori a deliri del Darwinismo (Naples, 1872); Su la distinzione della psicologia dalla; isiolofia a su le mutue loro attinenze (1875); Gli Evoluzionisti e la loro morale (Rome, 1881); Evoluzione a miraculo (Naples, 1882); and La Filosofia speculativa compendiata (1883).

PORTER, EBENEZER: Congregationalist; b. at Cornwall, Conn., Oct. 5, 1772; d. at Andover Apr. 8, 1834. He was graduated at Dartmouth College, 1792; ordained 1796, pastor in Washington, Conn.; Bartlett professor of sacred rhetoric in the Andover Theological Seminary, 1812-32, and president, 1827-34. He was the author of Young Preacher's Manual (Boston, 1819); An Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery  (1827; 8th ed., by A. H. Weld, Boston, 1839); Rhetorical Reader (Andover, 1831; 300th ed., New York, 1858); Lectures on Homiletics, Preaching, and on Public Prayer (Andover, 1834) ; and Lectures on Eloquence and Style (Andover, 1836).

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, ii. 351-361, New York, 1859; L. Woods, Hist. of the Andover Theological Seminary, ib. 1884.

PORTER, FRANK CHAMBERLAIN: Congregationalist; b. at Beloit, Wis., Jan. 5, 1859. He was educated at Beloit College (A.B., 1880) and the theological seminaries at Chicago (1881-82), Hartford (1884-85), and Yale (B.D., 1886; Ph.D., 1889). He was teacher of mathematics and Greek in the Chicago High School (1882-84), and instructor in Biblical theology in Yale Divinity School (1889-91), while since 1891 he has been Winkley professor of Biblical theology in the same institution. In Biblical study he "advocates a strictly historical method (in contrast to a dogmatic)," while in theological position he is a liberal Evangelical. He has written The Ye�er Hara: A study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin, in the Biblical and Semitic Studies of the Yale Bicentennial Series (New York, 1903) and The Messages bf the Apocalyptic Writers (1905).

PORTER, JOSIAS LESLIE: English Presbyterian; b. at Burt, County Donegal, Ireland, Oct. 4, 1823; d. at Belfast Mar. 16, 1889. He graduated at Glasgow (B.A., 1841; M.A., 1842); was ordained, 1846; studied theology at the Free Church College and University, both Edinburgh, 1842-44; pastor at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1846-49; missionary of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland in Damascus, 1849-59; professor of Biblical criticism in the Presbyterian College, Belfast, Ireland, 1860-77. He was especially prominent by reason of his connection with Irish educational institutions and interests. He was the author of Five Years in Damascus (2 vols., London, 1855; 2d ed., 1870); Hand-book for Syria and Palestine (2 vols., 1858; 3d ed., 1875); The Pentateuch and the Gospels (1864); The Giant Cities of Bashan, and Holy Places of Syria (1865); The Life and Times of Henry Cooke, D.D., LL.D. (London, 1871); The Pew and Study Bible (1876); Jerusalem, Bethany and Bethlehem (1887); and Through Samaria to Galilee and the Jordan (1888). He edited J. Kitto's Daily Bible Illustrations (Edinburgh, 1867) and J. Brown's Self-Interpreting Bible (1871).

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, xlvi. 187-188.

PORTER, NOAH: Congregationalist; b. at Farmington, Conn., Dec. 14, 1811; d. at New Haven, Conn., Mar. 4, 1892. He graduated at Yale College (1831), was master of Hopkins Grammar School, New Haven (1831-33); tutor at Yale (1833-1835); pastor at New Milford, Conn. (1836-43); at Springfield, Mass. (1843-46); Clark professor of metaphysics and moral philosophy at Yale College (1846-71); and president of Yale College (18711886). His presidency was a period of great expansion and progress, and his wide fame as a scholar was equalled by his popularity and influence at home. He was the author of Historical Discourse at Farmington, Nov-.4, 1840, commemorating the two-hundredth anniversary of its settlement (Hartford, 1841); The Educational Systems of the Puritans and Jesuits compared (New York, 1851); The Human Intellect (1868, and many others); Books and Reading (1870; 6th ed., 1881); American Colleges and the American Public (1870); Elements of Intellectual Science (1871); Sciences of Nature versus the Science of Man (1871) ; Evangeline: the Place, the Story, and the Poem (1882); The Elements of Moral Science, Theoretical and Practical (1885); Bishop Berkeley (1885); Kant's Ethics, a Critical Exposition (Chicago, 1886); and Fifteen Years in the Chapel of Yale College (Sermons, 1871-86; New York, 1887). He was the principal editor of the revised editions of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (Springfield, 1864, 1880).

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. S. Merriam, Noah Porter: a Memorial by Friends, New York, 1893 (contains bibliography); W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, pp. 559-581,ib. 1893.

PORTEUS, BEILBY: Church of England bishop; b. at York May 8, 1731; d. at Fulham (6 m. s.w. of St. Paul's, London) May 8, 1808. He received his preliminary education at York and at Ripon, and then entered Christ's College, Cambridge (B.A. and fellow, 1752; D.D., 1767); he was made deacon and priest, 1757, and in 1759 won the Seatonian prize for a poem on death; he became domestic chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas Seeker, q.v.) in 1762, from whom in 1765 he received the livings of Rucking and Wittersham, Kent, soon after exchanging them for Hunton, of which he became rector; he received a prebend in Peterborough, 1767, in 1769 became chaplain to the king, and in 1776 bishop of Chester, being translated in 1787 to the see of London. As preacher he was noted for marked ability and directness; as bishop his excellencies were many. He encouraged the rising evangelicalism of the times, took great interest in fostering the comfort of the poorer clergy of his dioceses by securing funds for the increase of their emoluments and also by procuring the abolishment of the evil practise of making them sign bonds to resign when requested; he was deeply interested in the question of slavery and the welfare of negroes; he promoted the cause of the British and Foreign Bible Society, acting as its vice-president; and was efficient in preventing the abuse of religious holidays. He opposed the spread of the principles of the French Revolution and equally the doctrines of Paine's Age of Reason. Hie was himself possessed of ample means, and these he used generously in support of various of the interests noted above.

He was the author of many occasional sermons, as well as of volumes of sermons, e.g., Sermons on Several Subjects (London, 1784; 14th ed., 1813); also of Review of the Life and Character of Archbishop Seeker (1770; twelve editions); The Beneficial Effects of Christianity on the Temporal Concerns of Mankind Proved from History and Facts (1804; 9th ed., 1836); Summary of the Principal Evidences for the Truth and Divine Origin of the Christian Revelation (1800; 15th ed., 1835); and Lectures on the Gospel of St. Matthew (2 vols., 1802; 17th ed., 1823). His Complete Works were often published (best ed., 6 vols., 1816; really not "complete").

 BIBILIOGRAPHY: His Life, by R. Hodgson, is prefixed to vol. i. of his Works. Consult: C. J. Abbey, The English Church and its Bishops, 2 vols., London, 1887; J. H. Overton English Church in the 18th Century, ib. 1894; J. H. Overton and F. Relton The English Church (1714-1800), ib. 1908; DNB, xlvi. 195-196.

PORTIUNCULA INDULGENCE: The title of a plenary indulgence granted to all who should devoutly visit the Portiuncula Church (St Mary of the Angels; see FRANCIS, SAINT, OF ASSISI, I., � 1), near Assisi, at the request of Saint Francis of Assisi by Honorius III. in 1223. This pope confined it to Aug. 2; Gregory XV. in 1622 made it good for all churches of the Observantist Franciscans on that day; Innocent XI. in 1678 made its benefits applicable to souls in purgatory. In 1847 the Congregation of Indulgences made it applicable to every Franciscan church.

PORTO RICO. See WEST INDIES.

PORTUGAL.

• I. History and Statistics.
• II. Evangelical Work.
1. The Conditions (� 1).
2. Anti-Roman Tendencies (� 2).
3. Evangelical Activities (� 3).
4. Agencies Employed (� 4).
5. Results and Prospects (� 5).

I. History and Statistics:

Since October, 1910, Portugal has been a republic. It is situated in southwestern Europe, between Spain on the north and east and the Atlantic Ocean on the south and west; area, including the Azores and Madeira, 35,491square miles; population, 5,423,132. The present boundaries were established in 1255. At that time began the struggles between the royal sovereignty and the clergy, owing to the clergy's opposition to royal taxation, or following measures against particular bishops. The Jesuits very early gained influence at court, became a ruling force in the educational establishments of the country, and through them the Inquisition (q.v.) was introduced. This f development prevailed so that, in the first half of the eighteenth century, the aggregate of the clergy and nuns amounted to ten per cent of the population. Under John V. (1706-50), with very great pomp, the archdiocese of Lisbon was exalted to the rank of a patriarchate, and the king of Portugal obtained the title of rex fidelissimus. The property of the Church increased more and more through the donations of real estate, so that from the twelfth century the cathedral churches have received onethird of the parish church tithe. King Joseph Manuel (1750-77), however, indorsed his minister Pombal's demand for the expulsion of the Jesuits, 1759, and the secularization of a great part of the church estates. The clergy grew very powerful again under the next king and continued so by virtue of the repeal of the constitution of 1821. But a strong reaction set in again in the period 18341836. The Jesuits, who had been recalled, were again expelled; the tribunal of the papal nuncio was abolished; not a few bishops and cloister clergy were dismissed from their positions, and the assignment of parishes was defined to be a function of the civil government. All the monasteries for men and their educational establishments were declared abolished. This, however, was not practically enforced, and a concordat in the year 1842, failing only in receiving the final state acknowledgment, gave evidence of a new reaction. It obtained a lease of existence both by the extension of orders and congregations and by the multiplication of fraternal organizations. These brotherhoods are supported largely by gifts; because they serve to establish orphanages and the like. In 1862, indeed, most of the church estates were sold; but the proceeds were turned over to the clergy, and a considerable yearly provision for the entire spiritual body (700,000 milreis; $752,500), on the part of the State, was fixed by statute. Though, in 1878, the civil class-list was introduced on account of the marriage of non-Roman Catholics, yet every other innovation undesired by the clergy was omitted. The hierarchy consists of the three ecclesiastical provinces of Lisbon, Brags, and Evora, under which, on the mainland, there are nine bishoprics covering twelve diocesan districts and upward of 3,800 parishes. The constitution of 1821, which long since recovered its validity, declares the Roman Catholic to be the only authorized church. No building of worship may be erected by those of another faith. [On the proclamation of the republic action was taken looking to the elimination of the religious orders.]

Education is retarded; only about one-fifth of the population can write. Of the forty-one colleges, eighteen belong to the clergy. There are German Evangelical congregations at Oporto, Lisbon, and on Fayal Island. Congregations of the Church of England and of the Free Church of Scotland are at Corunna, Oporto, Lisbon, and Ports-Legre.

WILHELM GOETZ

II. Evangelical Work:

1. Conditions.

2. Anti-Roman Tendencies.

Through all the stormy history of the little kingdom, Roman Catholicism has remained the State religion, and but few crises have arisen in which the voice of the Roman Catholic Church has not determined the policy of the nation. The only considerable defection from that church so far may be traced either to educational or political movements, rather than to the desire for religious reform. Toward the close of the eighteenth century the gradual infiltration of the ideas of the French philosophers inaugurated a "liberal" tendency among the cultured classes, which has steadily grown until to-day about fifty per cent of the educated Portuguese, if not professedly infidel, are in open opposition to the clergy. This movement away from the Church has been limited somewhat by the dense ignorance of the great mass of the people and the scant attention paid to education. In 1878 the illiterates were 82 per cent of the population and in 1909 they still comprised 78.6 per cent. In 1900 there were only 240,000 pupils in the elementary schools of Portugal, though education has been declared compulsory since 1844. Likewise in the political affairs of Portugal the nineteenth century marked a persistent struggle by certain elements of the population for "liberal" principles. The pernicious interference by the Roman Catholic clergy to defeat the aims of this movement attracted a constantly increasing hatred from the working classes and has developed a strong anticlerical party among the mass themselves. Indeed, the overthrow of the monarchy in October, 1910, with the flight of young King Manuel, seems to indicate that liberal principles have now won to their support the majority of the people. And Senor Sebastiano Magalhaes Lima, one of the leaders in the new republic, has announced that "the program of reform will include the separation of Church and State." On the other hand, the most recent statistics indicate that the secular clergy in Portugal numbers 93,979 parish priests in a total population of 5,423,132, an average of one priest to every fifty-seven inhabitants.

3. Evangelical Activities.

The foregoing facts would lead to the anticipation that the history of Evangelical Protestantism in Portugal does not begin until the nineteenth century, and that it owes its origin not to any stimulus received from the Reformation of the sixteenth century, but to the missionary activity of Protestant denominations dung the last century. As far as can be learned, it was not before 1845 that the Gospel was for the first time persistently proclaimed in Portugal. Meetings were commenced almost simultaneously in Lisbon and in Oporto. In Lisbon it was Mrs. Helen Roughton, wife of an English merchant, who first, with her husband's assistance, held private meetings in her house and established a school for Protestant instruction. The Roughtons belonged to the Church of England, and their humble efforts resulted in the establishment of the Anglican Church of the Taipas, Lisbon. Mrs. Roughton lived until 1885, but a few years before her death adopted the views of the Plymouth Brethren (q.v.). At Oporto the first Evangelical worker was Miss Frederica Smith, who began work privately in 1845. She was born of English Parents in Oporto and was subsequently married to James Cooley Fletcher, United States consul at Oporto. At Oporto there labored also about this time, Rev. A. de Mattos, one of the converts of a mission in Madeira, a naturalized American and probably the first Portuguese Protestant to preach in Portugal. Since these early beginnings several British societies have opened stations at Lisbon and Oporto, as well as at several other of the principal cities of Portugal. The Plymouth Brethren have considerable strength, especially in Lisbon. The Scotch Presbyterians also have a mission there. The Wesleyan Methodists have an important work in Oporto, under charge of Robert H. Moreton) who has spent thirty-seven years at this post. The strongest Evangelical church in Portugal is the Anglican. It has several stations in both Lisbon and Oporto. Besides this there are independent Protestant churches at Oporto and Ports-Legre, supporting their own pastors, while all over Portugal there are little bands of believers, without or ganization or a pastor, which are centers of influence thoroughly Protestant in spirit.

4. Agencies Employed

It has been remarked that the first Evangelical work in Portugal was done in connection with the school. It is hardly necessary to state that this method has been largely adhered to by the foreign societies. In connection with almost every station schools have been organized as the basis of operation, there being at least a dozen Protestant schools in the two cities Lisbon and Oporto. Scarcely less important than the work of the missions and schools has been that of the great Bible and Tract societies. Says a writer from the field: "Representatives of the union of Protestantism, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the Religious Tract Society have done and are doing the widest and deepest, though the least apparent, Gospel work. Their general agent, Rev. Robert Stewart, with headquarters in Lisbon, keeps constantly employed six or eight colporteurs, canvassing the different provinces in Portugal and distributing Scriptures, tracts, and Christian literature." Of the Portuguese versions of the Scriptures, only two have become generally known: a Roman Catholic version by Antonio Pereira de Figueiredo in twenty-three volumes (1778; see BIBLE VERSIONS, B, XIV.; reedited in seven volumes and greatly improved in 1804), and a Protestant version by Joao Ferreira d'Almeida (1693, for use in the Portuguese colonies; revised and republished in Lisbon in 1874, and again in 1877). Besides, the American Bible Society published a version of the New Testament in 1859, and more recently the committee representing the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Wesleyan churches, has prepared, under the superintendence of Rev. Robert Stewart, a complete new version of the Bible. In connection with the mission and Bible agencies there have been established at Lisbon and Oporto several Protestant papers, which have a relatively wide circulation and have proved valuable adjuncts in spreading the word of truth.

The latest official census of Portugal credits the Protestants with something less than 500 members, including foreigners. But this is obviously inaccurate; no complete statistics are available from the several societies, but conservative estimates place the number of communicants at over 1,000, with possibly 3,000 adherents.

5. Results and Prospects

It will be seen that the record of evangelistic work in Portugal is brief, uneventful, and to the unsympathetic student uninspiring; indeed, measured in terms of adherents won, churches built, and schools or colleges opened, it must be admitted that the results have hardly justified the expenditure of money and toil and the sacrifice of life at which they have been secured. Nevertheless, to the intelligent student of missions, who has an adequate grasp of conditions in Portugal, the Protestant propaganda conducted there does not appear so fruitless, nor the outlook so hopeless as the bare statistics seem to indicate. So far, the work in Portugal has been preparatory merely, and it has encountered those obstacles which are incident to pioneer efforts at evangelism in all Roman Catholic countries, namely, the ignorance, irreligion, and intolerance of the people. It may be that in Portugal these conditions have been more acute than in other Latin countries. The large percentage of illiteracy has already been noted, and when it is considered that the uneducated classes are the only portion of the population that are accessible, ordinarily, to evangelistic effort, it will be seen that the growth of Protestantism must depend almost entirely upon the educational facilities which the missions can offer. In particular the ignorance of the Portuguese concerning Protestantism is amazing. Both the peasant and the educated, the layman and ecclesiastic are wholly ignorant of its d nature. The peasant and the layman confound Protestants with Jews, Moors, and unbelievers, and; taught by their priests, they have associated with Protestantism everything that is despicable and immoral. As for skepticism, it is not confined to the educated but, as in other nominally Roman Catholic countries, practical infidelity prevails to a distressing extent among the priests and people, and gives rise to the most appalling vices and immoralities in all walks of life. The Portuguese people know nothing of tolerance as Protestants understand it. A clause providing for religious tolerance has long been in the national constitution, but it has no reference to Protestantism. To the people the only representative of Christianity is the Roman Catholic Church, and tolerance means nothing more than the right to oppose the Roman Catholic clergy. It has not infrequently happened that the people incited by the Jesuits and priests have indulged in violent persecutions of Protestants. In addition to all this the missionary sotivities of Protestants have been projected in a haphazard fashion and on a scale wholly inadequate to the measure of the need. Despite these untoward circumstances enough has already been accomplished to constitute a solid and necessary foundation for the great work that yet remains to be done. Moreover, when account is taken of what has already been done in the face of such obstacles, and of its significance in the light of the new era that is even now dawning for Portugal, there is room for the assertion that Protestantism has a great mission to this priest-ridden people. The missionaries are on the ground. They have occupied the strategic points of vantage. They have entrenched themselves in various directions, reaching out from these centers. They have established a few schools and churches and gathered at many points the nuclei of Protestant communities. They have sown the seed of truth broadcast by the printed and preached Word, and are now ready for the harvest. Meanwhile recent years have brought about a vast change in the attitude of the people toward education and the progressive ideas that have brought prosperity to other nations. There is a noticeable and increasing respect for literary attainments, and recent writers display literary ability of no mean value. There is a general desire among all classes of people to give their children the benefits of education. There is a wide-spread clamor for industrial and commercial reform; and the almost peaceful establishment of the new republic with its liberal program of reform demonstrates the unanimity with which the people are awaking to the need of radical change in national policies. Along with this there comes from the bosom of the Church itself, in a communication from the Franciscan monks to the hierarchy, an urgent demand for religious reform. In other words, Portugal is approaching her renaissance, political revolution, and Reformation all at once, and there is no reason why the Reformation should not be cast in the mold which Protestant evangelism has provided.

JUAN ORTS GONZALEZ.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Sehifer, Geschiehte von Portugal, 5 vols.Hamburg, 1830-84; E. MacMurdo, Hist. of Portugal, 2 vols., London, 1888-89; H. M. Stephens, Portugal, ib.1891; w. A. Salisbury, Portugal and its People, ib. 1893; H. E. Noyes, Church Reform in Portugal, ib. 1897; L. Higgin, Portuguese Life in Town and Country, ib. 1902; H. C. Lea, Hist. of the Inquisition of the Middle Apes, new ed., 3 vols., New York, 1900; idem, Hist. of the Inquisition of Spain, new ed., 4 vols., ib. 1900-07; F. E. and H. A. Clark, The Gospel in Latin Lands, ib. 1909; J.. McCabe, The Decay of the Church of Rome, ib. 1909.

POSITIVISM: The name applied to the teachings of Auguste Comte (q.v.), which, since the middle of the nineteenth century, have been accepted in the stricter sense by what is practically a sect, and more loosely by a large school of admirers of his "Positive Philosophy." The latter, by far the more numerous, have usually regaled his later political teaching, if not as the product of distinct mental aberration, at best as a sentimental illusion, or as analogous to Plato's " Republic " and " Laws," to be admired theoretically but incapable of practical realization. The system taught by Comte in his first great book was essentially atheistic and anti-theological; the only sciences there considered as the main branches of human knowledge were mathematics, mechanics (including astronomy), physics, chemistry, physiology, and sociology. Even psychology, the connecting link between physiology and sociology, was omitted-a defect which the English adherents of Comte, under John Stuart Mill's leadership, felt obliged to supply. This fundamentally non-religious attitude was based in one aspect on the English and French sensualist philosophy of the eighteenth century, especially on Etienne de Condillac, Thomas Reid, and Dugald Stewart; in its socialistic speculation it was largely dependent on Marie Jean Caritat de Condorcet, and in the leading ideas of its philosophy of history on the Italians Giovanni Battista Vico and Tommaso Campanella. In fact, what has frequently been regarded as Comte's principal achievement-the definition of the law of human progress through the three stages of theology, metaphysics, and positivism, or pure empiricism in the exact sciences is really found in both the last-named, as well as in the French physiocrat Anne Robert Jacques Turgot. In like manner his doctrine of the transition of the process leading to social perfection from belligerent conquest to defense by force, and from that again to peaceful labor, is nothing more than a simple development of what Condorcet had taught in 1793; and his theory of Fetishism (q.v.) as the primal form of religion goes back in its essence to Charles de Brosses (1760).

In spite, however, of this lack of originality, and in spite of the transformation which the system has received at the hands of John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, John Fiske, and others, the " hierarchy of the sciences " and Comte's general line of thought have maintained a considerable degree of popularity among English-speaking and French philosophers. Among the latter it influenced especially mile Littrd, Hippolyte Taine, Ernest Renan, and Th_odule Ribot, while Henry Thomas Buckle, George Henry Lewes, Leslie Stephen, John Tyndall, and Thomas Henry Huxley took their stand on the same " positive " ground, and the modern Scottish sensualism of such thinkers as Alexander Bain shows no slight traces of its influence. In America John William Draper followed practically the same path as Comte in his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York, 1874), and more recently Paul Carus (q.v.), editor of The Monist and author of several works of like tendency, has conducted a propaganda which has much in common with Comte's. Italy has its thinkers of the same school in Tito Vignoli, Roberto Ardigb, Pietro Siciliani, and Andrea Angiulli, and not a few chairs of philosophy in Spain and Portugal are occupied by adherents of Comte. Among German positivists in the narrower sense may be named Ernst Laas, Adolf Steudel, Friedrich Jodl, Alois Riehl, and Georg von Gizycki; and as less thorough-going adherents of Comte mention may be made of such philosophers as Wilhelm Wundt, Theobald Ziegler, and Julius Baumann.

There has been, however, much misconception in the attempt to connect certain modern nonreligious systems directly with Comte. The evolutionism of Darwin and Spencer has really little in common with his doctrine; he vigorously combated Darwin's forerunner, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet Lamarck; and Huxley and other leaders of the evolutionist school have in their turn sharply criticized him. His attitude toward religion, nevertheless, has had not a little to do with that of some of the leading opponents of religious systems in more recent times. It is now clear that Karl Marx took some of his most important and characteristic doctrines from Comte's sociology; and Friedrich Nietzsche (q.v.), after a period of almost exclusive devotion to Arthur Schopenhauer's pessimism, adopted several points of Comte's teaching.

The Positivist sect, based upon Comte's , possesses popular manuals of teaching and practise in the Calendrier positivists (Paris, 1849) and Cat�chisme positivists (1853). It teaches " the transformation of philosophy. into religion "; but the philosophy thus transformed is he positivist philosophy, with no belief in God, the soul, or immortality. The cult of humanity on which it rests is a fantastic veneration of heroes, men of genius, scientists, and women. The calendar contains nine sacraments and eighty-four recurrent festivals. The thirteen months, of twenty-eight days each, take their designations from notable benefactors of the human race. Moses, Homer, Aristotle, Archimedes, Caesar, Paul, Charlemagne, Dante, Gutenberg, Shakespeare, Descartes, Frederick II., and Bichat (a famous Parisian physician and anatomist, d. 1802). Each of the days of the week is dedicated to a minor hero, as Sophooles, Horace, Copernicus, Galileo, and Cuvier. For the administration of the sacraments and the general direction of the body a sort of hierarchy is postulated. The sect in England was for a long time under the direction of Frederic Harrison and Rich ard Congreve, and in France principally under that of Pierre Laffitte in Paris. When the latter died in 1903, it was felt by many that "orthodox" Positivism was near its end; but although the section of Comte's followers which still preserves a certain type of religious feeling is yet in existence, it can not be said that they adhere closely to his prescriptions. Their formulas vary, in fact, be tween a weakly naturalistic deism and a radical atheism. The group of positivists which grew up around Francis Ellingwood Abbot in America, about 1870 called themselves the professors of a "Free Religion," and their views, as expressed in Abbot's " Fifty Affirmations," were in many ways much more radical than Comte's. Of a similar nature are some manifestations of free thought in France and Belgium, as they appear in Eug4ne &mtrie's periodical La Politiquz positive (Paris and Versailles), in Jean Fran�ois Eug�ne Robinet's Le Radical, and in Edgar Monteil's Cat�chisme du libre-penseur (Antwerp, 1877), in which atheism is partially concealed by a few phrases which have a theistic ring, and a corresponding scheme of morality is taught which is in its essence mere Epicureanism. The German free-thinking sects founded by Eduard L�wenthal and Eduard Reich are really German products, with no closely demonstrable connection with Comte, though some things about them (such as the title of the latter, the Church of Humanity) are reminiscent of his teaching. For an English analogy to Comte's Positivism under the leader ship of George Jacob Holyoake, Charles Bradlaugh, etc., see SECULARISM.

(O. Z�CKLER�.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Besides the literature in and under the article on Comte (q.v.), where the sources are given in extenso, consult: C. de Bligniares, Exposition abr�r�e de la philosophie et de la religion positive, Paris, 1857; idem, Le Doctrine Positive, ib. 1887; idem, �tudes de moral positive, ib. 1888; L. Pinel. Essai de philosophic positive, 2d ed., ib. 1857; C. Pellarin Essai critique sur la philosophie positive, ib. 1884; J. H. Bridges, Unity of Compte's Life and Doctrine, London 1888� F. B. Barton, An Outline of the Positive Religion, ib. 1887; J. Ladevi-Roche, Le Positisme au tribunal de la science, Pans 1887; J. Douboul, Le Positivisme: sa m�thode ses ant�cidentes et ses cons�quences, Paris, 1887; L. Andrft-Nuytz. Le Positivime pour tous, Pairis, 1868; A. Angiulli, La Filosofia a la Ricerca positiva, Naples 1868; R. Ardig�, Opere fllosofihche, 7 vols., Padua, 1889-94; A. d'Assier, Essai de philosophie positive au xix.sei�cle, Paris, 1870; T. H. Huxley, Lay Sermons, London, 1870; P. Alex, Du droit et du positivisme, Paris, 1876; L. Adrian, Essais sur quelques points de philosophie positive, ib. 1877; M Chateauneuf, Le Poaitivisme et to materialiame devant la loi du progr�s, ib 1877; �. Littr�, Aug. Comte et la philoeophie positive, 3d ed., ib. 1877; G. Bareellotti, La Morale dolls Filosofie positive, New York, 1878; R. Flint, AntiTheistic Theories, Edinburgh, 1879; idem, Philosophy of History, ib. 1874: idem Agnosticism, ib. 1903; L. Liard, La Science positive d la metaphysique. Paris, 1879; E. Laos, Idealismus and Positivismus, 3 vols., Berlin, 1879-1884; E. H. Beesiy, Comte as a Moral Type, London, 1880� J. H. Bridges, Comte's General View of Positivism, ib. 1880; J. Haines, Seven Lectures on the Doctrine of Positivism ib. 1880� J. F. E. Robinet, Le Positivisme, Paris, 1881; P. de Broglie, Le Positivisme et la science experimentale, 2 vols., ib. 1882; G. Allievo, Del Positivismo, Turin, 1883; J. H. Bridges, Comte, the Successor of Aristotle, London, 1883: E. Caro, Littr� et la positivisme, Paris. 1883� E. Caird, The Social Philosophy and Religion of Comte, Glasgow, 1885; P. Vallet, Le Kantisme et la positivisme, Paris, 1887; A. J. Balfour, Religion of Humanity, London, 1888 W. Bender, Das Weaen der Religion, Bonn, 1888� W. Cunningham, The Path towards Knowledge, pp. 147-183, London, 1891; H. D. Hutton. Congo, the Man and Founder London, 1891; E. 'de Roberty, La Philosophic du si�cle: criticisms, positivisme, evolvtionisme. Paris, 1891; H. D. Hutton, Comte's Life and Work Exceptional, but finaly Normal, London, 1892; E. de Roberty, Aug. Comte et H. Spencer, Paris, 1894; L. M. Billie, La Crisi del Positivismo, Parma, 1895; J. Halleux. Les Principes du positivisme, Paris. 1898� C. Hillemand. La vie et l'�uvre d'Auguste Comte, ib. 1898; J. Watson, Comte, Mill and Spencer, 2d ed., London, 1898� C. Gilardoni, Le Positivisme, Vitry-le-Fran�ois 1899; G. de Greef, Probl�mes de philosophie positive. Paris, 1900; L. lkvy-Bruhl La Philosophie d'Auguste Comte, ib. 1900; P. Batiffol �ttudes d'histoire et la theologie positive, ib. 1902; E. Rignano, La Sociologie dans Ie cours de la Philosophie positive, ib. 1902; A. Baumann, La Religion positive. ib. 1903; E. Corra. La Philosophie positive, ib. 1904� P. Grimanelli, La Criss morale et Ie positivisme, ib. 1904� W. Schmidt, Der Kampf der Weltanschauungen, Berlin, 1904: J. H. Bridges, Illustrations of Positivism London, 1907� F. Harrieon. The Creed of a Layman: Apologia pro fide roes, London and New York, 1907; and cf. list of magazine literature in Richardson. Encyclop�dia. pp. 888-,887.

POSSESSION, DEMONIACAL. See DEMONIAC.

POSSEVINO, pos"se vi no, ANTONIO: Italian Jesuit, diplomat, and scholar; b. at Mantas 1534; d. at Ferrara Feb. 28, 1811. He was a zealous opponent of Protestantism, first in the Waldenaian valleys, and later in France, and especially at Avignon and Lyons. In 1577 Gregory XIII. commissioned him to labor in the cause of recovering the Swedish court and people to the Roman Catholic Church, and as an imperial envoy he made good use of the friendly ties that subsisted, through marriage, with the royal family of Poland. His enterprise failed, however, for the pope would have nothing to do with the ecclesiastical compromises introduced by King John III. Possevino then labored in Poland and Russia until he was recalled to Italy in 1588. Here he devoted himself to literary work, the results including Apparatus sacer ad scriptores Veteris et Novi Testamenti (3 vols., Venice, 1603-08); Moscovia (Wilna, 1588); and Bibliotheca selecta studiorum (2 vols., Rome, 1593).

K. BENRATH.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. d'Origny. La Vie du P�re A. Possevin, Paris. 1712; Lichtenberger, x. 697-699; KL x. 235-238. An answer to his Apparatus was made by T. James, A Treatise of the Corruption of Scripture . . together with a sufficient Answer unto . . . A. Possevino, London, 1811.

POSSIDIUS, SAINT: Biographer of Augustine; d. after 437. Nothing is known of his life until 390 or 391, except that he was from northern Africa and was a pupil of Augustine and his intimate friend for forty years. In 397 he seems to have been consecrated bishop o� Calama in Numidia, and he continually cooperated with Augustine in the struggle against paganism and in the war upon the heretics of the period, Arians, Manicheans, Donatists, Priecillianists, and Pelagians (see AUGUSTINE, SAINT, OF HIPPO). The extirpation of the heretics, especially the Pelagians, was doubtless due to the synodal activity of Augustine and Possidius. Between 394 and 424 Augustine summoned twenty synods mostly at Carthage; and while the signature of the bishop of Calama can scarcely be proved, his energy at one of the Carthaginian synods against the Pelagians won the praise of Innocent I. in his Inter c�teras Roman� of Jan. 27, 417 (MPL, xxsiii. 783). In 429 northern Africa was ravaged by the vandals of Geiserich, and on the destruction of Calama Possidius fled to Hippo, where he was present at the.death of Augustine on Aug. 28, 430. According to Prosper of Aquitane, Possidius and other bishops were expelled from Africa in 437 by Geiserich. Henceforth Possidius vanishes from history, and neither the place nor the date of his death is known, though apparently he lived to an advanced age. In the Roman Catholic calendar his day is May 17.

Shortly after 430 Possidius wrote his Vita Augustini (ed. J. Salinas, Augsburg, 1764; MPL, xxxii. 33-66), a work at once enthusiastic, modest, and reliable. He also made the first collection of the numerous writings of Augustine under the title Indiculus librorum, tractatuum et epistolarum sancti Augustini Hipponensis episcopi (MPL, xlvi. 5 sqq.), thus doing a valuable service for the earliest textual transmission of his teacher's works.

(FRANZ G�RRES.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: The source is his own Vita Augustini, ut sup. Consult: ASH, May, iv. 27-34; J. Salinas, De vita et rebus gestis sancti Possidii, Rome, 1731; Tillemont, M�moires, vol. xiii.; KL, x. 238; DCB, iv. 445-446; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr�s, vii. 187, 521-522, 562, ix. 22. Some illustrative material will be found in A. Schwarze, Africanische Kirche, pp. 83, 145, 154, G�ttingen, 1892; F. G�rres, in Deutsche Zeitsehrift fur Geschichtswissenwhaft, x (1893), 14-70; L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Wandaten, Leipsic, 1901 (cf. F. G�rres in GGA, 1902, no. 10, pp. 816-826).

POST, GEORGE EDWARD: Presbyterian; b. in New York City Dec. 17, 1838; d. at Beirut, Syria, Oct. 1, 1909. He was educated at the New York Free Academy (now the College of the City of New York; A.B., 1854), New York University (M.D., 1860), and Union Theological Seminary (1861). He was then a chaplain in the United States Army (1861-63), after which he was a missionary at Tripoli, Syria (1863-67). After 1867 he was professor of surgery at the Syrian Protestant College, Beirut, Syria. He was also surgeon to the Johanniter Hospital, Beirut. In addition to a number of text-books and other works in Arabic, and besides many articles on natural history in leading theological encyclopedias, he wrote Flora of Syria, Palestine, and Syria from the Taurus to Ras Muhammad, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Syrian Desert (Beirut, 1896).

POSTIL: A medieval Latin term for a marginal note or a Biblical commentary affixed to a text, being an abbreviation of the phrase post ills verbs textus. The word first occurs in the chronicle (with reference to examples of 1228 and 1238) of Nicolas Trivetus, but later it came to mean only homiletic exposition, and thus became synonymous with homily in distinction from the thematic sermon. Finally, after the middle of the fourteenth century, it was applied to an annual cycle of homilies. From the time of Luther, who Published the first part of his postil under the title Enarrationes epistolarum et evangeliorum quas postillas vocant  (Wittenberg, 1521), every annual cycle of sermons on the lessons, whether consisting of homilies or formal sermons, is termed a postil. A few of the most famous Lutheran postils are those of M. Luther (Kirchenpostille, Wittenberg, 1527; Hauspostille, 1542, 1549), P. Melanchthon (Evangelien-Postille, Germ., Nuremberg, 1549; Lat., Hanover, 1594), M. Chemnitz (EvangelienrPostille, Magdeburg, 1594), L.Osiander (Bauern-Postille, T�bingen,1597), and J. Arndt (Evangelien-Postille, Leipsic, 1616).

The term postil fell into disuse during the period of Pietism and the Enlightenment (qq.v.), but was revived by Claus Harms (Winter-Postille, Kiel, 1812; Sommer-Postille, 1815); and has again become common through W. L�he  Evangelien-Postille, Frommel 1848; Epistel-Postille, 1858), and M. Stuttgart (Herzpostille, Bremen, 1882, 1890; Hauspostille, 1887-88; Pilgerpostille, 1890).

The Reformed Church, disregarding a regular series of lessons, has no postils; but in the Roman Catholic Church the term has been kept especially through L. Goffin� (Hand-Postill oder christ-catholische Unterrichtungen von allen Sonn- and Feyr-Tagen des gantzen Jahrs (Mainz, 1690; popular, illustrated ed., reissued twenty-one times by H. Herder, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1875-1908; Eng. transl., T. Noethen, New York, n.d.).

(W. HOLSCHER.)

POSTMILLENARIANISM. See MILLENNIUM, MILLENARIANISM, � 10.

POSTREDEMPTIONISM. See CALVINISM, � 9.

POSTULATION: In canon law a legalized procedure of choosing a higher ecclesiastical official where the candidate may be debarred by lacking some of the canonical qualifications or by holding another office which would hinder the legal acceptance of the one to be filled. Through postulation (postulo), petition is made for the availability of the person in question for election. Postulation may be simple where it refers to dismission on account of some official impediment; or it may be ceremonial and more real where it refers to canonical defects (of which only minor ones are admissible) or when, for instance, the candidate is the confirmed bishop of a diocese. The proceeding in the case of the simple postulation is like that of election. In the case of the ceremonial an absolute majority is necessary, unless there is competition with a wholly qualified candidate, in which case there is required a majority of two-thirds. After the ceremonial postulation, the candidate made eligible must seek admissio just as confirmatio after an election. In the case of the rejection of the postulation the power of appointment reverts to the pope. With reference to the P^assian bishoprics as circumscribed in 1821 the distinction between postulation and election was removed.

POTAMI�NA: Christian slave and martyr at Alexandria. The only two sources of value concerning her, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VI,, v.; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 253) and Palladius (Historia Lausiaca, iii.; MPG; xxxiv. 1009, 1014), report that Potamisena belonged to the metropolitan district of Egypt and was a martyr to modesty and chastity rather than to religion. According to Eusebius, she was plunged into a kettle filled with boiling pitch during the reign of Septimius Severus (202-211), a certain Aquila then being president of Alexandria, or according to Palladius in the reign of Maximinus II. (about 306-310). The account of Eusebius has been subjected to sharp criticism, partly on account of a general resemblance of his description to many forged acts of martyrs. It should be noted, moreover, that, according to Eusebius himself, legend early clustered round Potarmi�na's name. It seems probable that Potami�na was really martyred, as Palladius states, during the persecution of Maximinus, especially as particularly barbarous modes of execution were employed by him; Palladius adds that he heard of her martyrdom, at least indirectly, from St. Anthony, the father of hermits.

(FRANZ G�RRES.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are indicated in the text; discussions of these are: B. Aub�, Les Chrtiens dans l'empire romain pp, 132-137, Paris 1881; P. Allard, Hist. des pers�cutions ii. 75, 78 ib. 1886; Tillemont, M�moires, iii. 287-273, 511-512; DCB, iv. 447.

POTAMIUS: Bishop of Olisipo (Lisbon), c. 357. According to Hilary, De synodis, xi., the so-called second Sirmian formula of 357 was drawn up by Hosius and Potamius, while Ph�cebadius (Contra Arianos, iii.) attributes it to Ursacius, Valens, and Potamius. The Luciferian (of San Lucar de Barrameda, Spain) presbyters Faustinus and Marcellinus (Libellus precum) report that Potamius merely signed the formula. This latter work implies, moreover, that Hosius was cited to appear at Sirmium by Potamius, whom Hosius had denounced to the churches of Spain as a heretic. The Luciferian presbyters just mentioned also say that Potamius originally held the Catholic faith but denied it through-greed for a piece of land, and that he died while on his way to this property. Catholic orthodoxy is shown in a letter of Potamius to Athanasius (written before 357), and he is mentioned, together with Epictetus of Centumcellm, as an opponent of Liberius at Rimini in 359 (MPL, x. 681). In the previous year Pbœ:badius had seen in him an opponent who would endeavor to Barry through the formula, and records a letter by him of Patripassian tendency. Potamius was the author of two brief treatises in barbarous Latin, preserved by Zeno of Verona (MPL, viii. 1411-15), De Lazaro and De martyrio Isai� prophets.

(EDGAR HENNECKE.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Flares, Espa�a Sagrada, xiv. 178 sqq., Madrid, 1754 sqq.; P. B. Game, Kirchengeschichte van Spanien, ii. 1, pp. 224-225 231 sqq., 315 sqq., Regensburg, 1864; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr�s, iv. 549, v. 152, vi 274; DCB, i��. 448.

POTHINUS (PHOTINUS): Bishop of Lyons; b. 87; d. 177. According to Gallic tradition, he was the first bishop of the see, predecessor of Iren�us, and he may well have been consecrated before 150. The account of his martyrdom, as given in the letter of the church at Lyons on the persecution under Marcus Aurelius (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V., i. 29-31), reveals the intensity of feeling which prevailed among both Christians and pagans.

(A. HAUCK.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: The " Gallic tradition " appears in Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, i. 29, In gloria martyrum, xlviii.-xlix. Consult: Nennder, Christian Church, i. 112, 677; DCB, iv. 449; Schaff, Christian Church, Ii. 55.

POTTER, ALONZO: Protestant Episcopal bishop; b. at La Grange, Dutchess County, N. Y., July 6, 1800; d. at San Francisco July 4, 1865. He graduated at Union College, Schenectady, 1818; studied theology in Philadelphia; was chosen professor of mathematics and natural philosophy in Union College, about 1821; ordained in 1822; was rector of St. Paul's, Boston, 1826-31; was recalled to the professorship of moral and intellectual philosophy and political economy at Union College in 1832, and was vice-president, 1838-45; and bishop of Pennsylvania, 1845-65. He possessed remarkable executive ability and genius for administration, and by his command of men and means established the Episcopal hospital at Philadelphia, reorganized the Episcopal academy and founded the Philadelphia Divinity School, as well as young men's lyceums and working-men's institutes. Thirty-five new churches in Philadelphia alone during his bishopric attest his energy: He delivered a course of lectures before the Lowell institute in Boston, 1845-49, on Natural Theology and Christian Evidences, without notes, which attracted much attention. He was author of Discourses, Charges, Addresses, Pastoral Letters (Philadelphia, 1858); and Religious Philosophy (1872).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. A. de W. Howe, Memoirs of the Life and Services of Alonzo Potter, Philadelphia, 1871.

POTTER, HENRY CODMAN: Protestant Episcopal bishop of New York; b. at Schenectady, N. Y., May, 25, 1835; d. at Cooperstown, N. Y., July 21, 1908. He was the son of the preceding, and was educated at the Episcopal Academy, Philadelphia, and the Theological Seminary in Virginia, from which he was graduated in 1857. He was ordered deacon in the same year and priested in 1858. After being curate of Christ Church, Greensburg, Pa. (1857--58), he was rector of St. John's, Troy, N. Y. (1858-66), when he became assistant at Trinity, Boston. Two years later (1868), he accepted a call to New York City as rector of Grace Church, a position which he held until 1883, being also secretary to the House of Bishops from 1863 to 1883, when he was consecrated bishop-coadjutor of New York, assisting his uncle, Bishop Horatio Potter. In 1887 he succeeded to the full administration of the diocese, over which he presided unaided until 1903, when D. H. Greer (q.v.) was consecrated bishop-coadjutor. He was a broadminded man and cultivated the friendliest relations with those outside of his own church. He also had a prominent part in movements for civic reform. He was justly honored and beloved, and will be enrolled among the foremost of American citizens. Among his numerous writings, special mention may be made of his Sisterhoods and Deaeonesses at Home arid Abroad (New York 1871); The Gates of the East, a Winter in Egypt and Syria (1877); Sermons of the City (1881); Waymarks (1892); The Scholar and the State (1897); Addresses to Women engaged in Church Work (1888); The East of To-day and To-Morrow (1902); The Citizen in his Relation to Industrial Situation (1902); Law and Loyalty (1903); Modern Man and his Fellow Man (1903); and Reminiscences of Bishops and Archbishops (1906).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Harriette A. Keyser, Bishop Potter, the People's Friend, New York, 1910; W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in America, p. 277, ib. 1895.

POTTER, HORATIO: Protestant Episcopal bishop of New York; b. at Beekman, N. Y., Feb. 9, 1802; d. at New York City Jan. 2, 1887. He was educated at Union College (B.A., 1826); became deacon 1827, and priest 1828; was pastor at Saco, Me., 1827-28; professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Washington (now Trinity) College, 1828-33; rector of St. Peter's, Albany, 1833-54; provisional bishop of New York, 18541861, and diocesan bishop after 1861. His administration as rector and as bishop was marked by energy and success, while literary activity took largely the form of sermons.

POTTS, GEORGE: Presbyterian; b. in Philadelphia Mar. 15, 1802; d. in New York Sept. 15, 1864. He was graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, 1819; and studied at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1819-21; was pastor in Natchez, Miss., 1823-36; of Duane Street Church, New York, 1836-44; and of University Place Church, same city, 1845-64. He was an eminent preacher, a leader in religion and philanthropy, a beloved pastor and friend. He had a memorable controversy with Bishop Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright on the claims of the episcopacy upon which he published No Church without a Bishop  (New York, 1844).

POULSEN, ALFRED SVEISTRUP: Danish bishop; b. in Roskilde (18 m. w. of Copenhagen) Jan. 14, 1854. , He was educated at Roskilde School (B.A., 1871) and at the University of Copenhagen (candidate in theology, 1878); after traveling abroad he was appointed minister at St. Hans Hospital and assistant to the provost of the cathedral of Roskilde; was made court preacher in Copenhagen (1883); provost of the cathedral of Roskilde (1896); bishop in Viborg (1901). For several years he was privat-docent in the university of Copenhagen; was made secretary of the Danish Bible Society (1885); president of the Danish mission to the Jews (1890). In collaboration with Professor Ussing he published a revised translation of the New Testament (1895; 2d ed., 1897). Some of his works are Fra Gethsemane til Emmaus, Faste- og estpr�dikener (1889); Fra Kampen om Mosebog�rne (1890); Philip Melanchthon i Aaret 1521(1897); Det nye Testaments Opfattelse af den christelige Fuldkommenhed (1899); Pr�dikener holdte i Roskilde Domkirke (1901); Pr�dikener hoidte i Christiansborg Slotskirke (1896); Moses. Udl�gningsbetragtninger (1903).

JOHN O. EVJEN.

POURING. See BAPTISM, IV., 1, 3,

POVERTY, SUFFERING, AND THE CHURCH. See SOCIAL SERVICE OF THE CHURCH.

POWELL, BADEN: English mathematician and theological writer; b. at Stamford Hill, London, Aug. 22, 1796; d. in London June 11, 1860. He studied at Oriel College, Oxford (B.A., 1817; M.A., 1820); was curate of Midhurst, 1820, and vicar of Plumstead, Kent, 1821-27. From 1827 till his death he was Savllian professor of geometry at Oxford. He opposed the Tractarians, worked for university reform, and was a member of the committee of 1851. In 1860 he contributed to the famous Essays and Reviews (q.v.) an essay On the Study of the Evidences of Christianity. His position was, in the main, rationalistic. He rejected miracles as being out of harmony with the methods of God's government. His works of theological interest are, The Connexion of Natural and Divine Truth (London, 1838); Tradition Unveiled (1839; Supplement, 1840); Essays on the Spirit of the Inductive Philosophy, the Unity of Worlds, and the Philosophy of Creation (1855; 2d ed., 1856); The Study of the Evidences of Natural Theology (in Oxford Essays, 1856); Christianity without Judaism (1857); and The Order of Nature Considered in Reference to the Claims of Revelation (1859).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: DNB, xlvi. 237-238, where other literature is cited. Consult also works cited under Essays and Reviews, and of. the list of works called out by Powell's essay in that volume, given in British Museum Catalogue under " Powell, Baden."

POWELL, LYMAN PIERSON: Protestant Episcopalian; b. at Farmington, Del., Sept. 21, 1866. He was educated at Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa., Johns Hopkins University (A.B., 1890), University of Pennsylvania (fellow in history, 1893-95), and the Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia (1897). He was staff lecturer in history in the extension department of the University of Wisconsin (1892-93) and in the American University Extension Society (1893-95). Since ordination he has been rector of Trinity, Ambler, Pa. (1897-98), St. John's, Lansdowne, Pa. (1898-1903), and St. John's, Northampton, Mass. (since 1903). Theologically he is a liberal conservative, and has written: History of Education in Delaware (Washington, 1893) ; Six Sermons on Sin (Lansdowne, Pa., 1903); Family Prayers (Philadelphia, 1905); The Anarchy of Christian Science (Northampton, Mass., 1906) ; Christian Science: The Faith and its Founder (New York, 1907); and Heavenly Heretics (1909); besides editing the series American Historic Towns (4 vols., New York, 1898-1901).

POWELL, VAVASOR See FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

POWER, FREDERICK DUNGLISON: Disciple of Christ; b. at Yorktown, Va., Jan. 23, 1851. He was educated at Bethany College, Bethany, W. Va. (A.B., 1871), where he was adjunct professor of ancient languages in 1874-75, after having held various pastorates in his denomination from 1871 to 1874. Since 1875 he has been pastor of the Vermont Avenue Christian Church, Washington, D.C., and in this capacity was pastor of President James A. Garfield. He was also chaplain of Congress from 1881 to 1883, and since 1898 has been president of the American Christian Missionary Society. He was assistant editor of the Christian Evangelist, St. Louis, from 1902 to 1906. Among his writings, special mention may be made of his Sketches of our Pioneers (New York, 1898); Bible Doctrine for Young People (1899); The Story of a Twenty-Three Years Pastorate (Cincinnati, 1899); Life of President W. K. Pendleton of Bethany College (St. Louis, 1902); The Spirit of our Movement (1902); History and Doctrine of the Disciples of Christ (1904); and Thoughts of Thirty Years (Boston, 1906).

PRACTICAL THEOLOGY.

I. History of the Development of the Science:

1. Biblical Indications.

2. Early and Medieval Church.

3. In the Reformation and After.

4. Protestant Development.

All theology being, either immediately or mediately, practical, the name practical theology must be deemed a restriction of the designation of the whole to a part. The wide extensibility of the word "practical" led to its application to Christian ethics and to church activities, for which the study of theology both in general and in its parts, as homiletics or ethics, formed the preparation. It is remarkable that in all early discussions of practical theology, as by Alsted, Gisbert Voetius, and J. Forster, catechetics is lacking, though the second-named divides the theme into moral (or casuistic), ascetic, politico-ecclesiastical, and homiletic theology. There was, indeed, a catechetic theology, but this was construed as the knowledge of the chief tenets of Christianity which the theologian must have for himself, not as a theory of church instruction. It was not until the rise of Pietism that catechetics became an integral part of practical theology. It was in the transition from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century that the several parts of practical theology were recognized as an organic whole, which was designated "practical theology." J. E. C. Schmid, in his Theologische Encyklop�die (1810), and G. J. Planck (q.v.) in his Grundriss (1813), adopted this terminology, both speaking of it as the one customarily used. It is thus impossible to regard Schleiermacher as the founder of practical theology, even in the sense that it owed to him its scientific existence. At the same time, he essentially furthered it by his Kurze Darstellung (1811, 1830) and by his lectures, and gave it systematic development. While positing the mutual interdependence of scientific and practical theology, the latter is regarded as the crown of theological study, since it presupposes all the other branches and prepares for their realization. Schleiermacher's construction of the subdivisions of practical theology was conditioned by his theory of the Church, which he held to be the community of Christian life for the independent exercise of Christianity. Since this presupposes organization, church administration rests on a distinct formulation of the original antithesis between leaders and led. Thus administration is in the hands of the leaders, or theologians, and Christian theology is the content of knowledge and regulation without which the harmonious administration of the Church is impossible. The community may connote either individual congregation or denomination, and from the religious life of the former Schleiermacher constructed homiletics, liturgics, catechetics, missions, and pastoral care. From this point of view, practical theology includes the traditional subdivisions with the addition of missions. The administration of the denomination as a whole Schleiermacher sought in ecclesiastical authority and in the free power of the spirit, both having ultimately the same end, but the former enacting or restraining, while the latter inspires and admonishes, so that the excellence of religious condition is directly proportionate to the living interaction of these two factors. The interest of the nexus between the individual congregation and the denomination is subserved by church legislation, which affects liturgy and usage, the membership of individuals in the Church, and discipline and the building of churches. It thus preserves both free development and unity, besides guarding the relations of Church and State, and to it is also assigned, especially to the theological teacher and author, the task of pointing out the norm which be must follow if his activity is to benefit the entire body of his communion. In all this Schleiermacher's importance lies in the fact that he gave these elements systematic discussion on the basis of church government. The historical treatment, on the other hand, was less emphasized, and both this side and the systematic aspect received elaboration and development from Schleiermacher's successors, the most important being Karl Immanuel Nitzsch (q.v.).

II. Theoretical Discussion:

1. Basal Concepts.

The derivation of practical theology from the essence of the Church and the concept of the Church itself as the subject and object of that theology have been maintained, with various modifications, from the time of Schleiermacher. Mention may be made of such theologians as P. K. Marheineke, A. Schweizer, Nitzsch, and F. A. E. Ehrenfeuchter (qq.v.). Ehrenfeuchter however, seems to exclude missions from practical theology. But this difficulty is solved when it is remembered that in its missionary activity the Church follows the impulse to recover what really appertains to it. The problem recurs more cogently in the case of home missions, and in so far as such missions depart from their original character and are devoted to charitable and humanitarian ends, they come under the category of ethics rather than of practical theology. The means for accomplishing that church activity with which practical theology is concerned are generally agreed to be prayer, preaching, and the sacraments, the congregation being the agent in the first, and God in the two latter. Since the object of this activity is the congregation itself, practical theology must distinguish between the congregation as united with the risen Christ in faith and as living in this world. A distinction is accordingly drawn between the congregation as existent (in possession of the means of communion and of the spirit necessary to such communion) and as nascent (subject to the influences of earthly life); and all this church activity ultimately leads to the great distinction between persons who act and persons who are acted upon.

2. Subdivisions.

Turning to the traditional and generally recognized subdivisions of practical theology, it is clear that homiletics and catechetics belong together in so far as both are concerned with the Word for the congregation, the difference being that homiletics deals with the trained and catechetics with the untrained. The object of liturgics is less clear, but some light may be gained by reckoning under it the theory of the prayer of the congregation. It may then include hymnology and music, as well as confirmation, confession, marriage, and burial. It is true that all these belong in part to the theory of the Word, but their specific content appertains to the theory of the prayer of the congregation. Here, too, belong the dedication of objects, which God is besought to give to the right people, and to endow with his spirit. The theory of the administration of the sacraments is meager if only the ceremonies be described; but this administration depends upon other problems, such as the justification of infant baptism. The position of pastoral theology is peculiar. Formerly, as still among Roman Catholic theologians, it included all practical theology; and traces of this excess still survive even among Protestants, so that it involves both pastoral duties in general and individual pastoral care. It is best, however, to restrict pastoral duties in general to the functions of the personage entrusted with the discharge of the major part of that with which practical theology is concerned, and to confine pastoral care to the special needs of individual cases (see PASTORAL THEOLOGY). If this be done, the two subdivisions can not be combined, a fact which is to the advantage of both. Home missions are a special extension of individual pastoral care, so that it is unnecessary for practical theology to treat it as a special subdivision. Since, however, home missions do not employ pastors, pastoral theology should no longer be restricted to pastors, but should be extended to deacons and deaconesses. It must, accordingly, be transformed into a theory of the officials of the congregation, and thus of the entire organization of the Church. In this way pastoral theology becomes the last of the subdivisions of practical theology; after the activities of the Church have been set forth, the theory of the persons performing them forms the conclusion. The theory of the church year and of the Pericopes (q.v.) forms part of Homiletics (q.v.), shading over into Liturgics (q.v.). The position of foreign missions (see MISSIONS TO THE HEATHEN) in practical theology is uncertain, but E. C. Aehelis is probably right in placing them immediately before the theory of church government, for activity directed toward an already existing Church must first be treated, and then that directed toward the non-Christian world. The missionary theory of practical theology must not invade church history or the training of missionaries, but must be restricted to the position to be maintained by the Church in missionary activity and to the means for rousing missionary enthusiasm within the congregation,

3. Bouletics.

J. C. K. von Hoffmann (q.v,) has added to the functions of theological and ecclesiastical activity the learned representation and counsel of the Church, these being discharged by the theologian in his ex-officio capacity as a member of the religious community. From this point of view apologetics and polemics would fall within the scope of practical theology, though these would still have to be furnished by the exegete, historian, and dogmatician, practical theology requiring them simply in the interests of the present-day Church. For this learned counsel von Hoffmann coins the word " bouleutics," which, though without theoretical development, is furthered not only by theological thought, but also by periodicals and pamphlets. Such voluntary counsel, however, can be beneficial only when based on a solid foundation, and while practical theology must indeed afford counsel, this must be accomplished through the theoretical development of the duties of the Church, not through a special system of bouleutica. Practical theology itself must perform the office of bouleutics for all ecclesiastical tasks and duties, and from its concentration on the present life and activity of the community it follows that it must be denominational in character.

4. Classification

In the light of the foregoing, the means of the life of the religious community may be classified as follows: the theory of the prayer of the congregation (liturgies), of the Word for the trained and untrained (homiletics and catechetics), the administration of the sacraments, care for those members of the congregation who are cut off from its life (pastoral care) and for the, non-Christian world (foreign missions), and the theory of the officiauts and their duties (theory of the officials of the congregation). More important than this classification is the problem whether practical theology has its own field, whether it is separate from exegetical, systematic, and historical theology, or whether it is to be referred to them. In the first place, practical theology is concerned with the establishment of an actual state of things, all other theology with the knowledge of such a state. Again, practical theology is the theory of the technic of the right administration of the ecclesiastical means of community, prayer, preaching, and the sacraments. It is undeniable that practices theology needs the aid of other departments of theology, but since these are often inadequate for its requirements, it is obliged to supplement them in all their capacities. But it remains throughout essentially " applied theology," and it accordingly treats all the material supplied by the other departments of theology in a distinctly characteristic fashion, developing the practical application of such material in church life and the theoretical basis of such application. Between the theory of the nature of any theological activity (e.g., baptism) and the performance of such activity lies the theory of its performance, and this theory is the specialty of practical theology.

5. Relationship to non-Theological Sciences and Arts.

Practical theology also sustains a close relation to certain non-theological sciences and arts in consequence of the training of theologians and the peculiar nature of Christian worship, and modern conditions demand that the theologian engaged in practical work have more than has been included in his professional education. It is not, however, Sciences the function of practical theology to and Arts. supply this need, any more than it is the duty of exegesis or church history to do so. Despite the fortuitous combination (for example) of homiletics with rhetoric, or of catechetics with pedagogics, practical theology can and should, in reality, supply its own needs in these respects from within itself. This division of theology also bears a relation to the fine arts, for though these sustain no essential connection with practical theology, yet the construction and adornment of a church edifice appertains to architecture, sculpture, and painting, sacramental vessels may be artistically embellished, and parts of the service may be rendered in poetic or musical setting. In so far as art furthers religious ends, it may be employed by practical theology; when it passes beyond these limits, it must be rejected.

6. Final Tests.

A far more difficult problem is the proof of the correctness of the theory of practical theology. On Protestant principles this must be accomplished by the Bible, a task which is not easy. While many details can not be proved from indisputable Bible passages, the attempt must be made to gain from the New Testament such a general view of church life as shall include all the vital functions of the congregation, all the powers conferred upon it, all its activities and experiences, all its personages, all its relations to the non-Christian world, and the consequent position of its Lord and the leaders of its life. This reconstruction must run through the entire New Testament, and from it will be gained a picture of the Christian Church in all its aspects, as well as a survey of the agencies to serve for its guidance and a basis for the procedure to be adopted by it at the present day. For all this a thorough knowledge of church history is essential, and modern practical theology is, fortunately, seeking to gain this knowledge. Since, moreover, church activity is always directed toward the Church at the present time, a complete knowledge of that present is essential to practical theology, and it must also furnish the ways and means whereby those engaged in practical church work can acquire this knowledge. This can not be attained, however, by mere references to books. Practical theology must concern itself, besides all else, with the relations be tween congregations, the correct questioning of the laity, and the proper mode of pastoral visiting. In this way it aids in finding the way for the correct performance of what has been ascertained to be the right mode of church activity.

(W. CASPARI.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. J. Planck Rinleitunul in die theologische wissenschaft, G�ttingen, 1794; F. Schleierroacher, Kurze Darstellung dea theolgischen Studiums, pp. 257-338, Berlin, 1830; idem, Die Praktische Theologie, ed. Frerichs, ib. 1850; A. Schweizer, Ueber Begrif and Eintheilung der Praktischen Theologie, Leipsic, 1830; C. Schmidt, De l'objet de la th�olopie pratique, Strasburg, 1844; C. B. Moll, Das System der praktischen Theologie, Halle, 1853; A. Vinet, Th�ologie pastorale, Paris, 1854, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1855; F. A. E. Ehrenfeuehter, Die praktische Theologie, G�ttingen, 1859; C. I. Nitzseh, Praktisehe Theologie, 3 vols., Bonn, 1859-88; J. H. Blunt, Directorium Pastorale, London, 1864; W. Otto, Evanpelische praktische Theologie, 2 vols., Gotha, 1889-70; F. L. Steinmeyer, Beitrage zur praktischen Theologie, 5 vols., Berlin, 1874-79; T. Harnack, Praktische Theologie, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1877-78; K. Harms, Pastoral theologie, 3 vols., Kiel, 1878; J. J. van Oosterzee, Practical Theology, New York, 1878; G. von Zezschwitz, System der praktischen Theologie, Leipsic, 1879 (orderly and complete); W. G. Blaikie, For the Work of the Ministry; a Manual of homiletical and pastoral Theology, London, 1878; E. Vaucher, De la th�ologie pratique, Paris, 1893 (clear and able); G. R. Crooks and J. F. Hurst, Theological Encyclopadia and Methodology, pp. 500 sqq., New York 1894; A. Cave, Introduction to Theology, pp. 565 sqq., Edinburgh, 1898; K. Knoke, Grundriss der praktischen Theologie, G�ttingen, 1896; E. C. Achelis, Lehrbuch der praktischen Theologie, Leipsic, 1898 (satisfactory); 1899); F. Chapel Biblical and Practical Theology, Philadelphia, 1901; F. S. Schenck, Modern Practical Theology, New York, 1903; L. Emery, Introduction d l'�tude de la th�ologie protestante, pp. 185-222, Paris, 1904; F. C. Monfort, Applied Theology, Cincinnati, 1905; J. Haase, Der praktische Geistliche, Hamburg, 1905; W. Faber, in Kultur der Gegenwart I., 4, Berlin, 1906; D. D. Cullen, Problems of Pulpit and Platform, Elgin, Ill., 1907; A. Pollok, Studies in Practical Theology, London, 1907; J. C. Wright, Thoughts on Modern Church Life and Work, New York, 1909; C. Clemen, Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie, 1, Quellen zur Lehre vom Gottesdienst (Liturgik), 2, Quellen zur Lehre vom Religionsunterricht, Giessen, 1910; H. Jeffs, Modern Minor Prophets. With a Chapter on Lay-Preaching and its ByProducts, London, 1910. Series of works are: Mandbibliothek der praktischen Theologie, ed. F. Zimmer, 17 vols, Gotha, 1890--93; and Sammlung van Lehrb�chern der praktischen Theolopie, ed. H. Hering Berlin, 1895 sqq. (still in progress). Consult also the literature under PASTORAL THEOLOGY.

PR�DESTINATUS, LIBER: A work of the first half of the fifth century by an unknown author; so called because the list of heresies in the first book closes with the h�resis pr�destinatorum. The treatise is in three parts: the first being a brief description of ninety heresies, plagiarized from the similar list by Augustine, the notes by the author being without value. The second and third books contain a detailed refutation of the heresy stigmatized as predestinational, this being presented in the second book as a treatise of the opponents, and assailed section by section in the third book. The second book is alleged by the author of the Liber pr�destinatus to be a forged work of Augustine, designed to propagate dangerous errors concerning predestination and to lead to moral laxity. While this portion might have been written by some adherent of Augustine, it seems rather a figment of the author of the Pr�destinatus, who skilfully availed himself of Augustinian concepts and methods to present those points of the doctrine of predestination which Were most vulnerable to the Pelagians. Whether, or to what extent, the author made use of earlier Pelagian compositions of Similar tendency can not be determined. In the third book the Auzustinian doctrines are boldly assailed. Free will precedes grace, got is the greater power of the latter effectual without the antecedence of the former. The fall did not destroy the freedom of the will, but first revealed it; and the end of man is voluntary obedience to God after the pattern of Christ. The book, though ostensibly orthodox, is Pelagian; and the formal condemnation of Pelagianism is probably a clever effort to blind the simple reader. The Liber pr�:destinatus can not have been written by Arnobius the Younger (q.v.), and it may be the work of several hands, its purpose perhaps being to induce the pope to intervene in favor of the Pelagians. Such a proceeding would not have been at variance with the methods of Julian of Eclanum (q.v.).

(ERWIN PREUSCHEN.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: The editio princeps, ed. J. Sirmond, appeared Paris 1643, reprint with a Censura . . . , 1645; best ed. by La Baum in Opera varia J. Sirmondi, i. 449 sqq., ib. 1696; it is in MPL, liii. 583 sqq.; and in CSEL. The earlier literature is antiquated by H. von Schubert, in TU, xxiv (1903), part 4; cf. A. Faure, Die Widerlepung der Horetiker im 1. Buch des Pr�destinatus, G�ttingen, 1903.

PR�DINIUS, REGNERUS: Dutch Roman Catholic; b. at Winsum, province of Groningen, in 1510; d. at Groningen Apr. 18, 1559. At an early age he went to Groningen, where he studied in the house of the Brethren of the Common Life, where he was the room-mate of Albert Hardenberg (q.v.), who, with other liberal-minded men, formed the sphere of Prmdinius' development. He studied theology of the Erasmian type at Louvain until about 1529, and was appointed rector of St. Martin's school, Groningen, some time before 1546, and held this position until his death. He lectured on theology, appealing constantly to the authority of the Bible and predicting that the Church would be reformed under the guidance of learning. Though in sympathy with the two principles of the Reformation, the free study of the Bible and justification by faith alone, and though studying the writings of the Reformers, he was, under the spiritual influence of his masters Wessel and Erasmus, less drawn to the frequently violent Luther and, being a prudent and impassionate spirit, preferred to remain in the background and teach quietly. Many of his pupils, however, who came from Germany, Italy, Spain, France, and Poland, actively promoted the cause of the Reformation, among them David Chytrwus (q.v.), and Joannes Acronius, who edited his Opera (Basel, 1563). As an outcome of his influence, some of his pupils in the ministry dispensed the Eucharist in both kinds, preached in the vernacular, and laid no value on processions and ceremonies.

Though long permitted to spread his views un molested, Prsedinius was at last accused of heresy and condemned to banishment, but died before the sentence could be carried into effect. Soon after his death his writings were placed on the Index. In one of these, "The Invocation of the Saints," he rejects the practise as inefficacious and contrary to Scripture.

(S. D. VAN VEEN.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. J. Diest Lorgion, Regnerus Pr�dinius, Groningen, 1862; Effigies et vit� professorum Academi� Groning�, pp. 36 sqq., Groningen, 1654; Suffridus Petrus, De acriptoribus Frisi�, pp. 164 sqq., Franeker, 1669; D. Gerdes, Historia Reformationis, vol. iii., Groningen, 1742.

PR�MUNIRE: A term of English canon and common law including in its signification a certain offense, the writ granted upon it, and its punishment. The term is the first word of the writ, and means "to protect, secure, warn." This writ was originally used by Edward III. in 1353 to check the arrogant encroachments of the papal power. He forbade (27 St. 1, c. 1), under certain penalties, any of his subjects, particularly the clergy, to go to Rome there to answer to things properly within the king's jurisdiction; and also the reception from the pope of English ecclesiastical preferments. By these statutes Edward endeavored in vain to remove a crying evil. Richard II. issued similar statutes in 1393, particularly one called thenceforth the "Statute of Praemunire," assigning as the punishment for the offense that the offenders be imprisoned during life, and lose their lands and other property. Henry IV. and later sovereigns have given the same name and penalty (known as a Prxmunire) to different offenses which have only this in common, that they involve more or less insubordination to royal authority.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: The first statute is given in English Laws, 27 Edward III., Stat. 1. Eng. transl., Gee and Hardy, Documents, pp. 103-104; cf. KL, vi. 48-50.

(P. WOLFF�.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: References to early literature are given in Hauck-Herzog, RE, xv. 612. Consult ADB, xxvi. 513-514; KL, x. 276; G. Holstein, Das altst�dtiashe Gymnasium zu Magdeburg, in Jahrbuch für Philologie and Padapogik, cxxx (1884), 68 sqq.

PR�TORIUS, STEPHAN: German Lutheran; b. at Salzwedel (54 m. n.n.w. of Magdeburg), probably May 3, 1536; d. at Neustadt May 5, 1603. He was educated at the University of Rostock, where he also taught in the local schools; was ordained by Agricola at Berlin in 1565; became preacher in the same year at the monastery of the Holy Ghost at Salzwedel, and soon after deacon of the Church of St. Mary's; and from 1569 until his death pastor at Neustadt. A great admirer of Luther, and an opponent of Jesuitism and Calvinism alike, Praetorius laid great stress on the sacraments, though not in the Roman Catholic sense, and held to justification by faith, though he also insisted on purity of life. He was a precursor of J. Arndt and P. Spener (qq.v.), though not Pietist in the narrow sense. His lack of caution brought upon him the charges of antinomianism and perfectionism, the latter theory later even being called Praetorianism. Through his tracts, which he or his friends published after 1570, Praetorius exercised an influence far beyond his own congregation; these were collected and published by J. Arndt under the title Acht-und-f�nfzig sch�ne, auserlesne, geist- und trostreiche Trakt�tlein (L�neburg, 1622), containing also fourteen hymns with their melodies, one of them being " Was hat gethan der heilige Christ?"

Praetorius' tracts were later arranged in the form of dialogues, with certain moderations, by M. Statius in his Geistliche Schatzkammer der Gl�ubigen (L�neburg, 1636, and often). There arose over his writings the Praetorian controversy, Abraham Calovius (q.v.) assailing the view of Praetorius and Statius that the faithful possess salvation not only in prospect but in reality. Spener's antagonist, G. C. Dilfeld, considered Praetorius akin to Esaias Stiefel (q.v.), and the general superintendent of Greifswald, Tiburtius Rango, secured the prohibition of the Schatzkammer in Swedish Pomerania. Despite all this, Praetorius' writings were continually read, and in the second quarter of the seventeenth century they influenced a circle of converts in Kottbus and vicinity. Spener frequently alludes to him admiringly, and the Schatzkammer has been revised by the Kornthal pastor J. H. Stoudt (Stuttgart, 1869).

(P. WOLFF�.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. F. Danneil, Kirchengeschichte der Stadt Saltzwedel, Halle, 1842; C. J. Cosack, Zur Geschichte der evangelischen asketischen Litteratur in Deutschland, pp. 1 sqq., Basel, 1875; H. Beck, Die Erbauungslitteratur der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 222 sqq., Erlangen, 1883; C. Grosse, Die alten Tr�ster, p. 97, Hermannsburg, 1900. Earlier and less accessible literature is named in Hauck-Herzog, RE, xv. 615.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION:(pragma). Of enactments affecting the Church three are to be mentioned:

I. The sanctio pragmatica referred to Louis the Pious of France, of 1268 (1269), if genuine, would be one of the earliest edicts of the thirteenth century to check the excessive extension of the papal power and the abuses of the Curia; particularly with reference to the inordinate demand for revenue and the enlargement of the papal reservation with reference to appointments. Of the six articles included, the first guarantees to all prelates, patrons, and ordinary collators of benefices their plenary rights and the unrestricted maintenance of their jurisdiction; and art. 4 complements the former by providing that all promotions, bestowals, fiefs, and dispositions must conform with the provisions of the common law and of the earlier councils, and the early institution of the Fathers. Art. 3 secures to cathedrals and other churches freedom of elections, promotions, and collatures, without, however, infringing upon the privileges of the king with reference to the appointment of prelates, the granting of the permission for an election, the right of the Regale (q.v.), and the royal investiture. Art. 4 also prohibits simony. Art. 5 permits papal revenues and other obligations only on justifiable, pious, and urgent grounds and only with the approval of the king, Art. 6 guarantees the liberties, prerogatives, and privileges granted by the French kings to churches, monasteries, and sacred institutions as well as to the clergy of the realms. The opponents of Gallicanism (q.v.), however, have earnestly disputed the genuineness of the law, so that in France there remains scarcely a doubt of its forgery. In Germany opinion was divided until P. Scheffer-Boiehorst (Gesammelte Schriften, i. 255, Berlin, 1904) established the forgery beyond a doubt. He placed its origin in the year 1438; others, in 1452.

II. The pragmatic sanction of Bourges by Charles VII. of France was issued July 7, 1438, in consequence of a national synod at Bourges (May, 1438), which indorsed the greater number of the reform edicts of the Council of Basel (q.v.) but proposed certain modifications as affecting the French Church. The edict consisted of twenty-three articles. The decrees which were accepted were incorporated bodily. Above all, the French church and the law of the State affecting the Church thereby adopted unchanged the decrees of the superiority of the council to the pope, the regular convening of ecumenical councils, and the restrictions of papal reservations and revenues. The modifications covered the maintenance of the right of nomination for the king and princes of fit candidates, the extension of the rights of the qualified in the awarding of benefices, the preservation of ordinary jurisdiction over against the conduct of processes by general councils; compensation to the pope for the abolition of annats and the preservation of special customs, observances, and statutes of the French Church. Internal ecclesiastical affairs thus became subject for secular enactment. The modifications intended for the acceptance of the Council of Basel were put in power by the royal edict, though the council could no longer resolve upon their acceptance or rejection. The sanction was naturally opposed by the popes in their effort to regain prestige. PiusII, in 1453, pronounced it to be an infringement upon the papal prerogatives and ordered the French bishops to effect its repeal. When Louis IX. repealed the sanction in 1461, the parliament of Paris, under the protection of which it had been placed, refused; and it has remained essentially unchanged. See CONCORDATS AND DELIMITING BULLS, III., 2.

III. The so-called German pragmatic sanction of Mar. 26, 1439, never became a law and the term is misleading. At the Diet of Mainz the electoral princes and the representatives of the Roman king and of the absent princes, after the example of the French, adopted a series of the decrees of the Council of Basel, and demanded certain modifications, and considered certain other proposed alterations to be submitted to the council. The act was, however, never approved or proclaimed by royal rescript and has been pointed out as merely a provisional union of the individual German princes concerning their attitude toward the conflict between the pope and the council.

(E. FRIEDBERG.)

Pragmatic sanction is the name given also to the document by which Emperor Charles VI. attempted to secure his Austrian possessions to his daughter Maria Theresa (cf. J. H. Robinson and C. A. Beard, Development of Modern Europe, i. 61 sqq., 68, Boston, 1907; Cambridge Modern History, vi. 201, New York, 1909).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. The document is printed in Mansi, Concilia, xxiii. 1259; M. de Lauriere, Ordonnances des roys de France, i. 97, Paris, 1723; and Durand de Maillane, Dictionnaire du droit canonique, iv. 767, Lyons, 1770. Consult: R. Thomasay, De la pragmatique sanction attribu�e � Saint Louis, Paris, 1844; C. G�rin, La Pragmatique Sanction de Saint Louis, ib. 1870; J. Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform, i. 202, Berlin, 1903. II. Reprints are in Durand de Maillane, ut sup., p. 768; M. de Vilevault, Ordonnances des rois de France, xiii. 267 sqq.; a reprint with notes is dated Paris, 1514, and another, 1666. Consult: H. Dansin, Hist. du gouvernement de la r�gne de Charles VII., pp. 216 sqq., Paris, 1858; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vii. 762; W. Sch�ffner, Geschichte der Rechtsverfassung Frankreichs, ii. 630 sqq., 4 vols., Frankfort, 1845-50; E. Friedberg, Grenzen zwischen Staat und Kirche, pp. 488 sqq., T�bingen, 1872. III. J. Horix, Concordata nationis Germanicae integra, Frankfort, 1765 sqq.; G. Koch, Sanctio pragmatica Germanorum illustrata, Strasburg, 1789.

PRAGMATISM: The word in its technical use originated with C. S. Pierce in 1878 ("How to Make Our Ideas Clear," in Popular Science Monthly, xii. 286-302), who defines the meaning of an idea or an object in terms of its practical bearings. An object is known so far as it is conceived in its effects. In 1898 Prof. William James broadened the term to include particular future consequences in experience whether active or passive (Journal of Philosophy, i. 674). Hence the truth or meaning of a conception is exhausted in the results of it in an experience which is either recommended or expected. If the consequences of one idea are not conceivably different from those of another idea, the two ideas are essentially the same. Pragmatism deals neither with the abstract nor with the pure metaphysical absolute but wholly with the concrete. It turns away from first causes to contemplate final results. It is a theory for unifying experience through its consequences, and so arriving at truth. The chief representatives of this doctrine, while in general agreement emphasize somewhat different aspects of the subject. Professor James, e.g., keeps close to everyday experience - pragmatism; Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller accentuates the place of feeling in relation to religious faith - humanism, personalism; Professor John Dewey is interested more in the scientific inductive approach to knowledge - instrumentalism or immediate empiricalism, i.e., theories are instrumental as derived from and leading to conduct in which we can rest - things are what they are experienced to be and are valid so far as they are workable. Truth is some claim which has been tested and confirmed by the worth of its consequences or at least by the verifiability of these. It is, therefore, not static but progressive, not absolute but a continuous compromise in which warring interests are held in check until wider values emerge in experience wherein they are adjusted and harmonized. Accordingly, authority is not fixed and final but developmental and transitive, in which external coercion gives place to rational self-direction. The bearings of this doctrine on ethics and religion are of great significance. If the entire world is what we make it, human life itself must share this potentiality. That becomes real which we realize and so far as we realize it; our willing is the condition of its existence. Both our ideals and our character are created by us. Monotheism is not the inevitable and exclusive postulate of religion, but so far as this hypothesis works satisfactorily, it may be held as true. Thus is indicated a place for the "will to believe." The Absolute if accepted at all must be conceived not as static and changeless perfection, but as functional, with infinite potentialities of change, real not beyond but in experience. Pluralism as an interpretation of the universe may not be excluded. If there is anything personal at the heart of things, our bearing toward it will naturally condition its effect upon us. To act as if there were a God may therefore be the sole path to the knowledge and realization of God in the consciousness. The future life may likewise be conditioned on our behavior toward it as a possibility. At the very least meliorism may be the creed and endeavor of the individual. The relation of pragmatism to the movement introduced by Kant (q.v.) is not to be overlooked.

C. A. BECKWITH.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. James, Pragmatism: a new Name for some old Ways of Thinking, London and New York, 1907; idem, in Philosophical Review, xvii (1908), 1-17; F. C. S. Schiller, Humanism, New York, 1903; idem, Studies in Humanism, ib. 1907; H. H. Bawden, The Principles of Pragmatism, ib. 1910; E. W� Lyman, Theology and Human Problems; a comparative Study of absolute Idealism and Pragmatism as Interpreters of Religion, ib. 1910. For list of the numerous magazine and review articles on the subject the reader should consult W. I. Fletcher's Annual Library Index, New York.

PRAGUE, ARCHBISHOPRIC OF: The city of Prague, situated in the central part of Bohemia, was founded in the eighth century near the site of the ancient ducal castle; and first gained a position of importance in history with the establishment of Christianity in the interior of Bohemia. The Christianization of this was accomplished in connection with that of Moravia under the Eastern missionary brothers Cyril and Methodius (see CYRIL AND METHODIUS), but after Bohemia had withdrawn from the Moravian kingdom and placed itself under German protection Bohemia became a part of the diocese of Regensburg in 895. Boleslaw II., the Pious, sent his sister Milada to the pope to appeal for the establishment of a separate bishopric, and in 971 this was granted by John XIII. Half a century earlier Duke Wenzel had erected the Church of St. Veit, and this, as the church of the martyrs St. Veit and St. Wenzel, the pope designated as the cathedral. However, the step was opposed by the bishop of Regensburg and his chapter and not until 973, upon a compact with the Emperor Otto I., was the bishopric of Prague established. The act of creation was ratified by Benedict VI. and the emperor, and the new bishopric was attached to the archdiocese of Mainz. The new diocese was an extensive one, embracing Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, southern Poland, Galicia as far as Lemberg, and Slavic Hungary. The first bishop, proposed by the duke and unanimously chosen by the clergy and the people, was the Benedictine Dietmar (973-982); he was a Saxon who had lived in Bohemia, for many years and was familiar with the Slavic language. His successor was Adalbert (see ADALBERT OF PRAGUE), the first native bishop, who introduced the Benedictine order and became the apostle of the Prussians, suffering martyrdom in 997. After 999 the erection of the dioceses of Cracow and Breslau diminished the area of that of Prague. In 1063 Moravia was separated. In 1212, after the elevation of the dukes to the kingship, the investiture of the bishop was conferred from the emperor upon. the king of Bohemia. In 1344, through the efforts of Emperor Charles IV., Prague was made an archbishopric by Clement VI., and the bishopric of Olmiitz and the recently formed bishopric of Leitomischl were subordinated to it. The first archbishop, Ernest of Pardubitz (1343-64), won great fame by his character and his wisdom and zeal in organization and administration. He proceeded to build the archcathedral and under him the university was founded in 1348. With the apostasy of Conrad and the rise of the Hussites the jurisdiction was inhibited and the foundations were destroyed and there followed a period (1431-1561) during which the archbishopric was in charge of administrators elected by the chapter. Emperor Ferdinand introduced the Jesuits to replace the orders whose foundations had been destroyed or taken, and for the privilege of naming the archbishop undertook the restoration of the despoiled archbishopric. With the " compacts " of the Council of Basel (1434) granting the use of the cup in the communion, a privilege not conceded until 1564 by Pope Pius IV., the return and ordination of the Utraquists (see HUSS, JOHN, HUSSITES, II., �� 4-7) were provided, on the conditions later of accepting the articles of Trent; and thus under the legate of the council, Philibert (1433-39), who performed the episcopal functions, and his successors, and, with the restoration of Ferdinand I., under Archbishop Antonio Brus (1561-80), Martin Medek (1581-90), and Zbynek (1592-1606), progress was made in the rehabilitation of the archbishopric, the reestablishment of a Roman Catholic clergy, and the return of the orders, so that by 1603 the laws of Trent were publicly proclaimed at a provincial synod and Zbynek resumed the rank of a prince of the realm. Ferdinand ordered a restoration of Roman Catholicism under penalty of confiscation of land property and by military coercion, the result of which was that Protestantism was stamped out. Adalbert now reorganized the archdiocese and established the bishopric of Leitmeritz in 1655 and of Koniggrii,tz in 1664. In 1777 Olmiitz was made an archbishopric, in 1785 the new bishopric of Budweis was withdrawn and the bishoprics of Leitmeritz and Koniggriitz were enlarged, so that the archbishopric of Prague was reduced to one-third of its former extent. At present the ecclesiastical province is composed of the archdiocese of Prague and the suffragan bishoprics of Leitmeritz, Koniggrfitz, and Budweis. Leitonlischl became extinct after 1474.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Regesta . . . Bohemia; et Moravia, ed. K. J. Erben and J. Emler, 5 parts, Prague,1855-92; G. Dobner, Monumenta historica Boemia, 6 vols., Prague, 1764-85; Seriptores rerum Bohemicarum, ed. F. M. Pelsal, J. Dobrowsky, and F. Palacky, 3 vols., Prague, 1783-1829; Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, 5 vols., Prague, 1873-82. Consult: C. A. Pescheck, Geschichte der Gegenrejformation in B�men, 2 vols., Dresden, 1844; W. W. Tomsk, Geschichte der Stadt Prag, Prague, 1856; C. Eckhardt, Geschichte der deutschen evangelischen Gerneinde in Prag, Prague, 1891; J. Neuwirth, Prag, Leipsic, 1901; F. Liitsow, The Story of Prague, London, 1902; S. Binder, Die Hegemonie der Prager im Husitenkriege, Prague, 1903; HL, x. 280-303.

PRAGUE, COMPACTATA OF: FOUR ARTICLES OF. See HUSS, JOHN, HUSSITES

PRARTHANA SAMAJ OF BOMBAY. See INDIA, III., 2.

PRATT, WALDO SELDEN: Congregational layman; b. at Philadelphia Nov. 10, 1857. He was educated at William College (A.B., 1878) and Johns Hopkins University (1878-80). He was assistant director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1880-82), and since 1882 has been professor of music and hymnology at Hartford Theological Seminary, where he was also registrar in 1888-95. He was instructor in elocution in Trinity College, Hartford, in 1891-1905, and has been lecturer in musical history and science at Smith College since 1895 and at Mount Holyoke College in 1896-99, while since 1905 he has held a similar position at the Institute of Musical Art, New York City. From 1882 to 1891 he was organist of Asylum Hill Congregational Church, Hartford, and conductor of the Hosmer Hall Choral Union in the same city, and in 18841888 he was conductor df the St. Cecilia Club. He has written Musical Ministries in the Church (Chicago, 1901) and edited St. Nicholas Songs (New York, 1885) and Songs of Worship (1887), besides being musical editor of Aids to Common Worship (New York, 1887) and of the Century Dictionary.

PRAYER

1. I. In the Old Testament.
2. II. In the New Testament.
• Source and Characteristics (� 1).
• James and Paul (� 2).
• Christocentric (� 3).
3. III. In the Church.
• Definition (� 1).
• The Element of Experience (� 2).
• Self-seeking Excluded (� 3).
• Modern Difficulties (� 4).
• Solution (� 5).

I. In the Old Testament:

The Old Testament places prayer in connection with other religious acts, such as sacrifices, vows, fasts, and mourning ceremonies. "To pray" is expressed in Hebrew by 'athar or he'ethir, a verb which in Arabic means " to sacrifice," and thus had a cultic meaning from the beginning. This word is found in the older sources of the Pentateuch and in Judges xiii. 8; Job xxii. 27, xxxiii. 26. More frequently hith pallel is used, from a root palal to which Wellhausen, with reference to I Kings xviii. 28, assigns the original meaning " to make incisions." Like the corresponding noun tephillah, it is found in older and later books of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament prescribes no such external ceremonies or postures in prayer as occur among the later Jews and the Mohammedans. The petitioner stood or rostrated himself as did the subject before the king. The hands were extended to express purity, and were lifted up to heaven or toward the sanctuary in intercession. Prayer as the freest expression of religious life could be performed in any place, although the sanctuary was considered the most appropriate. In early times prayer accompanied the offer of sacrifice; later it is mentioned expressly as an integral part of daily service, partly as a function of the Levites in which the people joined.

It is nowhere directed in the Old Testament be cause it was regarded as the natural expression of religious life. No definite form is prescribed; the mode of expression was left to the inspiration of the moment; but the prayers contained in the Psalter naturally gained lasting importance as hymns of the congregation. Prayer was called forth by the most varying sentiments; it was an expression of gratitude for gifts, but more frequently it expressed supplication for external well-being, for deliverance from distress, for forgiveness of sins, or for wisdom. It had reference at times to the salvation of the whole people, at other times to purely personal relations. Great importance was attached to the prayer of a prophet if it had reference to the fulfilment of the divine word and the manifestations of the true God. In this respect, Jeremiah was the great example and was imitated by the psalmists; for the Psalms are mostly entreaties for a decisive self-manifestation of God. There occurs frequently in the Old Testament also the intercessory prayer of men who stood in nearer relation to God and were especially heard. It was only in post Exilic times that prayer was regarded as a meritorious service and practise, a conception which further developed under Pharisaism (see PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES).

(F. BUHL.)

II. In the New Testament:

1. Sources and Characteristics.

2. James and Paul.

Healing in the Apostolic Church was inseparable from prayer. The only deliberate testimony on this point is found in the epistle of James (v. 14-15). But the necessity of the connection is everywhere taken for granted. The personal practise of the Savior is clear. The incidental allusions of the New Testament are conclusive. There is no present need of arguing for the healing value of prayer when prayer, rightly framed, has control of consciousness both personal and corporate. Its therapeutic power can not be doubted; the question is how to use it wisely. The deep consciousness of salvation that pervades the New Testament makes joy the keynote of prayer as of life. In Paul, the supreme individual of the Apostolic Age; and at the same time its master-worker, this is strikingly true. Prayer is the atmosphere of life. It should be unceasing (I Thess. v. 17). It is the voice of the creative spirit in the soul of redeemed people (Rom. viii. 15). And because it is the deepest reach of experience, it is the final mystery. The redeemed man learns that his prayers by themselves are incompetent (Rom. viii. 26-27), but within the spirit of prayer in his breast he finds the Holy Spirit yearning. It is this discovery that gives him indestructible confidence.

3. Christocentric.

The nature of prayer in the New Testament accounts for and explains the relation of prayer to the person of Christ. The fact that prayer is essentially corporate being clearly in mind, it follows forthwith that prayer must be in the name of the Savior. The new community was inseparable from its founder and head. Baptism, the rite of entrance into Christian fellowship, was in his name (Acts ii. 38). The working creed was the conviction that he was master of the world's fortunes, this conviction taking the form of an impassioned belief in his speedy second coming. The deepening thought of the Church was Christologic (e.g., II Cor., as a model of pastoral theology). The miracles of healing were wrought in his name (Acts iii. 6). His name was taken to be the only name given under heaven among men whereby they must be saved (Acts iv. 12). Hence the person of Christ becomes inseparable from the idea of God (John xiv. 9). Consequently prayer is necessarily related to Christ. In Paul this is particularly clear. The mystical immanence of the risen Savior is the center of the inner life (Gal. ii. 20); all things which it becomes a Christian to do must be done in his name (Col. iii. 17). Therefore it follows that thanksgiving and prayer, the upgoing and outgoing of the soul to the source of life, while it goes direct to God, may, without detriment to the vital strength of monotheism, pass through the mind and person of Christ. In the ripest form of New-Testament thought, the Johannine theology, this becomes even clearer than in Paul. The mature Christian is to ask all things of God in his son's name (John xv. 16, xvi. 23).

The necessary recasting of trinitarian doctrine in the light of historical knowledge of the New Testament, the more vital pressure of the divine unity upon Christian consciousness brought about by the social problem, the deepening sense of the divine immanence-these forces in course of time will enable Christians to put aside those imperfect conceptions of the mediatorhood of Christ which led the Church to underweigh the humanity of the Savior. While praying to Jesus they will not forget that Jesus prayed.

HENRY S. NASH.

III. In the Church:

1. Definition.

2. The Element of Experience.

Prayer, as an address to God, implies that God is near to man, it involves certainty of the reality of God. One who had received no revelation of God would not be able to pray, while consciousness of such an experience brings ability to pray aright and inspires devotion. Such devotion expands spiritual power, and at the same time continues the experience through which is realized consciousness of God's interposition in life. Absorption in such consciousness affords confidence that God is present to us. None can pray if by his own fault the recollection that God once called him is obscured. However urgently Jesus enjoined prayer, he surely did not believe that man should pray without regard to his present condition; he did not desire prayer in which the heart is removed from God. Each individual must feel the revelation of God to be his personal experience. God is found in that life in which he reveals himself as personal life in Jesus Christ, so that in addressing him man addresses the Father. The ability to commune with God is for man an introduction into a new reality and a foreglimpse of an infinite future. Nothing can give deeper joy than these drafts of breath in a new life. Consequently Luther asserted correctly that the Lord's Prayer, and indeed every right Christian prayer, begins with thanksgiving and praise. But after the address to God has unfolded as an invocation of the Father in heaven, prayer becomes necessarily an entreaty. With the Christian supplication originates in God's revelation of himself. To possess God means to seek God. He who does not find the desire for God repressing every other desire has not found the God who reveals himself in Christ. This desire should be the starting-point of the Christian's unceasing prayer. This thought is expressed in the opening petitions of the Lord's Prayer. They are not a declaration that the Christian wishes to consider God's affairs more important than his own; they express rather the most urgent concern of the Christian himself. Those men are not children of God who do not desire above all to be near the Father; and for this knowledge of God is necessary.

3. Self-Seeking Excluded.

While Jesus directed to urgent and trustful prayer, without reservation and limitation, his directions presupposed that independence which was to grow up under his influence; they imply a disposition consciously ready to utter such petitions. They might be interpreted as though God would grant every self-indulgent Seeking and selfish wish of his children. Indeed, they must be so understood if followed by one who knows no desire for God. One whose heart is filled with earthly care can utter only this in his prayer. Such a man, therefore, dares not pray as others pray, but is intent upon his own needs. This was doubtless the meaning of Jesus. He must have hated supremely insincere prayer. But is that prayer sincere which expresses only burning desire for some worldly concern under the idea, upheld by an energetic will, that a power exists which by continual supplication may be moved to grant some definite petition? It is evident that such a prayer is only seeming; for while the petitioner pretends to address God, his representation of God is only an amplification of his wish. That prayer is not real in which effort is needed to follow the words of Jesus in which he limits the confidence of supplication. One not in the proper inner condition can not understand how a man can pray in earnest realizing that the Father in heaven knows and considers his needs without his asking or expressing with his supplication the willingness to renounce it. He who takes these words of Jesus as precepts that may be followed, is left without a motive; he can not realize that they are the expression of experiences gained in the exercise of prayer. All these difficulties disappear for those to whom Jesus spoke these words. If the eye has been opened to the fact that the efficient cause in all reality is a personal life that surrounds man with fatherly love, longing for God results. This longing is real life, and to develop it is the one in exhaustible task. Only when God is known from personal experience will it be possible to discern the relation of other forms of prayer. It can then be understood how a petition for external things, permeated by full assurance of being heard, may harmonize with a willingness to renounce it.

4. Modern Difficulties

In modern times the question has been raised whether God for the sake of prayer causes to occur what otherwise would not have come to pass. In the last three centuries a clearer consciousness of the demonstrable reality in which men exist has severely shaken faith in the possibility of such a prayer receiving its answer. The two men who in the nineteenth century in their sermons represented Christian life in its fullest content, Schleiermacher and F. W. Robertson (qq.v.), always clung to the belief that reality was conditioned by the laws of nature, and that the course of the world could not be changed simply because a man was not resigned to his lot. What they say concerning the possibility of answer to prayer shows how difficult it has become for Christian faith to hold its own in the spiritual conditions produced by the progress of science. If it is held that prayer might change the petitioner while all else continues its course, the energy of faith in prayer must necessarily be paralyzed. Faith has the power to elevate to a higher stage of life only when it develops the confidence that communication with the God of the other world is a power over against that reality which is to be experienced. If a personal life which has revealed itself has brought about a trust and confidence that it possesses power over all, there has been produced a personal conviction of a reality distinct from nature. Expectation is raised of finding an entrance to this reality. Access is had to it in a moral activity and a spirit of prayer which seeks God himself. But this very idea in which the life of faith progresses, the conception that God opens to those who knock, is destroyed if it is considered impossible for God to grant a prayer that will change a situation in order to remove a barrier between man and God; in that case God is no more the personal spirit who answers, but the unchangeable power of order. . Many believe that God shows himself as personal life only in the inner development while the course of life is the unchangeable result of natural law. But. it is not right to place psychical events in such contrast with nature, and that result of prayer which is limited to the inner life will not appear as a work of God through which he answers supplication, but as the direct effect of prayer in connection with inner conditions.

5. Solution.

The conception of nature will always be able to shake confidence in that petition which is a mere expression of human desires; but it can have no power over prayer which is the outgrowth of personal acquaintance with God and of longing for him. For in such prayer there is always room for the thought of cause and effect in empirical nature. It must be emphasized that this thought does not represent the whole reality, but only that part of it grasped by the senses. Moreover, nature as unlimited in space and time, is the creation of a God whose reality can not be proved but is experienced by those to whom he reveals himself. It need not be proved that he who stands on such a basis can believe in answer to prayer, and that in full recognition of the conception of nature. Such faith is possible since man, on the basis of the revelation which he. has personally experienced, may he convinced that God is inclined toward him in fatherly love; for then he must say to himself that the environment in which he exists is for him a stepping-atone to a more intimate union with God, whom yet it lies within his power to deny. Then the thought becomes possible for him that events in the world of sense may happen in virtue of his supplication, as God's answer of his prayer. In this confidence disturbance need not follow the recollection of the limitless conditionality of all empirical events, since that points rather to the fact that God as the Almighty performs each of his miracles through the world which for him is a totality while to man it is a limitless entity. Science can therefore not restrain from prayer. Man can pray when the God of heaven has revealed himself in individual experience. He really prays who addresses God in order to come nearer to him. To this real prayer, in which is expressed the tendency of all moral striving, God has given the power to shape the future for man and the world. The prayer of power is never the desire to accomplish material changes, but is a longing after God. If such longing is sincere, supplications concerning earthly matters will always be interwoven with it; for the more man becomes self-conscious in the thought of God, the more evident will it be that many cares so claim him that he feels momentarily separated from God.

(W. HERRMANN.)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: On prayer in the Bible consult: C. A. Goodrich, Bible History of Prayer, Andover, 1881; P. Watters, The Prayers of the Bible, New York, 1883; P. Christ, Die Lehre vom Gebet nach dem Neuen Testament, Leyden, 1888; R. Emend, Lehrbuch der alltestamentliche Religionageschichte, p. 351, Freiburg, 1893; A. Juneker, Das Gebet bei Paulus, Berlin, 1905; J. E. MeFadyen, The Prayers of the Bible, London, 1908; M. Kegel, Dae Gebet im Allen Testament, G�tersloh, 1908; Nowack, Arch�ologie, pp, ii., 259 sqq.; Benzinger Arch�ologie, pp, 338 sqq,; DB iv. 38-45; EB, iii, 3828-32; DCG, ii. 390-393; JE, x. 184-171 On prayer in the Church consult: S. I. Prime The Power of Prayer Illustrated . . . at the Fulton . . . Street Meetings, New York 1873; J. F. Clarks The Christian Doctrine of Prayer, Boston, 1874; I. S. Hartley, Prayer and its Relation to Modern Thought and Criticism, New York, 1875; The Prayer-Gauge Debate, by. Prof. Tyndal, Francis Gallon, and others against Dr. Littledale, President McCosh, . . . , Boston 1878; H, R, Reynolds, The Philosophy of Prayer, London, 1881; H. L. Hastings, Ebenezer: or Records of Prevailing Prayer, London. 1882; J. C. Ryle, Thoughts on Prayer, London, 1888; D. W. Faunce, Prayer as a Theory and as a Fact, New York, 1890; H. C. G. Moule, Secret Prayer, London, 1890; R. Leroy, La Pri�re chr�tienne, Lausanne 1894; A. Murray, The Ministry of Intercession; a Plea for more Prayer, London, 1898; F. Cabrol Le Livre de la pri�re antique, Paris, 1900; P. L. P. Gudranger, The Spiritual Life and Prayer according to Holy Scriptures and Monastic Tradition. London 1900; R. A. Torrey, How to Pray, London, 1900; A. F. Douglas, Prayer. A Practical Treatise, Edinburgh, 1901; E. F� von der Golst, Das Gebet der �ltesten Christenheit Leipsic 1901 (comprehensive. contains collection of early Christian Prayers); W. H. M. H. Aitken, The Divine Ordinance of Prayer. London 1902; A. W. Robinson, Prayer in Relation to the Idea of Law, in H. B. Swete, Essays on some Theological Questions, London, 1905; M. P. Tailing, Extempore prayer., Manchester, 1905; W. E. Biederwolf, How can God answer Prayer:..Nature. Conditions and Difficulties of Prayer, Chicago, 1907; F. R. M. Hitchcock, The Present Controversy in Prayer, London, 1909; Ann Louise Strong, The Psychology of Prayer, Chicago, 1909; Dora Greenwell and P. T. Forsyth, The Power of Prayer, London, 1910; W. A. Cornaby, Let us Pray! Home Circle Papers on the Science and Art of Supplication, ib. 1910; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fascs. xxxii. 663-xxxiii. Among anthologies may be named: C. H. von Bogatzky, Golden Treasury of Prayer (a classic, latest ed., London, 1904); C. Wolfsgruber, Hortutus anim� ,Augsburg, 1884; J. F. France, Preces veterum ez operibus sanctorum excerpt�, London, 1887; E. Hodder, A Book of Uncommon Prayers, London, 1898; M. W. Tilleston, Great Souls at Prayer; fourteen Centuries of Prayer, London, 1898; Annie de P�ne, Les Belles Pri�res, Paris, 1909 (anthology of prayers from Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and Shinto sources).

PRAYER BOOK, ENGLISH. See COMMON PRAYER, BOOK OF.

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD: A custom which, springing from natural and laudable affection, is found among very diverse peoples. It has a connection, in thought at least and often in fact, with that variety of sacrifice called vicarious, in which intercession is believed to be potential for the release of another from the consequences of that other's misdeeds. Its existence among the Jews in the second century before Christ is proved by II Mace. xii. 43-45, in which passage it is stated that not only prayer but sacrifice for the dead was offered by Judas, and the manner of statement shows that the deed was not unusual and was reckoned praiseworthy. But no Old-Testament passage can be quoted in favor of the custom.

There can be little question that from Judaism the practise passed over to the Christian Church. Attempts have been made to justify the custom by reference to the teaching of Jesus in such passages as Matt. xii. 32, but such inferences are regarded as strained. A more secure scriptural basis is afforded by the famous passage I Pet. iii. 19-20, cf. iv. 6, which is, however, sometimes brought into a forced connection with Zach. ix. 11. Combined with the vogue given by Jewish custom and the affection and hope which reached beyond the grave, this passage gave sanction to the practise in the early Christian Church. Tertullian is the earliest Christian writer who makes reference to prayers for the dead as customary (De exhortatione castitatis, xi.; De anima, Iviii.; De monogamia, x.; De corona, iii.; Eng. transls. in ANF, vols. iii. iv.). Similar testimony is given by Amobius (Adv. gentes, iv. 36), Cyprian (Ep. i. of Oxford ed., 1xv. in ANF, v. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogikai catecheseis, v. � 7), Augustine ("City of God," xxi. 13; De cura pro mortuis, i. and iv.), Chrysostom (Commentary on Phil., hom. 3), Dionysius the Areopagite (Hierarchia ecclesiastics, last chap.), and Apostolic Constitutions, VIII., ii. 12, iv. 41 (where the liturgical form is given). By some of these Fathers the custom was regarded as of apostolic institution. That the practise was strengthened by the idea of the solidarity of the Church as including the living and the dead is not unlikely, and a lingering influence of the classical Hades (q.v.) as a sort of middle state may have had its influence. The general practise of the early Church is further evinced by mortuary inscriptions. In view of all this it is not surprising that the prayer for the dead entered the liturgies, appearing in those of St. Mark, St. James, the Nestorian, Ambrosian, and Gregorian, and the Gallican. The development of the doctrine of Purgatory (q.v.), which in order of time followed the custom, fixed more firmly, if possible, the custom, and there developed in the West the Office (or Mass) for the Dead and the Missa de sanctis, the former at least as early as the sixth century. The offering of these prayers was from the earliest times particularly connected with the Eucharist. At the Reformation the practise fell into disrepute among Protestants, largely on the initiative of Calvin, and practically the entire Protestant Church rejects the custom. The Book of Common Prayer retains traces of the practise, which has not been expressly prohibited in the Anglican Church, and is indeed followed in certain parts.

GEO. W. GILMORE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hierurgia Anglicana, pp. 320-324, London, 1848 (gives examples of mortuary inscriptions containing prayers for the dead); J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, pp. 585-586, ib. 1870; F. G. Lee, The Christian Doctrine of Prayer for the Departed, ib. 1875; H. M. Luckock, After Death, ib. 1881; E. H. Plumptre, Spirits in Prison, New York, 1885; A. J. Anderson, Is it Right to Pray for the Dead? London, 1889; H. T. D., The Faithful Dead. Shall we pray for them? ib. 1896; E. T. d'E. Jesse, Prayers for the Departed, ib. 1900; C. H. H. Wright, The Intermediate State and Prayers for the Dead, ib. 1900; H. Falloon, The Blessed Dead: do they need our Prayers? ib. 1905; D. Stone, The Invocation o Saints, new ed., ib. 1910 (favors the practise); DCA, f. 267-274, ii. 1202-03, 1437-38.

PRAYER-GAGE DEBATE, THE: A controversy evoked by an unsigned communication by Prof. John Tyndall in the Contemporary Review, July, 1872 (" The `Prayer for the Sick.' Hints toward a Serious Attempt to Estimate its Value," vol. xx. 205-210). The article proposed that " one single ward or hospital, under the care of first-rate physicians and surgeons, containing certain numbers of patients afflicted with diseases which have been best studied, and of which the mortality rates are the best known, whether the diseases are those which are treated by medical or surgical remedies, should be, during a period of not less, say, than three or five years, made the object of special prayers by the whole body of the faithful, and that, at the end of this time, the mortality rates should be compared with those of other leading hospitals, similarly well managed, during the same period. Granting that time is given and numbers are sufficiently large, so as to insure a minimum of error from accidental disturbing causes the experiment will be exhaustive and complete." This was replied to by Richard Frederick Littledale (ib., pp. 430-454) who, while acknowledging the probability that prayer belongs to a region of law which permits inquiry concerning its practical operations, objected to the scheme, that it was impracticable, and that we can not quantify prayer. Professor Tyndall (ib., pp. 763-766), in a rejoinder, asks for restoration of prayer to its rightful domain and for verification. The author of the proposal (ib., pp. 760-777) cites as reasons why his suggestion was not complied with, inadequate conceptions respecting prayer and God's relations with his creatures. The discussion was continued by James McCosh, William Knight, the duke of Argyll (ib., pp. 777-782, vol. XXI., pp. 183-198, 464-473), and Canon Liddon. Francis Galton (" Statistical Inquiry into the Efficacy of Prayer," Fortnightly Review, new series, vol. xii., 1872, pp.125-135) drew attention to the longevity of sovereigns and clergymen, suggested inquiries concerning missionaries and comparison of the death rate at birth of children of praying and non-praying parents, and maintained that insurance companies take no account of prayer as an asset in assuming risks. The interest quickened by this proposal bore fruit in many sermons and in many articles in periodicals in Great Britain and America, some of which were gathered and published in The Prayer Gauge Debate (Boston, 1876).

C. A. BECKWITH.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY: The more important articles educed in the discussion are indexed under "Prayer," "prayer Cure," and Prayer Test " in Pools's Index to periodical Literature, i. 2, pp. 1041-42, Boston 1893. Note should be taken of John Tyndall's Address Delivered before the British Association Assembled at Belfast, London, 1874, New York, 1875, and of Mark Hopkins' Prayer and the Prayer Gauge, New York, 1874.

PRAYER, HOURS OF. See BREVIARY; CANONICAL HOURS; VESPER.

PRAYER, WEEK OF. See EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE, � 3.

PREACHING FRIARS. See DOMINIC, SAINT, AND THE DOMINICAN ORDER.

PREACHING, HISTORY OF.

I. In the Early Church:

1. Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Preaching.

It has occurred not infrequently that those who would give a history of preaching point to the apostolic letters in the New Testament as examples of apostolic homiletics. While these epistles undoubtedly give the form in which the apostles set forth the foundations and of Christian faith, it can not be too strongly emphasized that they are Preaching, not sermons. The epistolary style governs throughout. This position must be maintained in spite of the newest hypothesis advanced by Wrede and others to the effect that, particularly in the epistle to the Hebrews, and also in other New-Testament writings original addresses to Christian congregations are to be suspected. While this hypothesis has mach in its favor, the proof of the existence of oral discourses therein has not been conclusively advanced. While, then, this idea has largely been given up, the more strongly do expounders of the history of preaching rest upon the discourses of Peter and Paul as reported in the Acts of the Apostles. Yet here difficulties arise some maintaining that the speeches there reported are to a greater or less degree the product of the author of that book while others decide that they are a working over of the actual discourses. Even conservative critics, however, agree with the others that the discourses were not exactly taken from the mouth of the speaker and are not exact reproductions of the speeches actually delivered, related as they are in style to other parts of the same book. On the other hand it is to he noted that the discourses have the character of sermons in that they have a direct relation to the concrete situation in which they are given. Peter's discourses in Acts ii. 14 sqq., and iii. 12 sqq., deal with Pentecost and the healing of the lame man, while that in x. 34 sqq. is controlled by the vision of the context regarding clean and unclean. Paul's discourse in xiii. 16 sqq. has the character of a missionary address, the speech at Athens is exactly suited to a disputatious body of philosophers; but the address reported in xx. 17 sqq. is almost entirely personal, and is therefore not strictly a sermon. In all these examples, whatever partakes of the general character of the sermon is missionary in type. At any rate, these discourses afford little or nothing bearing on the history of preaching. Yet they may suggest the direction which preaching took in those times in the conflict with heathenism, the use of resources supplied by heathenism itself, the exposition of what had come through Christ, and the appeal to the ethical consciousness of the hearer. Acts ii. 42-43 indicates further the practise of the apostles in giving instruction to the community (cf. I Cor. xii.-xiv.; Rom. xii. 6-8; I Pet. iv. 10); but neither rules nor settled custom limited the brotherly communications. If a general term be needed to apply to the religious speeches of that period, it can take only the form of " free brotherly utterance." For the post-apostoHc period the testimony of Justin Martyr is of special value (1 Apol. lxvii.; Eng. transl., ANF, i. 186), showing the reading of Scripture and exhortation of a practical character based on the passage read. Tertullian (Apol. xxxix; Eng. transl., ANF, ii. 46) further illustrates the character of the discourses of that period (cf. De animo, ix.; ANF, iii. 188) when he says: "With the sacred words we nourish our faith, animate our hope, make our confidence more steadfast, and by inculcations of God's precepts confirm good habits." The one sermon from those times, the so-called II Epistle of Clement, is practical in character: it shows the reading of Scripture, the address only loosely connected therewith, read not spoken (chap. xix.), inculcating service of Christ with works and not with the mouth, and urging to repentance and charity and with pure heart to the service of God. A. Harnack has called attention (Der Presbyter-Prediger des Iren�us, in Philotesia, Paul Kleinert gewidmet, Berlin, 1907) to the fact that in the received remains of the literary work of Irenieus fragments from sermons of a "Presbyter-preacher" are extant which furnish examples of the earliest Christian exegetical-polemic homilies in existence.

2. The Period 200 - 300 A. D.

Origen (q.v.), the great thinker and scholar of the Greek Church, is the father of the sermon as a fixed ecclesiastical custom, to whom can be traced the theological-practical exposition of a definite text as well as the homily. It is noteworthy that, at that period of the separation of divine service into a homiletical-didactic part and a mystical part, the sermon was missionary and apologetic in type and suited to instruct the catechumens. It took the form of explication and application of the text, using particularly the method of allegory, which from that time on became prevalent and controlled the homiletical use of Scripture until the Reformation. Origen in his preaching followed the passage verse by verse, expounding it grammatically and historically, but dwelt most upon the deeper mystical or allegorical meaning, but he never forgot that the true purpose of the sermon is to develop the moral sense. Equipped with fine memory, marvellous knowledge of Scripture, and great learning, he knew how to apply the little things spiritually, practically, and often in a broad and general sense. He usually closed with the doxology. His appeal was rather to the perception than to the will. Of further development of the sermon in the school of Origen little is known. The homilies ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus (q.v.) are probably of later origin and recall the style of the Persian sage Aphraates (q.v.). The celebration of saints' days influenced the homily through the practise of pronouncing panegyrics, and this goes back into the third century. From the West there are remains of the sermons of the schismatic Roman bishop, Hippolytus (q.v.), but these are too fragmentary to guide to a decision regarding his style of preaching, and the longer addresses ascribed to him are probably not genuine. The sermon thus ascribed, which is entitled "On the Holy Theophany" and deals with the baptism of Jesus (Matt. iii.), follows closely the scriptural basis, yet has not the form of the exegetical homily; it appears more like a vibrating, picturesque hymn, and is the transition from the simple homily to the artistic synthetic sermon to the congregation. Since the writing Adversus aleatores, ascribed by Harnack to the second century (see CYPRIAN, � 5), is probably of later date, examples of Latin eloquence are to be sought first in Tertullian. Yet even from him no samples of the sermon have come down, though his primitive, fresh, spiritual, granulous, and always sententious style long remained the pattern for the eloquence of the Latin Church. Gyprian took Tertullian as his model in the devel opment of dialectical yet practical, warm, and piercing persuasiveness. Lactantius mentions the celebrity of Cyprian's sermons, of which none are certainly extant.

3. Greco-Syrian Preaching 300-450 A. D.

With the victory of Christianity and the development of the service came a soaring of the sermon. Preaching became more frequent, being employed even during the week and during fast seasons in some places daily. As the Church during that period assimilated more and more Greco-Roman culture, the sermon developed pari passu. The most noted Christian preachers had not seldom been educated in the rhetorical schools of the heathen, and employed in their sermons the rules of rhetoric and the artistic effects taught there, and polish became almost an end, often giving more brilliancy than warmth. The hearers came to look for esthetic satisfaction rather than for edification, leaving after the sermon and before the Eucharist. Especially did the eulogy lead to a strained ostentation which showed no middle way between the purpose of the sermon and classical oratory. The homily retained its method of analytical explanation and application. The modern structural sermon had not yet been born. The sermon began with a rhetorical statement of the object and continued with salutation or invocation of blessing. The different currents of the life of the Church are exhibited in the discourses. Alongside of the Alexandrian allegorical method was the Antiochian grammatical-historical plan; doctrinal controversy was reflected; as were the tendencies toward sacrificialism and ceremonialism and the increasing practise of veneration of the saints and of the Virgin and toward asceticism. Polemics were not absent. In the East the sermon was often imaginative, poetic, even bombastic and wordy; in the West the rhetoric was more sober, and the sermon practical, simple, and clear. The function came to be confined to the bishops and the presbyters, the deacon requiring the authorization of the bishop before he could officiate. The bishop preached sitting; the audience stood in North Africa but sat in Italy and the East. The sermon came in the first part of the service after singing and reading of Scripture its length varied, and in the Greek Church all the audience did not always await the conclusion.

4. Individual Preachers.

The Greco-Syrian sermon divides into the Practical-rhetorical, the dogmatic-didactic, and the ascetic-mystical. Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.) forms the transition to this period, and already shows the style of the Byzantine court in a tendency to bombast and flattery after the pattern furnished in the Greek schools of rhetoric. But the leader in establishing the practical-rhetorical school of preaching was Basil the Great (q.v.), who gained his title by his preaching. He was bold, brilliant without aiming at brilliance, looking rather for force than elegance of diction, earnest, possessing a lively imagination, clearness, orderliness, and solidity of thought. All this made him, next to Chrysostom, the pattern of the Greek Church. Gregory of Nyasa (q.v.) stood near Basil in eminence in power of exposition and fluency, and excelled him as a thinker. His skill was less the product of nature than of art, and his turn of mind was speculative, philosophical, theological, with a strong trend to the allegorical. He was at his best in addresses commemorating persons of high estate, martyrs, and saints. Gregory Nazianzen possessed a solicitous soul with a tender spirit, in whom the wish for seclusion fought with the desire to use his splendid gifts for the community. A born orator of great versatility, he had, as compared with Basil, a feminine and receptive nature. His theological ideas were clear, his dialectic nimble, his imagination lively; his diction was elegant and his style deeply affected with irony often tempered with pathos, while he could flash out with invective. A defender of the doctrine of the Trinity and fond of dogmatic discussion, especially of the problems then alive in the Church, he did not lose sight of practical needs. His sermon followed a single thought and purpose, yet not without digressions. Greek preaching reached its eminence in the Antiochian school, which employed classical norms, alongside of exegetical, rhetorical, and popularly practical elements. Of this school Chryaoatom (q.v.) was the chief exponent, combining in himself the exegete and the grammarian. Among those who employed the dogmatic-didactic style Eusebias of Emesa (q.v.) is probably to be numbered, though his homilies are lost. The name is to be said of Cyril of Jerusalem (q.v.). The homilies of Cyril of Alexandria (q.v.) have a dogmatic-polemic cast. The Antiochian Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus (q.v.), was peculiarly a homilist, as is shown in his ten addresses on divine providence, in which he preaches a sort of natural religion. Keen insight, orderly exposition, concise and luminous diction characterize his work. Examples of ascetic-mystical sermonizing come from the recluses of the desert. The twenty-nine addresses of the Egyptian monk Isaiah partake of the character of primitive Christianity, dealing partly with practical and common Christianity, in part with matter for the monks. Fifty homilies of the elder Macarius (see MACARIUS, 1) survive; they are textless, answer questions put by the monks, are full of noble pictures, deeply ethical, and emphasize the corruption of soul and body and the mystical union with Christ. Ephraem Syrus (q.v.), while belonging with this group, was eminently original. His was a native, not an acquired, homiletical genius, and his inspiration was a holy zeal for the orthodox faith and for the monastic ideal. Poetic brilliancy and the might of his exposition make of him one of the great preachers of the early Church. The swing of his thought is united with a metrical ailveriness of diction, while the stream of his emotions combining with a fulness of imagination compel him to the use of exclamation, question, apostrophe, and other varieties of rhetorical expression. He is a mighty preacher of repentance.

5. Zeno, Ambrose, Augustine.

The sermon bloomed out near the end of this period in independent form through Augustine and Leo (q.v), who were long the best fruits of homiletic study in the West. During the fourth century the West did not simply imitate the East, it copied it. Bishop Zeno of Verona (q.v.) has left ninety-three genuine sermons or tracts. His best examples deal with patience, humility, modesty, covetousness, and he was largely dependent upon Basil. In strong contrast with these earlier preachers of the West stood Augustine (q.v.), who was distinguished for his energy and tirelessness as a preacher. The sermons of Augustine are strong in the elements of experience, witness-bearing, dialectic, and practical application; they are less affected by secular training and more infused with the Gospel; they give the impression of being by a man who had triumphed over the flesh, false philosophy, heathendom, and heresy, who spoke from the depths of his own living experience. They show the gifts of keen understanding, a power of deep speculation, precise expression, wide powers of illustration, and a deep sense of what salvation means. Augustine employs allegory less than the Greeks, stresses more the historical narratives of the Old Testament, and suppresses polemics more. His speeches show unity, coordination, and plan; the ethical elements are deeply Christian, the dialectic is keen, the antitheses are pregnant, and the thought is spiritual. His sermons on festal days, in rimed prose, deserve especial mention.

6. The Greek Church Continued.

In the Greek Church of the period from the fifth century the decadence of preaching is visible in the excessive pomposity of verbiage in pulpit oratory, which concerned itself largely with the cultus of the saints and of Mary, with dogmatic hair-splitting, with asceticism, and with the value of works of piety. The development of the ritual in the brilliant unfolding of liturgy made the place of the sermon ever narrower and lessened its importance. After the great figures of the fourth century, Greek preaching seems to have exhausted itself, while to the people the sermon was purely secondary as compared with the liturgy. Its contents, dealing with legends of the saints, veneration of Mary, polemics against heresy, and with declamatory exposition of the cultus, justify this estimate. The three sermons of Proclus on the theotokos and twenty homilies on festal days are dogmatic-polemic in character. For Basil of Seleucia, Jacob of Sarug, and Andrew of Crete see the articles. Of the later sermonizing in the Greek Church little need be said. The genuineness of the sermons ascribed to John of Damascus (q.v.) is still under discussion. These exemplify the failings of the period-search of the Old Testament for types, allegorizing, mystical juggling with numbers, legendary handling of the Gospel history, and the like. A lesser star is Theodore the Studite (q.v.), whose 135 Sermones paraenetici are extempore addresses to monks, often containing fiery exhortations and well-rounded figures. His other sermons exhibit the taste of the times for the pompous and the superstitious. Where the sermon continues in the Greek Church, it occurs either before or after the mass. Of preachers of a later time may be noted Theophanes Kerameus, archbishop of Taormina (c. 1050), sixty-two homilies on the Gospel for the day, simple, popular, expository; Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica (c. 1194), who declaimed against hypocrisy, monkish love of ostentation, ascetic externalism, superstition, and frivolity; Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople (c. 1240); John Caleca (1330); Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica; Gennadius II., of Constantinople (q.v.); and from the modern Russian Church Malow, archpriest in St. Petersburg, Philaretus, metropolitan in Moscow, and especially Innokenti, bishop of Charkow.

7. The Post-Augustinian Latin Church.

In the West the post-Augustinian sermon stood on a lower plane than that of Augustine himself. The chief sign of decadence is found in the lack of originality; Augustine remains the model, though adornment and elaboration have their part. The use of pericopes had its influence upon the sermon, which was employed to explain the Scripture selections. Preaching was also centered about the particular occasion and less bound to the text. For Gaudentius of Brescia, Peter Chrysologus, and Maximus of Turin see the articles. Leo I. (q.v.) is the first Roman bishop to leave behind Latin sermons (ninety-six on feast and fast days, etc.). While he is inferior to Augustine in fulness and depth of thought, he excels him in elegance, in piquant pregnancy of style, and in the rhythm of his sentences. While he employs sermons on festal occasions for dealing with the controversies of the period, he preaches no monkish morality, though there is little of exposition of Scripture in his preaching. It is greatly to the honor of Gregory the Great (q.v.) that he used the sermon to good effect and stimulated others; yet his sermons are best characterized by the word" practical." They are intelligible, simple, suited to the capacity of his hearers. Fulgentius of Ruape in North Africa (q.v.) imitates in speech and method Augustine and Leo, employing antithesis and pregnant brevity without polish yet with success. Among the preachers of Gaul mention may be made of Hilary of Arles; and Faustus of Riez (qq.v.). CEesarius of Arles (q.v.) is of high importance in the history of preaching. He did not disdain the application of the finest art, but to gain polish did not sacrifice contents. To enchain his hearers be used especially parable and dialogue, and was not altogether free from allegorizing. Yet through all there was the background of a strong religious personality, employing forceful ethical truths.

II In the Middle Ages

1. To the Twelfth Century:

1. Character of the Sermon.

The Christianizing of the lands to which the Latin tongue was foreign furnished new occasion for the sermon of the Western Church. While the service was in Latin, the sermon required the use of the vernacular of the region. Iren�us at Lyons preached to the Celtic natives in their own language, though with the Latinizing of Gaul, the Latin sermon came in. So in Germany, Gallus knew the speech of the Allemanni, Boniface preached to the Frieslanders in their own tongue, and in Carolingian times there were directions so to preach that the people might understand. In spite of these facts, from the early part of the Middle Ages there are few remains of sermons in the vernacular, yet numerous works of the kind in Latin. But behind German vernacular lurked Latin conceptions and thinking. Before the clergy, Latin retained its rights. The sermons of this period show little originality; many of them were either translations or imitations of the homilies of the Fathers, especially of Augustine, Leo, or Gregory. The collections of sermons fostered this, e.g., the Homiliarium of Paul the Deacon (q.v.), and they became the resource of preachers, smothering independent work. The duty of preaching was principally assigned to the bishops; the priests in the rural parishes shared in this work, though but little of the product of the latter has survived (the period 900-1100 has been called "the period of the bishop's sermon"). The "rule" of Chrodegang (q.v.) required preaching once a fortnight at least; the Carolingian synods provided for preaching every Sunday and feast day. The sermon generally centered about the Gospel for the day, which it immediately followed; though sermons were also built on the Epistle. The extent of the sermons meant for the people is generally small; those meant for use in the cloisters were longer. The former show a fondness for legendary material, the latter are, allegorical-mystical. The foregoing pictures the condition of things for a long period, though ecclesiastical fostering of the sermon is abundantly evident. Thus Bishop Theodolf of Orl�ans, in his capitular of 797, may be quoted: "We exhort you (the priests) to be ready to teach the people; whoever knows the Scripture, let him preach Scripture; and whoever knows not Scripture, let him teach, at least, that which is surely known, so that the people may refuse the evil and do what is good, inquire after peace and follow it." In a capitular of 801 the same prelate ordered that: "the priests are to be urged on the Lord's Days, each in accord with his ability, to preach to the people." To like effect might be quoted the Capitulare episcoporum of 801, the Synod of Tours (canon 17; 813), the Council of Reims (canon 15; 813), the capitular of CharIemagne of the year 789 (chap. lxxxii. deals with "the preaching of bishops and presbyters"). This last goes further and prescribes the subjects to be dealt with in the sermon, covering the great topics of theological consideration and the Christian virtues.

2. Individual Preachers.

From what has already been said it may be inferred that what has come down is not the actual sermon as delivered, but in part the preparatory notes or later reports written down, and in part collections of model sermons. Most noted of these is the Homiliarium of Paul the Deacon (q,v.; and see HOMILIARIUM), These collections make much use of patristic homiletic literature, few bearing the marks of individuality. Thus Rabanus Maurus (q.v.) used C�sarius of Arles, though he impressed upon his collection a distinct moralizing characteristic. The personality of Haimo of Halberstadt (q.v.) is also recognizable in his collection; the homilies are longer and deal with geographical, historical, and exegetical questions, and stick closely to the text. There is a series of Latin sermons which, though ascribed to well-known men, are not surely genuine. Thus thirteen Instructiones, which appear to have been delivered before monks, go under the name of St. Columban (q.v.); a Latin sermon ascribed to Gallus, a pupil of Columban, belongs to a later date. If the homilies ascribed to St. Elegius (q.v.) be genuine, they show him to have been a man who aimed at the principal matters. The sermons ascribed to Boniface (q.v.) are not genuine. Similarly from the twelfth century collections of sermons have come down. Thus a homiletical help known as the Speculum ecclesi�, which used to be ascribed to Honorius of Autun (q.v.) but probably came from the hermit Honorius, is of Latin origin, is practically identical with the Deflorationes of which Abbot Werner was the reputed author. It is of great significance for the history of preaching in Germany. Another book of the kind is the socalled Physiologus, which goes back to Greek preaching, but brings legends of animals into allegorical connection with Christian verities. It appears in various forms, both Latin and German. Of Latin origin are the sermons of Abbot Gottfried of Admont; meant for instruction in the monastery, exegetical in character. The twenty-nine. homilies of the monk Boto are instructive, while the five sermons of Berengoz (q.v.) were intended for monks, and have at their basis a Biblical passage. The thirteen sermons of Eckbert of Schonau are controversial and directed against the Cathari (see NEW MANICHEANS, II.).

3. German and French Pulpit.

The oldest remains of early German sermons are in manuscripts at Munich and Vienna dating from the eleventh century. These sermons are the result of the working over of deliverances of Augustine and Gregory. From the twelfth century a greater number of sermon collections have come down. The most important of these is that containing the sermons of the Priest Conrad. The absence of a name from most of these collections would lead one rightly to infer that they display little originality; and this dependence upon earlier work continues, for the later German collections use those which preceded them. In method these German sermons are not to be differentiated from the Latin. The Biblical passage is briefly explained at the beginning, then the passage is followed in the order of its verses, while allegory is employed and all sorts of meanings are discovered. Introduction, discussion, and exordium are all brief. The book of sermons of Conrad gives sufficient for a full year. For Sundays the epistle is first briefly discussed, and then the Gospel, somewhat more at length. For the festivals a number of selections are given, and a series of sermons on the saints completes the whole. Preachers among the bishops of this period who deserve mention are Solomon of Constance (d. 930), who often preached to the people; Archbishop Bruno of Cologne (q.v.); Conrad of Constance (d. 9i6); Wolfgang of Regensburg (d. 994); Archbishop Heribert of Cologne (998-1011), whose preaching is described by Rupert of Deutz; Archbishop Anno of Cologne (q.v.); Archbishop Bardo of Mainz (d. 1051), the Chrysostom of his times; Gotthard of IIildesheim (q.v.); and the preaching hermit Guenther. The German sermon of the period prior to 1200 exhibits a popular and practical character. The preaching in France of this period ran parallel with that in Germany. Homiliaria existed there as well as in Germany, and from the twelfth century there are rich remains in manuscript form. Maurice de Sully, archbishop of Paris (d. 1196), was greatly celebrated as a preacher.

2. Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century;

1. Leading Influences to Improvement

A complete change came over the spirit of the sermon in the period from the twelfth to the fifteenth century. The development of theology in France, the influence of Scholasticism and Mysticism, of the crusades and the begging friars, reformatory movements, and the development of a higher culture gave a new impulse to preaching and in part a new content, and affected even the form in favor of a more artistic and finished product. In the sermon of the eleventh and twelfth centuries there were signs of betterment. Fulbert of Chartres (q.v.) exhibits the beginnings of scholastic preaching in a learned, dogmatic-polemic, allegorical, dialectic, and demonstrative style. The sermons of Peter Damian (q.v.) exhibit an extravagant bent for the cult of the Virgin, as do those of Bishop Amadeus of Lausanne (d. 1158); Anaelm (q.v.) is not to be overlooked. -Other preachers of note were Gottfried of Vendome, Hildebert of Tours, and Abelard (qq.v.). The beginnings of popular Preaching appear in the predecessors of the begging monks, and a fresh, stirring spirit marks the age of the crusades as the champions mingle with the high and low and urge the freeing of the Holy Land. The monk Radulph preached the crusade and also hatred of the Jews; Norbert of Xante, archbishop of Magdeburg, was a Second John the Baptist in his preaching of repentance, while in France were Robert of Arbrissel and Fulco of Neuilly (q.v.). The preaching of the mystics took deep hold of the people, especially that of Hugo of St. Victor, Bernhard of Clairvaux, the greatest preacher of his age, and Hildegard of Bingen. The Latin and German preaching of the scholastics reflects the characteristics of their philosophical discussions-definitions, distinctions, questions, arguments, and the like. The style varies, but a definite unity now begins to rule, whether the sermon is textual or thematic. Noted names are C�sarius of Heisterbach and Anthony of Padua (qq.v). Albertus Magnus (q.v.) was known for his series of sermons on a single text (Prov. ix. 5), the first of the kind, while the sermons of his pupil Thomas Aquinas (q.v.) show a dry formalism and dialectic arrangement, as do those of Hugo of St. Cher (q.v.), and Petrus de Palude, patriarch of Jerusalem. German sermons scholastic in character were those of Nicholas of Landau (e. 1340), and Henry of Frimar (d. about 1340), of whose work little but skeleton appears. Jordan of Quedlinburg (middle of the fourteenth century) preached against the sects and against mysticism. Henry of Langenstein (q.v.), in his Sermones de tempore per annum, handles the Gospel pericopes in scholastic fashion. In this period belong the sermons wrongly ascribed to Albertus Magnus, which, while Evangelical and practical in interest, are yet scholastic in type.

2. Characteristics of the Sermon.

The popular preaching of the begging friars in the thirteenth century was a reaction against the stiff dogmatism.of scholasticism. The members of the orders were allowed to preach without special permission from the bishops, and the results were important, going as they did to the masses in a fresh, natural, concrete, and often dramatic style. While sometimes the addresses bordered on the grotesque, yet a deep and broad comprehension of the essentials of the Gospel was present, and the sermons were ethical in content and urged to repentance. Distinguished names are the Dominican John of Vicenza, the noted preacher of crusades and prosecutor of heretics Conrad of Marburg (q.v.), the Augustinian Eberhard (c. 1285), and especially the Franciscan Berthold of Regensburg (q.v.). In a strain not concordant with Berthold was the anonymous "Schwarzwald preacher," the author of a series of sermons preached to laymen and then collected as a homiletical volume. His sermons for Sundays give a Latin introduction, a German exordium which covers the entire Gospel for the day, discusses the theme in a popular, naive, and often striking manner, with incisive application and suggestion of the dogmatic in content. During the tenth and eleventh centuries there had been little ecclesiastical official concern about preaching. But a synod of Treves (1227) directed the clergy to instruct the people in faith and morals, forbade the ignorant to preach, but laid it as a duty upon the preaching friars. From the fourteenth century on bishops urged this duty on the parish clergy. Homiletical material was found in the "Legends of the Saints" of Jacob of Voragine (q.v.). Other homiletic sources were the Gesta,Rommnorum, the Apiarus of Thomas of Brabant, the Summa preedicatorum of Bromyard of Oxford, the Biblia pauperum (q.v.), the Repertarium aureum of Anthony Rampigollis, and the Semmim amid. Toward the end of this period short addresses without exordiums became common. A special variety of sermons were the Collationes, used in cloisters and other places of communal life at midday, somewhat free in form and based on the Gospel for the day. Of historical value are the German " Plenaries," collections of house sermons, short, based on Gospel or epistle for the day, with summary of parts of the mass. Mention may be made of the sermons of German Alsatia, which partake of the qualities of the Schwarzwald preacher; they belong to the end of the thirteenth century. They are picturesque and instructive, simple, earnest, and edifying.

3. Preaching of the Mystics.

As the entire theology of the mystics seeks to obtain subjective certainty in religious matters through personal experience, so their preaching appeals to the inner perception. So completely was this method in controling of the that the events of Biblical history were used allegorically and applied to the purpose of edification. One effect was emphasis upon Christ., and the scholastic preaching was changed to a deeper, warmer, more searching and edifying appeal. The sermons of Cardinal Bonaventura (q.v.) display a mingling of the scholastic and mystical. Mysticism controls the sermons of Eckhart (q.v.). Since the doubt has once more been raised by the Teutonic scholar 0. Behaghel (Beitrtige zur Geschichte der deutsthen Sprache and Literatur, xxxiv. 530 sqq.) whether there are extant any considerable numbers of Eckhart's discourses, the decision respecting his position as a preacher must be reserved. John Tauler (q.v.), the most edifying preacher of the Middle Ages, surpassed Eckhart as a preacher, though not as a thinker, combining lucidity with religious strength. Henry Suso (q.v.) excelled as an exponent of emotional mysticism. Other names of note among the mystics are Eckhart the younger (see MYSTICISM), Henry of Nordlingen, Herrmann of Fritzlar, Henry Ruysbroek, the canonist Geert Groote, and Johann Charlier Gerson (qq.v.).

4. Reformers before the Reformation.

Constituting a class by themselves were the " Reformers before the Reformation." The influence of John Wyclif (q.v.) was not confined to England, since through John Huss (q.v.) his activities affected the Continent. Wyclif preached both in Latin and English, but the style in each is different. The Latin sermons the Reformation. were delivered before young theologians; Scripture is the unvarying basis, and the character is expository, but in a thoroughly Catholic-scholastic sense, and not without the use of allegory. Conrad of Waldhausen (d. 1369) preached in Prague against the sins of the period, and also against the begging friars. His own preaching was correctly ecclesiastical. His sermons in German have perished, and there is extant only a collection of Latin sermons, the Postilla studentium homilies upon the pericopes from the Gospels, allegorical and scholastic in character. Like Conrad, devoted to ethical reform, was Militsch of Kremsier (q.v.); his pupil Mathias of Janow (d. 1394) left a collection of homilies. John Huss is in a not unworthy sense dependent upon Wyclif. He was noted for his activities as preacher before synods as for his popular sermons in the fields and woods, in the large centers of population and in the little villages. His synodal sermons in Latin are extant, preached before the clergy. What is striking is the courage with which he attacked the vices of the pastoral clergy. His sermons to the people often contain patristic citations, and the Biblical exegesis is not free from arbitrariness. To be named with Huss is his friend Jerome of Prague (q.v.). In this class must be placed Savonarola (q.v.), whose work was done chiefly through preaching, at first outside and then in Florence. He himself issued only his sermons on Ps. lxxiii.; but others in Italian exist in the reports of his friends, those on I John in the Latin. These sermons differ both in occasion and method. Those on I John are exegetical with practical application, while others have little relation to the text and are more exactly practical. Formally his sermons are based on the Bible, really they are made the basis of the expression of his weighty thought. He was a mighty preacher of repentance, a scourge of the vices of the times especially of the priests, possessed of a warmth of sentiment, keen perceptions, command of his mother speech, dramatic gestures, and a melodious voice.

3. Close of the Middle Ages:

1.Frequency and Worth of the Sermon.

It is not easy to pronounce upon the preaching at the end of the Middle Ages. Its practise was often enjoined, and it appears to have been frequent in the cities, but the villages were almost bereft of it. In 1511 in the diocese of Mainz many priests were pronounced completely disqualified for preaching, while to ward the end of the fifteenth century in the South German states it cost a considerable sum to secure a preacher for certain festivals. In Breslau the bishop limited the preaching on Sundays to a single sermon, during the rest of the year only on Friday except in the fasting and advent seasons, when there was preaching also on Wednesday. In some parts the secular clergy had only a small part in the function of preaching; thus in Halle there were preachers from the Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Semites, but only one secular preacher is named; in Nuremberg the preachers were all monks. Yet the general practise was to have preaching on Sundays and festivals, and on many other occasions, such as New Year's day. In the cloisters sermons from abroad were read at mealtimes; in the churches such sermons were practically worked over; there is a varying degree of independence shown in different cases. The general worth of these sermons was small. A special class of addresses were the indulgence-sermons. The preachers of these spared no pains to make them attractive and effectual. The assailants of the indulgence were pictured as sent by Satan; and the indulgence was urged by reference to the sufferings of Jesus Christ, by praise of Mary, by appeals to the hearers' affection and sympathy. The structure of the sermon was still under the influence of scholasticism; a formula of greeting, the text or theme, the exordium and divisions, the Lord's prayer or Ave Maria , the discussion, a short conclusion, and the Amen or dixi (�I have spoken") or both, was the usual order. The whole period is one of decline in homiletical power. This opinion has been controverted by Pfleger (Zur Geschichte des Predigtwesens in Strassburg vor Geiler von Kaysersberg,  Strasburg, 1907), who has in mind the orthodoxy and religious earnestness of a series of less prominent preachers of Strasburg in the first half of the fifteenth century. But his own work affords no data for the second half of that century, and does not require a withdrawing of the statement.

2. Individual Preachers.

Preachers of this period who belong to the Brothers of the Common Life (see COMMON LIFE, BRETHREN OF THE) were Johann Veghe (q.v.) and Thomas a Kempis (q.v.)- Notable too were the festival sermons (Quadragesimale) of the Franciscan Johann Gritsch of Basel, delivered in German and then translated into Latin with learned scholastic discussions and many citations from the classics, fables, anecdotes, and moral applications; the Sermones aurei of the Dominican Johann Nider; the sermons of Johann Herolt, popular because of their practicality and concreteness; the Dormi secure ("sleep in safety") of Johann von Werden (c. 1450); the Hortulus regim� of the beloved Meffreth of Meissen, all which passed through many editions. The sermons of Jakob Juterbock (d. 1465) reveal the vanishing of the hope for a general reformation of the Church. The sermons of Nicholas of Cusa (q.v.) are humanistic, logical, rhetorical, and rational; Gabriel Biel (q.v.) was diligent and keen, but had a clumsy, detailed style. A type of the preacher of indulgences is found in Johann Jenser von Paltz (q.v.), whose Himmliche Fundgrube includes a number of sermons published in response to the desires of several princes. He published also a Latin collection, C�lifodina, and in 1502 a Supplementum C�lifodince as a pattern for indulgence sermons. The Hungarian Franciscan Pelbart of Temesvar (c. 1500) shows how to dissect a text into its minutest parts in his Sermones pomarii de tempore et sanctis. Ulrich Krafft of Ulm (d. 1516) was instructive, earnest, thorough, and popular; Johann Meder of Basel (1494) used extensively the dialogue; Johann Trithemius (q.v.) was simple, practical, and Biblical in his Sermones et exhortationes ad monachos; Johannes Hegelin de Lapide was an earnest wisher of reform in the Church; Silvester Prierias (q.v.) exhibited a lingering scholasticism in his Rosa aurea (1503). Danish preachers were Martin Petri (d. 1515) and Christiern Pedersen; in Spain there was Vincent Ferrar (q.v-), the Franciscan Bernhardin of Sienna with his Sermones de evangelio �terno, Giovanni di Capistrano (see CAPISTRANO GIOVANNI DI); in Italy there were Leonhard of Utino (d. 1400), Bernhardin of Busti (d. after 1500), and Roberto Caracciolo, who was celebrated as a second Paul. In Germany the decline of preaching showed' itself in the serene Augustinian Gottschalk Hollen in 0snabrilck (d. after 1481). In France the Minorite Olivier Maillard exhibited the declension in style which included the profane and the burlesque as characteristics, while his fellow Minorite Michel Menot presents what partakes of the comic and laughable. The sermons of the period contain much that is foreign to Christian edification, and indicate a demand for the renewing of Christian life.

III. The Continental Pulpit in Modern Times

1. The Period of the Reformation:

1. The Controlling Factors.

The age of the Reformation marks a new stage in the history of preaching. The central truths of salvation being drawn anew from Scripture, the sermon engendered a new Church with a service the central point of which was the sermon, and this was again the means of a new activity in pulpit oratory. Yet this new development was confined almost entirely to the Protestant Church. In this period various streams of ecclesiastical life make their contribution to the river of sermons. The age of the Reformation forms the first period in this new age, the sermon developing in the Lutheran and then in the Reformed Church; the period of Spener and the coming of Pietism marked a new stage. A second period is noted by the sermon of Protestant orthodoxy, in Germany especially by polemic and confessional dogmatism. There is to be considered the Roman Catholic preaching of the period from the beginning of the seventeenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, especially the brilliant French product. Pietism, orthodoxy, and supernaturalism fought with rationalism on this ground during the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century makes in itself a period of note. The new start of pulpit oratory took its rise in the deep thirst of the soul for a certainty in the experience of grace and of righteousness. There was a general demand for the bettering of ecclesiastical conditions, but leaders of impressive personality were needed to bring about the change, men who drew inspiration from the Scriptures and from their own experience of salvation. When these came forward, the Reformation could owe its success largely to preaching. The keynote of this was the Bible, by which the Reformers satisfied the longing of their own hearts, and its message of salvation in Christ. The preachers broke through the scholastic method and returned to the Biblical homily. The protest against Rome led to a development of the vernacular as against the Latin ecclesiastical tongue, and this played a great part in the unfolding of the sermon. From the work of Luther's Bible the vernacular sprang from the position of a dialect to that of a great speech, and became indeed the speech of the Protestants. The new constitution and basis of the clergy had also its effect, combined with the new order of service, which was no more prevailingly liturgical, while the sermon became indispensable.

2. Luther

Luther probably preached to the monks in the Erfurt period before 1508, and by 1509 he had preached in the monastery churches at Wittenberg and at Erfurt. After 1514 he assumed also the duty of preaching in the Wittenberg parish church; about 1517 he was preaching twice a day regularly on Sundays and feast days; after 1522 he preached to the monks early and afterward in the parish church, and after Bugenhagen became city pastor in 1523, Luther often took his place. There are extant Latin sermons going back to 1515 or perhaps 1514; a series of sermons in Latin dating from 1514-17, preached in the parish church, the former and some of the latter still scholastic in type, though the public sermons are practical. His sermons of 1516-17 on the Commandments are in his "Latin Remains"; those on the Lord's Prayer (1517) he worked over and published in 1519. Steady progress toward practicality is discernible as the time goes on. After 1516 he shows the influence of Mysticism, which came to mean much for him, and grace and faith are already signifimnt for him. In 1521 appeared at the direction of the elector the first part of a collection; and the same year he wrote at the Wartburg a series in German on the pericopes, and these with the first part just mentioned, worked over (1522), make the first beginning of German collections, intended for the use of preachers as yet unfitted or inexperienced. Their form is simple, and the aim is to bring out the truth of the Word. From 1522 till 1543 there appeared, either issued by himself or by others (Aurifaber, Andreas Poach, and others), various collections on different subjects and preached on different occasions. The sermons of 1528 on the Catechism formed the basis for the Deutsche Katechismus which appeared April, 1529, which served as a pattern for catechetical preaching. His sermons on the Sermon on the Mount appeared 1532. From his sermons at home in the bosom of his family was made up the so-called Hauspostille, in which polemics retreats and simple practical exposition controls. The Weimar edition of his works reproduces many other of Luther's sermons than those here noted.

3. His Sermons Characterized.

Surely if the preaching of any Reformer deserves the title of heroic, Luther's does, being the work of a man who was an orator by nature. As in ordinary life so in the pulpit he was unshakably convinced of the verity and righteousness of his cause, while his talents, tempered in the fire of God's word, enabled him to be a fearless path-breaker in his preaching. He had a firm faith in the Gospel which makes free, a hold upon his own certainty of salvation and joy in testifying to it, aptness in reaching the popular heart, an eye open to the facts of life, command of dialectic and oratorical means, and a union of life and doctrine which made an array of force not equalled since apostolic times. He dealt little with history, much with doctrine. In his exposition he freed himself gradually from the use of allegory, choosing the literal sense. Withal, he gave an ethical turn to his preaching, having in mind not the learned but the common people. The form of his sermons is simple, and they contained ever a fundamental and governing ground thought. For decades his spirit ruled the German pulpit, his preaching furnishing the model for that of many others. His published sermons served also for the private edification of many who were not reached through the pulpit. Not less valuable were the catechetical sermons, while the sermons to children served especially a need of the times. Yet Luther's method did not become the only one in use. A middle path was struck out between Luther's homily and the thematic sermon. Preachers selected in their discussion of the pericopes a single main thought and discussed the context seriatim, while orderly structure was rare. Scripture as such was central in the Protestant pulpit.

4. Other Lutheran Reformers.

After Luther preachers to be named are Melancthon, Justus Jonas, Bugenhagen (qq.v.), whose Indices in evangelicas dominacas was a handbook for inexperienced preachers; his cachetical sermons of 1525 and 1535 were first published in Leipsic in 1909, being edited, with introduction by G. Bucwald; note further Veit Dietrich (q.v.), mild, Simple, clear, warm, and unpolemical, Urbanus Rhegius (q.v.), whose sermons were long, carefully composed, restful, clear in dogmatics, and forceful. Wenceslaus Linck is to be named; so Kaspar Aquila (q.v.), a mighty opponent of the pope; while Johan Spangenberg (d. 1550) had a childlike spirit, full of ripe Evangelical experience. Johann Brenz (q.v.) was one of those who preached whole books through, delivering also many short sermons with theme and subdivisions; Erhard Schnepf (d. 1558) was celebrated for a native eloquence; Anton Corvinus (q.v.) preached briefly on the Gospel and epistle for the day; Michael C�lius (d. 1559) was remarkable for clear arrangement; Andreas Osiander (q.v.) was doctrinal, warm, edifying, and not excessively polemic; Sebastian Froschel (q.v.) left some catechetical sermons; Nikolaus Amsdorf (q.v.) left some exceedingly polemic yet much admired pulpit addresses; Georg Major (q.v.) in his long but well articulated sermons showed no polemic bitterness, but a marked clarity and mildness. Johann Mathesius (q.v.) was uncommonly fruitful in his pulpit work and Erasmus Sarcerius (d. 1559) issued a number of collections which were noted . for their catechetical value as well as for their exposition of the Lutheran doctrine. Joachim Moerlin (q.v.) left sermons on the Psalms and another collection; he was somewhat marked for polemical ability. Belonging to the Lutheran pulpit was Hans Tausen (d. 1561 as bishop of Ripen), who left a noteworthy collection which, while less polemic than Luther's sermons, yet smacks of the controversy over the Lords Supper and Peter Palladius, bishop of Zealand (d. 1560), was a celebrated preacher in the vernacular of his country. From Sweden (see SWEDEN, REFORMATION IN) are to be noted Olaf and Lars Petri, whose style was that of the simple homily, M. Elof, and A. A. Angermanus, who was the champion of the Protestants against the Roman Catholic movement under John III. Hungary produced the noted M�ty�s Bir� D�vay (q.v.), and Austria, Primus Truber (q.v.) and the later Hans Steinberger (c. 1580).

5. Zwingli and the Early Reformed Preachers.

As preachers neither Zwingli nor Calvin was so significant for the Reformed Church as was Luther for the Lutheran. Zwingli (q.v.) began as early as 1516 in Einsiedeln to explain the mass Biblically. His celebrated sermons against Mariolatry and the like date from 1523. In Zurich he preached from 1519 series of sermons on the New Testament and expounded the Psalms for the country people. Evangelical teaching concerning Christ and his salvation, attempts at a bettering of the ethical conditions, uncovering of the causes of national demoralization, the duty of protecting the confederation, and the social needs of the times were treated by him. His preaching was marked by great clearness, and he took seriously his office as a preacher. While he lacked the mystical depth, the creative imagination, the geniality of discussion and control of language shown by Luther, he was endowed with a power of testifying to the truth and of popular exposition with a unity of thought by no means inferior to the German leader's. He set himself free from the traditional use of the pericopea as the basin for his preaching, and the preachers of Switzerland and of Upper Germany followed him. There is a fundamental difference a between the preaching of the Reformed and the Lutheran Churches; the former took to expounding whole books of the Bible, and there was leas distinction made between the Old and the New Testament; in the Lutheran Church use was prevailingly made of the pericopes, and only secondarily was exposition of whole books given. The Lutheran a Church was more conservative in the observance of church festivals, through which the church year ran its round. Belonging to this school are Kaspar Megander, Heinrich Bullinger (qq.v.), Louis Lavater of Zurich (d. 1586), who handled well the Old Testament, Rudolf Gualther (d. 1586), pastor in Zurich, who also preached on the Old Testament, and Johann Wolf (d. 1571), pastor and professor in Zurich. �colampadiua and Calvin encouraged by their habit preaching on entire books of Scripture. Thus Calvin dealt with I Samuel, Job, the twelve Minor Prophets, and with detached chapters, while over 2,000 sermons, mostly unprinted, show his extreme diligence. He appealed rather to the cultivated than to the masses. His method was exegetical, topological (not allegorical), doctrinal, somewhat lengthy, and without reference to the church year. The reformatory activity of Guillaume Farel (q.v.) was much helped by his preaching, though none of his sermons are extant. Theodore Beza (q.v.) is not particularly noted for his pulpit oratory, but his sermons were directed during his public life in Geneva to efficient purpose. Still to be mentioned are Berthold Haller, Martin Butzer, and Wolfgang Capito (qq,v,). Of significance as a preacher is Ambrosius Blaurer (q.v.), whose earlier sermons were richly allegorical, while those of a later period were illustrated from practical life; they are, however, simple, earnest, and deeply religious. His contemporary in Constants, Jean Zwick (q.v.), was a keen but kindly preacher. Of the sermons of Johannes a Lasco (q.v.) no examples have come down. In the Netherlands worked Petrus Dathenus (q.v.); Herman Modet of Oudenard, who after 1566 spoke to many thousands in the intrenched camps near Ghent; and Huib. Duifhuis of Utrecht (d. 1575). In France there was the Minorite Frangois Lambert (q.v.), whose sermons on repentance had a Scriptural foundation, and Augustin Marlorat du Pasquier, an exegetical preacher. For Italy it is sufficient to cite the names and refer to the articles on Ochino, Paleario, Valdez, Vergerio, and Vermigli. Spain produced Juan de Avila (q.v.).

6. Then Roman Catholic Pulpit.

The preaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century was ruled by the spirit of polemic against the Reformation, so that the declamation against heresy was its prevailing motif. Yet the homiletic activity of Protestantism drove the Roman Catholic Church to renewed activity, as is shown by the pronouncement at the Council of Trent, session V., chap. 2. Without significance were the exposition of the Gospels (1532) by Johann Eck (q.v.) and the Postilla Catholica of Martin Eisengrein (1576); more important were the German collections, homilies on the festivals, and repentance-sermons of the Dominican Johann Wild of Mainz (d. 1554). Georg Wicel (q.v.) holds a middle position between the two. Stanislaus Hosius (q.v.) is also to be named here, while among the prelates at Trent is Bishop Musso of Vitonto. Carlo Borromeo (q.v.) was himself a diligent preacher, and he worked for a better effect from the preaching of his clergy through his own pastoral and homiletical instructions. One of the last stars in the Spanish firmament was Luis of Granada (d. 1588), lively, even fiery, and full of psychological strength. In France the extremities of hatred of heresy found expression during the Huguenot wars. Particular instances of preachers here are Bishop Vigor of Narbonne, Edmund Angier, Jean Boucher, Aubry, Rose, and others. The rise of new orders in the Roman Catholic Church had its effect upon that church's preaching. Among these may be named the Theatines and the Capuchins (qq.v.), whose work was directed to pastoral ends as well as against the Reformation. But still more influential than these were the Jesuits, whose purpose was the spread of Catholicism throughout the earth, largely through the means of the sermon. Noteworthy here is the name of Cardinal Bellarmine (q.v.).

2. Protestant Orthodox Pulpit.1580-1700:

1. The New Scholasticism.

This was of a confessional character. In place of the fresh and spirited witness-bearing of the Reformation, an insipid dogmatism, combined with a harsh polemic engendered by the controversies of the times, characterized the sermon. A new scholasticism arose, which increasingly infected the sermon as the seventeenth century advanced. The simple analytical style disappeared; in its place came the method which developed a number of loci, " heads," which were then unfolded. Preaching attached itself rather to Melanchthon than to Luther, it took the way of formal rhetorical development, and so the freedom of movement gained in the Reformation was lost. Textual consideration was given, the aim was to make the sermon a unit; the method of development was not always that of rhetorical norms--of exordium, development, application, and peroration-yet some such arrangement as this, with permutations of placing of the different parts, governed the machinery or framework, while a scheme for the sermon was thoroughly worked out on scholastic lines. Especially favored was the fivefold division, so that the sermon was regarded as imperfect which did not treat its matter in this way. Modifications of the scheme of the sermon came to have names of their own-the Leipsic method, the Jena method, the Helmstedt method, etc., according to the place where special types of treatment were in vogue. Alongside of this formalism, great influence upon the sermon was exerted by the restraint imposed by the use of the pericopes as the basis of preaching. The way this worked out is illustrated by the case of the elder Carpzov (q.v.), who in a ministry of fifty years had to preach from the same text fifty times. There was a difference between the preaching in town and in country, though most of the examples which have survived are from the town. Upon the country pastors was urged the duty of simple paraphrastic exposition. The degeneration of the sermon shows itself at the end of the seventeenth century in the work of such men as Christian Weise of Zittau (d. 1708) and Christian Weidling (d. 1731), who developed the " emblematic " sermon and were followed by many preachers who carried the style to extremes. Thus a preacher in 1642 used Ps. exxxiv. 2, with the theme "The spiritual thankful hand," and described (1) the little ear-finger which keeps our ears clean; (2) the gold finger of faith; (3) the middle finger of many virtues; (4) the index-finger of John the Baptist; and (5) the strong thumb of sure confidence. The younger Carpzov preached for a year upon Christ as a workman; thus upon the basis of Matt. vi. 25 he dealt with Christ as the best clothmaker, and so on. Still this rage for the emblematic sermon was not universal, and a fine series of practical and edifying discourses were delivered in this period. Besides the pericopes, which were usual as texts in the sixteenth century and obligatory in the seventeenth, the catechism, here and there a confessional writing, hymns and proverbs were used as the basis of the sermon. The length of the discourse increased from three-quarters of an hour to two hours, funeral sermons were still longer in proportion to the dignity of the deceased. In most communities there were three discourses on Sunday, and sermons on the feast and fast days.

2. Style and Content of the Sermon.

A general characteristic of this period was a polemic confessional dogmatism. "Pure doctrine" was a catchword of the times, which was sought by discourses in dry scholastic form with theological learning and vexatious disputations, while Evangelical sustenance of the spirit was not furnished. Among the. names of this period are Tilemann Hesshusen (q.v.), Andreas Pancratius (d. 1576; noted for his dialectic and closely woven reasoning), Jakob Andrea (q.v.) and Nikolaus Selnecker (q.v.), a fellow worker in the field of confessional construction. Polemical in type are the sermons of Artomades in K�nigsberg and Johann Pr�torius (who preached on the three-headed Antichrist-pope, Turk, and Calvinist). Lukas Osiander (q.v.) was one of the most passionate polemists of the period. The two Preachers named Johann Benedikt Carpzov (q.v.) were scholastic in type; Philipp Nicolai (q.v.) was reserved in polemics and better known for his hymns. Deserving of mention are Hoe von H�enegg and Konrad Dannhauer (qq.v.), were Hermann Samson of Riga, who could not pass over a point of controversy, yet built up excellent illustrations and comparisons. Alongside of this dry scholastic method there was found a practical, edifying preaching with a mystical coloring; besides the merely intellectual, the polemically keen and the didactical-dogmatic there was a living, warm, and popular style of discourse, taking thought for the religious and ethical needs of life. Orthodoxy had, however, so strong a hold on the times that sermons were written, e.g., upon the greetings, the titles and signatures of the epistles. How minute were the details noticed may be seen by the fact that G. Strigenitz (d. 1603) preached in Meissen 122 sermons on the Book of Jonah! Examples of the better style of preachers are Johann Gigas in Freystadt (d. 1581), Johann Habermann (q.v.), Hieronymus Mencel in Eisleben (d. 1690), Martin Mirus, court preacher in Dresden (d. 1593), �gidius Hunnius (q.v.), Jacob Heerbrand and Martin Chemnitz (qq.v), the eloquent Georg Mylius of Wittenberg, his colleague Polykarp Leyser (q.v.), a foe of all affectation, practical and fearless in application of the truth. Zealous for the coming of the kingdom of Christ was the diligent Stephan Pratorius of Salzwedel (q.v.). Worthy of notice is the practical and Biblically based work of Lukas Osiander (q.v.; d. 1604), whose products were illumined by touches of humor. His Bauzrnpostille (1597 sqq.) is well known, in which he insisted that for the poor peasantry citations and disputations should be omitted, for whom short sermons were the more suitable.

3. Individual Names.

Out of the sorrowful period of the Thirty Years' War, with its desolation of schools and universities, and the consequent lowering of educational tone, comes Johann Arndt (q.v.), with whom may be named the earnest and practical preachers of Danzig, Dilger (d. 1645), Blanck (d. 1637), and Rathmann (d. 1628); the earnest and strong Paul Egard of Nottorp in Holstein (c. 1620) preached without learned ostentation. Comparable to Arndt in spirituality and depth of feeling is Valerius Herberger (q.v.), while Johann Matthaus Meyfart (q.v.) opposed scholastic and errant Christianity and was particularly Biblical in his preaching. Akin in spirit to Arndt was Martin Geier of Leipsic (d. 1680). Seldom mentioned yet worthy of notice is the practical, learned, and Biblical Konrad Dieterich of Ulm (d. 1639), who left several volumes of sermons remarkable for learning, sound conclusions, fresh illustrations, and irenic spirit. Less significant was the Wittenberg Professor Balthazar Meisner (q.v.). Johann Heermann (q.v.) preached the splendor of the Gospel with lively effect and soul-saving earnestness, leaving several volumes of discourses, especially worthy of mention among which is his Nuptialia (Nuremberg, 1657). Johann Gerhard (q.v.) is not to be passed by. Among faithful shepherds of their flocks must be named Justus Gesenius (q.v.), whose sermons on the Gospels and epistles are thorough; but as a preacher he was excelled by Johann Valentin Andrea, (q.v.), who promoted a deeper comprehension of Scripture. A preacher full of wit and humor was Johann Balthasar Schuppius (q.v.), original, spiritual, fresh, satirical but earnest. Free from all false rhetoric was Joachim L�tkemann (q.v.), whose sermons treat of the Gospels and epistles. Worthy also was Heinrich M�ller (q.v.), as was Christian Scriver. The great exegete of the seventeenth century, Sebastian Schmidt (d. 1696) left over 100 sermons on Biblical and confessional topics. Others who displayed somewhat of the spirit of Arndt were: Johann Lassenius of Bernstadt and Copenhagen (d. 1692), who left numerous volumes of sermons which display Biblical learning and concise thoughtfulness; L�tkens of Cologne-on-the-Spree (d. 1712), who helped transplant the spirit of Spener into Scandinavia; the Scriptural and practiced H�berlin of Stuttgart (d. 1699), and the learned Caspar Neumann (q.v.), whose sermons were exegetical. Dilherr of Nuremberg, who was both a poet and an educator, left two volumes of sermons; Arnold Mengering (d. in Halle 1646) was a preacher of repentance; Joachim Schroder of Rostock (d. 1677) was especially severe against the 'ices of the times; Gottlob Cober (d. 1717) was the author of widely celebrated and circulated volumes of discourses. Eccentric in type were Jobst Sackmann (d. 1718), humorous, naive, yet true to life in his delineations, and the South German preacher Sp�rrer of Rechenberg (c. 1720). Heterodox in style was Valentin Weigel of Zachopau (d. 1588), preaching an intellectualism and a mystical spiritualism in opposition to the scholastic dogmatism of the period. In Denmark Niels Hemmingsen (q.v.) was noted for the finished style of his discourse, while Jesper Rasmussen Broekmand (q.v.), whose Sabbati sanctzfecatio went through fourteen editions, was Scriptural and thorough; Dinesin Jersin (d. 1634) was a fore runner of Pietism and one of the moat influential preachers of Denmark. In Sweden the pulpit lagged a full generation behind Germany. From about 1600 the Christian faith was handled as sheer knowledge, though orthodoxism was not so much in the foreground as in Germany. Prominent and strong in the exposition of Christian verities were Bishop Rudbeck in Westerns (d. 1646), and J. Botvidi, court preacher to Gustavus Adolphus II. J. Matthia (d. 1670) appealed more to the emotions; J. E. Terser, bishop of hinkiiping (d. 1678), was a representative of syncretism. Johannes Gezelius the elder (q.v.), the eloquent Archbishop Hagain Spegel (end of the seventeenth century), and Jesper Svedberg (d. 1735) were among the greatest preach ers of Sweden uniting warmth of faith, clarity, and oratorical brilliance with artistic construction.

4. The Reformed Pulpit.

In the Reformed Church the sermon presented much the same features as in the Lutheran, working along emblematic and allegorical lines, though the tendency was toward a simpler style with less adornment perhaps due to the influence of Andreas Hyperius (q.v.). A good representative of the German Reformed preachers is Abraham Scultetus (q.v.), and others are Johann Muller, Felix Wyss of Zurich (d. 1666), Bernhard Meier of Bremen (d. 1681), and Samuel Eyen of Bern (d.1700). Friedrich Adam Lampe (q.v.) led the Cocceian Biblical practical reaction against scholastic orthodoxy. Here is to be mentioned also Johannes Amos Comenius (q.v.), the most significant preacher of the Bohemian Brethren, whose discourses were characterized by quiet exposition, thoroughgoing exegesis of prophecy and fulfilment, and careful arrangement and articulation. In the Reformed Church outside Germany arose a real eloquence, responding more quickly to national conditions. This was especially the case in France, where the political conditions were favorable. The polemic was principally anti-Roman. The more forward condition of the national tongue made easy the productions of pulpit orators after classical models. A stimulus was found in the French literature of the period before and under Louis XIV. and in the brilliant oratory of the Roman Catholic Church. Pierre Du Moulin (q.v.), the most popular Protestant preacher of France, showed less of the oratorical than of a simplicity of illustration, thought, and direction expressed in frank, emphatic, terse, and lively language. Michel de Faucheur of Montpellier and Paris used little of art in his work, which was essentially exegetical and anti-Roman. Molse Amyraut (q.v.) displayed a native oratorical talent, but was dogmatic in tone and synthetic in construction. Rather didactic in type were Jean Daille (q.v.), who left twenty volumes of sermons, and Samuel Bochart (q.v.). While thus far the analytic and polemic had prevailed, the synthetic style began with Jean Claude (q.v.). But' with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes began an exodus of the best French preachers. Claude, whose eloquence in controversy made even a Bossuet tremble for his hearers, by the firmness of his character, his manly earnestness, his majestic calm, his precision, and clarity earned the position of one of the foremost preachers of his time. Such preachers as Ancillon, Abbadie, Lenfant, and Beausobre (qq.v.) were surpassed by Daniel de Superville of Rotterdam (d. 1728), who in lovable disposition, speculative might, and philosophical endowment surpassed his predecessors. Jacques Saurin (q.v.) attained the high point of French Reformed preaching for the eighteenth century; of less significance were Jacob Basnage (q.v.) and Henri Chatelain (d. 1743). In Holland the pulpits echoed with the dogmatic wrangling of Remonstrants (q.v.) and Counterremonstrants. The school of Gysbert Voetius was influenced by scholasticism and the analytical method, devoted to the justification of dogma. For a year the whole church of Holland was moved by a sermon of Conrad Vorst (q.v.) on long hair (I Cor. xi. 14), and Smijtegeld (d. 1739) preached 145 sermons on the bruised reed." Of a better class were Hellenbroek of Rotterdam (d.1731) and the more practical W. a Brakel (d. 1711). When the homiletic practise through the Cocceian school broke away from its scholastic bonds, the prophetic-typical style entered, though remaining drily philological. But gradually life invigorated the dead orthodoxy of the pulpit in the discourses of David Flud van Giffen (d. 1701), Jan d'Outrein (d. in Amsterdam 1722), and H. Groenewegen. Antischolastic preaching was heard from J. Uytenbogaert (q.v.) of the Remonstrants, and Philip van Limborch (q.v.) of the Arminians.

5. The Roman Catholic Pulpit.

Apart from the brilliant flight of Roman Catholic pulpit oratory in France, mission preaching and compact addresses to the peasantry ruled inside that Church. In Italy in the seventeenth century in the missions of Jesuits and other orders, sermons on penitence and confession were the order of the day. The Jesuit Paolo Segneri (q.v.) traversed Italy for twenty years preaching, and with him should be named his nephew of the same name (d. 1713). A continuator of the homely discourse to the peasantry was the Augustinian Andr� of France (d. 1675); a preacher of note was the Augustinian Abraham a Sancta Clara (q.v.). The direct opposite of this folk-sermon was exhibited in the discourse of the brilliantly oratorical pulpit of France in the period of Louis XIV., the basis of which was less in the church itself than in the circumstances of the times and in the general literature of the nation; the pulpit strove for a revival of the eloquence of the early Church. The result was an oratory only for the cultured, to the embellishment of which the graces of rhetoric were skilfully lent. The substance dealt with morality, the fear of God, inculcation of virtues, meditation upon death and its meaning, lessons from history and life. And the results came, with just pride in their finished form, to be included in the classical literature of the nation, and to be regarded as models of style to be employed in the Church both in France and elsewhere. A pathbreaker was the general of the Oratorians, J. F. S�nault (d. 1670); the brightest star in this constellation was Jacques B�nigne Bossuet (q.v.), whose eloquence flamed; his flow of thought was full and genial, and his imagination creative. Of special celebrity were his funeral sermons, and not a few of these belong to the masterpieces of French style. Among these may be mentioned his oration over Henriette Marie, that at the death of the duke of Orl�ans, and that over the bier of the Prince of Cond�, from which cultured Frenchmen make quotations as from classics. One of the faults which somewhat repels, however, is the flattery directed to court circles; unworthy of the house of God are the epithets constantly applied to the king, and the unfortunate impression made is sometimes that of a man-serving courtier. But even more than was accomplished by Bossuet for the uplift of the French pulpit came about through Louis Bourdaloue (q.v.), especially by his passion sermons and those with the title Dei virtutem. After him is to be named Esprit Fl�chier (q.v.), whose sermon on Turenne is his masterpiece, on whom J. Mascaron of Versailles (d. 1703) also delivered a celebrated discourse. Another star in this constellation was the Oratorian Jean Baptist Massillon (q.v.), among whose celebrated sermons are that on the Prodigal Son, that on Matt. v. 3 sqq., on Luke iv. 27, that on the deity of Christ�a model dogmatic sermon-the ten little sermons of 1718 which were intended as exhortations for the young king, which were so marked by terseness yet grace of diction that they were regarded as patterns. Massillon is distinguished for high ethical earnestness, remarkable frankness, and a sympathetic tone, and the totality of excellent qualities found in his work gained for him the title of "the Racine of the pulpit." Fenelon (q.v.) is sharply distinguished from the brilliant Bossuet by the fact that his discourses owe their strength to the element of prayerfulness, meditation on the divine, instructive spirituality, and use of Christian experience. With Massillon closed the classic period of the French pulpit. The Jesuit Segaud (d. 1748), Paulle, and especially the miasioner J. Bridaine (d. 1767) are representatives of the post-classical period.

8. Transformation of the Protestant Pulpit,

1. Pietism

1700-1810. The next period shows the battle of Pietism and ecclesiastical orthodoxy, of supernaturalism and the Enlightenment (q.v.). With Spener began a pulpit service which had a practical aim of upbuilding upon the basis of faith and a consecrated life. The means was a faithful and diligent exposition of Scripture. Mechanical confessions of salvation in Christ alone became experienced salvation, external ecclesiasticism became a living attachment to the true body of Christ. The form of the sermon became simpler, the structure more distinct, the expression plainer. The development was gradual, the movements in theology having their influence as the relations of Pietism and orthodoxy changed, and as the new philosophy and the Enlightenment and supernaturalism contributed to the unfoldings of the period.

2. Spener and His Followers.

Philipp Jakob Spener (see PIETISM, I.) gave in his Pia desideria, chap. vi., and in his Theologische Bedenken, vols. iii.-iv., worthful hints for the reform of the sermon. The discourse was to have as its aim the renewing of man by faith and the production of the fruits thereof in life. Yet Spener accomplished more through his personlity than by the too learned and dry method of his preaching. Spener sought with painstaking endeavor to exhaust the dogmatic and ethical content of the text by an exact and extended exegesis. His discourses were often lacking in unity, the cause being a sort of prelude to the sermon used in order to attain comprehensiveness. Yet by his clear reference to Scripture, his simple and practical-fruitful application, and by the employment of ethical themes and a strongly ethical trend of the dogmatic material he drew crowds to his church and became the introducer of a strong stimulus for the Lutheran Church and its pulpit. His principal collections are those upon the Gospels for the year 1688, Evangelische Lebensplicht�n (1693), Evangelischer Glaubenstrost (1694), sixty-six sermons on the article dealing with regeneration (1695), and a considerable number of volumes on various subjects and occasions. The Halle school of preaching soon gained great celebrity and preeminence. Its characteristic was a greater simplicity in form, while the application was a matter of more concern than the development of doctrine. August Hermann Francke (q.v.), who left several volumes of discourses, showed a simpler structure than Spener, followed the course of the text rather than a theme, though his handling of the material was somewhat mechanical, and the treatment verbose. In content his sermons were practical, and what he produced was individual in character, free in its method, and essentially quick in substance. Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen (q.v.) employed, as did Spener, a prelude, and his theme and division are inartistic. Joachim Justus Breithaupt (q.v.) was leas influential as a preacher than as an instructor and furtherer of the new tendency in learning. Joachim Lange (q.v.) was more a teacher of homiletic theology than a preacher. Gottfried Arnold (q.v.) took high rank by his pulpit work. The Goths superintendent, Georg Nitsch (d. 1729), was a man of great freshness of spirit, exact knowledge of Scripture, possessed of humor, able to appeal to the popular sax, keen in his denunciation of sin, and sturdy in his appeals for the realization of the Christian virtues in life.

3. Various Schools.

The later Halle school failed in that it too frequently spoke over the heads of the congregation in its effort for the didactic and the intellectual; it stressed emotion, producing warmth rather than light. The great teacher and exegete of this school was Johann Jakob Rambash (q.v.), a man of fine grain and irenic spirit, whose Princepta Homiletica aimed at a simpler, more lucid and natural, practical yet texttrue development of theme and exposition in the year's round of sermons. He united intelligible clarity with Christian heartiness and warmth, a poetic and lively imagination with a strong depth of thought. He used a short introduction, simple arrangement based on the text; logical order, a clear and living development on the basis of the best of North German Pietism. Nevertheless he exhibited that schematic stiffness in the arrangement of his sermons which was a heritage from the seventeenth century, as well as a wearying uniformity, which grew out of pietistic leanings, in the practical application of his sermons to converted and unconverted (new matter is to be found concerning him in M. Schian's J. J. Rambsch sls Prediger and Predigtheoretiker, in Beitr�ge zur hessischen Kirchengeschichte, vol. iv., Darmstadt, 1909). Among his lYnitators are Johann Philipp Fresenius (q.v.), Johann F. Starck (d. 1758), author of a Hausgebelsbuch (new ed. by Heim, 1845), and Abbot Steinmetz of Bergen (d. 1762). Wurttemberg produced a series of preachers who developed a fresh, healthy, and many-sided method which has lasted till the present. The characteristics of this school are a firm, realistic, in part mystic Bible faith, with a broad conception of the organism of revelation, real churchmanship, a free and scientific development, and unconstrained construction of the doctrinal basis, especially on the eschatological side. The forerunners were Heinrich Haberlin, named above, Johann Andreas and Johann Friedrich Hochstetter (both d. 1720), Johann Reinhard Hedinger (q.v.), and the best preacher of them all, Georg Konrad Rieger (q.v.). Johann Albrecht Bengel (q.v.) is less famous as a preacher than as an exegete, though his sermons show a classical repose and penetration, and a method of exposition almost catechetical in type. Friedrich Christian Oetinger (q.v.) by his singular mystic-speculative art won a special place in the history of preaching. Now he interwove great thoughts in apothegmatic method, again he dealt with daily life in naive yet popular fashion, once more soared high above the mental range of his hearers, or, again, he spoke from a lower level of thought and conception. His sermons were collected by K. C. E. Ehmann (5 vols., Reutlingen, 1852-57). The speculative branch of the school of Bengel was represented further by Philipp Matthaeus Hahn (q.v.) and J. L. Fricker of Dettingen (d. 1766). The practical branch is naturally represented by a series of preachers Biblical-Evangelical in type rather than specifically Pietistic. Among them may be named Friedrich Christoph Steinhofer and the less known Immanuel Gottlob Brastberger (qq.v.). A special gift of originality was possessed by Philipp David Burk of Kirchheim (d. 1770), in whose Sammlungen zur Pastoraltheologie (new ed. by Oehler, Stuttgart, 1867) are found excellent counsels on homiletic subjects. Similarly, Christian Samuel Ulber of Hamburg (d. 1776) left a rich material in his Erbauliche Denkzetteln (new ed., Kiel, 1847). Karl Heinrich Rieger, son of the Georg Konrad Rieger already named, surpassed his father in his appreciation of the essential points of the Gospel. In this company belong the noted exegete, apologete, and author Magnus Friedrich Roos, Jeremias Friedrich Reuss of T�bingen, and the exceedingly original pedagog Johann Friedrich Flattich (qq.v.). From the Reformed Church should be reckoned here the pious mystic and poet Gerhard Tersteegen (q.v.).

4. The Moravian Pulpit.

A sort of acme of the Halle method, though not without elements of disagreement, was achieved by the preaching of the Moravian Brethren. There were certain ideas which received such emphasis in the pulpit of the latter that other points of the Christian faith were, so to speak, lost to view. Some of these ideas were faith in the merits of Christ and his atoning blood, a childlike trust in the grace of the Lord, an assurance of confidence in the wounds of the Lamb, and the consciousness of possession of the Savior and his bride-like love. With this went a disregard of arrangement, a too frequent use of certain catchwords, together with appeals to the emotions. The founder, Count von Zinzendorf (q.v.), was the most significant and original of their pulpit orators, as well as one of the most dilligent. He had many of the qualities of a great speaker-an intense passion for Christ, an excellent education, geniality, lively emotions, rich imagination and flow of thought, and great strength of language. His discourses were largely expressions of the affections which stirred his soul, and his constant endeavor was to exalt Christ. He was especially eloquent at ordination and consecration services, in which he often carried his congregation into heights of emotion. It is fortunate that the first extravagant period of the Herrnhut community (1743-50), with its creations of religious fantasy and its insipid and effeminate trifling, was only an episode in the history of the church, with no lasting effects. Bishop August Gottlieb Spangenburg (q.v.) was an example of the clear, sober, and worthy sermonizer. One needs only to mention such names as Bartholomew Ziegenbalg, Benjamin Schultze, Christian Friedrich Schwarz, David Zeisberger, Hans Egede, and Thomas von Westen (qq.v.).

Exponents of ecclesiastical orthodoxy made their appearance especially in Saxony, where the battle with Pietism was especially sharp, and among the number were such pious and practical preachers as Johannes and Gottfried Olearius (qq.v.). Among their opponents were Johann Friedrich Mayer, Samuel Schelwig, Johannes Fecht, and Valentin Ernst Loscher (qq.v.). These diligent and gladly heard men, to whom the work of the pulpit was not a first concern, were not from the old scholasticism. Learned investigations, allegories, mystical comparisons, broke into the instructive formation, though there were present warmth and inspiration. Polemics against the court, which had become Roman Catholic, was a part of the substance. The sermons of Johann August Ernesti were full of conception and illumined by Biblical orientalism, as well as packed with thought. From South Germany mention should be made of the military chaplain Johann Friedrich Flattich, a polemist, fresh and able, against atheism and free thinking. From the Reformed Church in Germany may be named the Berlin court preacher Daniel Ernst Jablonski (q.v.), the Zurich president Johann Jakob Ulrich, and Daniel Stapfer of Bern (q.v.).

4. Reform of the German Pulpit and the Preaching of Rationalism:

1. The Conflicting Influences

In consequence of the influence of the stimulus from England and from France the Germans after Mosheim began to lay new emphasis upon pleasing form. As the Enlightenment (q.v.). made way, the striving became great to use logical arrangement and method in the pulpit. But the influence of the Enlightenment covered also the content. Dogmatic propositions, not consonant with "rational" thinking, fell into the background, and the truths of rational verities were put in the front. While the Enlightenment at first combated the ruling supernaturalism (to about 1775), there followed a period when rationalism was in the ascendency (to c. 1810), when a period of emphasis upon Evangelical truths was reached in a reaction partly esthetic and partly Biblical-Evangelical. The period of ruling supernaturalism and germinating rationalism (1740-80) reveals as the starting-point of a better pulpit style Mosheim's translation of selected sermons of Tillotson in 1728. Frederick the Great read to his soldiers his own renderings of the sermons of Bourdaloue, Fl6chier, Massillon, and Saurin. To Fl�chier and Saurin Mosheim did homage. A prophecy of what was coming was furnished by the Basel preaching professor Samuel Werenfels (q.v.), who was estranged from false pathos, elegant, intelligible, and edifying. He and the sensitive Pierre Roques in Basel (d.1748) and the fiery court preacher of Berlin, Jaquelot, show how soon the better form of sermon of foreign Reformed theologians could domesticate itself in Germany. Yet the movement was not merely imitative. There was a general attempt at the purification and development of the German tongue, as witness the establishment of a professorship of German oratory in Halle before 1730, and a search for a national literature which had its bearing upon the pulpit. This movement dealt also with the matter of the sermon. People were weary alike of the theological quarrels and of Pietistic verbosity. Interest was more and more philosophical, due in part to the influence of the foreign pulpit and the Enlightenment outside Germany, in part to the growing taste at home cultivated by the demonstrative, mathematical-philosophical work of Leibnitz and Wolff. Preachers learned the value of conception, arrangement, solidity, definition, and demonstration. Natural religion as the essential content of the Christian, and morals as the essential of natural religion were emphasized. So Mosheim found contrast not merely between Pietist and orthodox but between philosophical and Biblical. The mediation between theology and philosophy was begun by Johann Gustav Reinbeck (d. 1741), who showed careful arrangement, solid application, correct development of the conception, and union of Biblical and philosophical elements.

2. Mosheim and His School.

Johann Lorenz ion Mosheim (q.v.), the German Tillotson or Saurin, revealed an elegant style, an apologetic tendency, a convincing force of proof, strong and sure as it was fine, flowing, and pleasing. In spite of a certain breadth of view, the basis is the Evangelical fundamental doctrines; the aim is to bring to realization the working-out of the verity of Christian doctrine. To this end Mosheim uses historical illustrations, descriptions of the events of the times, all this with fine psychological solidity. His argumentation is thought through and the exposition is wrought out, revealing the divine active force of the Gospel, the divine origin of Christian ethics. The employment of the text is careful, the themes are practical, the discussion is broad and full. Peters (Der Bahnbrecher der modernen Predigt J. L. Mosheim in semen homiletischen Anschavungen, 1910) is undoubtedly right in seeing in Mosheim's preaching and homiletics modern traits. While Mosheim was thus influencing the Lutheran pulpit, Tillotson of England (see below) was doing the same for the German Reformed Church through August Friedrich Wilhelm Sack (q.v.) of Berlin, the religious teacher of Friedrich Wilhelm III. and IV. Johann Andreas Cramer (q.v.) was influential more upon the oratorical side, employing a fiery pathos, a wealth of rhetorical figures which sometimes seemed to overload the discourse, but a fullness of thought, clear arrangement, excellent choice of doctrinal and ethical circumstances. Related to him in style was Gottfried Less (q.v.), while Christoph Christian Sturm of Magdeburg and Hamburg (d. 1786) infused a stronger rationalistic strain together with a poetic-esthetic coloring. Among those who followed the new trend of the times were Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Jerusalem and Johann Joachim Spalding (qq.v.).

3. Entrance of Rationalism.

The period of ruling rationalism (1780-1810) had been prepared for by the constantly growing influence of the Enlightenment. There was a decided break in the preaching of this period from that of orthodoxy and Pietism. The orthodox pulpit maintained the integrity of what it held to be the confirmed verities of faith. The Enlightenment was concerned also with preaching " the pure faith of Christians," and naturally there was a connection with Evangelical church teaching. But the he content of the rationalistic preaching stressed the doctrines of God, virtue, and immortality; ethics was me distinctly in the foreground. This ethical strain was a reaction from the unfruitful and scholastic discourse of orthodoxism, and it led to a handling of the Christian virtues. This turn of work in the pulpit does not suffer when compared with the Pietistic pulpit, though it was in some respects shallower. It protested against the one-sided appeal to the emotions, it called to earnest action and practical activity. It is therefore not to be condemned out of hand, any more than the preaching of orthodoxism is to be considered a sort of bankruptcy. Of course the handling of Scripture in the pulpit of this type corresponded to the method in which the Enlightenment dealt with the Bible, which ruled the preaching of this time somewhat as it did that of orthodoxiam and Pietism, though the thought-world of the Bible retreated in favor of that of the philosophic-moralistic, while Biblical diction made way for the buoyant-poetic or ethical-learned. The chief weakness of the rationalistic pulpit lay in its content; its Christianity was diluted. Its commendation is that it advocated a fundamental and practical religion. Particulars to be noted are first the homiletic journals to which this period gave birth, such as the Journal f�r Prediger at Halle (1770 sqq.), Beyer's Allegemeines Magazin f�r Prediger (1789 sqq.), and Teller's Neues Magazin f�rPrediger (1792 sqq.). In the front rank of the individual preachers of the times stand Wilhelm Abraham Teller and Georg Joachim Zollikofer (qq.v.). A commanding personality was that of August Hermann Niemeyer (q.v.). There were also such pedants as Kindervater, Soldan, Snell, and Schuderoff, who preached on the basis of Kantian learning in a manner unintelligible to their congregations. Numerous preachers of the following of Teller turned to dry didactics; so Stolz in Bremen, Loftier in Goths, Ribbeck in Magdeburg, and the productive Klefecker in Hamburg. Others employed more of pathos; so Hanstein, and Ehrenburg in Berlin. After the French Revolution the history of the church and of the times furnished much material for sermons. This was the case with the Swiss Johann Kaspar H�feli (d. 1811) of Dessau, Bremen, and Bernburg. In his early career an opponent of the Enlightenment, later he came strongly under the influence of Kant; yet his talented control of language and masterful style revealed the born orator. Stolz, named above, preached on Frederick II., the freedom of the press, Zinzendorf, and the like; the pious supernaturalist Rosenm filler in Leipsic, on the noteworthy events of the eighteenth century. When T�llner proposed to preach on the revelation of God in nature, K�ppen, the advocate of the Bible, protested. Such preachers abounded in city and hamlet. J. L. Ewald (d. 1822) issued sermons upon nature (1781) and Predigten �ber Naturtexte (without a Biblical text; 1789 sqq.).

4. the Reaction.

The result was a reaction against the dominant tendency from either an esthetic or a more Biblical standpoint. , This reaction was the result of a deeper and stronger piety which had lived on among the people, to which were added the influences of a surviving supernaturalism. To this other factors contributed, such as the deeply grounded spiritual labors of a Johann Georg Hamann (q.v.), or the earnest piety, the dainty humor, and biting wit of Matthias Claudius (q.v.), or the power in prayer of a Johann Heinrich Jung Stilling (q.v.). Not to be overlooked in this movement were the results of the elevation and enriching due to the bloom of literature of the period, while the political conditions of the country made in the same direction: Of unusual significance, too, was Johann Gottfried Herder (q.v.), who is best compared with Baumgarten as an example of the classically instructed. The culture ideal of the humanists and the life ideal of Christianity were combined in his sermons. A large figure was that of Franz Volkmar Reinhard (q.v.); and related to him as exponent of supernaturalistic rationalism in carefully arranged and smoothly expressed sermons was Henry Gottlieb Tzschirner (q.v.), patriotic chaplain in the field, historian, and apologete. In German Switzerland this reaction was carried' on from the Biblical standpoint by a series of original minds. Johann Tobler of Zurich (d. 1808) showed naivet� and originality in expression, and Evangelical earnestness. Especially noteworthy is Johann Caspar Lavater (q.v.), in his sermons as in his poetry preeminently appealing to the feelings. The text and its fundamental thought came to their own in his discourses, though somewhat overladen with emotion. Another Swiss, Johann Jakob Hess (q.v.), while in warmth, liveliness, and richness of thought behind Lavater, surpassed him in keenness of understanding, possession of historical sense, knowledge of Scripture, clearness of collocation of thought, and aptness of application. David M�slin of Bern (d. 1821) also strove against the tide of the Enlightenment, leaving eight volumes of sermons. A pious Evangelical sense, correct valuation of Scripture, surrender to the leading of the text, earnestness, clarity, and utility are the characteristics of his pulpit work. Karl Ulrich Stiickelberger (d. 1816) of Basel stimulated the study of the Bible in sermons which showed a clear comprehension expressed didactically and leading to a surer knowledge.

5. The Mediating Pulpit.

The effects of the earlier homiletic methods still continued to be felt throughout this period, and were followed by preachers who took a middle position between orthodoxy and Pietism. Thus in Basel worked the ardent Andreas Battier (d. 1793), who devoted himself to the Evangelical doctrine of salvation, and Nikolaus von Brunn, who labored with afresh message for twenty years. In W�rttemberg preached Gottlieb Christian Storr (q.v.), Biblical but not fluent. in type. Karl Friedrich Harttmann of Neuffen and Lauffen (d. 1815) ministered out of a rich fund of Evangelical instruction and religious experience. From Nuremberg came Johann Gottfried Sch�ner (d. 1822), poet and defender of the Bible, holding to the essential truths of the Gospel. His belief was that preaching would be effective if trust and salvation expressed externally the inward experience of the speaker. He was simple and clear in his arrangement of material and fluent in language. Not to be passed by is the unusually fertile work of G. E. Hartog in L�hne and Herford, Westphalia, marked by great clearness, comprehensiveness and intelligibility, strong. and precise expression, intense earnestness, and rich practical application. The county of Tecklenburg produced such men as Johann Gerhard (q.v.), Friedrich Arnold, and Johann Heinrich Hasenkamp (q.v.). Original in force was the Lutheran founder of missions, Johann J�nicke (d. 1827), preacher at the Brethren's Church in Berlin.

6. Preaching Outside Germany.

In this period the waves which rolled on the German sea of thought beat also throughout Continental Europe. In Denmark Pietism found no advocate of first rank in the pulpit; it was represented only by translations from the German and found a stern opponent in Bishop Hersleb in Zealand, whose mighty eloquence contemporaries could not praise too highly. The sermons of Christian Bastholm (q.v.), distinguished for clear arrangement and brilliant diction and much admired by the cultured, revealed the principle that in theory and practise eloquence was a sumptuous dress to conceal poverty of thought. The foremost representative in Denmark of the rationalistic spirit was H. G. Clausen of Copenhagen (d. 1840), whose sermons are lucid and free from trivialities. Among Norwegians to be mentioned are Johan Nordahl Brun (d. 1816), bishop in Bergen, fiery in eloquence and poetic in gifts; he was an advocate of supernatural ism against rationalism, though not profound in thought; more friendly to rationalism were the discourses of Niels Stockfleth Schultz, preacher in Drontheim; and still more rationalistic was Claus Pavels (d. 1822), bishop in Bergen. Hans Nielsen Hauge (q.v.) had the Pietistic bent with a nomistic slant. In Sweden from 1700 to 1770 the prevailing preaching was a blend of the old orthodoxy with Pietism, but with a national coloring. The strong orthodox sermons of court preacher Andreas Nohrberg (d. 1767), though in form somewhat scholastic, are still used with great satisfaction by orthodox Pietists. Erik Tollstadius was a noble representative of the more mystic Pietism, and the few sermons which were printed are still much used. Peter Murbeck of Bleking (d. 1768) introduced more of the logical element, while the spirit of Herrnhut was exemplified in Carl Blutstrom (d. 1772) and Peter Hamburg. Among the bishops of the first half of the century worthy of mention as preachers were G. A. Humble of Wexio, a high-churchman; the second archbishop of Upsala S. Troilius, and Bishop J. Seranius of Strengnas, both statesmen and men who introduced the State-Churchly idea into their sermons, as later did O. Wallqvist (d. 1800), and .1. M. Fant (d. 1813). G. Enebom (d. 1796), belonging to the Enlightenment, introduced a period of Utilitarian moralism. From 1770 to 1809 virtue as the most serviceable thing was the theme of the sermons of J. M�ller, B. von Gotland (d. 1805), C. Kullberg (d. 1808), and the neologian Bishop Lehnberg of Link�ping (d. 1808). P. Fredell was an advocate of Swedenborgianism in opposition to the Enlightenment. In Holland in the second quarter of the nineteenth century no names of prominence stand out, and where the French language was spoken the same state of affairs existed. F. J. Durand left L' Ann�e evang�lique in seven volumes (2d ed., Bern, 1780). Jean Fr�d�ric Oberlin (q.v.) stands out as a true witness to the Gospel in an evil time, earnest and popular in his application of Scripture and life, illustrating his thoughts with instructing fulness. Antoine Court and Paul Rabaut (qq.v.) should be mentioned here, and J. Roget (q.v.). In Holland the sermon was influenced by the English school, and the style changed slowly from the older detailed exposition of the text to the synthetic method. The road in this country was broken by E. Hollebeek of Leyden, and P. Chevalier of Groningen followed in discourses that were ethical and rationalistic in tone, as were those of E. Kist (d. 1822) in Dort. G. Bonnet of Utrecht (d. 1805) united the methods of the old and the new schools; the pious Jakob Hinlopen (d. 1803) for half a century protested by his method against all scholasticism, while L. Egeling in Leyden (d. 1835) was fruitful in his ministry. At the end of the eighteenth century examples of bombastic rhetoric appear in the sermons of J. Bosch and J. van Loo, while the reading of sermons began to be practised after the English model by the middle of that century.

6. The Evangelical Pulpit of the Nineteenth Century:

1. Basal Influences.

The revival of church life which took place at the beginning of the nineteenth century found its reflection in preaching, which received new blood and quickening and in turn stimulated the common life. Among the influences which worked in this direction were the political conditions. The necessities of Germany during the Napoleonic period and its rebirth during the wars for freedom, resulting in a feeling of united life among the people, gave to the pulpit an aim and a definite direction. The two men most influential in this extended crisis were Schleiermacher and Draeseke, though they were supported by a host of preachers who with earnestness and courage and in noble spirit led the way. A further influence was the growing consciousness of a concrete Christianity in the piety of the times. While some preachers held to the old ways, the general trend was in the new direction, led by men like Draeseke and Theremin into a new form and to contents which attempted to realize a historical Christianity. Above all was the guidance of Schleiermacher, who made the person of Christ and the redemption central in his preaching. Immediately there developed a style of sermon suited to the movement of awakening, and the use of the Bible was no small part of the method employed, while a confessional interest was powerfully revived. As a whole the preaching of the first decades of the nineteenth century was essentially Christological. The general truths of reason are no longer in control, the Gospel rules. Meanwhile the text has come to its own as the constitutive element, while the dogmatic and confessional are in the foreground; the merely moral sermon has lost its reputation, the Evangelical takes its place.

2. Schleiermacher.

Special importance attaches to Daniel Friedrich Schleiermacher (q.v.), who stands in the front rank of pulpit orators, as is attested by his ten volumes of sermons. His importance rests not alone in the fact that he influenced a generation of preachers and their sermons as did no other theologian of his century; but still more fundamental was his theological and homiletical starting-point in the immediateness of the emotions, to his steady retreat to the innermost Christian consciousness against the old supernaturalism, and also against the ruling rationalism and Kantianism. For him, the living sense of community with God is the center of Christian piety, and the stimulation of this is the purpose of all Christian preaching. His idea was to speak ever as to brethren and develop their Christian consciousness. Hence the chief content of his sermons is a clear exposition of his own inner life for believing Christians. The ethical was not neglected, but its sources were found in the religious consciousness. Characteristic was the way in which sin was treated by him, emphasizing the necessity of the new birth; he believed in a lifting above the situation where the flesh ruled rather than in a continuous conflict with a sinful inclination. In his earlier period he was closely tied to his text, which was generally short; as might be expected of so sturdy a thinker, the disposition of the thought was less formal than material. His preaching was wholly free from pathos, was classically tranquil to its thought development, closely logical in its articulation. Popular in the widest sense his sermons are not, adapted as they are for the cultured; but their clarity and logicalness make easy the understanding of them. He spoke often not simply as a Protestant preacher, but as a pious, experienced sage and moral philosopher. He did not write his sermons, but prepared them by moat careful and painstaking meditation. The fact that one so learned in classical antiquity and in philosophy yet made Christ the central point and gave to ethical conceptions the cast of the New-Testament methods of viewing them was to many, tired of the old rationalistic preaching, not merely attractive but positively grateful. And long afterward the influence of his method was found among preachers who still regarded him as their model. New light has been cast in this direction by the publication by J. Bauer of Schleiermaeher's Ungedruckte Predigten aus . . . 1820-28 (Leipsic, 1909), and Bauer's Schliermacher als patriotischer Prediger (Giessen, 1908).

3. His School.

His services were supported by a number of preachers of significant homiletical power. As advocates of a faith based on a Biblical revelation may be mentioned Gottfried Menken, Johann Baptist Albertini, and Johann Christian Gottlob Krafft (qq.v.), Theodore Lehmus of Anabach (d. 1837), a victorious combatant of rationalism; Christian Adam Dann (q.v.), a preacher with suggestive themes and a diction juicy and forceful; Wilhelm Hofacker (q.v.); and J. E. F. Sander (q.v.), careful in the exegesis of his text, rather learned than forceful. Also Biblical in his basis but concentrating his thought upon sin and grace was Ludwig Hofacker (q.v.). Preachers of another type were equally Biblical in their sphere of thought, but more confessional in their development. Such a man was Claus Harms (q.v.), a man of kindly, serene, and poetic sensibilities and fresh humor which made him acceptable to all classes. His originality lay in the plasticity of his diction and in richness and weight of thought. Pathos was sometimes unpleasantly abundant. His subjects were suggestive and catchy; while his arrangement is philosophical, it is not determined always by the text. He had numerous followers, of whom may be named here Martin Stephan and A. G. Rudelbach (qq.v.). Biblical and confessional in type were the two Krummachers, Gottfried Daniel and Friedrich Wilhehn (qq.v.). Of the latter it may be said that he was an artist in the use of words, supported by a tangible realism and an uncommonly lively power of construction, by which he was able to make real the characters of the Bible story. Yet in his word pictures he did not always adhere to the historically true. The New Testament was frequently read back into the Old, while his use of the typical and allegorical was rather excessive. In this group belong also Hermann Friedrich Kohlbriigge and the Reformed preacher Friedrich Ludwig Mallet (qq.v.). While between Claus Harms and Bernhard Draeseke (q.v.) certain connections existed, in general they are of different types. The latter's sermons can not be characterized accurately as prevailingly either Biblical or confessional; they were more general in type. Related to him in style was the important Bishop Ruhlemann Friedrich Eylert (q.v.), in whom buoyancy became extravagance and freshness unction. Other preachers, while supernatural in trend, were not of the narrow supernatural school; such were the K&nigsberg preacher Ludwig August Kghler (q.v.), and Heinrich Leonhard Aeubner of Wittenberg (q.v.). Franz Theremin (q.v.) was akin to this group in the expression which he gave to his piety.

4. Remainders of Rationalism.

Another group may be designated as the stragglers of rationalistic preaching. Belonging here is the celebrated Cbristoph Friedrich von Ammon (q.v.). In his earlier sermons he appears as a Kantian moralist; in a later period he devoted him self to the exposition of ecclesiastical doctrine. Finally, in his third period he returned to practically his first position. Gifted in the matter of form, diplomatically clever in expression of courtly fluency, and often of lofty and witty flow of thought, his sermons were especially adapted to the educated. The most important representative of the popular rationalism in these times was Johann Friedrich Rohr (q.v.). In clarity and logical coordination he follow Reinhard. In general his sermons escape many o he inherent weaknesses of the rationalistic discourse, though the basis is thoroughly rationalistic. Here belongs also Moritz Ferdinand Schmalz (d.1860), who served pastorates in Vienna, Dresden, and Hamburg; prolific and lively in thought, he recalled Reinhard in the careful and often comprehensive disposition of his material. Of like prominence were the Hamburg pastors J. K. W. Alt and C. U. A. Krause.

5. A New Trend.

The decades after the wars for freedom, in which on one side rationalism was one of the forces and on the other the influence of Schleiermacher and of the awakening was potent, constitute a period of ferment for the pulpit. Strong individuals like those already described broke away from the rationalistic, emotional-judicious, stirring-pathetic method, and a type gained the aseendency corresponding to the new influences. The result was not unlike that produced by Schleiermacher, though the resemblance was not due to dialectic trenchancy nor to depth of thought. The new preaching became often a preaching of repentance under the stimulus of the emphasis upon the significance of Christ for salvation. But the fine lines of Schleiermacher's dialectic, due to his dogmatic system, were hidden behind the grosser outlines of ecclesiastical confessions. In sum the new preaching was a return to Christ and the Bible. Hence the relation of the sermon to the text was recast. Rationalism formally allowed the authority of the Bible, but interpreted as it chose. The new understanding of Christianity caused the employment of the text in its original meaning as the guiding principle of the sermon. Of course traces of the earlier usage remained here and there, and the Word was sometimes misconstrued, especially the Old Testament, into which the New Testament was read. But the pulpit was essentially Biblical, the pericopes retained their importance, although the use of free texts was not unknown, while sometimes whole books of the Bible were the occasion of courses of sermons. The diction of the sermon was also influenced by that of the Bible, sometimes so strongly as to have an archaic sound. Similarly, the content of the sermon underwent change. Rationalism had chosen ethical themes, and these fell into discredit. Religious or religious-dogmatic themes were the rule, with a polemic against rationalism, the Friends of Light, liberalism, the new theology, and especially against the unchristian spirit of the times. Standard themes, of course with infinite variation, were repentance, grace, judgment, the person of Christ, the atonement. Consequently there was danger of the sermon becoming stereotyped. The way in which text and sermon contents were bound together was controlled by the ruling analytic-synthetic method. The text furnished the chief suggestions or themes; the thoughts furnished by the analysis of the text were united in a theme and then put in order according to the divisions, and these latter were prevailingly threefold-more than four divisions are rare. The length of the sermon gradually became shorter, from thirty to forty minutes. Here and there other than a Biblical text was chosen, while catechetical sermons were not unknown, as were those on the Apostles' Creed.

6. The Confessional Type.

A considerable proportion of pulpit orators laid emphasis upon Christ and Scripture, after the forms of the Lutheran confessions, and were at no pains disguise this spirit of confessional energy and dogmatic stress. The cardinal doctrines of the person of Christ, of sin and grace, and of the atonement ruled the sermon; and along with the positive exposition of these themes there was a polemic against errant tendencies of the period. The endeavor was to have the sermon practical with reference to center of the Gospel. Among the exponents of spirit of the pulpit may be named from South Germany Johann Konrad Wilhelm L�be, Gottlieb Christian Adolf von Harlese, and Gottfried Thomasius (qq.v.); from North Germany especially Ludwig Harms (q.v.), Ludwig Adolf Petri, and K. K. M�nkel (qq.v.). Petri's sermons were simple in construction, but so deep and rich in their thought that they were adapted rather for the educated. The text governed in the working-out of his -discourses, and was often exegetically treated. He emphasized doctrine without obscuring the Gospel, and revealed an earnest, keen thoroughly trained personality of the Lutheran-confessional type. M�nkel, while stressing less the form, exercised a like care in the workingout of his discourses and in their clearness He preached to the church of a village, and that influenced his diction and his illustrations; the result is that his sermons may be designated popular. He avoids all that is coarse; he is learned, the church standards define his exposition, and his exegesis is unadorned. In this connection Bernhard Adolph Langbein of Saxony should be:mentioned. From Christian Ernst Luthardt'a pen have come down a number of volumes of sermons which unite a full utilization of the text with determination of its religious testimony. Simple and forceful repose combines with a great active ethical strength and rich theological content. Gerard Uhlhorn (q.v.) had a remarkable gift of exposition, and vigorous material found a corresponding form of expression, while a mighty ethical earnestness was combined with the energy of the Lutheran proclamation. Of Lutherans outside of Germany mention may be made of A. F. Huhn, preacher at Reval, prolific in production.

7. Emphasis on the Practical.

From this group of distinctively confessional preachers a second group may be distinguished by a closer grip of the confessional element and a sharper emphasis upon practical, communal, and individual matters. To be named here are Karl Heinrich Caspari of Munich and J. F. Ahlfeld (q.v.) in Leipsic. The sermons of the former in their simplicity appeal more to the ordinary man than to the educated; but they show a rich experience, a deep knowledge of men special aptitude in individualization, concrete illustrations, and a plastic exposition. Johann Friedrich Ahlfeld was too practically disposed to be a mere partizan. In the many volumes of sermons from his pen there are shown an engaging warmth, a religious-ethical earnestness, and an extraordinary power of presentation combined with popular homeliness. The Wiirttemberg Church produced Wilhelm Hoffmann (q.v.), a preacher whose discourses lead clearly and surely to into the Scriptures and their plea of salvation and illuminate the practical life. Another man of note is B. B. Br�ckner (q.v.), preacher in Berlin and he professor in Leipsic, a man of gentle orthodoxy, Pleasing speech, fine employment of the text, and correct in his methods of arrangement. Of Carl Gerok (q.v.) it may be said that he possessed a great as power of pleasing, a gentle mildness, a pronounced the clarity, a poetic beauty, none of which lessened the this earnest depth of his Christian thought and comprehension of the teat. He was, however, more of a practical man than thinker, partaking of the qualities of Ahlfeld as a saver of souls. Also to be named are the brothers Max and Emil Frommel, the former of whom belonged to the group of practical sermonizers who based their work on the Bible. Max's sermons may be said to be more forceful and earnest than his brother's, and carry a tinge of Pietism with a joyous and certain faith in God. They are artistically complete. Emil , court preacher and military chaplain at Berlin, especially in his sermons on festival days took great delight in leading his congregation into the world of Biblical thought; he also was practical in type, polished to a degree. Events, history, application, interpretation, illustration, followed each other throughout his discourses. He was a preacher for all ranks of society, though the fineness of his discourse made him appreciated most by the cultured. Two preachers of recent date are Rudolph K�gel and Heinrich Hoffmann (qq.v.). The former, in dogmatics stronger than Frommel, did not strive for dogmatic profundity; his forte was a rhetorical art which made all else serviceable. Hoffmann's strength lay in his fine, searching, saving, and keen psychology, in the energetic compactness with which he brought to expression his rich and deep thinking, in the forcefulness of the testimony which he brought to the Gospel, and finally in the holy earnestness with which he appealed to the conscience. T. J. R. K�gel (q.v.), preacher at the cathedral in Berlin, was the foremost Evangelical clergyman in Prussia, possessed of great national and courtly opportunities, a prince in the pulpit, the rhetorician of sacred oratory, a master of style; on the other side was Heinrich Hoffmann, restricted to the narrow sphere of the Neumarktkirebe in Halle, without notoriety, yet a herald of earnest and philosophical thought, a real shepherd of souls. Both of them were preachers to the educated; for simple people the genius of K�gel was too lofty, the compressed thought of Hoffmann too difficult of comprehension. Neither had the fine, light touch of Emil Frommel, the gripping power of narration of Ahlfeld, or the gentle art of Gerok. Only briefly to be mentioned here are Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Arndt (q.v.), the Berlin preacher Strauss, whose sermons are distinguished by devoutness and feeling, and Karl Biichsel (q.v.), whose rough, formless, knotty, but uncommonly earnest and practical sermons had aide influence. The sermons of F. L. Steinmeyer (q.v.) might be called essays toward the understanding of Scripture. The material for them he derived from the text, while the exegesis was almost too broad and artistic; but the thoughts were ever deep and original, the structure well thought through, the form beautiful and connected, and the aim was to produce religion, not theology.

8. Pietistic Antirationalistic Preaching.

A third group show either Pietistic or Scripturalistic influences. They are pronouncedly antirationalistic, and reveal the sharp ecclesiastical tendency. They are preachers of repentance, or salvation, or awakening, or conscience, but never, in the pulpit, theologians. They have little to do with exegesis and offer their own witness. They seldom speak as the mouth of the congregation, though they are the more successful as Evangelists. They regard little the arrangement of the discourse, at any rate the formal carrying-out of a plan and the formulation of subject and divisions. A peculiar position in this group was gained by Johann Tobias Beck (q.v.), who was Scripturalistic. Other men of W�rttemberg to be named are Sixt Karl Kapff and Johann Christoph Blumhardt(qq.v.). The latter was mighty as a preacher, and often opened wide the treasure of knowledge and experience hidden in the Scriptures. His sermons rang true, and he was smooth yet popular in his diction. Here should be named a German Swiss who belonged to the speculative division of the school of Bengel and Oetinger, the original and spirited David Spleiss of Schaffhausen (d. 1854), who traced the inner unity of nature and Scripture. In his earnestness he used mouth, hand, and foot in the pulpit in order to give expression to the press of thought, was impressive, fiery, clear, suggestive, yet always popular. His discourses were uncommonly full and connected. From the Prussian rural church came August Tholuck (q.v.), whose Pietistic coloring was toned down by his academic activity. His idea of the sermon was that it should not be a demonstration of man's intelligence but a testimony of the divine Spirit. His discourses owe their force especially to the masterful psychological development of a deep and binding apologetics, sharpening the conscience. The noble, cultured, and impressive diction is inspired with the warmest feeling and the deepest earnestness, while the exposition is lightened with the play of a lively but sanctified imagination. He was free in the matter of form, in the method of handling his text, even in the choice of a text, not restricting himself to Scripture but using, e.g., passages from the Augsburg Confession. Purely a Pietist was Gustav Knak (d. 1878), especially successful in his appeal to the heart and emotions of the congregation, and possibly the most sensitive and appealing of all the preachers of the nineteenth century.

9. Individulaism Dominant.

A fourth group is composed of those who first set forth Christian verity in an external garb drawn not so much from the Bible as from the individuality of the preacher; they also show a desire to rub off many corners and edges of Biblical pronouncements, thus to present Christian doctrine in a milder form and one Dominant. more in accord with the characteristics of the times. Preachers of this type of academical theologians are especially numerous, and particularly those who belong to the mediating theology. It is not strange that among many of these the thoughtful working-out of the verities of faith seemed more important than immediate influence upon heart and conscience, and one might even assign Tholuck to this group, though in him the pietistic-Biblical element preponderated. This last was not the case with Karl Immanuel Nitzach (q.v.), whose sermons, like Schleiermacher's, showed a complete blending of the religious and the ethical; he also laid little stress upon form and diction. The deep inner harmony of his being, grounded in a fully ripened completion of his philosophical, theological, and practical ecclesiastical views, the imperturbable peace, and the conciliatory character of his mind were mirrored forth in his preaching. Julius M�ller (q.v.) showed in his preaching an argumentative exposition of Scripture and a learned and dialectic development which required sympathy of energy in the hearer or reader. The sermons of Richard Rothe (q.v.) were such as could spring only from his own singularly deep and cultured nature; what he uttered was wholly his own, in speech and in flow of thought entirely individual. Externally his sermons present a finished oratorical and artistic form. Karl Theodor Albert Liebner and Friedrich August Eduard Ehrenfeuchter (qq.v.) belong to this group, as do Albrecht Wolters, remarkable for poetically beautiful and thoughtfully fine testimony, and Willibald Beyschlag (qq.v.), a brilliant preacher of fine sensibilities, who employed a mild apologetics to the reconciliation of Christianity and modern culture. He was a witness for Evangelical Christianity with great freedom of spirit and constraint of conscience, a noted exegete, uniting the thought of the text with individual comprehension and elaboration. Here also must be placed Julius Miillensiefen (q.v.), though his sermons reproduce more faithfully than those just mentioned the Biblical coloring; he is also much more popular, deeper mentally, and richer in feeling than many of them.

10. Moderninstic Groups.

The fifth group includes within its numbers preachers with wide differences; they share with the preceding independence in the form of thought and of construction, and they speak not in the language of the Bible but in that of the times. The general attitude is that of Carl Schwarz: "Not only is the present born again through the spirit of Christianity, but Christianity itself is born again through the present." It is not the old rationalism which comes out in this group, however; all in which that form of thought failed, religion, in which lie the depths of the soul's life, is that which these preachers would supply on the basis of the incarnation of Christ, real and effective, and no less on the basis of the entire and complete humanizing of Christianity. Of this group Carl Schwarz (q.v.), cited above, is the leader and chief representative. His idea was to make use of whatever had been critically established by Lessing, Herder, Schleiermacher, and Hegel, and to make it available to the congregation. He translated Christianity, formally as well as essentially, into German in sermons which were religiousethical. Christ was not pushed into the background, though the presentation of him was of a sort other than that of the Biblically based church doctrine. His sermons might be described as highly idealistic, rhetorically forceful, warmly religious, ethically earnest, in their conception of life free. Of another type, yet in many respects related to Schwarz, is the worthy Albert Bitzius of Switzerland, who spoke out openly and frankly, perhaps even more plainly than Schwarz, his dissent from the earlier church doctrine. Schwarz was in his homiletical art a pure idealist; Bitzius was as emphatically a realist; where Schwarz is all buoyancy and inspiration, Bitzius is reality, fact. But the latter is never dull or dry, the expression is forceful, comprehensively and yet simply beautiful. As a result the matters treated are intimately joined with his subject. He does not deal with generalities, but handles many special themes from common life and from other spheres. It follows that for him the text can not have the upper hand; his sermons are never analytical; they deal with the material furnished by his congregation in a serious, essentially religious, ethical, end vigorous manner. Ethical sermons, in the strict sense of the phrase, he never delivers; yet he feels his connection with the faith of Christians of all periods, and he urges his hearers each to have a faith which is individually his very own. If any of the preachers of the nineteenth- century is practical, then is Bitzius practical. The fresh, picturesque, and inspired sermons of the Swiss Heinrich Lang (q.v.) differ from the discourses of Bitzius in that they do not follow of purpose a set ethical-religious aim; they set relentlessly before the hearers his own free religious position and woo those hearers to adopt them. Daniel Schwenkel, Carl Weizsicker, and Alexander Schweizer (q.v.) should be in this group.

8. The Recent German Pulpit;

1. Emphasis on the Practical.

In this section only a survey can be afforded of the prolific product of the pulpit. The first and the second groups of the last period find their continuance in this period: The general tendency is to make the dogmatic retreat before the practical. Following the first group as given above are on the Wilhelm Walther of Rostock and Theodor Zahn (qq.v.) of Erlangen. Affiliated with the second group, strongly represented,are O. Pank in Leipsic, producing thoughtful and forceful discourses; Paul Kaiser of the same city, noted for smooth diction, clear construction, easy comprehensiveness, and living conceptions; E. Quandt, who has produced several volumes of sermons; Hermann Cremer (q.v.), who stresses the grace of God in Christ to sinful man; and Adolf Schlatter, a Swiss, whose activities are displayed in Tabingen. These all intend to preach the " old Gospel " in the sense of the doctrine of the Church; they are opposed to the modern tendency and polemize against the emptying of the Gospel by theologians of liberal spirit as against positive tendencies against Christianity. They notice little the questions and doubts urged by modern skepticism; they start with the trustworthiness of the Bible, appeal to experience for confirmation, and address wholly the flock as standing on the old faith. They are in part, therefore, masters of form; they know how to use the text practically and to apply it to the inner religious life. The fourth group described in the foregoing is also represented in the latest period, though not without characteristic deviations. Ernst Dryander (q.v.) of Berlin may be set in this group. One of his dicta is: `� We are accustomed to say and to believe that the Gospel is akin to all that is great and noble in man." He is noted for his fine culture, for the eloquent though unrhetorical control of form, for religious fervor, and for depth of Biblical feeling. The school of Nitzsch is continued by a number of preachers mostly in academic positions, though the tendency of these in their theological conceptions is conservatively mediating, not without influence. Such are Erich Haupt of Halle (q.v.), possessing an extraordinary exegetical keenness, a thrilling force of thoughtful development, and a deep fervor; Gustav Kawerau (q.v.), who seeks to move men through the holy earnestness, the depth and strength of God's word alone; Julius Kaftan (q.v.); Ernst Christian Achelis (q.v.) of Marburg; and Wilhelm Faber of Berlin, who recalls KSgel in his rhetorical form. They preach the old Gospel for the modern comprehension and adapt it to present conditions, of which they have a deep apprehension.

2. A Composite Group.

Yet those who have been named differ widely from each other, and the line between them and those of a freer tendency or of the right wing is tenuous. To the right wing belong those preachers who in the matter of the sermon sharply separate theology and religion, assigning the debated questions of religious knowledge to theology and reserving matters of religious influence for the popular ear. Men of this tendency were particularly under the guidance of Albrecht Ritschl and include such names as Kaftan (ut sup.), B. W. Bornemann, Hermann Schultz, Paul Drews, J. Gottschick, Theodor Haring, and Friedrich Loofa (qq.v.). A somewhat freer theological position is taken by preachers like Otto Baumgarten (q.v.), Erich Forster, and H. Hackmann. Between this group and the left wing of the freer theology stands the distinction that the latter in the sermon take up expressly the contest with the traditional apprehension of Christian knowledge, but of course with individual differences of method and viewpoint. Thus there are Heinrich Holtzmann (q.v.) of Strasburg, spiritual, thoughtful, and deep-reaching in exegesis and reflection; P. Kirmas and W. Bahnaen, and Heinrich Ziegler, an idealist of the type of Carl Schwarz; and the two Bremen preachers A. Kalthoff and Moritz Schwalb. There is another strain as yet uncharacterized. The idealistic tendency of Schwarz had its counterpart in the realistic lines of Bitzius; the abstract-religious or general-ethical implies a special-concrete opposite, in which the text is less directive in the sermon than the definite situation of the congregation. As Drew puts it: "It has come forcibly to our apprehension that each community has its individuality, and that to each in its appropriate method the Gospel is to be adapted." Special circumstances are to be handled to the profit of the congregation, chief among which are problems arising in social conditions. Among preachers who take cognizance of matters social Friedrich Naumann has especial prominence by reason of his masterly grip and clear handling of the fundamental problems of the present, including those in the ethical and religious worlds. While his solutions are perhaps never fully satisfying from a theoretical standpoint, they show a marvelously clear and practical piety. He conceives his message to be "to those who in the-midst of the life of the new age would find a personal relation to Christianity," and to these he speaks in their own tongue, starting with them as a sharer in their own conception of things, yet by reason of the strength of his faith is their leader. A preacher of the type of Naumann is Bernhard Doerries; in his concreteness and aptness of dealing with affairs of the congregation and individual he reproduces Naumann at his best. Here belong also Geyer and Rittelmeyer of Nuremberg, with their excellent modern fresh and plastic methods. Gustav Frenssen does not always preach real village sermons; but he does not take fright at any particular circumstances. Yet the thinking auditor finds something lacking in his work; he gives religious conceptions without theological insight; he is an apologete for Christianity, but above all as a preacher he is a poet. Very concrete and suited for a rural people are the discourses which H. Kaiser has collected, as well as the addresses of Erwin Gros. K. Hesselbacher, now at Carlsruhe, has established a firm reputation as village preacher. The descendants of the third group named above have experienced also great changes. The Pietistic emotional sermon suits no longer the taste of the Methodist-revivalistic hearer. The modern sermon of Evangelization has many types, from the onesided and fanatical works of Karl Idel to the more restful ones of J. Stockmeyer, the psychologically fine and many-sided ones of Elias Schrenk, and the energetic, rousing, apologetic, and modern discourses of Samuel Keller. But all these claim the right to be distinguished from those who use the stormy, impetuous, and nerve-racking methods so largely dominant, even while they receive their impulse toward the "Field-Mission" from the very decided movement manifested among the different congregations. Whether the Methodistic flavor of these sermons is great, less, or very little, whether they are prevailingly Biblical or modern and practical, their aim is conversion, their object is decision, and their method is a rousing call to repentance. The modern pulpit has certain well-marked characteristics. It appeals to the soul life of the hearer with firm grip and full understanding; it is religious and practical and ill-disposed to dogmatics, realizes the logic of necessity in requiring a solution of the problems of the times.

7. The Continental Pulpit Outside Germany:

1 In Scandinavia.

For Denmark the first name worthy of mention is that of Jakob Peter Mynster (q.v.), bishop of Zealand, simple but noble in diction and deep in thought. Not simply a preacher but also a religious author, the prophet of the inner life and the opponent of ecclesiastical Christianity was S�ren Aabye Kierkegaard (q.v.). Mynstei s successor, Hans Lassen Martensen (q.v.), with all his versatility in the study of the text and its application, yet many a time misses a really enchaining style. Nikolai Frederik Severin Grundtvrig (q.v.) was a preacher of really original power. With the early strength of his polemic against rationalism, somewhat decayed, there remained the undauntedness of his living testimony, resting upon his inner experience, against a declension of faith in the Father, the fire of his temperament, and above all his popular, poetic, blazing eloquence. His great influence was seen in such men as W. Birkedal and C. Hostrup. D. G. Monrad had a keen eye for the psychological approach and great ability in delineation of character. N. G. Blaedel, R. Frimodt, H. H. Paulli (d. 1865), Wilhelm Beck (d. 1901), are names meriting mention. Living Danish preachers of eminence are T. S. Roerdam (q.v.), bishop of Zealand, a pupil of Grundtvig, J. Paulli, son of H. H. Paulli, and H. B. Ussing (q.v.). It may be said in passing that the prevailing usage in Denmark is against the use of manuscript in the pulpit. In Norway, Willem Andreas Wexels won great renown both as an eminent preacher and as a distinguished foe of rationalism. O. Andreas Berg (d. 1861) was entirely orthodox in his short, penetrating, clear and practical sermons, but after the Norwegian method which combined Lutheran orthodoxy with Pietism. Somewhat similar in character was Honoratus Hailing, and the still living G. Jensen of Christiania shows the influence of Grundtvig and Lutheran orthodoxy. In the most recent years a more "modern" spirit has invaded, closely akin to that of Germany. It has been recognized as a function of the pulpit to meet the modern educated man with a warm-hearted understanding and to win him for Christianity and the Church. A noted exponent of this tendency is T. Klaveness of Christiania. In Sweden also there set in early in the nineteenth century a current against rationalism, in the form of a strong confessional Lutheranism combined with a strong Pietistic movement among the laity. The sermons are of the synthetic type, but for the chief service of the day the pericopes furnish the text, for other services the choice of text is free; the reading of the sermon is more frequent than in Norway and Denmark, at least in the established Church, indeed many bishops expressly recommend that form. In the antirationalistic campaign a leading influence was that of Professor Samuel Oedmann of Upsala (d. 1829) and C. P. Hagberg of Lund (d. 1837), who led also in the changes in sermon form. In the following period in the Established Church three groups appeared. Those who were under the influence of romanticism opposed rationalism as an empty religion of reason and approximated closely to Lutheran doctrine as the expression of their convictions. This class was represented by a series of poetically endowed men of very different qualities, such as the celebrated poet of the Frithiofs Saga, Esaias Tegn6r (d. 1846), the childlike and lovable Bishop Franz Mikael Franz6n (d. 1847), and Johann Olof Wallin (d. 1839), who in catchy diction, roundness of expression, beauty of rhythm, and perspicuity of arrangement was unexcelled in Sweden. In a second group are to be placed C. G. Rogberg of Upsala (d.1842), whose sermons showed great beauty of form, in the early period a liking for the Enlightenment, later a better agreement with Christian doctrine; Johan Henrik Thomander (d. 1865), called by his friends "the new Luther," was extemporaneous in style, with an uncommon freshness of presentation; and Anton Niklas Sundberg (d. 1900), a mighty personality. All these had a broad outlook, but especially emphasized freedom in the pulpit. A third and somewhat larger group were in control in the second half of the century, and advocated a strong orthodox Lutheranism. The pathbreaker was Henrik Schartau (q.v.), with his passionate zeal for pure doctrine, who founded a homiletical school which is yet influential in the south and west of Sweden. He was full of Evangelical zeal as a saver of souls, though no Pietist, in his sermons full of thought, psychologically fruitful, with a mystical depth of content and of spiritual experience, carefully exegetical not only of the text but of the context. With him stood E. C. Bring (d. 1884), bishop in Link�ping, and J. C. Bring, director of the deaconess institute in Stockholm. Revivalist in type was Levi Lastadius (d. 1861), while a Methodistic preacher was the layman Karl Olof Rosenius (d. 1868), who emphasized free grace. Of more recent preachers the bishop of Lund, G. Billing, is worthy of mention.

2. The German Swiss Pulpit.

The pre